From: breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:28:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: breton@helios.mcrcim.mcgill.edu



IMPORTANT WARNING: Plan B is an attempt to show that there is an 
alternative to the Charlottetown Deal that we are asked to vote on.  
Do not confuse.

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton) writes:
>
>For Parliament to gain a jurisdiction, the federal government would have
>to call a national referendum.  It would have to win in every province,
>facing opposition by the self-serving provincial governments.  The chances
>of success would be slim.

No.  Federal government would call a referendum (or make an agreement 
with the provincial legislature after looking at the polls) in each 
province it feels that the people want to unite with other provinces 
to be more efficient in some given jurisdiction.  

>>[Symmetry] is simpler.  Is it what we want?  NO!
>
>Yes.  Simplicity is best.
>
>Quebecers allegedly want powers transferred to their provincial government.
>If so, they should convince other provinces to demand the same.  If they
>can convince 7/50, they will succeed.  Otherwise, not.

Then, this failure only exacerbates the polarisation Quebecois/Canadian 
by creating the frustration that nourish intolerance.  No.  Simplicity 
is NOT necessarily the best.  


>>Why should the choice 
>>of the people of one province prevent the others from having a common 
>>policy in a given jurisdiction?  
>
>Question: Why should one province's preference for independence in a
>jurisdiction prevent the others from having a common policy? 

In my question, I explicitly mention it's the People's choice to mark
that it's NOT an attempt of the province ('s legislature) to grab more
power.  It is a legitimate claim.  


>Answers:
>First, at least one province is not participating, so the benefits of
>the common policy are reduced.  Second, the method of selecting a
>minister and voting on legislation in that jurisdiction becomes
>complicated.  Third, the House majority relevant to that jurisdiction
>is different from the majority that forms the government.  The minister
>for that jurisdiction might not be from the governing party.  He would
>not be a confidante of the Prime Minister and would be ideologically
>opposed to the rest of the cabinet.  Therefore, he would be a lame duck.
>If he did have influence, he would probably be working at cross-purposes
>to government policy.
>
>>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.
>
>The federal government would no longer be controlled by a single party,
>and so would no longer be effective.
>
>>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.
>
>Perhaps.  Thank you for coming up with a constructive suggestion.
>
>--
>Thomas Hood                                          thood@matrox.com
>Montreal

Your answers probably reflect the opinion that the current politicians 
could not adapt themselves to this new situation.  I would not mind to
part with them.  I feel that the avenue proposed in this alternative 
plan (though it needs some polishing) is well worth trying.  

I'm glad you see it as a constructive suggestion and I did appreciate 
your criticism.  A la prochaine.




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