From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:55:46 GMT

From article <schuck.721165025@sfu.ca>, by schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck):
> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>In article <schuck.721092172@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>>Why give a *competitor* free access into our markets?
>>>
>>>What's in it for us? 
> 
>>I suppose that free access into THEIR markets is something that you
>>wouldn't bother asking for?
> 
> 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. If
that's not enough to convince you consider that Quebec's financial situation
would probably be worse than a single mother on welfare and you should
realize there would be no way Quebec could even consider getting into
even a short trade war with the rest of North America.

I'm thoroughly convinced this is a minor problem which could be settled
within a couple of months at the most.
> 
> Free Trade would be much more important between the remaining
> provinces than free trade between Canada and a sovereign Quebec.

Well in one sense it would be since it would be more difficult to
obtain then free trade between Canada and Quebec.
> 
> If BC had a choice, would we want access to Canadian markets for our
> forest products *without* competition from Quebec? The answer is yes.

Sure everyone wants captive markets, that way you can gouge them more.
> 
> The West is alienated from Central Canada now. Imagine the alienation
> if Ontario *insisted* on buying goods and services from Quebec with no
> tariff barrier instead of buying goods and services the West can
> produce, even if transportation costs would increase a little bit.

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.
> 
> If Ontario *insisted* on carrying on it's traditional trading
> patterns with a sovereign Quebec, instead of establishing new ones
> with the rest of Canada, then the country would be finished.

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.
> 
> There would certainly be *no* point in BC or Alberta staying within
> such a ludicrous situation.
> 

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.

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.
--
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