Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:14:52 GMT

Stewart Clamen (clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote:
>In article <1992Sep29.163050.8422@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>   >In article <1992Sep25.200415.1751@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>   >>Andrew M. Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.UUCP) wrote:
>   >>>In article <wcLkRB1w165w@aqua.ocunix.on.ca> cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>   >>>
>   >>>>throws away democracy by guaranteeing a minimum number of seats in the house
>   >>>>to a minority REGARDLESS of the population balance
>   >>>
>   >>>_this_ one I'm sick of:  yes, it's possible for Quebec to wind up with a
>   >>>radically disproportionate number of seats, but in the grand scheme of
>   >>>things it's not likely to happen.  There's no good reason for Quebec's
>   >>>population to decline that sharply... so they wind up with 25% when they
>   >>>really deserve 23%, does that minor inaccuracy really affect anything?
>   >>
>   >>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. 
>
>In 40 or 50 years, we might also have a world government.  Or, the
>polar icecaps might melt a bit, flooding the coasts and making the
>plains of the Dene Province and Nunavut major wheat-growing areas.

So that is the reason to put in place an inflexible provision that cannot
adapt to changing demographics and which will be almost impossible to
renegotiate? What I would like to hear is why this provision is reasonable
and fair. So far the arguments are:
1) we can renegotiate later 
2) Quebec has 25% of the pop now 
3) who knows what will happen in the future
4) Quebec is insecure and needs it.
5) Quebec's population won't drop significantly below 25%

I reply
1) I don't think so. Should Quebec's pop drop significantly below 25%
   and Canada tried to renegotiate, Quebec would quite rightly say that if
   Canada had not meant Quebec to have 25% of HoC seats, then Canada should
   not have agreed to this provision in the first place - case closed. 
   Indeed, one merely consider the Newfoundland-Quebec hydro dispute to 
   realize how likely renegotiation would be.
2) This totally ignores changing demographics.
3) Nobody knows what will happen in the future, which is *precisely* why
   we should not lock in today's demographics.
4) Quebec has had enormous influence in the federal government for the
   last 25 years, if anyone should feel insecure it is the West which seems
   to be ignored until it has something that CC wants.
5) In that case we don't need this unchangeable, inflexible floor
   provision. 

Please, could anyone tell me how why I should think this is a *fair* and
reasonable clause? It seems neither, and proponents of it do not seem
willing to defend it as such. Where is the inherent fairness in granting
*one* province a floor percentage of representation in perpetuity, Stewart?

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics