From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:58:38 GMT

From article <schuck.721246968@sfu.ca>, by schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck):
> (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
> 
>>Why the province has not yet passed formal declarations as being a new
>>Country? Considering that negotiations detailing how Quebec would eventually
>>secede would go on for years it would be imbecilic not to keep them as
>>part of Canada. 
> 
> You are insane if you think Canada would allow Jean Chretien to sit at
> a table with Jacques Parizeau to negotiate how much of the national
> debt goes to Quebec, how much land it keeps, which region stays, etc
> etc.

What pray tell gave you the bizarre notion that negotiations would be
between only the leader of Quebec and the Prime Minister? What do you
use your Premier for a hood ornament?

Consider the negotiations that just took place for the CA. Now I personally
didn't like the deal but the premise for negotiations is there. That is
each Premier was looking after their own butts. If you don't think they
would want some say in seperation negotiations your the dreamer.

Here for your perusal is a system for negotiations that took me all of
5 mins. to think of. It may not be the best but it's probably closer
to reality than what you envision.

1) Both sides select two groups of negotiators made up of lawyers,historians
and economists.

2) The first action of the negotiations would be to obtain a 5 member
committee made up of impartial observers from the international community
which would be used to settle disputes in areas where the negotiations are
deadlocked.

3) The members of the above mentioned committee would be selected by
having both sides first nominate 5 candidates each from the international
community.

4) Each group then selects 2 of the 5 from the other groups nominees
who will actually reside as members of the committee.

5) The Secretary General of the UN is asked to appoint the fifth member
of the committee.

Or rather than going through steps 2 to 5, simply use the international
courts that are currently used to settle disputes between two different
countries.

6) Finally you set a time limit on negotiations something like 3-5 years
should do it. Maybe even set time limits on any single issue,ie. land claims,
debt dispersal etc.

Note the only time Premiers and the Prime Minister would even be part of
this negotiation would be in selecting the groups of negotiators and
finally ratifying the deal.

> 
>>> If such a move is not taken the federal government would and could not
>>> play a role in the nations business. 
> 
>>Oh Bull. The nations business would continue to run while a mutually
>>beneficial agreement was reached on exactly how Quebec would leave.
> 
> You are a wishful thinker. That is a recipe for civil war.

No a recipe for civil war is to directly provoke Quebec into taking
military action, either through direct war or simply terrorist activity
that would make Beirut look like a minor disagreement.

> 
> Nobody in the BC would allow a Quebec Prime Minister or Quebec
> Cabinet Ministers or Quebec MP's to negotiate for us during talks on
> such an agreement with a Quebec government.

Right neither would people in Alberta,Sask.,Ontario etc. that's why they
wouldn't be part of the negotiations except as mentioned above.
--
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!!!)
Xref: sparky can.politics:9440 soc.culture.canada:8367