From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:20:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.215832.3106@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>                        So, could Rheal or anyone else who supports the 25%
>floor possibly tell us what principles/ideals this arrangement is supposed
>to embody and possibly also show us some working examples?

Hey, have I said I support ANYTHING in the current deal?  I just have
trouble understanding why, if rep by pop is such a sacred, untouchable,
concept, we should find an "Equal" Senate not only acceptable, but even
desirable.  The "Equal" Senate, by definition, means that our votes are
NOT all equal - that someone from PEI would have a bigger vote than
mine, in total (since we have roughly the same vote in the Commons, but
his Senate vote is worth 70 times my vote).

Either you recognize the concept of giving regions representation
beyond their population (or potential populations), to safeguard
regional interests, or you don't.  If you do recognize this principle,
then the next question is:  how do you define "regions"?  Provinces,
after all, are very arbitrary entities - as someone has pointed out, it
would make sense to consider all of the Maritimes as one region.

There are many ways of defining regions - by provincial boundaries, by
geographical/economic similarities (Maritimes, Prairies).  There's talk
of "Central Canada", of "The West", of many other such regional
definitions.  And surely, it cannot be argued that Quebec IS distinct
from the other provinces, in being the only predominantly francophone
province in a country of predominantly anglophone provinces.  Why is
this view of the country any less important than the others?

There has been much talk about how to define regions - the 2 region
model espoused by many Quebec nationalists, the 4 region model, the 5
region model, the 10 region model, the 12 region model.  Each has its
supporters, each has its points and failings.  None of the models will
satisfy everyone, or work best in all cases.

The solution?  Some sort of compromise, of course.  Is the current deal
the best possible compromise?  Well, under the current political
reality, maybe.

My own choice?  Heck, I predicted when Bourassa officially re-entered
the constitutional debate that he would ask for and receive special
representation for Quebec.  I was wrong on one point though - I thought
Quebec would wind up with 20% or 25% of the Senate seats (where
regional interests are supposed to be represented).  They chose instead
to guarantee 25% of the Commons for Quebec (which may or may not be a
problem in years to come - opponents are, after all, playing what-if
games:  what-if the population of Quebec drops to 10%?)

But I do believe that Quebec, as the principal defender of the French
language in Canada, should be treated as more than just an ordinary
province.  Because I believe that one of the best things about Canada
is its variety, and that this variety does need to be nurtured against
the forces that would seek to make everything look the same.  (Yes, I
know - French/English is only part of the variety offered in Canada -
but it is a VERY big part.)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself