From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:30:08 GMT

From article <1992Nov11.002130.16714@ee.ubc.ca>, by jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison):
> In article <1992Nov10.230243.17979@access.usask.ca> (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
>>That is a simple euphamism. Sure it would take a little more but hardly
>>the years you are talking about. Furthermore my whole point is that Quebec's
>>economy would not be able to survive the subsidy level they currently
>>enjoy. They're able to have the subsidies due to the transfer payments,
>>however once those are removed their economy would be in dismal shape.
>>In that scenario Quebec's only hope would be to conclude quick trade
>>negotiations with the rest of North America, thus it is in Quebec's best
>>interests to immediately ratify NAFTA as it pertains to them. I hardly
>>believe the US,Mexico and Canada would have one set of rules for trade
>>in NA and Quebec have another, that would be idiotic.
>>
> 
> It would be idiotic. But it may be safe to assume that a seperate Quebec
> (and even a seperate Canada) would be weaker, and in a more desperate
> situation.
> 
> The USA would not shut out Quebec from a FTA because the USA could
> drive a much harder bargain with Quebec, and would probably use seperation
> as leverage to open up the FTA and get concessions from BOTH Quebec and Canada.
> 
> Schuck's assumption that the US would turn away QUebec is probably wrong.
> I think the opposite is true, and that the US would try and pick up the
> pieces on the rebound, in order to get a better deal for itself.
> NO matter how amicable a divorce, it would create two competitors, and the
> US would use this competition to get Quebec and Canada to "outbid" each other
> to see who would give bigger consessions to the USA. If Quebec's economy
> is as weakened as you suggest, the QUebec would be more eager to cut a deal,
> and would probably not get as good a deal.
> 

Well I certainly shouldn't argue with the view given here. It may in fact be
that my own sense of what is right does not jive with the actual way 
negotiations will progress. However let me just add that although Quebec
is a large market and thus should be included in free trade for that reason
it is still significantly smaller than TROC. Given that Canada already
has a signed agreement with the US I don't see how the US makeing an agreement
with Quebec could nullify or hurt the terms of the FTA. That is to say
that if Quebec became a foreign country, the terms of the FTA would still
apply and thus any deals the US made with Quebec would be no different than
them makeing deals with Japan,Germany,England etc., as far as Canada is
concerned.

Granted this could either have positive or negative affects, given though
that our population and resource base is larger than Quebec's, simply standing
our ground would IMO not hurt us. Note I have never contended that we
have to let Quebec into a FTA at a loss to Canada. If in doing so we 
significantly weaken our position it would be bad. I don't think though
that given a strong Canadian position that the US would be able to obtain
concessions that would have a significant impact on our economy.

> The only way this wouldn't happen is if:
> 
> 1. Quebec does not secede
> 2. even if Quebec does secede, Mexico, Canada, and Quebec agree to hold their
>    ground together
> 3. A US president (probably Rebuplican) decides to take a long term foreign
>    policy view, and deliberately avoids taking advantage of breakup, in
>    order to promote long term stability.

Given my above comments I'll simply state I don't agree with this assessment.
I think Canada would be able to hold its ground just as easily with an 
agreement between the US and Quebec as compared to an agreement between
the US and <fill in foreign country>. I simply don't see that the size of
Quebec's economy would be a significant inducement for a US president
to go through the trouble of alienateing their largest trading partner.

>>In Saskatchewan we have essentially produced hundreds of thousands of
>>welfare recipients who choose to call themselves farmers.
> 
> how can we convince people in "have not" provinces to have more self
> reliance, and pull themselves up by themselves, instead of relying
> on other provinces giving money? How can Bourassa accept billions
> that they don't morally deserve, when they have Bombardier, and Lavalin
> and dozens of huge industries that are either profitable, or can be made
> profitable with a good shake up? AS if Bourrassa WOULD turn down billions.

You can't convince them to, at least not in the sense of telling them
"I won't give you money because it's in your best interests", and have them
accept that. However you can force "have not" provinces to live more
within their means simply by removing the power of the federal government
to tax and borrow the gross amounts of money they do. This would then
make it impossible for the federal government to steal from the "rich"
and give to the "poor" as it were. Note I put quotes around rich and
poor because the feds never(or at least rarely) take from the rich and
the people who get the money could never(or at least rarely) be called
poor.

It simply makes no sense that some one from No Where Saskatchewan should
have the same access(as far as costs) to goods and services as someone
in downtown Toronto/Vancouver. I refuse to pay for someone elses greed,
and for that matter I don't expect others to pay for my greed.

"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."
		               Lazarus Long(R.A.Heinlein)
--
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