From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
	<CLAMEN.92Nov9222301@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Nov10.163452.495@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <schuck.721424426@sfu.ca>
	<CLAMEN.92Nov10195055@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> <schuck.721445040@sfu.ca>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:26:50 GMT
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <schuck.721445040@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

   clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:

   >In article <schuck.721424426@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

   >   rcano@bnr.ca (Bob Cano) writes:

   >   >What APEC (and some others) forget, is that in a divorce between
   >   >Canada and Quebec, Quebec with ~25% of the population of Canada
   >   >would be entitled to 25% of the assets (including land) of Canada
   >   >and 25% of the debt. 

   >   I'm a firm believer in the equality of provinces when discussing
   >   ownership of Canada.

   >   Quebec is 1/10th of the provinces, and as such entitled to 10% of the
   >   assets.

   >For your model to hold, each province would be required to pay 10% of
   >the federal tax base.  I'm sure you wouldn't want BC to pay twice as
   >much tax per capita as Quebec.

   As long as the federal spending was along similar lines. :)

   >   When it comes to division of the national debt only, I believe in the
   >   'two nation theory' and Quebec is entitled to 50% of the national
   >   debt. :)

   >   Those at least should be the opening bargaining positions for Canada.

   >My, you are ruthless.  Obviously you are lacking that Canadian
   >characteristic known as "fairness".

   Why did you leave out the only Quebec bargaining position I know
   about, the 18% from one of the post-meech reports in Quebec.

   If you have other 'documented' positions from Quebec I'd like to hear
   them.

I left it out because I didn't feel like talking about it.  It was not
part of the Allaire report, but I think 18% was mentioned within the
context of Belanger-Campeau.  Other numbers were 22% (tax-based) and
25% (population-based).

   What does fairness have to do about opening bargaining positions?

   Obviously you want english-Canada to have a bargaining position that
   is generous to Quebec.

Negotiation is, of course, necessary, but starting with the most
radical position is ridiculous.  Where do you think you are, the
Middle East?

You forget that an independent Quebec will still be a neighbour to
CHQ, and a very major trading partner.  Oh right, I forgot, you want
to embargo Quebec.  Never mind, you are being consistent.
 
   Who gurantees Quebecs opening bargaining position would be as generous?

Quebecers do.  Most are far more reasonable than you.

   When you are talking about distributing 425 billion in debt,
   and trillions? in assets, a tough opening bargaining position is
   necessary.

   Obviously you are lacking in the characteristic known as "brains" if
   you think Canada should open up the bargaining with an overly generous
   first 'offer'.

It doesn't matter what I think.  I'm one of those people whose
citizenship you would revoke.
--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 681 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics