 |
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
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: quote:
...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 quote:
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
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by Richelieu on 31-03-2004 at 07:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:35
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
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?
Last edited by Oncle Boris on 31-03-2004 at 06:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Question is - would a western Alberta/BC sovereign state be viable?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle 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? |
I'll try and answer.
1 - Yes i am for the independence of Quebec.
2 - "Imran is obviously wrong, no dispute on this."
What are you referring to specifically? I am not so sure that he is wrong per say. I am not certain that there are provisions in international law that provide for a way to undo a country. The fact that the UN may have a definition of what a nation is and whether or not Quebec qualifies is only one aspect of this (If this is what you were referring to). I haven't seen or heard of any laws that would apply to such a process and a UN definition is not "legally binding" in itself AFAIK.
3 - Why i disagree with you so much? I'm 39 years old. I've lived all my life with this debate in the background. I take it seriously and I find that most people think with their hearts or don't think at all when it comes to this. Whether on the Canadian or Quebec side a lot of arguments are put forth that frankly are not only unconvincing but sometimes dead wrong.
For example:
quote:
In fact, if Anglo districts had the right to secede from Quebec, we should not even consider their vote for a referendum. |
I can't even begin to comment on that.
Talking about Quebecois PM's
quote:
They don't control the government- those who do have to forgive their Quebecois origins and start bashing on their province. |
That's BS. They have a different view and a different allegiance, so they defend that view and that allegiance. If you haven't noticed, a majority of Quebecois still agree with them. There have been referendums that have proven that.
Ah well...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richelieu
2 - "Imran is obviously wrong, no dispute on this."
What are you referring to specifically? I am not so sure that he is wrong per say. I am not certain that there are provisions in international law that provide for a way to undo a country. The fact that the UN may have a definition of what a nation is and whether or not Quebec qualifies is only one aspect of this (If this is what you were referring to). I haven't seen or heard of any laws that would apply to such a process and a UN definition is not "legally binding" in itself AFAIK.
|
The UN approves of undoing a country if it is oppressed. Obviously, Quebec isn't.
However, Imran denied that the federal has the obligation to discuss with Quebec in the case of a OUI. Obviously, the term 'negociate' implies that Quebec can use the threat of a secession which has been granted by its people, or else there would no incentive at all for a fair talk. That is why the question was:
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"
quote:
For example:
I can't even begin to comment on that.
|
Oh well, then I'll explain you. The underlying idea behind any democracy is that its citizens must have a sincere feeling towards the nation they belong to. This is the reason why people in Ontario didn't vote in our referendum- they have nothing to do with it. This is the reason why the upcoming referendums on 'fusions municipales' will be held in each city separately: because, if you take all the votes of Westmount and Montreal together, Montreal will absorb the votes of Westmount. Each and every political body has to give its separate agreement. This means, at least 50% of Westmount and 50% of Pierrefonds and so forth.
However, if Westmount had the right to secede from Quebec, that would be because they form a different political body. Say they held a referendum that said "do we secede from the Republic of Quebec and join Canada?" - obviously, the people of Longueuil wouldn't vote in it.
Therefore, in the case that interests us - the 1995 referendum - the logical conclusion of this would be that the poll results of Westmount and the rest of Quebec should be taken separately, and not counted together.
quote:
Talking about Quebecois PM's
That's BS. They have a different view and a different allegiance, so they defend that view and that allegiance. If you haven't noticed, a majority of Quebecois still agree with them. There have been referendums that have proven that.
Ah well... |
Imran wanted to say that Quebec was not oppressed, as demonstrated by Quebecois PMs in Ottawa. Obviously, this is not a valid argument, because these PMs have not done much to defend Quebec. It is Trudeau who sent the army, and it is Chretien who backstabbed its OWN province to prevent Meech from functioning. How many Quebecois disagree with Meech?
Sorry, but when half of Quebec is NOT represented and mostly ignored by Ottawa, except for bribes and tuitions, I don't call this a province running a country. I call this the rest of the country imposing the rule of one half of our province over the other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wezil
Let's start with three key issues:
1) Canada is divisible but Quebec is not. Why not? |
Good question. If Quebec is divisible, on what basis is it divisible? According to which criterias? I can tell you that Canada is divisible in my opinion because Quebec fullfills all the requirements for a nation. Quebec can be clearly identified as a geographical entity and has been given juridiction over its territory. It has a recognized representative government. It also has a culture distinct from the Canadian culture.
If parts of Quebec can secede after independence, would it be under the same conditions? I don't think so.
The parts that would secede would do so under the Canada umbrella: We don't want to be part of Quebec so we remain a part of Canada.
