NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/can/politics/9709

Text File | 1992-11-15 | 8.3 KB | 183 lines

Newsgroups: can.politics
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!cs.ubc.ca!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 19:49:36 GMT
Lines: 170

[e-mail] (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>That may be true, but we don't trade with Ontario much either.

>Correspondingly, this suggests that you don't care about any trade
>boycotts that do not actually affect BC.

I do if it is going to cost BC taxpayers directly.

>>>2) With Ontario representing the majority of the CSQ population and
>>>   economy, this boycott would clearly hurt CSQ.  You are putting your
>>>   desires AHEAD of those of CSQ!
>>
>>Pure Central Canada think. Whats good for Ontario and Quebec

>The shakes and shingles episode was "Bad for BC", and correspondingly
>was also "Bad for Canada."  Is always the case that "Bad for Ontario
>--> Bad for Canada" is always "Central-Canada-think"?

Not always, although I would sure like it if Ontario offered to do
something for BC that wasn't beneficial for Ontario. I can't think of
any examples.

For example, I remember the coal issue. BC producers of coal wanted to
sell coal to Ontario. Ontario [under Pederson?] decided to buy high
sulphur US coal rather than low sulphur BC coal because BC coal was
more expensive. It didn't matter that BC coal would help cut acid
rain. It did matter that Ontario wanted to keep the price down and
keep the jobs in the US northeast.

>If, as you suggest, trade between BC and Quebec is irrelevant, then BC
>has no direct interest (for or against) in trade with Quebec.

I'm sure BC would prefer that Ontario buys goods and services from BC
instead of Quebec, but I know that price is more important in Ontario
than jobs and taxes in BC.

>It is pretty obvious that, to Ontario, trade with Quebec IS fairly
>important.  There is quite a bit of it.  Supposing it was cut off,
>this would (among other ill effects) increase unemployment in Ontario.

>This would correspond axiomatically to an increase in unemployment in
>the larger CSQ, and would increase UIC premiums across the country,
>and would certainly NOT improve things for other provinces.

On the other hand, if a tariff barrier was set up between Ontario and
Quebec on goods and services the other provinces can or do produce,
then tax revenue and jobs would stay in Canada, not go to Quebec.

>Is anything that happens in Ontario necessarily a plot against the
>rest of the country?  That sounds a LITTLE paranoid to me.

If you could name an example or two of a situation where the federal
government or the Ontario government enacted a tax policy or trade
policy that was good for BC but not for Ontario or Quebec, I'd like to
hear it. I can think of many that went the opposite way, like the NEP
which took 100 billion from Alberta, 10 billion from Saskatchewan and
5 billion from BC. Or the high interest rate policy enacted when
inflation was high in Toronto, a policy that made things alot tougher
for BC when our inflation rate *wasn't* high.

>>>3) And in the (fairly unlikely) event that Quebec "backs down" and
>>>   accepts equality with the smaller provinces, British Columbia's
>>>   influence in Ottawa can only grow.
>>
>>Quebec is one of 10 provinces. It can delude itself that it isn't, but
>>the referendum vote in BC was clear -- no special deals for Quebec.

>What's your point?  Are you agreeing with the assertion, or
>disagreeing?  The issue was BC's influence in Ottawa - not Quebec's
>influence.

I think *all* provinces should benefit from economic policy set in
Ottawa. Not every policy has to benefit BC, but Ottawa is losing big
because of its obsession with Central Canada during this recession,
while trade with Asia was still doing well. Ottawa needs a
pan_canadian focus. it needs to maximize trade with Asia through BC
even if Ontario and Quebec aren't that interested with Asia.
BC needs more influsence in Ottawa, and Ottaw should be transferring
some of it's trade ministries out to Vancouver, so they are closer to
Asia. 3000 miles from Vancouver is too far to understand or take
advantage of Asian trade.

>>>I also think you would not at all be sorry to see Quebec go, and your
>>>vociferous promotion of this "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude is a way
>>>to force Quebec out.  You expect them to accept a reduction in federal
>>>influence (via a EEE Senate) and are not willing to consider a
>>>transfer of powers.
>>
>>I think the principal of a EEE Senate is very important, and I have no
>>problem with a transfer of powers as long as Quebec is declared a have
>>province and BC doesn't have to subsidize Quebec or these new powers.

>Which doesn't answer the "take-it-or-leave-it" proposition...

It's not a way to force Quebec out, it's a way to force Quebec to make
a decision. The indecisiveness has cost us billions and many years
that could have been spent on restructuring our econonmy.

>>>  This in spite of the fact that British Columbia
>>>has common provincial interests with Quebec in that area!  (ie.
>>>transfer of powers) Quebecers of all stripes have explained how they
>>>think that most Quebecers would prefer a better deal with Canada than
>>>to go it alone, and that their pride could force them to act
>>>drastically if the federal structure is not changed.  You would
>>>change it into something even less agreeable to Quebec.
>>
>>Its too bad Quebec keeps insisting it is better than anyone else, but
>>it isn't. I'm sure Quebec would love more power and more of *my* money
>>to pay for those powers. The answer is NO.

>Which is to say that you don't want to be agreeable with Quebec in
>either answer or attitude.  Which means that they're not likely to
>want to be agreeable either.

You mean to be *agreeable* I have to give in to them. Nice definition
of agreeable -- very beneficial for Quebec.

>>>In a CSQ, you wouldn't have to contend less with bilingual labelling
>>>(you probably would continue to see bilingual labelling on products
>>>coming from Ontario).
>>
>>Sounds good. In BC french is an irrelevant language to most people.
>>
>>>In a CSQ, British Columbia would become the major foil to Ontario,
>>>instead of often being a third leg on the Central Canadian tug-of-war.
>>
>>3rd. Ha. If we *were* treated as the 3rd most important province it
>>would be a step up. BC is a Pacific Rim province. Ottawas obsession
>>with Quebec is costing *Canada* billions of dollars and is making
>>*Canada* lose out on a lot of trade.

>Which trade is Canada losing out on?  What would people buy that they
>aren't now?  What would they sell that they aren't now?  If your
>assertion is true, this is an interesting fact that nobody has heard
>about to date.

Over 40% of BC's exports go to Asia. I'm not sure of the Canadian
figure , but I know it's much lower. Asia is wide open for Canada, but
Ottawa barely knows it exists.

>>As for a EEE Senate -- that would be good for Canada (without gender
>>balancing or first nations seats) but Quebec and Ontario are too
>>greedy to give up power in the Senate to make the rest of the
>>provinces feel welcome in Ottawa.

>EEE would certainly change the power structures in Canada.  It is
>arguable whether this would actually be "good for Canada."  It would
>provide a representational system that might make the federal
>government represent lower-population provinces somewhat better.

Like a federal system is supposed too.

>Strengthening the powers of already existant provincial governments
>might be more effective, and would complicate the federal system a lot
>less.

Nonsense. A true federal system would be good for the country as a
whole, even if it might lower the power of Quebec and Ontario.

>"Feeling welcome" is something that nobody can ever force.  It is
>something that requires BOTH sides to make themselves vulnerable.

I though the whole CA was designed to make Quebec feel more welcome at
the expense of BC. It's too bad there never seems to be a national
crisis if the Western Provinces feel unwelcome.
--
......