Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:51:51 GMT

Michael Cox (coxm@Software.Mitel.COM) wrote:
>In article <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>>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?
>
>I think you must look at what our current system is:  a mix of population,
>size, and historical agreements.  One hunred years ago PEI, NB, and NS might
>have more equally represented their populations in Parliament.  Now they
>are over-represented.  What do we do with them?  In some cases (for example PEI)
>they have historical agreements for a minimum number of seats in the HoC.  I
>really don't see any problem with giving 25% to Quebec. 

PEI, NB, and NS are indeed over-represented and in an ideal world would not
be. Does this mean we should further distort the system?

Can you really not see a difference between granting PEI a minimum of 4
seats and granting Quebec 25% of HoC seats regardless of how low Quebec's
population may drop. Can you not see a difference between granting an
absolute floor and a percentage floor?  Suppose Quebec's population dropped
to that of PEI.  Would it make sense for Quebec to have 75 seats then? Of
course not, but the 25% allows for this ludicrous, although unlikely, state
of affairs. This provision clearly breaks down when a worst case scenario
is applied.

I am sorry, but I do have a great deal of trouble with the 25% floor as do
most BCers I have talked with about this proposal. As Douglas puts it
above: it is just *not* *fair*. Indeed, how can a provision that applies to
only *one* province and has the potential to distort rep-by-pop to the
magnitude that this one does be fair? How can a provision that *cannot* be
applied to all provinces and still be effective be fair?

BC and the other provinces want to be full partners in confederation,
nothing more and nothing less. Yet you are asking us to accept a provision
that will permanently make us 2nd class citizens. I will now use language
that Quebec seems to have effectively used in the past: it is *humiliating*
to be told your people count for less than the residents of other
provinces. And make no mistake, that is exactly what the 25% floor says -
that BC, and the other provinces, count for less than Quebec. 

BTW, Michael, you never answered the question: is the 25% floor fair and
just? You may elaborate as much as you wish, but a simple yes or no is
requested.

> If this agreement
>goes through, you may actually see a net flow back into Quebec and the 25% may
>be right on (especially now that they have this "bonus" for more babies -- with
>all the problems in the world just what we need:  a government which encourages
>more people pollution, will the insanity ever end?).  

On the other hand, with the connection between population and political
might broken, a future Quebec government may drop the not inexpensive super
baby bonus program, institute more bill 178-like language laws, and not
pursue immigration as aggressively as now. They could do this with the
confidence that regardless of how low Quebec's population drops, it just
wouldn't matter wrt dealing with CSQ. In other words, the 25% floor may
end up being a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.general