The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

[Mr. Harley]

notyoueither, very succinctly put. Do you have any idea how many insurgencies thye world has had in the last quarter century because the "seperatists" don't get it. They want the right to succede, but god forbid that any of their populations have a similiar right concerning adjoining political units (as in vote to join them instead of going with the successionists) or to split out on their own. "But that's different..."

Oncle Boris, you turn around and make both my points - paternalism and meaning well. You almost grant my point:

...If they want to leave, fine. My only point is: legally, a sovereign Quebec would simply get a transfer of authority from the federal, and as such would uphold any treaty that they have with the federal, which means that they would have no good, legal reason to whine about it...

Then you state

There is IMO a difference between paternalism and realism: when you look at it, they would have trouble sustaining their own country. They must import everything by plane, and I doubt they could afford it without the governmental help they receive. That, or they abandon their houses and resort to igloo-like lifestyle.

Igloos are primarily Inuit and Eskimo - the Cree are woodland peoples who had a very rich and varied culture long before the Europeans came on the scene. With the proper royalties from Hydro-Quebec (totally renegotiated with the option to SHUT DOWN the dam if there is no agreement - let's see how much better the deal is ). I'll bet they could return to a hybrid lifestyle combining the best of the modern world and village life. Hear of satellites? By the way, do any of you Canadians know if Hydro-Quebec has offered the Cree back-royalities on the unfair/coercive royalty deals from the 1960's or 70's - I don't know the answer, but I have strong suspicions.

There is an odd similarity I hadn't realized here. The South dominated the US government though 1860. All but one or two presidents either living there or being native Southerners, they had the majority leader in both houses almost without fail, and totally throughout the period dominated the Supreme Court. Yet they whined about Northerner's being unfair. Looking at Oncle Boris's post on various PM's, injustices, our unique institutions (couldn't resist the dig - I'm being slight unfair on that one, TROLL, TROLL), and splitting the economic pie and there's an unpleasant similarity. Just a thought.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
By the way, do any of you Canadians know if Hydro-Quebec has offered the Cree back-royalities on the unfair/coercive royalty deals from the 1960's or 70's - I don't know the answer, but I have strong suspicions.

In 1870, the British government ceded the north territories to Canada, stipulating that the government must obtain the surrender of indian titles to these lands. Of course, that last part was never done.

The northern territories were added to the province of Quebec in 1898 and 1912. One of the conditions of this last transfer was that the province would:
1 - recognize the rights of the aboriginal people
2 - Native people would relinquish these rights to the province. Again: nothing was done.

In both cases, acquiring those rights or getting native people to "relinquish" them would have required some kind of compensation right? I dare say that in 1912, nobody gave a **** about native rights. Either Canadians or Quebecois.

edit: the rights i am referring to are territorial rights.

When Quebec created the James Bay development society around 1970, they didn't acquire those rights either. In 1972 the Crees applied to the Quebec Superior Court for an injunction to stop all construction in the James Bay region. The injunction was granted on the grounds that the Government of Quebec had committed itself to settling Native land claims.

The injunction was overturned a couple of weeks later, on the condition that negociations get underway.

A first deal was reached in 1975 with the Crees, the Inuits, both levels of Govmt. and the various development corp. Compensation was 225 millions for the Crees and Inuits.
There was an addition to the deal in 1978, when the Naskapis nation was awarded 9 millions.


AFAIK there were no deals reached in either the Manicouagan or Chuchill Falls projects as far as native rights go. I can't say that i am familiar with the first nations that were involved in these either, if there were any. (probable)

BTW: I lived in James Bay for almost 10 years. My Dad worked for the subsidiary of Hydro Quebec that was responsible for the project.

[Richelieu]

And there are other things that i want to add to this thread but right now it is the end of the fiscal year where i work, i'm swamped, and i don't want to lose all my lunch break writing about this.

[Fake Boris]

I don't have time right now, but let's add that if I talked about royalties, I was obviously mistaken. My apologies.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Somehow i don't think that Boris is the best advocate to the separatist cause.

You wouldn't be the first to say this.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You wouldn't be the first to say this.

I know: a bunch of canucks have already said that!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Couple of points.

Most all First Nations in Canada are covered by treaties signed prior to settlement, or other settlements reached relatively recently in the case of people from areas settled prior to the treaty system. As such, I would not be in a hurry to say that any such group could up and leave Canada. It's a done deal, and Canada would react to such nonsense in much the same way that Poland would react to renewed territorial demands by Germany for lands lost after WW1 and 2.

There are large chunks of Canada where treaties were never signed, most notably all of British Columbia, with the exception of one recent treaty that the BC government is fighting.

In other cases, treaties were signed and then the Canadian government reneged on those treaties. One example is Ipperwash. The Stoney Creek Nation signed a treaty during WWII that gave land to the military to use for as long as it was required for the war effort. They say that need no longer exists. Ottawa has a different interpretation.

The First Nations argue that the treaties were signed between two nations - the Britain/Canada and the relevant first nation.

There is an argument that while they signed over their land, they did not sign over their soverignty.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Canada would be very unlikely to be willing to wage a civil war to keep Quebec...
Would Quebec be willing to use force to prevent a similar decision to theirs being exercised by others? That is what it comes down to.

And this is the pandora's box that seperation would open. It is easy to imagine that the First Nations in Quebec would demand independence. The Anglos in Montreal might do the same. It would then be a very small step to ethnic cleansing by Quebecers. The rest of Canada could easily decide to use military force to protect the Anglos and the First Nations. We then have civil war.

The US meanwhile could not remain neutral if the Quebec electricity grid was disrupted as this would cause massive blackouts in the NE United States. So the US would intervene for economic reasons.

US intervention could very easily become a rally cry for "freedom fighters" to engage in long-term terrorist acts in Canada and the US.

Would this scenario definitely happen? No. Is it a real possibility given what has happened throughout history? Yes.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And as for transfers, no one cares about them really.

Probably because Quebec has a net positive in this regard. It is the Western Provinces with their net negatives who typically care about this issue.

[Tingkai]

Oh man, don't get the Albertans started on that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by pchang
I can see it now.

1. Quebec declares independence from Canada and siezes control of all important assets in present day Qeubec.

2. The Cree declare their independence from Quebec and state their wish to rejoin Canada asking that the borders of Quebec be reset to those prior to the formation of the Confederation.

3. Quebec uses force to hold on to Hydo Quebec assets while insisting the Cree give sufficient time to negotiate terms.

4. The Cree appeal to Canada to intervene.

5. Canada invades Quebec.

6. Internal strife and Quebecoise terrorism cause Canada to splinter.

7. Newfoundland asks to become the 51st state of the US.

8. The Cree are exterminated as most of the assets of Hydro Quebec are destroyed.

9. British Columbia asks to become the 52nd state of the US. The rest of Western Canada soon follows suit.

10. Ontario and Quebec finally sue for peace after 10 years of bitter bloodshed.

11. Ontario collapses and asks to join the US.

12. Quebec becomes an impoverished slum and ignored in international politics. In a final irony, even France snubs Quebec.

and this results in swinging US politics far to the left, when we get all those NDP's and Ontario liberals in the US!!!

Seriously, youre right. The day Quebec secedes, the Cree secede from Quebec, in favor of Federal Canada. Once in Canada, the assets of Hydro Quebec fall under Canadian law. Quebec either gives the Cree whatever they want, or watches HQ pass under Canadian soveriegnty, or goes to war against the Cree. With the likelihood that the Cree appeal to Canada for help.


US opinion becomes decisive. Which is why all these guys HAVE to appeal to you and me - our opinion matters.

Unless of course Quebec and ROC can work things out on their own, and avoid secession altogether. Which is why someone like Trudeau, who feared the cultural and political dominance of the US, was such a firm federalist.

[Richelieu]

Apparently there is no lawful way to "undo" a country.

Consider this:
Quebec adhered to the BNA in 1867, which was basically the Canadian constitution. The BNA is no longer in effect and Quebec hasn't signed on to the new constitution. There have been both Federalist and Separatist government in power in Quebec since that new constitution has been enacted and none of them has seen it fit to sign on to the Canadian constitution as it stands.

Quebec does have borders that are legally/internationaly recognized i believe. Any individual, country or corporation wishing to do commerce or deal in any way at the provincial level with Quebec is subject to do it within the limits of its territory only. If not de jure, at the international level, at least de facto borders then. (Although i am pretty much certain that the current borders do have a legal value, but i guess a lawyer would know more about this than i do) I know that that argument has been used to justify that Quebec's claim on Labrador were void since it entered in contracts with Newfoundland & Labrador for transport of electricity: it implicitly accepted the territory's borders.

Also: i realize that i've been educated in Quebec's school system by teachers who were very probably overwhelmingly in favor of independance. That may hastainted their / my vision of things but : what i was taught was that nations have a right to "dispose of themselves".
Then came the definition of a nation, which included a distinct culture and a geographical area governed by a representative legislative body. I believe Quebec does meet all of these requirements. Gotta go now but i'll come back later.

[The Mad Viking]

I love Quebec, and believe the French-Canadian culture greatly enriches Canada.

I understand, and believe very legitimate, the fear of loss of culture.

Anyone who disputes that Quebec is a distinct society is either lying or ignorant.

Yes, all provinces have their idiosyncrasies. But Quebec IS a distinct society; and, of course, this was understood in the founding of Canada.

Separation is a response to fear. Many Anglos exacerbate the fear. Many, especially in the west, have a xenophobic response to French-Canadians. It is sad.

Love thy neighbour.

Make them feel welcome.

Don't begrudge them the few rights which have been bestown to respect their differences.

[Fake Boris]

Richelieu: I'd like to know why you seem to disagree so much with me.

Imran is obviously wrong, no dispute on this.

Are you separatist?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Richelieu
AFAIK there were no deals reached in either the Manicouagan or Chuchill Falls projects as far as native rights go. I can't say that i am familiar with the first nations that were involved in these either, if there were any. (probable)

No long post for me today, but small specification here: Churchill Falls in on Newfoundland territory and has nothing to do with the Quebecois government.

[Zylka]

Question is - would a western Alberta/BC sovereign state be viable?