4 - Friday, June 5, 1992 - North Shore News Gibson’s Plan ‘B’ for Canada deserves an ‘ JOE CLARK calls it a recess. I call it a resuscita- tion. Of the dead? Trevor Lautens GARDEN OF BIASES Let’s just say I’d keep the un- dertaker’s number beside the phone. And another number: Gordon Gibson’s. Gibson has proposed an imagi- native and daringly sensible pro- posal for solving Canada’s con- stitutional problem, now bogging down in the mud of trifling pro- gress. . But has central Canada paid any attention? I doubt it. If Gibson lived in the Power Triangle —- Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal — his lucid and detailed idea would have received plenty of attention. But Gidson is a Vancouverite — a well-known and respected businessman, former leader of the B.C. Liberal party, former North Shore membei of the legislature, sometime columnist for The Fi- nancial Post, an influential member of the Canada West Foundation. Not that he's a stranger to the Power Triangle. He was one of Pierre Eijiott Trudeau’s young aides during Trudeau’s prime ministership. But that was yesterday. Central Canada, which dominates the tor- toise-like talks under the lieutenancy of Clark as it domi- nates the nation’s whole being, is only impressed by today’s members of the club. Otherwise it would be paying a lot of attention to Gibson’s thoughtful suggestion. He cails it ‘Plan B’? — a plan to be used only in the event that “the wheels fall off’ the present process. Well, that undertaking is in the middle of a recess calied by Clark which ends when talks resume next Tuesday. I'd say the wheels may have al- ready failen off. It’s hard to tell. Because the process is up to its axles. This is pretty well what Gibson predicted when we lunched in March. There would be an illusion of progress — agreement on small details and the easier stuff on the periphery. And, he might have added, accompanied by a lot of verbiage about “‘hopeful’’ signs and ‘useful’? sessions. But none of the big, substantive issues have been resolved. The original May 31 deadline that once seemed to have been carved in stone — shades of Meech Lake -— dissolved. Only an optimist would predict that agreement on the major points — like power-sharing and dollar-sharing between the federal and provincial governments, Senate reform, meeting of Quebec’s demands, a clearer idea of what aboriginal self-govern- ment means, a new amending formula and especially who would hold the power of veto, little things like that — will be achieved by the time Clark's patient, sincere, but not very fruitful ef- forts are over next week. Of course the effort won't stop. But Canadians are increasingly pessimistic about the whole exer- cise. More accurately, uninterested. Only terribly earnest journals like the Globe and Mail have doggedly kept the unity talks on their front pages. The talks have become a bore. Gibson's ‘*Plan B"’ throws the constitutional issues a lifeline. And there, right at the start, is the biggest barrier to its accep- tance. To accept **Plan B,’’ the politi- cal establishment — and, more particularly, of course, the Brian Mulreney government — would have to admit failure, indeed des- peration. The kind of process, and the kind of politician, that brought you Meech Lake, the old pols and the old backroom power-brokers, would have to either (1) slink off and lick their egos or (2) pretend they’d invented a plan like Gib- son’s themselves. What’s the plan? Gibson proposes a constituent assembly. Each province would elect 10 members to it, and each territory two. Anyone could run. Sensitive to those fragile egos and to reality, Gibson’s plan gently breaks the news to the old-gang politicians that of course they wouldn’t be excluded from running. But the voters would choose their assembly members on their merits for the particular task at hand — a solemn but temporary one. Party affiliation would count little. Some of the choices might be surprising. This 104-member, *‘voting’’ assembly would be joined by a “‘speaking”’ assembly, of some number less than 104, made up of special-interest groups: linguistic, gender, disabled, or whatever. Most fascinating — even more interesting than the single- transferable vote used in the efec- tion of the ‘‘voting’’ members — would be the decision-making process. Any decision would have to win the support of delegates repre- senting 92% of the population. In effect, that would give vetoes to Ontario, Quebec, B.C., and to virtually any region acting as a bloc: the Atlaniic provinces, the two central prairie provinces in combination with the territories or any other province, for instance. Gibson believes that the assembly would properly focus on and accept a few basic proposals. Then its decisions would be sent to a flat yes-or-no national refer- endum, the whole package or nothing. All the governments would be under great pressure to follow the people’s expressed wishes. Other issues could wait. (The unshorn tripie-E Senate? Could be.) And how do you like this: no media interviews of the assembly members, no opinion polls during its deliberations. Just a couple of hundred Cana- dians, many of them no doubt fresh faces, enunciating the precepts of our unity. I'd give Gibson’s ‘‘Plan B’’ an “A.” Try to improve on it. UNDERFUNDIN NDERMINES Our Children’s Education: @)* a priority in good | | # times and bad (B) will have to wait until [| the budget balances If your answer is (A), call your MLA and demand adequate funding for our schools. Sponsored by: TEACHERS ASSOCIATION SEMI-ANNUAL SALE STARTS TODAY Outstanding selection of clothing & accessories Jeremy Dalton Daniel Jarvis David Schreck 925-1611 984-2692 986-2254 7 ¢ Liz Claibome * Segrets ¢ Adrienne Vittidini ¢ Linda Lundstom eJones of New York plus much much e Sunsport more "S$ OF WEST VAN Mon Thurs 9:30-5.30; Friday 930-300 Sattur 930-530; Sunday 12 te S pm