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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:37:32 GMT

(Gerry Gryschuk) writes:

>From article <schuck.721246968@sfu.ca>, by schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck):
>> (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
>> 
>>>Why the province has not yet passed formal declarations as being a new
>>>Country? Considering that negotiations detailing how Quebec would eventually
>>>secede would go on for years it would be imbecilic not to keep them as
>>>part of Canada. 
>> 
>> You are insane if you think Canada would allow Jean Chretien to sit at
>> a table with Jacques Parizeau to negotiate how much of the national
>> debt goes to Quebec, how much land it keeps, which region stays, etc
>> etc.

>What pray tell gave you the bizarre notion that negotiations would be
>between only the leader of Quebec and the Prime Minister? What do you
>use your Premier for a hood ornament?

Do you seriously propose the mechanisms of the Federal government be
left in the hands of Quebeckers during the negotiation phase?

Do you understand the power of the federal government to spend money,
write laws, amke economic policy, and decide the future course of
Canada?

How many billions would be transferred to Quebec during such a phase?
What decisions would be made that benefit Quebec more than *Canada*?

Right now we are spending more than 30 billion than we take in.
Do you propose to continue to go into debt while transferring billions
each month to Quebec when Quebec has already announced it will be
leaving?

>Consider the negotiations that just took place for the CA. Now I personally
>didn't like the deal but the premise for negotiations is there. That is
>each Premier was looking after their own butts. If you don't think they
>would want some say in seperation negotiations your the dreamer.

>Here for your perusal is a system for negotiations that took me all of
>5 mins. to think of. It may not be the best but it's probably closer
>to reality than what you envision.

>1) Both sides select two groups of negotiators made up of lawyers,historians
>and economists.

"Sides?" Who is on the "our" side? A Quebec PM? A federal cabinet with
Quebeckers? Quebec MP's? Quebec Senators?

[....stuff deleted....]

>6) Finally you set a time limit on negotiations something like 3-5 years
>should do it. Maybe even set time limits on any single issue,ie. land claims,
>debt dispersal etc.

>Note the only time Premiers and the Prime Minister would even be part of
>this negotiation would be in selecting the groups of negotiators and
>finally ratifying the deal.

3-5 years of transferring billions of dollars each month to Quebec,
after it has already said it would leave?

3-5 years with Chretien in power deciding on whether his home province
gets megaprojects , federal defense contracts, patronage etc.

Get real!

>> 
>> Nobody in the BC would allow a Quebec Prime Minister or Quebec
>> Cabinet Ministers or Quebec MP's to negotiate for us during talks on
>> such an agreement with a Quebec government.

>Right neither would people in Alberta,Sask.,Ontario etc. that's why they
>wouldn't be part of the negotiations except as mentioned above.

You propose to let them run *Canada* while negotiations go on for 3-5
years? 

Not a chance.

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