From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:20:59 GMT

From article <schuck.721246138@sfu.ca>, by schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck):
> (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
> 
>>>In article <schuck.721092172@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
> 
> 
>>> Do you think they would give it to us?
>>> Would it jeopardize the FTA with the US?
>>> How long would it take to negotiate?
> 
>>Having given even more thought to this, it seems to me it would take about
>>a second and a half maybe two depending on how fast the new Quebec leaders
>>can sign their name. 
> 
>>Consider that by the time the seperation of Quebec got to a point where it
>>was a reality we would be working under NAFTA(I'm not sure but I imagine
>>this makes the FTA between Canada and the US null and void). The threat
>>of TROC,the US and Mexico ganging up on Quebec to exclude them from
>>the North American market should be sufficient to make them sign on.
> 
> Bill Clinton is a protectionist. NAFTA will not pass.

Interesting since Clinton has supported the NAFTA agreement except that
he wants to have a system in place for worker retraining. At least that's
what has been his reported position, I guess though in your infinite wisdom
you know better.
> 
> "Ganging up?" Quebec will have to beg the US into allowing them entry
> into the FTA and the US under Clinton will say NO!

Again this statement and Clinton's reported position do not jive.
> 
>>I'm thoroughly convinced this is a minor problem which could be settled
>>within a couple of months at the most.
> 
> It would be years before a change in the FTA would be possible.
> Remember, if we open up the FTA, then all the special interest groups
> in the US would demand concessions from us for sponsoring it and from
> Quebec for wanting to join. There is very little benefit for the US in
> allowing such a small market into the FTA.
> 

Such a small market? Fully 1/4 of Canada's current population resides
within the current borders of Quebec. Even with seperation and a smaller
Quebec their population would be large enough to legitimately be included
in any FTA. Furthermore it wouldn't take a reopening of negotiations, all
it requires is an acknowledgement that Quebec recognizes the same agreement
as everyone else, basically a signature and a handshake.

> 
>>Consider the alienation in Ontario if the West insisted on making them
>>buy more expensive products. Sure the East has screwed the West in
>>the past that's no reason to try to screw them back, revenge is a
>>poor motive for any action.
> 
> Revenge is the only motive with a real long memory. :)

And a real poor record.
> 
>>If the West insisted on forcing Ontario to establish markets that
>>were not beneficial to them Canada as a country would be finished.
>>At least by your logic it would be. Ontario is in a much better
>>position to leave Canada then the western provinces.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha. Ontario is in a post-industrial slump from which it
> may never recover. Toronto leads the country in unemployment.
> The provincial deficit soars above 10 billion [I admit out NDP gov't
> may try to catch up :( ]

Sure and their industrial base is probably still the largest in Canada. If
they decide to seperate it would probably be to join the US since most of
their trading links are below the border it would be practically automatic.

> Besides, Ottawa is in Ontario. If Ontario leaves, it gets the
> national debt all by itself. :)

The only sensible thing you've proposed.

> 
>>The more articles I read by you the more I realize that it's not so much
>>Quebec getting preferential treatment that bothers you it's that BC doesn't.
> 
> Nonsense. I am a firm believer in the EEE Senate. Equal treatment for
> all provinces. If I wanted BC to have the best deal I would be a
> supporter of the 5 region Senate where all regions are equal and BC is
> a region and gets 20% of the seats. That would be unfair.

Well since your being so fair minded why can't you see that a fair treatment
of seperation would be a peaceful negotiation rather than provoked violence?

> 
>>The best thing for Canada as a whole would be to establish free trade
>>amongst all it's trading partners outside and inside the country, then nobody
>>gets an upper hand, nobody gets subsidies, no quotas etc. In that framework
>>the most competitive, efficient, cost effective companies will win,
>>the dinosaurs will lose and good riddance.
> 
> That sure is switch. Ontario and Quebec preferred captive markets in
> the Maritimes and West and high tariff barriers to protect them from
> competition. What you forget is that BC has been buying manufactured
> goods from Central Canada for decades at inflated prices. We can buy
> them cheaper from the Pacific Rim.

I didn't forget a thing. I said it was the best thing for Canada not what
we currently have. If BC can buy the goods cheaper from the Pacific Rim
they should be allowed to, this would of course force the eastern provinces
to become competitive, at the same time as maybe opening up better trading
patterns throughout Canada.
> 
> If Canada had free trade with Japan, it would be -- Bye bye Ontario. :)
> Their manufacturing industry would never recover.

Oh bull. It would force it to become more efficient, competitive and
cost effective a difficult task maybe but not impossible.
--
Gerald Gryschuk            Saskatoon,Saskatchewan = a place with 9 months
gerry@sask.usask.ca           of hockey and 3 months of poor skating.
Go Habs!!!		              (The Bum rules!!!)
Newsgroups: can.politics