From: (Gerry Gryschuk)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:46:45 GMT

From article <schuck.721174910@sfu.ca>, by schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck):
> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
> 
>>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?

Where in the Canadian Constitution does it say a province may not secede from
the union? It may be there but I haven't seen it.
> 
>>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].

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. Who knows they may change their minds when they realize
what a real headache it would be to accomplish. Would you then want them
even more alienated then they were before? Now that would be real smart.

> 
>>  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. 

Oh Bull. The nations business would continue to run while a mutually
beneficial agreement was reached on exactly how Quebec would leave.
> 
>>>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.

Further Bull. It's quite likely that if Canada and Quebec were able to
reach a mutually beneficial agreement on how Quebec would seperate it
would go down as a strong example to other countries on how internal
conflicts should be solved. Rather than perpetuate the scheme where wars
are used to decide who gets the biggest piece of the pie, Canada and
Quebec would be able to show that internal conflict between two competeing
cultures can be solved(for the most part) peacefully.

Or maybe you would rather have a Yugoslavian type solution to our problems?
Now that would really prove we're mature adults.

> 
>>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?

See question to paragraph one above. Besides even if it is illegal
I suppose your prepared to go to war over this. Well personally I'm
not. It's both foolish and a waste of resources.

> 
>>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.

But I thought you claimed secession was illegal?
> 
>>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.

Wrong. They will gain it by mutually beneficial agreement. Mind you
I expect TROC to come out much better than Quebec does. But it doesn't
need to be and I suspect won't be done by being an asshole about it.

> 
>>>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.

If we are ruthless it's likely to lead to a bloody war, I promise to
shake your hand and wish you luck as you pass through Saskatchewan on
your way to be killed in Quebec.
--
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