From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:33:12 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <14915@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:

   Ken Mcvay mentions the "scrapping of rep by pop." A frequent
   argument I've heard (even from my journalist colleagues) is that we
   never really had rep by pop or places like PEI would have had much
   less representation etc.

   This may well be true, but it doesn't justify formally abandoning
   even the ideal of rep by pop. "We never had rep by pop" is in
   essence the fallacy of common practice. One might as well argue
   that since women historically never had the vote, they shouldn't
   have it now. (And what an uproar THAT would have caused if it had
   appeared in the new deal!:))

I agree that fixing the percentage of seats in the Rep. by Pop. house
is pretty strange.  The set of constitutional amendments is far from
perfect (*) but the Commons seat fixing was the only way to appease
BOTH Quebec and the EEE Senate supporters.  Bourassa would have gone
for an "Equitable-by-4" (ie. equal rep by 1905 regions) or probably
even an "Equitable-by-5" (traditional 4 plus the North) Senate, but
the prospect of being 1/13 in the Upper House and possibly as small
as 1/5 (one day) in the Lower House would be hard to sell back home.

The idea of having one house rep-by-pop, and the other rep-by-region
is a fine idea.  The point of a non-democratic Upper House (as
practices in the US, Australia, Germany) is to provide additional
representation to the far-flung, less-populous regions, whose voices
might otherwise be completely drowned out in the federal system.  I
wonder how many people know that this setup itself (as well as many
other constitutional items) was a COMPROMISE solution when the
American convention delegates proposed it in 1787?

However, the problems with Canada's federal system cannot be simply
solved by providing stronger voices to the "outer" provinces.
Geographic isolation and population differences is only one of the
sources of provincial tensions.  Canada also has a multinational rift
that must be addressed.  If the Senate is the House for the
geographically and numerically disadvantaged provinces, and the
Commons for the majority, where is the House where English- and
French- speaking Canada battle it out?  Where is the forum where the
First Nations and the Europeans deal as equals?  The double majority
proposal for legislation affecting cultural institutions is but one
place where the English/French duality is addressed, and the promise
of self-determination for First Nation groups is where the
Aboriginal/European duality is recognized, but are they sufficient?

The type of Canadian setup favoured by the nationalists in Bourassa's
PLQ, envisions Quebec as an equal to (English-) Canada, in certain
spheres at least, the way Denmark is an equal to France within the
European Community.  They envision a Canada/Quebec Parliament where
these shared powers would be exercised, and separate Canadian and
Quebec Parliaments for everything else.

This type of "assymetrical federalism" (really more of a
"constitutional association") is an extreme, as far as federations (or
confederations) go, but it would address many of the problems
Quebecers have with the current setup.

Now, personally, I would not be happy with such a scheme, for as a
child of the Quebec (official) linguistic minority, I have a great
concern for linguistic minority communities across Canada.  As a
moderate, I am concerned about the possible deleterious affects of
quick political changes.  As a member of an ethnic and religious
minority, I am wary of surges of nationalism.  Also, (in apparent
contradiction to my previous sentence) as a lover of Canada, I am
concerned that a fragmented Canada would be taken advantage of by its
large, united, powerful, and sometimes imperial neighbour to the
South.

---

(*) I am getting tired of hearing EVERYONE preface their remarks with
    that statement.  It is however, typically Canadian, certainly, but
    it should be obvious that the results of a so-called "Canada
    Round" where Quebec, plus the groups that felt left out in the
    previous, unsuccessful, "Quebec Round" each came with their own
    agenda, would turn out to have a bit for everyone, but not enough
    for anyone.
--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA