From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:51:12 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.163050.8422@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Ross W. Wetmore (wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>>In article <1992Sep25.200415.1751@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>>If there's no good reason for Quebec's population to decline that sharply,
>>>then there is no good reason to put the floor provision in the
>>>Constitution. 
>>>Jim Robinson
>>
>>  There is no good reason to shove a pacifier in a child's mouth.
>>
>>  On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
>>usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?
>
>I believe that many harried parents would say that there is a very good
>reason to shove a pacifier in a child's mouth; namely, to shut him up. I
>believe that they would also say that there are no long term dangers in
>taking this action.
>
>The floor provision, on the other hand, presents serious long term dangers.
>In 40 or 50 years it is quite possible that BC's population will equal
>Quebec's. However, because of Quebec's 25% floor in the HoC, BC will be
>seriously under-represented and a major inequity will exist in terms of
>relative power. This is simply not fair (please argue otherwise if you
>disagree, Ross). There is no justification for this kind of entrenchment of
>power, and it will in the future cause problems. A constitution is supposed
>to be a living document, but this provision attempts to freeze certain 1992
>demographics - ludicrous.
>-- 
>Jim Robinson

  As you say yourself, the Constitution is a living document. Like pacifiers
there is usually an end to the stage when it is required. I have no doubt
that 50 years from now, if (and it is a very big if at this point) it turns
out to be a ludicrous clause, then it will be changed. Have faith in the
self interest of Quebecers who will realise that a marginal minority voting
advantage will be of far less worth than some other advantage or removal of
disadvantage that the rest of the country and changing attitudes or 
demographics will collectively impose on it. Nothing is permanent except
change ... no?

  Note that Quebec and its antecedents have gone from being in sole control 
of the country, to majority control of the Canadas, to minority control of
the Canadas, to one of 3 major regions in a federation, and is now in the
process of accepting a 1 in 10 Senate and 25% HoC plus constitutional
guarantees in limited jurisdictions. You may note that there is always a
time delay before each demographic correction, but *freezing* is a rather
temporary state in the overall scheme of things. All in all I think the
changes and advantages to both sides have been more than any other 
multi-cultural society has managed and the Canadian model may be something
we will have to look at on a more global scale before too long. Relative
to the major population blocs in Asia, our culture has no chance of long
term survival without us examining a few parallel ways of government and
cultural self-determination in addition to a rigid rep-by-pop system.

  Let's cut the hysteria about counting votes on the head of a pin, or the
highly misleading tactic of trying to single out one province as being the
only one screwed by some fanciful demographic scenario.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.general