Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 17:35:59 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

> Ken Warkentyne (warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch) wrote:
> >In article <14915@mindlink.bc.ca>, Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford 
> >|> Ken Mcvay mentions the "scrapping of rep by pop." A frequent argument I'v
> >|> heard (even from my journalist colleagues) is that we never really had re
> >|> 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 th
> >|> ideal of rep by pop. "We never had rep by pop" is in essence the fallacy 
> >|> common practice. One might as well argue that since women historically ne
> >|> had the vote, they shouldn't have it now. (And what an uproar THAT would 
> >|> 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."
> -- 
> 


Look, let's put it in perspective. Sure, the agreement is flawed in many 
ways - not all the senators will be elected, they sure aren't going to be 
effective, I don't agree with the 25% floor for Quebec, and nobody has 
yet defined for me exactly what aboriginal self government means, etc.
Be that as it may, there is no way at all that Quebec will agree to less 
than the current proposal. 

The choice isn't whether or not this is a good constitution that will 
meet our requirements for the next one hundred years or more - it's 
whether or not we'll have any COUNTRY at all in ten years from now. It's 
true that separatist forces will continue to push for an independent 
Quebec but if TROC rejects this accord we'll have no chance to keep 
Quebec within Canada at all. 

Lastly, we simply do not have the luxury of pissing around with the 
consitutional arrangement for another ten years. Our jobs are 
disappearing, the economy is going to hell in a handbasket, the education 
system is falling to bits, etc. We simply MUST start paying attention to 
some of the other problems out there. 

If TROC accepts this accord, distasteful though it is to many of us, we 
may have to go through this again - in forty or fifty years. If we reject 
it, it won't matter whether it was perfect or not.


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
Xref: sparky can.politics:6833 soc.culture.canada:6582