Has the happy little boat of Canada sprung a leak?

[techumseh]

The Supreme Court set certain conditions before Quebec separation could occur.

The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec do not have, either under Canadian law or international law, the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.

However, the court also emphasized that the rest of Canada would have a political obligation to negotiate Quebec's separation if a clear majority of that province's population voted in favour of it.

http://www.canadianlawsite.com/clarity-act.htm

Quebec is the only province this applies to, because the founding of Canada was based on the unity of two peoples (we can't bring ourselves to say "nations", as that would clearly imply the right of self-determination).

It's also the only province where this is a realistic possibility. Nationalism is a real force in Quebec, and the Parti Quebecois has been in power several times and initiated 2 referendums, one of which only narowly lost.

Despite what nye is trying to suggest (did I hear a mention of trolling?) these conditions do not exist in any other provinces, including Alberta. In the 2003 Quebec election, the PQ got 33% of the popular vote, down from 42.4% the election before. In the recent Alberta election the Alberta Separatist Party got less than 1%.

And the proposition that the US would invade upon invitation of the Alberta government is preposterous. They're getting the oil, they're getting the gas, they're getting the pulp, and the beef. What's to invade for?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by techumseh
The Supreme Court set certain conditions before Quebec separation could occur.

http://www.canadianlawsite.com/clarity-act.htm

Quebec is the only province this applies to, because the founding of Canada was based on the unity of two peoples (we can't bring ourselves to say "nations", as that would clearly imply the right of self-determination).

One interpretation.

It's also the only province where this is a realistic possibility. Nationalism is a real force in Quebec, and the Parti Quebecois has been in power several times and initiated 2 referndums, one of which only narowly lost.

Not very realistic there anymore either (short of a major blunder by the feds which is always possible...).

Despite what nye is trying to suggest (did I hear a mention of trolling?)

I mentioned trolling in reference to another poster, not NYE

these conditions do not exist in any other provinces, including Alberta. In the 2003 Quebec election, the PQ got 33% of the popular vote, down from 42.4% the election before. In the recent Alberta election the Alberta Separatist Party got less than 1%.

Agreed, subject to the same proviso above.

And the proposition that the US would invade upon invitation of the Alberta government is preposterous. They're getting the oil, they're getting the gas, they're getting the pulp, and the beef. What's to invade for?

And besides, they are more than busy at the moment.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If Alberta seceded from Canada and applied to join the U.S., it would be part of the U.S. (B.C. also). We've got contingency plans going back before the Meech Lake days for that. We want the oil and minerals.

oh bologna. can you cite this? Why would the government bother wasting time drafting such plans??

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Geronimo


oh bologna. can you cite this? Why would the government bother wasting time drafting such plans??

Actually I wouldn't be suprised if the US has "contingency plans" for all sorts of absurd scenarios so plans for the invasion of their neighbor in certain circumstances don't seem that far-fetched

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Geronimo


oh bologna. can you cite this? Why would the government bother wasting time drafting such plans??

Actually I wouldn't be suprised if the US has "contingency plans" for all sorts of absurd scenarios so plans for the invasion of their neighbor in certain circumstances don't seem that far-fetched.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
oh bologna. can you cite this? Why would the government bother wasting time drafting such plans??

It was in The Chicago Tribune in 1987, just before the Meech Lake Accords were finalized. The U.S. at that time, only considered B.C. for inclusion, so that we would become contiguous with Alaska. This was a response to the Maritime provinces threat to secede and join the U.S. if Quebec seceded. The U.S. said it wasn't intereted in them (they're too poor).

Since that time, in the 90s, the U.S. government stated that if Canada broke up (because of the Quebec referendum), that it would agree to let Alberta join.

As a practical manner, the U.S. would likely not gobble up such provinces immediately, so as not to create undo ill will in Ottawa. In fact, we have an interest in keeping Canada whole, as buiness likes stability. Nonetheless, if Canda were to become a rump state of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we have plans for increasing our house.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Listen sweetheart, if the Gov of Alberta yelled help, there would be American tanks parked all over this province before the PM discovered he didn't have a thing to say about the matter

Don't be silly, little tiger...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo


If Canada reformed and Quebec threatened to leave, would it really threaten the unity of the rest of canada if it did? It seems to me that Canada without Quebec would get along just fine.

Why is it so important to keep Quebec happy even at the expense of not getting to have even a modicum of fairness in disbursement of tax revenues?

Because most Canadians feel that losing Quebec would mean the failure of Canada. We are sentimentally attached.

The coat of arms bears the sayings "A Mari usque ad Mare" (from sea to sea) and "Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam" (they desire a better country).

Canada without Quebec (or any other province) would be considered by most to be broken, and certainly would not be better.

It seems to be easy to mistake the intensity of the debates about provincial authority for sentiments in favour of breaking the country apart. That usually isn't the case.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




Don't be silly, little tiger...

Why not be silly? The individual it was a reply to suggested getting rid of federalism. However he would plan to do that remains a mystery. As much of a mystery as why the GofAlberta might hold a referendum on succession.

[Ben Kenobi]

Let me get you straight. The US will interfere in an internal Canadian political spat, thus creating an enemy of its greatest trading partner and making itself a pariah state among all its closest allies.

What allies?

And how is Canada their greatest trading partner? They are our greatest, taking 80 percent of what we send abroad, but that doesn't make us their greatest partner.

We've done everything we could to make ourselves a stench to them.

[Ben Kenobi]

As a practical manner, the U.S. would likely not gobble up such provinces immediately, so as not to create undo ill will in Ottawa. In fact, we have an interest in keeping Canada whole, as buiness likes stability. Nonetheless, if Canada were to become a rump state of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we have plans for increasing our house.

Sad to say, I would welcome a future as an American, rather than as a member of a divided Canada.

[Agathon]

Why not be silly? The individual it was a reply to suggested getting rid of federalism.

Which is a dumb system. You took my remarks that Federalism was silly (which you have provided no argument against) and started ranting on about how you have the choice of letting the Americans protect you.

However he would plan to do that remains a mystery.

By the usual means: political pressure slowly removing powers from provincial governments.

But it doesn't matter anyway. My argument was mainly that federalism is a silly system. You are the one squealing for Yankee muscle.

[Ben Kenobi]

Quebec is the only province this applies to, because the founding of Canada was based on the unity of two peoples (we can't bring ourselves to say "nations", as that would clearly imply the right of self-determination).

It's also the only province where this is a realistic possibility. Nationalism is a real force in Quebec, and the Parti Quebecois has been in power several times and initiated 2 referendums, one of which only narowly lost.

What about, say Hongcouver? Surely our population of Asian Canadians makes us just as distinctive in terms of a nation as Quebec.

The concept of two nations in Canada no longer makes sense, given the quilt of countries from which most Canadians have come.

Granted, there is more support for 'sovereignty association' in Quebec than there is in BC, but what does that consitute? Do Quebeckers really desire full fledged independence from Canada, and the consequences that come from that?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
NYE - While the issue is real and the points you make valid please don't overestimate the concern felt by the average Ontario resident.

The issue more accurately reflects on MCGuilty and his political troubles in the province. He is trying the age old 'bash the feds' approach to distract from provincial political problems.

The problem for the not so good Premier is that he is unlikely to gain much support this time round. Liberals don't care to see their federal cousins getting slagged and the rest of the voters are already convinced MCGuinty is a lightweight and are looking forward to replacing him.

I agree that it is politics on the part of McGuinty, but he has to do it. There is a large federal surplus and the vultures are circling. Meanwhile education, healthcare, and other social programs in Ontario are not in the position they should be for one of the richest provinces of a wealthy nation.

From here, it is hopeful that the debate about how federalism is financed is being brought up in other places. It doesn't feel so lonely all of a sudden.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why not be silly? The individual it was a reply to suggested getting rid of federalism. However he would plan to do that remains a mystery. As much of a mystery as why the GofAlberta might hold a referendum on succession.

Responding with stupidity to stupidity isn't generally considered good debating practice unless there was irony intended...