From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:21:22 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (John Paul Morrison) writes:
]Suppose we agree that the Parliament is neccessary for representing the
]population democratically (rep by pop). Fine. But Quebec claims natition
]like status. Other Provinces make similar claims. When nations meet face
]to face, they meet as equals. This is why a senate should be equal.
]So maybe the Quebecers are hypocritical for wanting a democratic by
]population parliament *and* senate? If it helps you picture things:
]Quebec is like France, PEI is like Luxembourg. BOTH have equal say.
]Got it?

I don't know where that conception of all countries being equal in
Europe comes from but it is not true for everything. Europe as a
Parliament (in Strasbourg) and it role (if Maastrich is passed) will
be greater and greater. The number of deputies per country is NOT
equal at the Parliament. Even for the other institution, it is not an
equal number of representants per country. For the "Conseil", I think
I remember that France, Germany, UK and Italy are equal (12 members if
I remember correctly). The other countries get less (6 for the smaller
ones). Andorra is associated to France for some things, and for others
it gets an "observer's" status. I think it is considered as a country
for agriculture.

]I think the Parliament is redundant (IMHO). I think that most powers should
]be devolved to the provinces (something Qebec wants) and the Senate should
]focus on national interests, where each province is equal (something
]Quebec doesn't want to recognize). The Senate should have Equal rep.
]from each province, and each province should have a veto over anything
]*in it's own interests*. Things like human rights, liberty, criminal code
]etc. would not be covered by the veto. The parliament wouldn't have a purpose
]in this system, as the provincial governments would handle most things,
]and a parliament would be wasteful duplication.

I agree 100% with this. The Canadian system has a lot of redundancies.
Quebec (and maybee some other provinces as well) would never agree on
removings the province's autonomny in crucial sectors. The only
solutions are decentralized government (more power to the provinces)
or asymetrical federalism.

]In this kind of system, no province(s) could gang up on another, which
]is what Quebec is afraid of. Things like Bill 101 wouldn't be necessary,
]because Quebec could feel more secure about Anglo domination of Canada.
]If questionable things like Bill 101 are struck down by the Supreme COurt,
]and a province still vetoed it, the other provinces could chastise that
]province, and hopefully that province would act reasonably. This is
]what happens in world politics: (unless you are Saddam Hussein) the rest
]of the world (or the rest of canada) just doesn't march in and boss 
]governments around.

This alo seems resonable.

]-Every province is equal, and the provinces agree to voluntary association
] with each other.
This is also the definition of a Confederation (Canada is therefore
not a Confederation, and Switzerland is) as opposed to a Federation
(where a "strong" central government rules (Russia, Canada, ...).

]-The provinces elect an equal national government to represent its interests.
I'm not shure I would still favour a totally provincaly equal system.
PEI (maybee even Yukon or the NWT!) is still an aberation. Europe did
not go for this approach (even if all Countries are free to join or
not the EEC). The UN does not work that way either, with 5 superpowers
having a veto.

]-The provinces work on national only issues
]-if a province feels that the others are encroaching, it can veto
]-If provinces are always at odds with each other, and voluntary association
] becomes pointless, leaving the association is a simple, civilized matter.

That is rather unlikely. Most "battles" in Canada are between
Provinces and the Federal Government, not between Provinces.

]Hypocritical? I don't know. These concepts appear radical only because
]Canadian government is so distorted. Canada already has a very de-centralized
]power system, probably only Switzerland is more decentralized.
]I happen to think that Canada would benefit from a more decentralized system,
]but one with a common name to the rest of the world. Many provinces would
]be viable on their own (Quebec, Ontario, BC) others not (the maritimes,
]the prairies). But it would still mean losing a *LOT* for Canada to
]break up.

These concept, au contraire, do not appear as being radical to me.
They are what a real Confederation should be. The Soviet, the
Czecoslovak and the Yougoslavian experience proved that a Trudeauesque
forced centralisation of political (and social) entities does not
work. There are a lot of benefit to economic and political UNIONS (key
word), but if some part of the union feels that it's culture or
autonomny is endangered, it soon becomes unworkable.

I doubt however that most Canadian Provinces would agree with a real
decentralized government.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM