NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/can/politics/9726

Text File | 1992-11-16 | 7.7 KB | 198 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: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:57:07 GMT
Lines: 185

[e-mail] (Christopher Browne) writes:

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


>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:

I sincerely doubt Ontario couldn't buy goods and services cheaper from
the US. Theres no doubt goods from Quebec are going to be more
expensive.


>>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).

SO why are you getting on my case about looking out for BC's best
interests?

>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?

Never been done in my memory.


>>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.

I sincerely doubt goods will be cheaper in Quebec. Ontario will be
able to buy anthing Quebec produces cheaper in the US.

>>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 lot off irrelevant answers omitted]


>>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.

Tough.



>>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.

Ok...so you don't think Ottawa should be promoting trade with Asia.
Why not?



>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.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of *federal*.
In a federal system, the people are equal in one House, while the
provinces or states are equal in the other.

>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.

The principal of federalism concersn the equality of the provinces as
well. As long as we don't have a EEE Senate, we have a dysfunctional
federal system. Canada was created by the coming together of Provinces.


>>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.)

I understand the naked greed for power that prevents Ontario and
Quebec from allowing a true federal system. Thats why BC voted 2 - 1
against the CA.

[lots of drivel justifying Quebecs and Ontarios greed omitted]

>(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.)

Try using an example that fits. Does it bother California that Rhode
Island has the same # of Senators. Not really, because the principal
of equality of the states is understood in the US.


>>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.

Western Canada combined has the same population. And 2 out of the 4
provinces contribute to equalization, while Quebec is just welfare
case. I think the *contributors* should have more power.

>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.

Thats why we shit on the CA. Thats a simple statement of fact.