From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:38:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.204209.5169@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>I don't have any problem with what you are saying.  I'm saying that powers
>should devolve to the provinces to the extent that provinces won't be
>dominated by the majority's decisions (ie. central Canada, English Canada,...).
>No distinct society for anyone, because everyone has the same powers 
>provincially anyway.  So, in terms of federal-provincial powers, devolve all the
>powers that provincial governments are contending for.  With respect to
> the "federal constitution" (civil liberties/charter of rights,...), if the 
>constitution is to be workable, then provincial rights and civil rights 
>should pertain to two mutually exclusive areas of jurisdiction.


My problem here is the idea that all provinces should have equal representation.
My problem is NOT necessarily with the devolution of powers (this can be 
good or bad).
I do not think that a province such as PEI with a population of 130,000 should
have equal representation as a province such as Ontario with 9.5 million in
the Senate or in the House of Commons. 

I believe in proportional representation and I oppose the party system.

Thus, in a federal parliament, it makes no sense to have power equal for all 10
provinces (the present seat allocation reflects population to a large degree,
although it should obviously be updated.)

If you are advocating the abolition of federal powers, then we need not bother
talking about one state any more with jurisdiction over the whole country. And
we should be talking about the constitutions in each of these new fiefdom states
perhaps?

The trade-off becomes the decision as to which powers the federal state should
have (and thus the populous "provinces" "dominate" these areas) 
and which powers the provinces
should have (and thus which operate outside the federal state's jurisdiction.) To
a certain degree I don't like the phrase domination "by large provinces" because
we are actually talking about large populations dominating -- as they _should_
in a democracy. What is offensive is when large populations use their size
at the expense of smaller populations.

But let's be fair. If we believe in democracy, then we are stuck with the 
ideal of majority rule and majorities ruling minorities.

This brings in the prime importance of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which
prevents the majority from negating the basic individual rights
we all possess _as defined by the Charter_.

THIS is why it is so important to make sure that the Charter is NOT
compromised (with distinctness, hereditary rights to self-determination
ONLY for aboriginals  -- rights defined by "race", veto-"rights" which
are entirely contrary to principles of majority rule, etc etc). I would hope
that one day Canadians come to defend principles of equality and liberty and
to defend minority language rights of all citizens in the country. How would
this ideal compromise the feelings of the people of Quebec (in fact, surely
the Quebecois desire similar ideals even within a separate state! Certainly
my Quebecois friends do.)

Whether powers devolve or not in the future, let's make sure 
that our freedoms are protected:  Equal rights for all citizens.  This concept
is entirely opposite to the new Constitutional proposition.
And therefore I will be voting (vehemently) NO.  

Voting IN this proposal will be the destruction of the country, not
the contrary.


Robin/Frank

Newsgroups: can.politics