From: breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Date: 30 Sep 92 02:43:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: breton@olympus.mcrcim.mcgill.edu



thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):
>breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton) writes:
>>The consensus needed for the VETO is actually not easy to reach.  It
>>is likely to involve the opposition in the legislature to support the
>>party in power in large provinces or the solidarity of several smaller
>>provinces.  It would be more accurate to say that federal policy is 
>>subject to veto if it SERIOUSLY DISPLEASES a region (the N.E.P. comes 
>>to mind...).  
>
>The ruling party often has 70% of seats, and in any case, provincial
>parties are provincially-minded and incapable of devoting themselves
>to the national interest.

The proposed REGIONAL VETO is to make sure that no region get screwed.  
I believe that my proposed implementation takes into account the need 
for a balance between:
- the need for a representation with a regional concerns at heart, and
- the avoidance of systematic hindrance of the federal government.  

While you clearly seem to disagree on the balance of this particular 
implementation, I notice you do NOT explicitly reject the concept of a 
regional veto and its objective.  


>>A buffet???  Both federal powers and provincial powers may be 
>>transfered.
>
>Surely you jest.

No.  Why do you say that?

>> [The text removed describe a democratic procedure to deal with transfer 
>> of legislative power and a way for the House of Commons to deal with it]
>
>You would be adding a great deal of complexity to Parliament for
>the marginal benefit of allowing the people of different provinces
>to decide independently which level of government will perform which
>functions.  It is far simpler to centralize and decentralize
>symmetrically.

Yes, it is simpler.  Is it what we want?  NO!  Why should the choice 
of the people of one province prevent the others from having a common 
policy in a given jurisdiction?  

Can't we handle some complexity to keep this country united?  The 
marginal benefit is nothing less than the stable existence of this 
country so needed to attract investments.  

Is it really a great deal of complexity?  NO! It is quite simple.  My 
elected representative in Ottawa votes and only votes on the laws that 
apply where I live.  Period.
   

>I do not believe that the constitution is a cause of alienation per se.
>The principal cause is separatist agitation.  For example, in the area
>of culture:  the provincial minister let out a whine about federal
>interference when the federal government dared to boast about its
>contributions to Montreal's new museums.  But do Quebecers really
>want the federal government to get out of arts funding?  Quebec artists
>certainly don't!  If you get into the details, Quebecers are satisfied
>with the division of powers.
>
>What they really want is love and attention.

Regardless of the causes of alienation in the West and in Quebec, the 
constitution can provide a remedy for this problem and it should.

In Quebec, once it is recognized that the PEOPLE have the power to 
decide on what is the division of powers, they will be happy and 
secure.  I agree with you, Quebecers are satisfied with the current 
division of powers, and therefore little will change in Ottawa.  I 
guess it doesn't matter to most people where does the person in power 
works as long as they can kick him or her out of office once in a 
while.  

>--
>Thomas Hood                                      thood@matrox.com
>Montreal


-- 
       __
      (..)        Pierre Breton
   --mm--mm--     breton@mcrcim.mcgill.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics