Shwa Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 Stalling won't make the fact go away.... Canada Aboriginal title has existed in Canada since the Privy Council, in St. Catherines Milling v. The Queen (1888), characterized it as a personal usufruct at the pleasure of the Queen.St. Catherines Milling v. The Queen (1888) 14 App. Cas. 46. This case did not involve indigenous parties, but rather was a lumber dispute between the provincial government of Ontario and the federal government of Canada. St. Catherines was decided in the wake of the Indian Act (1876), which laid out an assimilationist policy towards the aboriginal peoples in Canada (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis), allowed provinces to abrogate treaties (until 1951), and made it a federal crime to prosecute First Nation claims in court, raise money, or organize to pursue such claims.66 WashLRev 643 Stalling for what? Leave me out of your fantasies please. So, how does this cited decision absolve First Nations in Quebec from unilaterally cancelling their contracts - treaties - with the federal government and, since the date of the above, does it even apply today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 Ah yes... he described the problems involved, and why he had no particular interest in solving them. The final answer he (Otto Lang) came up with was the LIFT (Lower Inventories For Tomorrow) land set-aside program. The international price was low, so the Wheat board was instructed to withhold international sales rather than allow anyone growing grains in the west any cash flow at all. (Those who could sell into domestic markets were definitely advantaged.) Thanks for at least fleshing that out. I don't know that much about agricultural policy in that time period tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) ....So, how does this cited decision absolve First Nations in Quebec from unilaterally cancelling their contracts - treaties - with the federal government and, since the date of the above, does it even apply today? It applies whenever they unilaterally want it to, just as it did for the provinces in years past, and materially to this day. First Nations do not serve a Queen. Provisions for treaty withdrawal (if not outright abrogation) are standard clauses in modern day treaties as well (see NAFTA). Edited June 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 We can pay our own way and fend for ourselves. I think it rather likely that Alberta would attempt to take the other western and possibly the northern folks with them to form a Northwest Canada. If we had our heads on straight we would likely seek some alliance with Alaska with hopes of perhaps a merger with the rest of America. Perhaps Northwest America would be more accurate. Something needs to be done, that is for sure. What? is the ten million dollar question. Perhaps fortress North America is the best option for us???? You can "fend for [your]selves" within "Fortress North America." Keeping the evil, commie Canadian hordes at bay with the help of your American protector...who is also the ROC's biggest trading partner and close ally. I'm not sure you've thought this through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'm not sure you've thought this through. There isn't an active movement right now, but I have long felt that the natural fracture line in Canada is one from Lake Superior to James Bay. It's more likely to actually occur than any other. There will be no long-winded lead up, and no negotiation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 There isn't an active movement right now, but I have long felt that the natural fracture line in Canada is one from Lake Superior to James Bay. It's more likely to actually occur than any other. There will be no long-winded lead up, and no negotiation. Could you explain this? I never really got the sense that we in Ontario identify any more strongly with the Maritimes than with Vancouver or Edmonton, certainly not in the way that e.g. folks in the Northeastern US identify as Northeasterners or even in the way that Quebecers identify with their province. Tbh, the Maritimes actually seem more foreign to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 There isn't an active movement right now, but I have long felt that the natural fracture line in Canada is one from Lake Superior to James Bay. It's more likely to actually occur than any other. I don't find that at all likely. The urban centres in Western Canada would want no part of breaking this country apart. And there would have to be negotiation, there's no other way to leave a federation, other than war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 I don't find that at all likely. The urban centres in Western Canada would want no part of breaking this country apart. And there would have to be negotiation, there's no other way to leave a federation, other than war. Check the pulse in Calgary and Regina sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Check the pulse in Calgary and Regina sometimes. Pfft, yeah, there are so many separatsits in Regina. Even Calgary doesn't strike me as a separatist hot be. In fact, it's becoming more and more of a big city all of the time. With that, comes a different dynamic, which is quickly forming. Not to mention the economic ties that now exist between Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. Edmonton, Vancouver, and Winnipeg would certainly have no part of any of what you're talking about. Seriously, poll after poll shows that Canada has never been more united. Some people simply like to try to make trouble where none exists. Edited June 10, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) Pfft, yeah, there are so many separatsits in Regina. Even Calgary doesn't strike me as a separatist hot be. In fact, it's becoming more and more of a big city all of the time. With that, comes a different dynamic, which is quickly forming. Not to mention the economic ties that now exist between Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary. Edmonton, Vancouver, and Winnipeg would certainly have no part of any of what you're talking about. Seriously, poll after poll shows that Canada has never been more united. Some people simply like to try to make trouble where none exists. Yeah, I don't get this at all. I felt like I was completely at home and in familiar surroundings in Vancouver and Edmonton, without even the sorts of differences that I observe between Windsor and Detroit or Toronto and Buffalo. I never had any sense that I was in another 'solitude' or observed a profound alienation or anything. Edited June 10, 2011 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 Yeah, I don't get this at all. I felt completely at home and in familiar surroundings in Vancouver and Edmonton, To me, Calgary just seemed like