From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 06:25:09 GMT

In article <schuck.721091522@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>>In article <schuck.721077160@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>
>>>Pleeaaasssseee? Forced out???? Are you crazy?
>
>>A set of legislation initiated by "TROC" that states that Quebeckers
>>are no longer citizens (which would be required for some of the 
>>proposals that you made in an earlier posting) certainly qualifies as
>>"Forcing them out."  It's pretty straightforward.  Declaring someone
>>to no longer be a Canadian citizen IS forcing them out.
>
>Initiated by TROC? I'm sorry, maybe you weren't listening.
>All of my recommendations were to come if Quebec [or any secessionist
>Province] elected a provincial government with a mandate to separate
>or initiated a referendum to separate from Canada. 
>
>The 'initiation' would be coming from Quebec, not TROC.

But you were talking about doing a "pre-emptive strike", so to speak,
in which TROC would "legislate a bunch of stuff" if a separatist party
came to power.

It would NOT be Quebec that would be declaring the people to be "no
longer Canadian" - it would be TROC.  This is one of those annoying
"legal points."  It's not the Quebec government that sets the law on
who is a Canadian citizen, and who is not.  It's the government of
Canada that does that.  (Probably with some cooperation between the
ministries of Justice, Citizenship, and External Affairs.)
Denaturalizing Canadians is something that intrinsically only the
Canadian government can do.

The only thing that the Quebec government could do is to determine who
they would accept as a Quebecker, and who they wouldn't accept.
That's the way citizenship works all around the world.  

If the government of Canada "deems" someone to be a US citizen, that
has very little legal effect.  This deeming does not give the person
the right to a US passport, or any of the rights pertaining to US
citizenship.

Precisely WHO do you think would be putting forth the legislation that
would denaturalize the former Canadian citizens?  It would NOT be
coming out of some vacuum.  It would come in most certainly as an
emergency bill in the House of Commons.  And I can't fathom anyone who
would be able to:
(a) Get it put on the table, and
(b) Get it passed by the House.

THERE AIN'T NO OTHER WAY OF DOING IT.  That's the way the government
works.  I live in Ottawa.  I've been at the House of Commons.  I've
actually read some Hansard.  (Usually deathly boring.)  I'm no
politician, but I've seen SOMETHING about how Parliament works.

The ONLY way I could see anything like this happening is if the
parliamentary system (which people seldom criticize, as opposed to
such things as the electoral sytem, or other parts of the bureaucracy)
was COMPLETELY ignored.

People have criticized the current government for enforcing somewhat
excessive party discipline.  They've suggested that BM the PM has been
acting in a somewhat dictatorial fashion.  A denaturalization would
require a whole new level of "dictatorial party discipline."

In order to see such a denaturalization bill passed would require 
(a) A party with a political majority like we've NEVER seen before; 
(b) Party discipline or party unanimity that can't POSSIBLY exist in
this diverse country;
(c) That Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition be some combination of asleep
and disloyal.

Frankly, to go along with this, or to enforce it all, I'd also expect
(d) A lot of men with machine guns running around the House of
Commons.  A lot of guys that are NOT RCMP.  And they have, on
occasion, had a LOT of RCMP officers around with some pretty heavy
weaponry.  (Anti-terrorism work, when there was some head of state
visiting that has BAD enemies.  Helicopters, and LOTS of machine
guns.)

Option (d) sounds pretty ridiculous, but it's NOT that big a leap,
considering the other VERY unusual things that would have to happen.

...
>>>4) Half the civil service -- hundreds of thousands of jobs.
>
>>Perhaps true, but not relevant to determining whether legislation
>>created by Canada that denaturalizes Quebeckers "forces them out."
>
>Such legislation would only come after a provincial legislature was
>elected with a mandate to separate or a provincial legislature decided
>to hold a referendum to secede. Nobody holds a referendum on secession
>without planning to carry it through if it passes.

(a)) This still reflects denaturalizing people before there is ACTUALLY
a secession.

(b) It still shows great insensitivity to those people that did NOT
vote for the separatist government.

I think that one of the MOST important results of the national
referendum is the finding that opinions were very much split over the
C.A., all across the country.  In Ontario, the vote was closely split
at VERY near to 50:50.  The biggest difference was at roughly the
75:25 mark in BC.  One thing that I would conclude is that the voting
was not unanimous in ANY province.  There were "YES" people
EVERYWHERE.  There were "NO" people EVERYWHERE.  In each province.
EVERYWHERE.

There is NOT going to be a unanimous vote for separation in Quebec,
now, or ever.  There is a significant portion of the population that
would NOT support separation.  "Significant" means here at least 15%.
That's over a million people.

If a separatist government gets into power, does that "significant
portion of the population" cease to exist?  

Do you want to punish the anti-separatists for voting against
separation, and failing?

>>>It is time to treat Quebec as 1 out of 10 provinces and 2 territories
>>>[soon to be 3]. Thats it. And if the Quebec psyche can't handle that
>>>and wants to stalk off and start it's own country, then fine. But
>>>don't expect a penny or an ounce of sympathy.

Does this paragraph describe
a] Indifference to Quebec?
or
b] Hatred towards Quebec?

It LOOKS to me like more than a simple "lack of sympathy."  It looks
more like hatred.  It LOOKS to me like it reflects an attitude of "I
think they shafted me - now I think I have a chance to hurt them, and
I will!"

I would prefer to have the people that make the decisions be
indifferent towards Quebec - because they are more likely to make
rational decisions.  

Doing things that hurt Quebec just for the sake of causing pain is (a)
bad for Quebec (obviously), (b) makes TROC look bad internationally,
and (c) can have other bad side-effects on TROC, and (d) (most
important) an EVIL thing to do.

In a typical situation of divorce, it tends to be advantageous to
fight over every penny (within some limits - getting the figure down
to zero may be impractical and/or may give you an excessive legal
bill).  If your ex winds up penniless as a result, it isn't really
going to hurt you, because (s)he is merely one person out of millions
in the country.

If Quebec winds up penniless, remember that they make up over 25% of
the population of the northern half of this continent.  It WILL have
bad effects on the rest of the country.

>>>Let me end with a response to all those who say we should have free
>>>trade with QUebec.
>>>
>>>I've posted this example before and it's still valid.
>>>
>>>Quebec dairy producers get 50% of the national quota.
>>>BC with 12% of the population gets 5% of the quota.
>>>Other provinces are similary shortchanged.
>>>
>>>Do you think that BC will accept for one second Quebec keeping that
>>>quota? Ha! Not a chance. Quebec will get 0 quota and the rest will be
>>>distributed creating wealth and jobs in the dairy regions of Canada.
>
>>The actual number of jobs "CREATED" by this would be less than you
>>seem to think, because you ain't gonna be FORCING another sovereign
>>state to (I) stop producing milk, and (II) buy YOUR milk instead.
>
>I see you missed the point. Quebec, with 25% of the pop. has 50%
>of the quota. Canada, with 75% of the pop has 50% of the quota.
>After separation Canada would have 75% of the old quota [100% of the
>new] which is 50% increase in production for old and new dairy farms
>in Canada.

But the original posting certainly seemed to imply (by saying that
Quebec would have 0% of "the quota") that TROC would be getting 100%
of the overall Canadian quota (seemingly including Quebec).  I guess I
must have misinterpreted your meaning.

This would clearly be an example of dairy farmers in TROC receiving
benefit from a modification of the milk quota allocations.

>And that was only 1 of 100's of examples [if not 1000's] where Canada
>would benefit without trade with Quebec.

Seeing as how milk quotas has NOTHING to do with so-called "trade with
Quebec," the point is moot.  You are trying to prove your point using
an irrelevant example.

Another such example: If I buy a copy of the Ottawa Citizen, that
stimulates the Canadian economy.  And that didn't involve trade with
Quebec.

Would it be valid to conclude from this example that trade with Quebec
is BAD for the Canadian economy?  Not any more than it would be to
conclude from YOUR example that trade with Quebec is BAD for the
Canadian economy, since neither example actually involved the critical
component, which is TRADE WITH QUEBEC.

Canada has a STRONG dependancy on international trade.  Most of that
trade is with the US.  If trade with the US were cut off tomorrow,
"crippling" doesn't start to describe the effect on our economy.

We're talking economic destruction.  Cutting off trade with Quebec
would certainly have a lesser effect.  But it wouldn't be a GOOD
effect.

You're proposing that we cut off 25% of the formerly internal markets?
I have a hard time believing that your "hundreds of examples" of
so-called benefits (the first of which doesn't even deal with TRADE)
can add up to more than the effects of THAT.


-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: can.politics