From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:21:50 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>It is useful to debate these questions now because Canada could be in
>this situation in one or two years.

>schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>>The only way to treat a seceding Province is to cut off all funds
>>flowing from Ottawa and the Provinces immediately.
>>
>>At no time must Ottawa or any other province subsidize a secessionist
>>Province. Once a vote on Secession is announced or a secessionist
>>Party is elected with a mandate to secede, all monies flowing into the
>>secessionist province must be cut off until the secessionist province
>>votes not to secede, or votes out of Power the secessionist government.

>That would be illegal and/or unfair.  

Illegal? So is secession.
Unfair? So what?

>Quebec remains an equal province
>until the day the separation agreement comes into force.

The federal government becomes illegitimate the moment
MP's from a secessionist province are allowed into the PM's office [a
distinct possibility], the cabinet [also likely], or vote on any bll
[also likely].

>  An aggressive
>move against a secessionist provincial government would be a
>declaration of war that could not possibly produce a good result.

If such a move is not taken the federal government would and could not
play a role in the nations business. 

>>All trade with a secessionist Province must also be cut off [...]
>>All MP's from a secessionist province must be removed from office [...]
>>All Supreme Court Judges from a secessionist province must be removed [...]
>>All Senators from a secessionist Province must be removed from office.
>>All citizens of a secessionist Province must be removed from [posts...]

>All these measures would be illegal.  

Nonsense. If they were not taken Canada would be an international
laughingstock.

>Quebecers have a right to elect
>any government they want, even a government seeking independence.
>However, any government would be bound by the Constitution until it
>could agree with the federal and other governments on the terms of
>secession.

Secession is not legal. Are we to have our hands tied by a province
committing an illegal act by following the rule of law already broken?

>The existing constitutional order favours Canada because it does not
>provide a mechanism for secession -- a province seeking to secede must
>ask, and Canada can set conditions.  So, it is in Canada's interest to
>sustain that order.

No Province needs to ask to secede. The tory party has already
announced that Quebec has the right to self-determination. That right
usually means unilateral declaration of independence. Since there is
no mechanism in the constitution for secession, Quebecs only option is
unilateralism.

>If Canada were to violate the Constitution as you suggest, Quebec would
>be freed of all obligations and would declare independence unilaterally
>on its own terms.  These terms would be bad for Canada because Canada
>needs to unload a quarter of its national debt on the new state, and it
>has property in the province that it would want to keep.

The only way Quebec will gain it's dependence is unilateralism.

>>Finally, the terms of secession must be negotiated by a staff of
>>professional negotiators with no record of working or living in the
>>secessionist province, and their mandate must be ruthlessness.

>Obviously, ROC would have to elect leaders not associated with Quebec.
>I do not agree that they should be ruthless.

If we are not ruthless, Canada will not survive.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada