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: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:34:41 GMT


>>> & > (Gerry Gryschuk) writes:
>>>>& >>  Bruce Schuck (me) writes:


>> 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'm sure it would be in Quebecs best interest, but since it takes two
to tango -- another euphamism -- can you guarantee it would be in the
best interests of Canada and the US?

I'm sure some states thats compete directly with Quebec industry and
resources would fight it. One of the big problems BC has is that the
Southern lumber producers want tariffs on Canadian lumber.

Bill Clinton is from the south and may listen to them. 

BC would hate to open up the FTA if it gave them another shot at 
keeping BC lumber -- and Quebecs paper products -- out of the US.

>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.

The US would let Quebec in if it is in their best interests,
not out of charity. There is no gurantee it will be in their best
interest. They will decide , not us.

>> 
>>>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? 

I *hope* they don't want us.

>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.

True, but it takes years to become a state -- look at Puerto Rico and
the D of C. Hawaii and Alaska had a long wait.

>> 
>>>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, 

From the House.

>>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.

Why is it an act of aggression?

The unemployment rate is 11%. We can't afford to offer Canadian
citizenship to everyone in Quebec. We don't have jobs for all the
people in english Canada *now*. We don't need or want millions of
people streaming in from Quebec.

>> 
>>>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. 

If there is an infrastructure left.

If the tax revenue cannot maintain the infrastructure in
transportation, telecommunication, etc then there will be nothing for
those competitive industries to build on.

>Considering
>the years of deficit spending and protectionism that has proceeded the
>FTA it is understandable that some industries will be useless dinosaurs.

Some? It sounds like lots.

>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.

Very true.

>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.

Yes...it would help.

>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.

It's tough to compete against the massive subsidies generated by the
US and EEC.


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