From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:38:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.172245.18648@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>As I recall, many contributors to this newsgroup supported the idea
>of an EEE senate almost equal in power to the House of Commons, and remote
>as hell from rep-by-pop.
>
>Now, Quebec wins a concession that may give it a few percent more seats than
>its population share sometime in the distant future, while accepting
>an immediate drop from 23% to 10% of the Senate, and there's complaining?
>
>Hypocrisy!
>

why?

When Canada talks to the USA, or Mexico or whatever, we talk state to state.
The GATT, UN, EC etc. all basically operate this way. When borders and other
treaties are signed with Canada, the USA doesn't get any more fish in common
waters, or water from rivers that cross the border.

Quebec rightly sees itself as a province/state of its own. Well if Quebec wants
this kind of autonomy, then they have to live within the rules of state to
state negotiatiations.

Suppose we agree that the Parliament is neccessary for representing the
population democratically (rep by pop). Fine. But Quebec claims natition
like status. Other Provinces make similar claims. When nations meet face
to face, they meet as equals. This is why a senate should be equal.
So maybe the Quebecers are hypocritical for wanting a democratic by
population parliament *and* senate? If it helps you picture things:
Quebec is like France, PEI is like Luxembourg. BOTH have equal say.
Got it?

[ the following is political hypothesizing ]

I think the Parliament is redundant (IMHO). I think that most powers should
be devolved to the provinces (something Qebec wants) and the Senate should
focus on national interests, where each province is equal (something
Quebec doesn't want to recognize). The Senate should have Equal rep.
from each province, and each province should have a veto over anything
*in it's own interests*. Things like human rights, liberty, criminal code
etc. would not be covered by the veto. The parliament wouldn't have a purpose
in this system, as the provincial governments would handle most things,
and a parliament would be wasteful duplication.

In this kind of system, no province(s) could gang up on another, which
is what Quebec is afraid of. Things like Bill 101 wouldn't be necessary,
because Quebec could feel more secure about Anglo domination of Canada.
If questionable things like Bill 101 are struck down by the Supreme COurt,
and a province still vetoed it, the other provinces could chastise that
province, and hopefully that province would act reasonably. This is
what happens in world politics: (unless you are Saddam Hussein) the rest
of the world (or the rest of canada) just doesn't march in and boss 
governments around.

If a province didnt like things, it would be free to leave, and the 
constitution would spell out pre-arrange divorce terms. If a province
was so out of step with the others, the others could ask it to leave
the union/federation.

The key points are:

-Every province is equal, and the provinces agree to voluntary association
 with each other.
-The provinces elect an equal national government to represent its interests.
-The provinces work on national only issues
-if a province feels that the others are encroaching, it can veto
-If provinces are always at odds with each other, and voluntary association
 becomes pointless, leaving the association is a simple, civilized matter.

Hypocritical? I don't know. These concepts appear radical only because
Canadian government is so distorted. Canada already has a very de-centralized
power system, probably only Switzerland is more decentralized.
I happen to think that Canada would benefit from a more decentralized system,
but one with a common name to the rest of the world. Many provinces would
be viable on their own (Quebec, Ontario, BC) others not (the maritimes,
the prairies). But it would still mean losing a *LOT* for Canada to
break up.



>---------
>
>The following people think it is wrong to give Quebec a guarantee of
>25% of seats in the House of Commons.  (Please see references below.)
>I do not recall which of them, if any, expressed support for an EEE Senate.
...
>John Paul Morrison

<ahem> would have prepared a more polished account of things, If I knew
I was speaking for the record. :-)
...
>From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
>I don't buy the argument one bit. It's been two years since Meech, and 
>Canada hasn't disappeared. Rather than accepting a half assed deal,
>the status quo is (almost) preferable. We can afford to ignore the 
>constitution for a year or two, and focus on more pressing problems.
>
what does this have to do with the Senate????
It's a comment on the "death of Canada" bogey-man.

>--
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
>Montreal


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________