Three Judges Must Be From Quebec

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

According to the OP, 25% of Canadians are from Quebec.

9 x 0.25 = 2.25

As we can't take a quarter of a judge without unpleasant consequences, we have to take a whole judge. That makes three judges.

It's hardly a "special privilege" if the numbers work out.

This wasn't in reply to anyone. That makes it fair game for mine.

IF at some time in the future the rest of the country increases in population to make Quebec less than 2/9ths of the national population (22.22..%), "we can't take a quarter of a judge" is no longer a good reason.

[Cuckoobaloo]

I'm not from Canada so I don't know how much weight my opinion has, buuut... I happen to love Canada. It's a generally beautiful country with generally nice people, especially compared to the general American population (try going to New York City and NOT getting yelled at for something stupid).

If less than 25% of the population is from Quebec, and the law requires that three of the judges must be from Quebec, that seems a bit odd. I can see one Quebec judge, but not three. That'd be like saying smaller US states deserve more Representatives than larger states like California and Texas.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not from Canada so I don't know how much weight my opinion has, buuut... I happen to love Canada. It's a generally beautiful country with generally nice people, especially compared to the general American population (try going to New York City and NOT getting yelled at for something stupid).

If less than 25% of the population is from Quebec, and the law requires that three of the judges must be from Quebec, that seems a bit odd. I can see one Quebec judge, but not three. That'd be like saying smaller US states deserve more Representatives than larger states like California and Texas.

its favouritism of Quebec; Canada is afraid they will secede

[Dazchan]

Two parts of the same argument, actually. You may have noticed that my rationale for rounding up has consistently been to make sure that Quebec is fully represented. My rationale for Quebec being represented is that they have different laws to the rest of Canada.

OVER-represented. You say "fully represented" but it is deliberately erring on the side of over-representation.

Their full representation is 2.12 judges. The only way to achieve this is to allocate 3 judges. So yes, it is both full representation and over representation.

OK, there's a reason for that (the different legal system, and some deal done to pacify Quebec), but you have not answered my hypothetical. If the population of Quebec grows more slowly (as it is) and falls below 22.22% ... what reasoning would you have to "round it up" to 3 judges? When it actually rounds up to 2?

That argument you made for erring on the side of over-representation, to avoid any under-representation, would no longer hold up would it?

If you expect me to argue against a line of reasoning that I've been making for three pages, you're in for disappointment.

[Dazchan]

According to the OP, 25% of Canadians are from Quebec.

9 x 0.25 = 2.25

As we can't take a quarter of a judge without unpleasant consequences, we have to take a whole judge. That makes three judges.

It's hardly a "special privilege" if the numbers work out.

This wasn't in reply to anyone. That makes it fair game for mine.

IF at some time in the future the rest of the country increases in population to make Quebec less than 2/9ths of the national population (22.22..%), "we can't take a quarter of a judge" is no longer a good reason.

You appear to be obsessed with asking me the same question over and over again.

Have I ever, at any point, indicated that if Quebec's population was less than 2/9, that they should get more than 2/9?

[Infected Mushroom]

This wasn't in reply to anyone. That makes it fair game for mine.

IF at some time in the future the rest of the country increases in population to make Quebec less than 2/9ths of the national population (22.22..%), "we can't take a quarter of a judge" is no longer a good reason.

You appear to be obsessed with asking me the same question over and over again.

Have I ever, at any point, indicated that if Quebec's population was less than 2/9, that they should get more than 2/9?

The act is problematic though because the language of the law says that it is always ''at least three judges.''

Its frozen in time.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

OK, there's a reason for that (the different legal system, and some deal done to pacify Quebec), but you have not answered my hypothetical. If the population of Quebec grows more slowly (as it is) and falls below 22.22% ... what reasoning would you have to "round it up" to 3 judges? When it actually rounds up to 2?

That argument you made for erring on the side of over-representation, to avoid any under-representation, would no longer hold up would it?

[Infected Mushroom]

OK, there's a reason for that (the different legal system, and some deal done to pacify Quebec), but you have not answered my hypothetical. If the population of Quebec grows more slowly (as it is) and falls below 22.22% ... what reasoning would you have to "round it up" to 3 judges? When it actually rounds up to 2?

That argument you made for erring on the side of over-representation, to avoid any under-representation, would no longer hold up would it?

this is a good point

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

You appear to be obsessed with asking me the same question over and over again.

Have I ever, at any point, indicated that if Quebec's population was less than 2/9, that they should get more than 2/9?

The act is problematic though because the language of the law says that it is always ''at least three judges.''

Its frozen in time.

I've found some old Census figures. 1974 (estimates) when the requirement was introduced, and 1971 which was the most recent Census before that.

http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques ... 1-20xx.htm

Quebec 1974: 6,213,149

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/98-187-x/4151287-eng.htm

Canada 1974: 22,491,757

27.6%

Quebec 1971: 6,137,305
Canada 1971: 21,961,999

27.9%

Considering how long ago that was, it hasn't really changed much. Whatever injustice is here, Canadians have lived with it for 40 years ...

2013 (estimates) give 23.2% of the population in Quebec. At that rate it will be 10 years before the 2/9th point is reached.

[Joelyria]

Instead of dividing the seats of the Canadian Suprme Court by provinces, they should divide it by the languages group of the country, with three of the nine seats reserved for francophones regardless of which province they are from. The judiciary like the other branches of government should represent the demographics of the country but I don't think distributing the seats in the country's highest court by subnational entities is the best way to go as it could distort the true representation of the nation as a whole. Although that's just my opinion at the end of the day. As I'm not Canadian, I don't know what's best for that country.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

Instead of dividing the seats of the Canadian Suprme Court by provinces, they should divide it by the languages group of the country, with three of the nine seats reserved for francophones regardless of which province they are from. The judiciary like the other branches of government should represent the demographics of the country but I don't think distributing the seats in the country's highest court by subnational entities is the best way to go as it could distort the true representation of the nation as a whole. Although that's just my opinion at the end of the day. As I'm not Canadian, I don't know what's best for that country.

I'm not Canadian either. But I think this system is arranged by province because candidates to become SC judges are supposed to have previous experience either as a judge or on the bar, in federal or provincial courts.

Judges and lawyers from Quebec courts (federal or provincial) would understanding their civil law system better.

[The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse]

This wasn't in reply to anyone. That makes it fair game for mine.

IF at some time in the future the rest of the country increases in population to make Quebec less than 2/9ths of the national population (22.22..%), "we can't take a quarter of a judge" is no longer a good reason.

You appear to be obsessed with asking me the same question over and over again.

Have I ever, at any point, indicated that if Quebec's population was less than 2/9, that they should get more than 2/9?

You haven't said one way or the other. I keep asking you the same question because you keep replying to me without answering it.

If Quebec's population falls under 2/9 of the Canadian total, should Quebec still get 3 justices?