Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: can
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:48:09 GMT

Ken Warkentyne (warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch) wrote:
>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!:))
>
>This analogy is wrong.  The argument is that since we do not have and have
>never had rep by pop, is it absolutely necessary that it be included in a
>new constitution?

No it is more than that. This agreement represents a further movement away
from rep-by-pop. So, it is not just a matter of maintaining the status quo
as the above question would imply. It is a matter of further degrading a
principle that just about every liberal democracy considers basic.

>I believe that we should not stray too far from rep by pop, but I
>have no problems with underpopulated regions having a slight over-
>representation.  As for Quebec, the difference between 25% and 24.x%
>doesn't count as being the least bit significant in my book.

I agree that 24.x% vs 25% is insignificant. Indeed, I did not get terribly
worked up over Mike Harcourt's math failings simply because the differences
were small, but more importantly, because the situation would eventually
converge to the correct percentage. Unfortunately, the 25% floor is an
entirely different matter. We are starting with a good approximation of
rep-by-pop and entrenching a clause that says that no matter how far
Quebec's population falls below 25% it will *forever* have 25% of the seats
in the Commons. In theory Quebec could have 1% of the population, yet 25%
of the power in the Commons - an unlikely, but obviously *ludicrous* state
of affairs. To even allow for such a possibility is, IMHO, inexcusable.
It's like writing code that you *know* will fail at the boundary
conditions.

>If French and English Canada can finally get over this business and
>get on with other things, I am confident that the province of Quebec
>will continue to develop apace with the rest of the country and easily
>maintain its quarter of the population.  

Perhaps so. But suppose it doesn't? Suppose BC (Canada's fastest growing
province) ends up with 25% of the population and Quebec ends up with 12% in
the decades to come? How can one argue that it is reasonable that Quebec
wield more power than BC in an institution that is supposed to be more or
less rep-by-pop? 

>The inclusion of a guarantee of
>representation in the House of Commons should be seen as a gesture of
>faith in a common and succesful future. 

I am afraid that I see it as something quite different.  Basically, the
powers-that-be are attempting to buy peace now by entrenching a clause
that has the potential to be very, very troublesome in the future.

> Such gestures are absolutely
>necessary in light of the history of this country.  If things turn out
>differently, we can deal with it later.

It would require Quebec's acceptance to get rid of the 25% floor. Should
things turn out differently and Quebec's population falls significantly
below 25% I cannot picture a scenario where Quebec would relinquish its
right to 25% of the Commons. Does anyone honestly believe that Quebec will
say "Gee, it really doesn't seem fair that with 15% of of the population we
should have 25% of the power in the Commons; here, take 40% of our MPs."
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson