NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/can/politics/9717

Text File | 1992-11-15 | 19.5 KB | 443 lines

Newsgroups: can.politics
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!nott!cunews!csi.uottawa.ca!news
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: prgv
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 03:15:09 GMT
Lines: 430

Keywords:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>[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.

Well, here's a causality chain:
1) Quebec separates
2) CSQ cuts off trade with Quebec
  This has the result:
3) Ontarians whose jobs depend on imports from Quebec find their jobs
at least disrupted.  If they're not lucky, the jobs may be lost
altogether.  This means that:
4) Ontario's share of the CSQ federal tax bill drops due to losses in
personal taxes, corporate taxes, and increased social spending (more
UIC and welfare).  This has the result that:
5) In order that the total taxes collected are "adequate", the
national tax rates go up.
6) When national tax rates go up, BC taxpayers pay more in taxes.

None of these steps are unreasonable, and they connect in fairly
reasonable and obvious ways.

Does this qualify as a way in which cutting off trade with Quebec
hurts BC taxpayers?

>>>>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.

If "Ontario" did something for BC that wasn't beneficial for Ontario,
the provincial government that did such a thing would probably not get
re-elected, since the mandate of the government of Ontario is to look
out for the interests of Ontarians, (and more often, for the interests
of the government of Ontario).

What you maybe should be thinking of is rather the issue of the
FEDERAL government doing something that's bad for Ontario, and good
for BC?

>For example, I remember the coal issue. BC producers of coal wanted to
>sell coal to Ontario. Ontario [under Pederson?] decided to buy high
                                      Peterson (or was it David
                                      Petersen?)
>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.

(a) That was a decision at the provincial level, was it not?  Not a
federal decision.  I thought we were talking about the FEDERAL
government.  The provincial governments look out for their own
provinces' interests, as they ought to.

(b) Cost IS a valid criterion that can help for decision making.

(c) "Jobs in the US northeast" was one of the crucial criteria for
Ontario?!?  It may have been the criteria used by the US coal
producers to determine the price they quoted.  It was hardly a crucial
criterion in Ontario's decision.

>>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.

How, precisely, does a tariff barrier keep a job in Ontario?  It
increases the cost of goods in CSQ, and reduces overall production,
and throws away the economic principle of comparative advantage.

You obviously have missed the reductions in tariff barriers that have
taken place internationally over the last 40 years.  (The body
involved is commonly known as "GATT").  Countries all over the world
have found that it is economically advantageous to reduce tariffs,
encouraging trade with foreign nations.  Canada has done this perhaps
more than anyone else, and most of the job growth over the past 10-15
years has related to trade.

Protectionism hurts BOTH sides.  It would hurt Quebec, and it would
hurt CSQ.

>>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.

(a) Interprovincial trade is in the federal jurisdiction.

(b) Ontario's tax policies generally won't relate to BC.  Except
insofar as BC enterprises do business in Ontario, Ontario has no
jurisdiction to tax BC businesses.

(c) As I've already said several times, it isn't the responsibility of
the Ontario government to enact trade or tax policies that will
benefit BC.  That's the responsibility of the BC provincial
government.  An Ontario government that "thinks of BC first" is one
that will get defeated very quickly in the next election.  What would
you think about the idea of the BC government enacting policies with
the primary goal being to "aid Ontarians"?  Stupid idea, eh?  It's not
just a stupid idea because it looks bad to you, it's also stupid
because the point to the provincial governments is to try to the best
job they can for their OWN province.

(d) Does a federal policy have to be bad for Ontario and Quebec in
order to be good for BC?

(i) I would hope that we can find some "non-zero-sum games" in which a
policy actually benefits ALL regions of the country.

(ii) Have the feds ever spent money on specific programs in BC?  If I
wanted to be "strict" about the definition of "a policy that was good
for BC but not for Ontario or Quebec," I could consider that spending
programs like that benefitted BC "at the expense of Ontario and
Quebec," which could fall under the definition.

>>>>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,...
[Other irrelevent mutterings omitted]

You still haven't answered the question.  The assertion was: "Under
either Quebec separating or Quebec staying, BC's influence will
increase."  Some reasons, way back when, were given for this
assertion.  You're changing the subject to Quebec/Ontario's influence,
when we're talking about the influence of BC.

>>>>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.

Not a bad way to look at it, although I'd suggest that it IS easy to
interpret it (rightly OR wrongly) as trying to "force Quebec out."

A common statement about things political is that "It's not
enough to avoid the FACT of <evil>, it is also necessary to avoid the
APPEARANCE of <evil>."

Unfortunately, the propositions you suggest do have the APPEARANCE
that they could be ultimata intended to be rejected.

>>>>  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.

That's not what I said.

If CSQ spends its time spewing out things that LOOK like ultimata,
Quebec wouldn't even waste their time considering them.

"Negotiation" is a process in which two parties try to come up with an
agreement, by discussing/offering a set of possible bargains.  If you
go into the process with an attitude that you don't want to agree to
offer ANYTHING, that's not bargaining.  And it won't turn out very
well.

>>>>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.

Then this shows that there are some business people that should be
travelling to Asia.  It's not Ottawa that would be doing the trading -
they're just supposed to make an environment that's reasonably
amenable so that Canadians can take advantage of the trading
opportunities.

If there's more trade that should be done with Asia, and it's so easy,
why are you wasting your time here?  YOU could be earning big bucks
trading with Asia.

How would you propose that the Feds encourage more trade with Asia?
If you've got some profitable ideas, then chances are, it's worthwhile
for private citizens and companies to do the job.  It doesn't MATTER
if Ottawa knows that Asia exists, so long as the laws governing trade
are sufficiently liberal.  It often works better if the government
just keeps their nose out of the picture.

If there's some sort of nasty trade barrier that's cutting BC off from
Asia, that would be an issue to bring up with Ottawa.  Otherwise, why
look a gift horse in the mouth?  If Ontario companies can't be
bothered with trading with Asia, that's their loss, and BC's gain.

>>>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.

The House of Commons is set up on the basis of representation by
population.  To represent low-population provinces in the same way
that larger provinces are represented would go against this basis.

To do this would mean that votes in small provinces would count more
than votes in large provinces (population-wise).  This would mean
that, for instance, a vote in BC would be worth twice as much as a
vote in Ontario.  This is contrary to the principle that all Canadians
ought to be equal.

>>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.

Please consider:

Provincial governments already exist.
They are intended to represent their individual provincial regions.

If you want to reduce the influence Ontario and Quebec have over the
aggregate, Canada, what is simpler:

1) Redesign the federal government so that Ontario and Quebec are
weaker?

This isn't terribly practical, seeing as how Canada IS a federal
democracy that elects representatives based on representation by
population.

The citizens of Ontario and Quebec won't agree to this option, because
it is clearly not in their interests.

2) Reduce the influence of the Federal government, devolving
responsibilities to the provincial governments?

This would give Ontario and Quebec some additional powers that they
didn't have before, but removes the VALUE of the influence that they
have on the federal government.  The net effect is that Ontario &
Quebec would have slightly less power.

On the other hand, the other provinces would gain a great deal of
influence relating to the things that affect them.

You CAN'T do 1).  If you think there was disagreement over
Charlottetown, you ain't seen nothing yet!  Ontario wouldn't be split
49.5/50.5 - it would be 5% for, and 95% against.  (There's enough
idiots in any population to give an untenable position a 5% "For"
vote.)

2) offers a sort of continuum that might be able to do some of what
you want.

I'll play a number game for a minute.  Let's suppose that what's out
there is a resource called "power".  And there's 600 units of it.

100 units is classified as "Provincial Power".

Ontario has 30 units of that.
Quebec has 25 units.
BC has about 10 units.
And other provinces hold the other 35 units.

On the other hand, 500 units are classified as "National Power."  It's
controlled based on the total population of the country.

Ontario and Quebec, since they hold 55% of the population, have the
capability to pretty effectively control the whole 500 units of
"National Power."  They effectively have control of 555 units of
Power, which completely outweighs the mere 45 units that the other
provinces hold.

Proposal 1) is kind of like saying "Please put down your 55% control,
and let me have control for a while.  You've been mean to me, and I
want my chance to have control."

Since they legitimately hold 55% of the National Power due to their
population, and there's little reason to believe that BC, if in
control, would be nice to Ontario and Quebec, they're going to tell
you to "take a hike."  They can quite legitimately demand that they
hold 275 units of National Power, in addition to the 35 units of
Provincial Power that they control individually.

Now, what you're proposing is that BC should have some more Power.
Arbitrarily redistributing Power on a non-representational basis would
be quite dangerous.

On the other hand, Proposal 2) would suggest that maybe we can
redistribute the 600 units of Power.  Maybe 100 Provincial and 500
National isn't ideal.  Perhaps it should be reversed.  500 Provincial,
and 100 National.  Under this regime, the distribution would be as
follows:

              Provincial Power       National Power
Ontario             150                    30
Quebec              125                    25
BC                   50                    10
Others              175                    35

Now, Ontario and Quebec would still have effective control of 375
units of Power (their Provincial Powers 150 and 125, plus effective
control of the 100 units of National Power), when their "fair share"
of the total Power is only 330, but this is a considerable improvement
for everyone else.

BC goes from having control of 10 units of Power to having 50 units.
It's a little less than the "fair share" of 60, but it's a pretty
massive improvement in the apparent fairness.

This "example" of how devolving "Power" to the provinces is certainly
simplified, but shows how it WOULD make the distribution of power more
equitable.

It wouldn't make BC more powerful than Ontario, but THAT would require
more than a mere redistribution of power - THAT would require that BC
become master over Ontario.  I can't imagine of any purely political
way of that happening any time soon.  If trade with Asia makes BC
rich and powerful, THAT could make BC more powerful than Ontario.  But
without changes to the NATURE of Ontario or BC, Ontario IS more
powerful.

(If it bothers you that Ontario has more power than BC, does it also
bother you that the USA has more power than BC?  If not, then more
likely than not, you're prejudiced against Ontario, and NO solution
could please you.)

>>"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.

Yes, it's too bad.  Unfortunately, that's a function of the fact that
there are smaller populations and economies in western Canada than
there are in Quebec.

So long as there are more people and dollars in Quebec than there are
in BC, Quebec will have more influence on interest rates than BC.
That's not a moral issue - it's a simple statement of fact.

--
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
[e-mail]           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier