From: coxm@Software.Mitel.COM (Michael Cox)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:32:31 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct5.165105.21987@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>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.
Jim,
Let's get real.  1) The population, despite a grand exodus of english speakers
in the late seventies, and a mild exodus of french speakers in the mid/late
eighties has actually risen.  They have not been aggressively looking for
new immigrants.  They have been "filtering" those lists such that new
immigrants with french as a first or second language have a priority in going
to Quebec.  In fact Quebec is fourth (after Ontario, British Columbia, and
Alberta) in accepting new immigrants.  2) I feel that an absolute number is
(as in the case of PEI) worse than a relative number.  Quebec will be under
a fair amount of pressure to accept more immigration should their representation
by population fall well below 25%.  If Quebecs population halved then they would
be at the same level of representation as PEI (or the remainder of Canadas
population doubled).  The doubling of our population is unlikey over the next
50 years.  Why?  Because our current population cannot sustain our own level.
Despite 200K+ people being allowed to immigrate per year, our population has
been growing at a rate of only 150K/year on average.  From 1967 to 1991 our
population has grown only 4-5M.  Quite low indeed.
>
>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.
Yes I think it is quite fair.  I will elaborate . . .
Currently this is approximately their current population in Canada.  I see no
real reason to expect their population to drop much more in relation to the
rest of Canada.  Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta will continue to see
increases in population.  After 1997, I'd expect a leveling off of immigrants
from Hong Kong and therefore see a more balanced immigration mix.  Since the
fall of communism we have seen a large number of applicants from eastern
Europe too, as those coutries get back on their feet, there will be fewer
applicants from there too.  The only remaining areas of potential high
immigration are Africa, Central America/Carribean, and South-Asia.  With the
exception of South-Asia, there are large numbers of french speaking peoples
amongst english in the other two areas.  You will have two possibilities:
french speaking people who want to live and work in that language, and those
that want additional opportunities but then must work in english.  Many people
will stay in Quebec if that's where they immigrated to.  Some will leave.  If
the separatists are quieted by this agreement, then I know of several
francophones who lived in Quebec and would love to return (even if it's just
over the river into Hull).  They left because of the separatists and their
constant "cry-foul-at-everything-Ottawa-does" attitude.  You might see (given
economic recovery) up to 5% of former residents of Quebec move back.  I don't
think this 25% is too much given the realities of growth and historical
demographics.  Please remember that Quebec is our largest province AND our
federal political ridings are based on population AND size.  Unless you foresee
the size of Quebec to shrink?
  I might also point out that under this agreement, bills 101/178 will not be
made unconstitutional BUT Quebec (as is with ALL other provinces and the two
territories) is required to ensure the "vitality and development of official
language minority communities".
   As a second point related to the 25% floor . . . there exists just as many
francophones outside of Quebec as inside.  As I look at it, there are few
francophone members of parliament elected outside of Quebec.  While the Senate
has members indicated if they are francophone or not such as to handle the
french language/cultural legislation, the HoC does not.  I look to the 
honourable members from Quebec and any other francophones who were elected
outside of Quebec to have the best interests of ALL francophones in mind -- 
inside and outside of Quebec.  To me the 25% represents more than just Quebec,
those representatives also represent the language and cultural aspirations of
all francophones.  Where else but in Canada can the majority give that kind
of guarantee to a minority.  If you want to see a government in fear, look at
Sri Lanka in regards to the Tamils in the north of the country.  The Tamils
are a minority in Sri Lanka, but India, not too far to the west has a large
Tamil population.  Here, Quebec lives surrounded by english.  Hell, I'm more
concerned about being drowned by American culture and violence than about giving
Quebec 25% to ensure their language and culture survive.  I'd give a guarantee
to B.C. of at least 20% (since I think they reach that anyway quite soon).  But
that is not what is in the agreement.  Is that 25% really so terrible?  The
only thing I don't like about Quebec is:  in a Federal election they seem to
vote as one.  So whichever party "turns them on" is usually the one which gets
into power.  I just wish they were more "split" politically.


-- 
Michael H. Cox      | Referendum vote:
                    | I remember when english Canadians were not afraid to
Mitel Corporation   | compromise.  I never knew a time when french Canadians
                    | didn't compromise.
Xref: sparky can.general:4783 can.politics:8017 ott.general:1195