From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:02:43 GMT

From article <schuck.721416339@sfu.ca>, by schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck):
>> (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
>>> Bruce Schuck (me) writes:
> 
>>Such a small market? Fully 1/4 of Canada's current population resides
>>within the current borders of Quebec. Even with seperation and a smaller
>>Quebec their population would be large enough to legitimately be included
>>in any FTA. Furthermore it wouldn't take a reopening of negotiations, all
>>it requires is an acknowledgement that Quebec recognizes the same agreement
>>as everyone else, basically a signature and a handshake.
> 
> If you read the news today you will see that the US is prepared to
> start a trade war with all of Europe to stop subsidies. Quebec's
> economy is subsidy based and the US would be very, very tough.
> 
> As for "a signature and a handshake" to allow Quebec into the FTA,
> you are hoplessly naive.

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.

> 
>>Sure and their industrial base is probably still the largest in Canada. If
>>they decide to seperate it would probably be to join the US since most of
>>their trading links are below the border it would be practically automatic.
> 
> Why would the US want them? They would just be another rust belt state
> with high unemployment and a massive deficit.

Well in that case why would the US want any part of Canada? The country
as a whole is in worse shape then the US. The fact is though that regardless
of Ontario's current troubles, they are still a large industrial base.
> 
>>Well since your being so fair minded why can't you see that a fair treatment
>>of seperation would be a peaceful negotiation rather than provoked violence?
> 
> A negotiation can be tough *and* peaceful.
> 
> Being tough ahead of time *may* forestall secession.
> Proclaiming how peaceful and easy secession will be only can speed up
> the day secession occurs.

Well we finally seem to be getting somewhere. I never claimed the 
negotiators couldn't take a tough stance or for that matter that Canada
couldn't be tough before negotiations start. What we have a disagreement
over is how tough Canada needs to be to accomplish its aims.

I've always been for showing the Quebeckers that leaving Canada would
mean dire economic consequences for them. Telling it like it is would
be a tough stance. However you want to be "tough" to the point of
provocation. Expelling Quebec MP's, removing citizenship from all 
Quebecois both those for and against seperation, these are acts of
agression which would likely be met with violence. That's not being
tough that's being pigheaded.
> 
>>I didn't forget a thing. I said it was the best thing for Canada not what
>>we currently have. If BC can buy the goods cheaper from the Pacific Rim
>>they should be allowed to, this would of course force the eastern provinces
>>to become competitive, at the same time as maybe opening up better trading
>>patterns throughout Canada.
>>> 
>>> If Canada had free trade with Japan, it would be -- Bye bye Ontario. :)
>>> Their manufacturing industry would never recover.
> 
>>Oh bull. It would force it to become more efficient, competitive and
>>cost effective a difficult task maybe but not impossible.
> 
> The FTA has *not* forced Ontario to become effiecient, competitive and
> cost effective. The number on the news today was 600,000 jobs gone in
> this recession -- I'm sure many directly attributal to Free Trade.
> 

Right, the jobs lost are quite likely in those industries in which Ontario
is not suited to compete. However the industries which remain will be in
a better position than they were initially and will thus expand. Considering
the years of deficit spending and protectionism that has proceeded the
FTA it is understandable that some industries will be useless dinosaurs.

Furthermore NDP governments and free trade are not compatable. From my
understanding the Ontario government has proceeded to enact policies
which undermine the ability of companies to change quickly to the wide
open market free trade allows.

This is getting way off the topic though.

> Emigration from Ontario to BC among professionals is at an all time high.
> 
> *Nobody* in Ottawa is doing *anything* to make Canada more competitive.
> 
> Canada has just wasted 5 years on Meech and the CA, which means we
> lost 5 years of preparation for competing under the FTA.
> 

Well I can't really disagree with this, except to say it's not all Ottawa's
fault. If the provinces quit bitching about how FT has hurt their economy
and started trying to enact policies more in line with the competitiveness
of free trade our economy would also be better served.

Note I live in one of those "have-not" provinces, considering the way
I was brought up it really grates on me that Saskatchewan accepts billions
of dollars in transfer payments that our production level doesn't deserve.

In Saskatchewan we have essentially produced hundreds of thousands of
welfare recipients who choose to call themselves farmers.

Again though this is way off the topic.
--
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!!!)