Will Canada Choose Next Que Referendum Question?

[rbacon]

Before you get all frothed up Sparhawks get the facts straight, it is not my dictionary that states that a Confederation is a loose association of Sovereign States. Canada is not a Federal State, the rules are much different for a Confederation. Show me were it says anywhere except in your own mind that no people in the world have the right to self determination. If so howcome in the last hundred years do we have so many new countries formed out of former states. Even in the last 30 years the numbers are phenominal. Canada will go the way of all Multi-cult society's down the drain. Multi-cult= tribalism. Witness the debate over Sharia Law in Ontario. Next Ottawa census in Alberta I will identify myself as Albertan only not Canadian. Besides the best thing for the United Colony of Canada is if Quebec goes. Forty years of Premiers from Quebec running the country is long enough. In Alberta I hope next election we elect a good right wing Prime Minister like Ted Morton that will shut off the oil and gas and flow of money to the ROC. It is time Alberta told the ROC to get lost.

[rbacon]

Sparhawk since 1946 120 new countries have been created, and you know what life goes on, it's ok. As for the Supreme Court they are really no bodies, just more Liberal Flakes appointed by a man elected by only 30,000 votes who thinks he speaks for 30,000,000 people in Canada. The Old Canada is dying off, killed by Liberal visions like Trudeau's of a heavily centralised state. Canada is too massive to be run from the centre that was why it was set up as a Confederation with Sovereign Provinces, with tremendous authority and local power. And it worked for over 100 years until a socialist idiot named Trudeau tried to centralize all power into Ottawa. It is just like his policy of Bi-lingualism. 600B tax dollars have been spent on Bi-lingualism in Canada since Trudeau brought it in, result one Uni-lingual, Separatist Province named Quebec, while 70,000 people a year die from a lack of healthcare. No it is time for massive change in Canada. And if Quebec ends up leaving, let them go peacefully and without a fuss.

[Riverwind]

Before you get all frothed up Sparhawks get the facts straight, it is not my dictionary that states that a Confederation is a loose association of Sovereign States. Canada is not a Federal State, the rules are much different for a Confederation.

The only rules that exist are in the constitution and the supreme court has the duty and the right to intepret the consitution. According to the supreme court there is not right to a UDI but secession could be negotiated. Semantic differences in the words used in the constitution are irrelevant.

Show me were it says anywhere except in your own mind that no people in the world have the right to self determination.

The 'right to self-determination' is a concept that applies to colonies that were controlled by a foreign country like India or states that were invaded by a neighbor like the former Soviet Republics. It has _never_ been applied to a province or a state which is a integral part of a soveriegn nation.

Furthermore, it is not in the strategic interest of any big power to accept that pieces of a stable democratic state can declare a UDI - the precent could lead to political turmoil in their own countries. You are rediculously niave if you think the rest of the world support Alberta in it a UDI. You could argue that the US might but not out of priniciple - only because the US would know the economic choas would allow the US to sieze control of most of Alberta's oil.

[Guest eureka]

I would answer you fully, Rbacon, except that I am bored out of my mind with countering the overwhelming ignorance and stupidity that governs these thoughts on the nature of Canada and of government.

To put it in simple terms that I have elaborated on time and time again.

Canada is not and never was, a Confederation in your dictionary's sense. What decides Canada's status is the division of powers. That reserves powers that are not enumerated to the federal government. Thus, Canada is a federation not a Confederation.

All provinces are sovereign as is the federal government. Sovereign means having the exclusive jurisdiction in the powers that are alloted by the Constitution

Canada is not a highly centralised country. It is the most decentralised nation in the world.

No new countries have been created out of existing countries since 1946 or 1496 other than a few in early times that were built on force of arms.

There has never in modern history, and possibly earlier, been the peaceful breakup up of any nation. All the "splits" recorded are of artificially joined peoples.

The self-determination of peoples is expressed in the Helsinki Accords. According to the criteria of those Accords, there is only one people in Canada: that is the Canadian people. There are no subsets of people who form a "people."

If I hear once more some idiot saying or wroting that the Prime Minister of the country is elected by only 30,000 peole and , therefore, does not speak for the country, well I won't say what. But anyone who does believe that has to be ignorant, uneducated, and stupid beyond all belief.

I trust that you have your tongue firmly in your cheek when you say it!

[August1991]

The 'right to self-determination' is a concept that applies to colonies that were controlled by a foreign country like India or states that were invaded by a neighbor like the former Soviet Republics. It has _never_ been applied to a province or a state which is a integral part of a soveriegn nation.

To name a few examples that come quickly to mind, Norway self-determined itself. The Czech Republic and Slovakia self-determined themselves. The 15 republics of the former Soviet Union self-determined themselves without even a referendum.

To my knowledge, it is wrong to call Canada a confederation of sovereign states since in 1867, several British colonies joined together. At its origin, Canada was a confederation of colonies. I think it is fair to describe Ontario and Quebec at the time as a single colony, broken into two administrative parts: Canada East and Canada West.

Yet, this too doesn't help much because ultimately, following a successful referendum, we would all be in uncharted territory. I have never been one to believe that Quebec independence should be entirely subject to opinions of Canada's Supreme Court. Its opinion is another piece on the chess board.

These questions are debated regularly in Quebec and believe me, every possible angle has been examined and argued. For those who can understand French, here is a good debate between Joseph Facal and Pierre Pettigrew concerning many of these issues. It was broadcast this week along with a documentary about the 1995 referendum.

The fact of the matter is that the next referendum, which most polls now show will pass, will in all likelihood provoke a long overdue reorganization of Canada. Canadian history goes back thousands of years and in that time, there have been numerous political arrangements. The most recent incarnation is no more eternal than the previous ones. The end of the British North America Act does not mean the end of Canada.

