01-03-2005 02:42									#91
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

quote: 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?

	01-03-2005 02:49									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

quote: 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...).

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

I mentioned trolling in reference to another poster, not NYE

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 03:40									#93
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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??

	01-03-2005 03:48									#94
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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

	01-03-2005 03:49									#95
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 03:51									#96
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 07:41									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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...

	01-03-2005 07:49									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 07:50									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 07:52									#100
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 07:54									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 07:55									#102
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 07:59									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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?

	01-03-2005 08:01									#104
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 08:03									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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...

	01-03-2005 08:03									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 08:04									#107
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Sad to say, I would welcome a future as an American

Please pursue one.

	01-03-2005 08:06									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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?'

	01-03-2005 08:08									#109
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 08:10									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 08:11									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 08:14									#112
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Thanks.

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

	01-03-2005 08:14									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	01-03-2005 08:15									#114
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Read the first line...

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

	01-03-2005 08:18									#115
	Increase Your PM Length

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.

	01-03-2005 08:35									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Canada is our bestest friend in the whole world.

	01-03-2005 08:35									#117
	Got spare money?

quote: 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-s...8scr2_0217.html

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 08:46									#118
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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?

	01-03-2005 09:24									#119
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	01-03-2005 09:52									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.'