From: breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Date: 25 Sep 92 20:40:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: breton@olympus.mcrcim.mcgill.edu


thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton) writes:
>>October 26th, 1992: To those who think there is no Plan B. 
>>PROPOSAL:
>
>In your proposal, federal policy is subject to veto unless it
>pleases every region.  Federal powers are set out in a buffet
>for every province to pick over.  The "cabinet" disappears and
>is replaced by a variety of ministers from different parties
>who will never agree, and will make coherent federal policy
>impossible.

Here, you are setting up the same Bogey Man that was use to discredit 
the EEE senate, i.e. CHAOS IN OTTAWA.  In this proposal, I've 
tried to balance thing to avoid such chaos.  

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...).  

A buffet???  Both federal powers and provincial powers may be 
transfered.  Again, for a change to occur, either way, it is not so 
easy.  Given a referendum where 70% of the electorate vote, 50% of 
eligible voters + 1 means that the percentage of YES must be over 71%. 
I don't think that too many provincial governments would be able to 
generate sufficient interest unless something is really WRONG, 
especially since the regional veto should reassure people that they 
aren't getting screwed.  

The eventuality that we might face (if I am wrong in my assessment 
of the population's desire for decentralisation) is a slow erosion 
of the "cabinet".  Within a jurisdiction the federal policy would be
coherent.  When jurisdictions are intertwined, the two parties 
involved will be force to collaborate.  It is no worse than the 
alternative provincial/federal collaboration.  

>Canadians have the right to decide who governs them now: they elect
>their governments.
>

Yes, but considering the significant alienation in the West and in 
Quebec, they should be able to exercise their right to how they will 
be governed if needed.  

>>This attempt to deal with an eventual asymmetry of provincial
>>jurisdictions does not correspond with the current Canadian political
>>tradition. But THE CHOICES ARE EITHER TO ADAPT A COUNTRY TO OUR
>>CURRENT POLITICIANS OR TO ASK POLITICIANS TO ADAPT TO THE REALITIES OF
>>OUR COUNTRY.
>
>A third option would be for nationalist politicians to adapt themselves
>to the referendum of 1980.
>

I'm not a "nationalist politician" and what I propose is a federalist 
option that attempts to be flexible enough to prevent the alienation 
that lead to this crisis.  

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


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