From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Aug31.200637.16403@csi.uottawa.ca>
	<1992Sep1.033738.20769@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <12748@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:04:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <12748@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

   In article (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
   ]]If a jurisdiction is devoluted to the parliament of Quebec for the province
   ]]of Quebec only, and to the federal parliament for other provinces, what
   ]]difference does it make for citizens of other provinces?  Nothing is gained,
   ]]nothing is lost.
   ]
   ]Quebec MP's would be voting on issues that then apply only to the rest
   ]of Canada, while Quebec MNA's would be voting on these issues for
   ]Quebecer's.  There is particularly wrong with the devolution of 
   ]powers to the provinces so provincial politiicians can decide the
   ]issue, but if the powers are devolved only to Quebec asymmetrically
   ]then when Quebec MP's are voting on these issues in Ottawa, for
   ]the rest of Canada it becomes an undemocratic government since
   ]they did not vote for these MP's...why should these Quebec MP's be able
   ]to decide on these issues in the rest of Canada, but not in Quebec.

   Obviously something will have to be worked out. Note that this does
   not only apply to Quebec, but to all provinces. I could easily
   envision Alberta retrieving itself from a federal energy program
   for example. It's a fundamental principle of a federation. Note
   also that there are currently domains where Quebec has its own
   system, contrary to the rest of Canada, e.g., Civil Code, Income
   Tax, etc. In another domain, Quebec is the only province aligned
   with the federal policy of the GST.

   There is at least another case I know where a similar situation
   will exist. In the Maastrich agreement, 11 of the 12 countries will
   eventually share the same currency. Great-Britain might be
   excluded.  In this case, the agreement says that Great-Britain will
   be excluding from the voting on questions touching the monetary
   policy.

   Why do we have provinces if we can't accept the differences between
   them? 

An excellent point.

I have no problem with asymmetrical federalism as it currently works,
but am not sure what to do about the effects a more institutional
scheme would have on representative federal government.  Democracy
would demand that as the influence of Ottawa upon Quebec lessens, the
voice of Quebec in Ottawa should decrease.  Many Quebecers already
consider Ottawa a pretty foreign place, and I am concerned that more
asymmetries in Confederation would serve to promote this opinion.


Another curiosity.  The administrative moves that have already been
going on, while being completely justified to me, react strangely with
the civil service changes begun under Trudeau.  While the number of
Francophone Quebecers in the federal civil service has increased
substantially, the amount of federal civil service work pertaining to
mostly-French Quebec is reduced. (ie. in terms relative to other
provinces, of course.  I have the utmost confidence that the Civil
Service continues to find ways to increase its work.)  This has
resulted in the curious state of affairs where you have sovereignist
francophone quebecers working in Hull, for the Federal Government, who
think that they could continue to work for Ottawa even if Quebec
separates from Canada.  And even if Quebec does not separate, these
Quebec federal civil servants will have less and less to do with
Quebec, as the asymmetries persist.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics