Has the happy little boat of Canada sprung a leak?

[Ben Kenobi]

I've lived here long enough to realize that western whining is effectively meaningless.

Ah, but not when it's between Ontario and Quebec. They are the titans of Canada, and in some sense, if Ontario wades into the fray, than we really have something going on.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sad to say, I would welcome a future as an American

Please pursue one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Plus you need to balance things since Alberta is likely a red state and BC a blue state.

The majority of British Columbian MPs are Conservative. The real question is does Conservative here mean 'right of the Democrats?'

[Ben Kenobi]

Please pursue it

Says the man who lives and works in Maryland...

I've never travelled down to the US other than to go in Disneyland, even though I live, maybe 50 km North of the border.

I would prefer to live in a united Canada rather than be part of the US. However, to be part of a divided Canada, makes no sense to me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


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.

Uhmm, Ben? Canada was 23% of American exports in goods ytd as of Dec 2004. That was the biggest by far with Mexico being 13.5% and then Japan 6.6% and it trailing off from there.

Conversely, we are also number one with 17.4% of their imports, but followed closely by China with 13.4%. The biggest difference would be the huge amount of raw materials we ship down there for processing, whereas China is shipping them finished goods.

It is the largest trade relationship on the planet.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

I accept this as a lesson in that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thanks.

I wasn't sure if China sent them more goods than we do.b:

[KrazyHorse]

Ben, I'll PH this one for you. I didn't say that you were pursuing a future in the US. I said that I wished you would.

You should really try to put some thought into your comebacks.

[Ben Kenobi]

Read the first line...

Do you really want me to move closer to where you are now?

[KrazyHorse]

a) Your post was an obvious indication of your misunderstanding of my intent, despite any attempts from you to spin it differently. The latter part of it clinches this.

b) What do I care? It's better to watch somebody taking a dump in my neighbour's yard while I'm visiting them than it is to watch somebody take a dump in my yard from across the fence.

[chequita guevara]

Canada is our bestest friend in the whole world.

[notyoueither]

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).

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?

I believe you are mistaken in a couple of points.

First, the SCoC ruling doesn't just apply to Quebec and it does not categorically rule out unilateral declarations of independence. There is a reason that it is being considered in places like Australia. To suggest that it somehow singled out Quebec for special rights is an interesting read of it, but...

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html

Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order.

Where does it say that only Quebec has the right to initiate constitutional change?

the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada.

Here they specifically mention Quebec, which makes sense since it is the case of Quebec they are considering. However, it would be very odd to suggest that Quebec alone, among all provinces, has some rights that no others enjoy.

Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is not ruled out. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition.

In other words, unilateral independence is not impossible if negotiations are not fruitful.

And then there is the founding myth. You are correct that Canadian law and custom give a heavy weight to the place of the French in the settlement of the country. However, you are mistaken in the organization of Canada.

In 1867 4 British colonies were welded together into the Dominion of Canada, not 'two founding peoples'. Over the following 80 years 3 more colonies would agree to join and 3 more provinces were created. Nowehere along the way did anyone sign onto 'Quebec can go, but all the rest of you are stuck.'

Consider, the ink was not yet dry on the British North America Act when secession was discussed in earnest in Nova Scotia. Later on it was a possibility that British Columbia might bolt if the transcontinental railroad were not completed in good time (it was a term of their joining). In fact, there is a history of provinces debating whether to join, and whether to stay or go that predates Quebec nationalism by 100 years.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Get a clue. Quebec cannot legally separate. No province can (there is nothing in the law that requires the Federal government to recognize a separatist referendum as binding). But support for it there could easily increase back to previous levels. Then you have a real problem on your hands if they win a referendum. Such a referendum doesn't give them the right to separate, but it might make it inevitable. Imposing the Anglo Federal government on Quebec would be nuclear compared to doing it to other provinces due to the fact that they are French.

Actually, have you heard that we have a Supreme Court, and that they have already ruled on the matter?

No law that requires recognition of a seperatist vote as binding? Do you mean to say that we have no laws covering seperation of a province from Confederation?

[Agathon]

Actually, have you heard that we have a Supreme Court, and that they have already ruled on the matter?

No law that requires recognition of a seperatist vote as binding? Do you mean to say that we have no laws covering seperation of a province from Confederation?

No. The government has to negotiate in good faith with a province that votes to secede - this does not mean "it has to accept the secession".

Besides, you still haven't provided a reasonable defence of Federalism.

[notyoueither]

But is there any law that deals with seperation other than the ruling oif the court?

The only defence federalism needs is that it is the desire of most of the people in most of the provinces that that be the way we govern ourselves.

Now, if you can get a majority of all provinces to go along with your fancy that federalism be changed to a strict central power and strip the provinces of most of theirs, then by all means feel free to amend our constitution.

Until then you are talking out of your ass.

And when that happens in just 9 out of 10, I support the right of the 10th to say, '**** this, we're out-a-here.'