From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:35:16 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <douglasc.718404214@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>>In article <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>>  Nonsense ... this is one piece in a comprehensive package. The package
>>neither rises nor falls on any one component, and no one is getting every
>>thing they wanted or pristine perfection since that is unattainable - ever. 
>
>>>The decision should not be based on why not.  It should be based on
>>>logical reasoning.  Is the 25% floor fair and just?  Is it fair to
>>>take from other provinces to give to another province to maintain the
>>>25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the
>>>next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get
>>>20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are under represented think it is fair?
>
>>  Sure ... they gave up ~25% guarantee in a regional Senate to go to a 
>>provincially based one. 25% HoC guarantee was the trade.
>
>>  Scratch the 25% guarantee, scratch the EEE Senate, scratch the ...
>>the art of compromise involves accepting a reasonable position at the
>>current time in order to gain a reasonable change in the status quo.
>>If the situation changes, presumably we will discuss reasonable changes
>>at that time. 
>
>>  However, the guarantee *in writing* that Quebec has its safety net to 
>>insure the continued influence of a francophone bloc, is something it is
>>willing to trade for significant other points. View it as an IOU or
>>insurance policy that Quebec will cash in for some other form of protection
>>in a future Constitutional deal if trends turn out differently, if you wish.
>
>The general feeling of many British Columbians is that the 25% guarantee
>is not fair and that it is not much of a compromise.  The Triple E
>Senate is a joke.  

  Ok, then give up the demand for a triple E senate if the result is too
expensive, or you can't quite figure out how to make it work. However,
I note that most premiers who wanted this seemed to think that the trade
was still a beneficial one, or they wouldn't have gone for it.

>provinces may elect the Senators others will appoint.  Thus the first
>E is not fulfilled.

  They will be elected by the legislature, just not in direct elections,
I believe, and this was Quebec only.  If that is the case in some province 
other than your own and that is the way the populace in that province wants 
it, then why should you care? You want them to tell you you can't elect
your Senators and instead have to do it by public Lottery or something?

>The second E (equal) is generally fulfilled with
>each existing province getting 6 seats.  But any new province that may
>result such as the Yukon will not be guaranteed 6 seats. Any change in
>the composition of the Senate must be approved by the federal govt and
>all 10 provinces. Because each province has a VETO.  So in this case the
>second E is mostly true but not necessarily.  

  Somehow, I don't think new provinces will ever be less represented than
old no matter what is possible. If the VETO stops everything dead, then it
will vanish in the next Constitutional round by public acclaim, just like
the clamour over the Senate reached a head about the time it stepped out
of its complacency into the path of the public truck.

>The last E is effective.
>The effectiveness of the Senate is a joke.  It has no power but to
>deny taxation on resources with a majority vote.  It also has a double
>majority on French cultural matters.  For all other issues is it totally
>ineffective.  Ray Pereau (sp?) Senator for B.C. did research on the
>proposed Senate.  He found that under no circumstances since the
>Second World War for each majority federal government elected that 
>a 60% rejection in the Senate could not overturn any bill in a 
>joint sitting of the HoC and the Senate.  The only exceptions would be
>in minority governments but then the government would be more sensitive
>to regional interests.  Also in the future when more seats are added
>in the HoC the Senate will lose its already limited power when
>a joint sitting is invoked.  So the analysis shows that the Senate
>is basically ineffective or just a toothless tiger.  

  Sorry, the fact that the Senate cannot directly overrule a determined 
HoC is a fact of life in a parliamentary democracy that believes in 
Rep-by-Pop. However, I think you are significantly overlooking the
indirect effects either by reasonable delay and review, as a forum for
debate and political pressure, and several other means in which a
determined Senate will likely cause apoplexy in the House. The best
system will be when they work together with the input of their separate
viewpoints combined. I would not want to design a system that worked
best in a total confrontation mode or deadlocked every other day.

  The other point is that this is a significant foot in the door for
Senate reform. Over time its powers will increase of wane depending on
how well it gets used or abused. I think the stepwise approach where
it is clear there is room for more reform rather than the all-or-nothing
approach has considerable merit.

>What Quebec and Ontarion did was trade in 18 useless Senate seats each
>province for more powerful House seats.  From the view of an Ontarion
>or Quebecer it looks fair.  But to BCers it does not.

  Any swapped seats will disappear after the next census, as the 95% and
other rules take over. Besides, 1 in 104 or 62 does not sound any less
powerful than 1 in 289+. Swapping the seats right now was a face saver,
mostly for Quebec which had maintained it would never permit any decrease
in its share of Senators.

>Another thing that irks many BC people is that in this so called
>compromise is the VETO for all provinces concerning the House and Senate.
>This veto gives every province an effective veto to stop all changes in
>the future as the country changes in the future.  This means that
>if circumstances change and one porovince is under or over
>represented the province over represented will want no change and
>those under represented will clamor for change.  This COMPROMISE
>package will cause dissention and unfairness to be unchangeable.
>Doug

  Nonsense, you will just have to pay more for the change. VETOs will be
used to extort advantage, as much as protect it. But like the NotWithStanding
Clause will carry a certain penalty which will work against those who
use it excessively or frivolously. VETOs and NotWithStandings are the
nuclear bombs of politics, and if the country gets into politics at this
level it will soon cease to exist ... most people know this and rely only
on the threat and not use of such things.

  Most of your comments seem to me to reflect a view that is thinking of
all the things it cannot do, rather than those it can do under the new
system. The things you are thinking of are also the things you considered
to be problems in the old system. This type of thought process is sure
to mire your province in a permanent second rate status, behind others
that are already considering innovative ways to exploit and take advantage 
of any new rules.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.general,sci.research.careers