the wealthier part of Winnipeg (on a much larger scale) and Regina seemed like the less wealthy part (no offence to Regina, but most of it isn't the least bit attractive other than the skyline and the area around the legislative building). I didn't feel like I had even left Manitoba. Toronto and Ottawa were really nice, and looked different, but again, I felt completely at home. Quebec City and Sydney, Nova Scotia were the most different from here, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 As a Vancouverite, Quebec definitely felt the most different. Mostly because of the prevalence of a different language being used. I've never been to the maritimes though. I definitely felt more "at home" in various US cities, from New York to Seattle to Anchorage, than I did in Montreal or Quebec City though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 I definitely felt more "at home" in various US cities, from New York to Seattle to Anchorage, than I did in Montreal or Quebec City though. I actually felt very at home in Quebec City. In fact, I envy them in some ways. The street life for a city that size was amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Check the pulse in Calgary and Regina sometimes. Indeed. He says he's a Westerner but is badly out of touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) Indeed. He says he's a Westerner but is badly out of touch. I live in rural western Canada. In the same breath that people talk about hating politicians, they'll talk about how great of a country they live in, and how good we have it. I only know one person who would like the west to be it's own country. I have also lived in urban Canada, and none of those complaints are usually even ever uttered that are head in rural areas. I'm not the one who's out of touch. No one seriously wants to separate. My goodness, an Alberta Prime Minister is in office and he's going to get rid of the gun registry, pass all kinds of crime bills, and make some changes to the senate. What more do you want? Edited June 11, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Anyway, anyone who talks seriously about western separation really hasn't thought it through. Canada works as it is, and it has since the beginning. Yes, there have been problems and regional issues, but those aren't even on the radar right now. Canadians, according to polls, feel more united and patriotic than ever. The most patriotic? Albertans. Soem of you need to get over yourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Indeed. He says he's a Westerner but is badly out of touch. But I've been thinking about this. What do I have to do to be a Westerner? Are Edmontonians Westerners? Are most Calgarians Westerners? Most Saskatooners? Most Reginians(?)? Are Winnipegers Westerners? Manitobans in general? Are Vancouverites westerners? Are Victorians westerners? Or do we have to hate Ottawa and the East, and most definitely Quebec (and anyone that speaks French) to be Westerners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Anyway, anyone who talks seriously about western separation really hasn't thought it through. Canada works as it is, and it has since the beginning. Yes, there have been problems and regional issues, but those aren't even on the radar right now. Canadians, according to polls, feel more united and patriotic than ever. The most patriotic? Albertans. Soem of you need to get over yourselves. Get over themselves... And... Pump us some oil and make us some money!!!! Now....GET BACK TO WORK!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 But I've been thinking about this. What do I have to do to be a Westerner? Are Edmontonians Westerners? Are most Calgarians Westerners? Most Saskatooners? Most Reginians(?)? Are Winnipegers Westerners? Manitobans in general? Are Vancouverites westerners? Are Victorians westerners? Or do we have to hate Ottawa and the East, and most definitely Quebec (and anyone that speaks French) to be Westerners? You're not an anti-Ottawa Albertan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) .... Edited June 11, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) Get over themselves... And... Pump us some oil and make us some money!!!! Now....GET BACK TO WORK!!! And you know, I purposely did not post this sentiment previously believing that you would and I would get to enjoy it. And I did. LOFL! Edited June 12, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 It applies whenever they unilaterally want it to, just as it did for the provinces in years past, and materially to this day. First Nations do not serve a Queen. "Until 1951" I think things have changed a little bit since then. Provisions for treaty withdrawal (if not outright abrogation) are standard clauses in modern day treaties as well (see NAFTA). That is the interesting point and is one of the dream crushing points that is always laid out before the starry eyed separatistes. IF the First Nations COULD withdraw from a long standing treaty with the Federal Government, then one would gather than the entire treaty area from which is at contention would revert to the First Nations until another treaty can be drawn up. That would leave "Quebec" as a thin slice of land along the St. Lawrence from which they could resurrect their seigneuries and vegetable gardens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 "Until 1951" I think things have changed a little bit since then. Yet the "Crown" and provinces remain in material breach of many such treaty provisions all the same. The only real relief to be found by "aboriginals" is by way of the courts, another institution fundamentally on side with the "Crown". That is the interesting point and is one of the dream crushing points that is always laid out before the starry eyed separatistes. IF the First Nations COULD withdraw from a long standing treaty... The very concept of a voluntary "treaty" as an instrument of settlement with obligation(s) includes the possibility of withdrawal or abrogation by one or more parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 The United states of America are a union of small nations...it works for them. I can't see why we can not seperate and have more independent provinces. We can call the arrangement THE UNITED STATES OF CANADA.....has a nice ring to it - don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 .... We can call the arrangement THE UNITED STATES OF CANADA.....has a nice ring to it - don't you think? Only if you are willing to die for the Union....and methinks most Canadians would rather separate instead of going through that. Canada is not a republic, and has much weaker bond energy. It was not born by violently breaking away from the reigning global superpower, and was formed from the left over business in North America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.