And there is the question: can they do that? Do they have jurisdiction over that piece of land that they say is their territory? Do they have more jurisdiction over it than Quebec does?
quote:
2) We will use the Cdn currency but have more control over our economy. When Canada sets rates and currency supply? Sounds like a Puerto Rico situation to me.... |
That's a non issue. You can't prevent it. But since it would not last IMO, it is true that it is only a gimmick. That issue was brought up in the late 70's IIRC as a way to reassure those who got frightened by those who made jokes about an independant Quebec and its new "Laurentian" dollar.
quote:
3) Quebecers employed in the Fed civil service will remain so employed. Oh really? |
I can't see anything that would justify that. Anyone who believes that is a dumbass. And yes: there are a lot of them. (NB: I work at the National research Council of Canada in Ottawa and i live in Gatineau, Quebec)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Oh well, then I'll explain you. The underlying idea behind any democracy is that its citizens must have a sincere feeling towards the nation they belong to. This is the reason why people in Ontario didn't vote in our referendum- they have nothing to do with it. This is the reason why the upcoming referendums on 'fusions municipales' will be held in each city separately: because, if you take all the votes of Westmount and Montreal together, Montreal will absorb the votes of Westmount. Each and every political body has to give its separate agreement. This means, at least 50% of Westmount and 50% of Pierrefonds and so forth.
However, if Westmount had the right to secede from Quebec, that would be because they form a different political body. Say they held a referendum that said "do we secede from the Republic of Quebec and join Canada?" - obviously, the people of Longueuil wouldn't vote in it.
Therefore, in the case that interests us - the 1995 referendum - the logical conclusion of this would be that the poll results of Westmount and the rest of Quebec should be taken separately, and not counted together.
|
Sure: but you have to give them their independence before you hold the Quebec referendum. If you are keeping them out of the Quebec referendum because they are a different political body and have a different allegiance, then take them out completely of Quebec.
Beforehand.
And by the way: i have reason to believe that the Crees will also want to hold their own referendum and secede from Quebec so you should probably boot them out too.
And my brother is federalist: he's thinking of creating the republic of 333 Beaubien street, apt. 22. He'll want out.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They don't. They can simply renege on the negotiations and they wouldn't be compelled to do so. They can always change the law.
|
No. The Supreme Court ruled that they would be forced to listen to the result of a referendum. Are you deaf, idiot or both?
They could change the law to disallow democratic referendums, but there's a thing called 'Godwin law' and I don't want to invoke it against you, again. 
Or they could always amend that Constitution we've never signed?
quote:
So it's not a valid argument because all these Quebec PMs haven't followed your idea of what they should follow?
|
Get a clue about our history you moron. The PM that was the most friendly to Quebec was Mulroney (an Anglo).
There are several stances on the issue:
-hard federalism
-renewed federalism
-separatism
About NO ONE is Quebec is an hardline federalist; a significant minority is in favor of separatism, and about the rest wants a RENEWED federalism. Both Trudeau and Chretien, the two most significant French Canadian PMs, were hard federalists, and played some dirty tricks to prevent a renewed federalism (these tricks are the reason why Quebec, disgusted, refused to sign the Constitution).
They were not defenders of Quebec at Ottawa, they were defenders of RoC at the detriment of Quebec. If Quebec had been ruling the confederation, they would be part of the constitution. That a few PMs came from here doesn't mean anything, unless you compare their deeds with the popular will.
To say that Quebec has been ruling the confederation, you would need to prove that the separatists and nationalists have been somewhat heard. What has happened, though, is that the soft minority (hard federalists) has ruled over the moderate to hardcore majority (mild nationalists and separatists) with the help of the RoC. To say otherwise is complete ignorance of the political situation in Canada.
quote:
Quebec benefits most of all from the Canadian system. They get the most money out of it and basically run the whole thing (the parties and PMs). The fact that they don't suck Quebec's dick at every corner doesn't mean Quebec is being trampled over.
|
No, we're not being oppressed or anything but there is a significant unheard voice here. That's why the PQ is a strong party, and the Bloc remains a significant political force. The vast majority of Quebec's liberals are elected in the Anglo districts; French support of the Liberal party is not even at 30%, while the Bloc is at 45%.
BTW, we are in the middle of the transfers: proportionally to our population, we get much less than the Maritimes and about as much as Manitoba. Add what we get from Alberta and Ontario; substract what we give to the Maritimes; substract too the administrative overhead between Ottawa and Quebec, and the balance of a sovereign Quebec is 0.
quote:
I agree with the poster that compared Quebec today with pre Civil War US South: a bunch of morons who control the government believe they are being oppressed. |
We don't control the government, that's for sure, but we're not being oppressed neither.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Wezil, thanks for that link, I forgot to mention that when I got riled over the Cree and First Nations' issues. Just for the record, I believe the Quebecois, if they can convince a majority, should get their independence - no matter how silly I may feel they are being, I'm NOT in their shoes. However, any border section or distinct people, as in native Americans, should get their chance to vote to stay with Canada, go with the Quebecois, or join the Nunavet region. One of the hallmarks of a good compromise - everybody hates it  .
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-03-2004 18:41
|