From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Opinions about recent agreement (was Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 12:18:50 GMT

In article <BtErrA.DI3@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>If someone what to see another opinion (still very close to mine), just
>read this Saturday edition of La Presse.  La Presse is known as a 
>federalist newspaper, so that you will agree it is objective when
>talking against the aforesaid agreement.
>
>Some extracts :
>(front page) : Pouvoirs : Quebec reste sur son appetit (Powers : Quebec
>still get nothing more).  
>
>Summary : the agreement is far under the Allaire report expectations and
>Quebec government objectives.
>
>Page A13 : Une entente "catastrophique" sur le Senat (a very bad agreement
>about the Senate).
>Extracts from an interview with the constitutionalist Daniel Turp.
>Among other things, he said that it is probable that there will be
>more francophones senators from outside of Quebec than in Quebec
>(which would have 5 if one is kept for an anglophone). 
>
>Page B3 : Un Senat insatisfaisant (a non-satisfying Senate)
>extract : the temporary agreement is more of (Bourassa) style : it is
>an improvised compromise (un compromis improvise), made with a variety
>of different features arbitrarily linked together, a structure without
>internal logic, not-rational and complicated, enough fuzzy (embrouille)
>so that nobody could made a clear idea, cleared from anything that
>could lead to an immediate mobilisation.
>

Getty was opposed to giving Bourassa 20% of a Senate...so instead he
gave him 25% of the House of Commons...it's a little like Getty
asking Bourassa for a Fiat, and in return Getty giving him a Ferrari.
Giving Bourassa 25% of the Senate would have been less of a loss
for Western Canada.

Bourassa, can be argued has achieved something that was lost in
Confederation, an assured representation which will likely slowly
result in a small but significant over representation of Quebec in
the House of Commons.  My history isn't perfect...but in the 1840(?)
Act of Union(?), there was representation parity between Upper and
Lower Canada...initially this was to the benefit of Upper Canada, 
since it was less populated, but it eventually shifted to Lower
Canada, as population increased in Upper Canada, and eventually 
led to gridlock, which was one of the reasons ultimately for
Confederation.  In Confederation, Quebec lost this parity with
Ontario in representation.  Considering that Atlantic Canada and
Western Canada, are now in the mix, Bourassa has regained guarenteed
representation, and over time Quebec's number in the Commons will
slowly move toward more parity with Ontario.

Quebec is not one of ten as Getty and his equal Senate were trying 
to achieve, but essentially one of four...the regional model of
Canada has triumphed, and the four rather than 5 region model at
that.

Bourassa's sleight of hand, hoodwinked both Getty and Harcourt, who
really need a course in remedial mathematics.  I figure Rae knew what
he was doing.  From a Western point of view this is really a loss...
Alberta and BC will always be underrepresented compared to Central
Canada, and Ontario underrepresented with respect to Quebec, but
if it buys constitutional peace, it really will not be destabilizing
until well into the next century...and by then maybe the world will
be such a global village, that it will be irrelevant.

Gerald