[Riverwind]

To name a few examples that come quickly to mind, Norway self-determined itself.  The Czech Republic and Slovakia self-determined themselves.  The 15 republics of the former Soviet Union self-determined themselves without even a referendum.

The Czech Republic and Slovakia was a mutually negotiated breakup. Most of the 15 soviet republics were countries invaded by Russia which puts them in a different situtation than a province of Canada. In all cases, their economies where already basket cases so there was no where to go but up.

To my knowledge, it is wrong to call Canada a confederation of sovereign states since in 1867, several British colonies joined together.  At its origin, Canada was a confederation of colonies.

The same is true of the US, however, only a lunatic would suggest that a US state has the right to declare a UDI.

The most recent incarnation is no more eternal than the previous ones.  The end of the British North America Act does not mean the end of Canada.

The trouble is the transition period and the economic and political chaos that would follow - You may want to live in denial about the it, however, chaos is always the outcome if the rule of law is abandoned in favour of the rule of the mob. You may not like the idea of the supreme court and the constitution having the final say but it would ensure that a legal framework remains in place.

I might change my opinion on the possibily of a peaceful breakup if Quebec seperatists were willing to acknowlegde that if Canada is divisible then so if Quebec. However, as long as seperatists use the threat of economic and physical violance to keep parts of Quebec in Quebec then they will ensure that violance and economic upheaval will follow.

[rbacon]

Just for the haughty here who still are so ignorant of Canadian history as to not know that Canada is made up of 10 Sovereign Provinces in a Confederation. Here is a snip from a Supreme Court decision of 1903.----------" Although the population of Prince Edward Island, as ascertained in the census of 1901, if divided by the unit of representation ascertained by dividing the number of 65 into the population of Quebec is not sufficient to give six members in the House of Commons of Canada to that province, is the representation of Prince Edward Island in the House of Commons of Canada, liable under the British North America Act, 1867, and amendments thereto and the terms of Union of 1873 under which that province entered Confederation, to be reduced below six, the number granted to that province by the said terms of Union of 1873 ?

" The Committee submit the same for approval.

"JOHN J. McGEE, " Clerk of the Privy Council."

The following counsel appeared :

For the Province of Prince Edward Island: A. B. Aylesworth, K.C.; The Honourable Arthur Peters, K.C., Attorney G-eneral of Prince Edward Island, and Mr. E B. Williams.

For the Dominion of Canada: E. L. Newcombe, K.C., Deputy Minister of Justice for the Dominion of Canada.

Aylesworth K.C.: If your Lordships please, Mr. Attorney Greneral Peters and Mr. "Williams, of Char- lttetowu, are also of counsel for the province in the case, and unless it is contrary entirely to your Lord- ships' traditions to hear more than two counsel, I have no doubt that each would be very pleased if your Lordships' would allow him to address the court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE : Of course, this is not a usual case. We do not even give a judgment ; nothing but an opinion. It binds nobody, and we did hear a good many counsel 011 the reference the other day but of course they were representing the different provinces. You are asking now that three be heard on one side ; is that it ?

Mr. Aylesworth : Yes, my Lord.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE : I do not think there would be any objection to it under the circumstances of the case. We will hear the learned gentlemen.

Mr. Aylesworth : We shall endeavour to present the considerations which it appears to us affect the matter, as briefly as may be. Of course everything depends, for disposal of this question, upon the provisions ----------The argument was over the illegal addition of seats not based on population by PEI. Canada is and always has been a Confederation, since it's very beginning. The Prime/Premier Minister of Canada is elected by only 30,000 votes. Do you not read election results. He then appoints 50% of our Government the Senate, which is supposed to be the sole perogative of the Provinces. He this man elected by only 30,000 votes then appoints all judges in Canada in every Province including the Supreme Court. This man elected by only 30,000 votes then appoints the Head of State the GG for the 30,000,000 people of Canada. This man elected by only 30,000 votes then appoints the Head of State for Each Province the Lt. Gov. This man elected by only 30,000 votes then appoints his friends cohorts and fellow travellers to the heads of some hundreds of Crown Corporations. Oh my I forgot that he appoints the hidden arm of government the secretive Privy Council all handily stuffed with his friends. The Privy Council has more power than Parliament, they just directly issue Orders in Council which are rubber stamped by the appointed Lap Dog Head of State the flunky GG. As to the least and smallest part of the affair of corruption we now come to Parliament. These MP's must do also as the master tells them because they will not do as the voter says or they will be demoted or driven out of the party. They are whipped and bound hand and foot and gagged. They are useless as spokesmen for any taxpayer. I will also look up the reference to 120 new countries since 1946 since that is also fact. I will also get you the reference stating that Canada is a Confederation and that a Confederation is a loose association of Sovereign States. Canada is not a Federal State in any way shape or form. Our Constitution is not even ratified by the people. No one actually voted to create Canada. Next you will be saying that the Charter wasn't written by Jean Chretein for Trudeau. It also by the way was never ratified by the voters. Canada doesn't have a leg to stand on in the coming vote in Quebec. Many of us in Alberta will be sending money to support the Independence of Quebec. I would suggest you do the same. What would you have Ottawa do, kill them because they detest Canada's undemocratic rule by the elite cabal of the east.

[August1991]

I am reticent to use the examples of other countries but since some here have said there are no precedents and you, Sparhawk, have suggested the breakups are violent, let me give two cases:

The Czech Republic and Slovakia was a mutually negotiated breakup.

Precisely. The separation of Norway from Sweden was also negotiated, following a referendum held in Norway.

You may not like the idea of the supreme court and the constitution having the final say but it would ensure that a legal framework remains in place.

Legal framework yes, but not one determined solely by 9 people appointed by the federal government (to be more precise, the federal Liberal Party).

I might change my opinion on the possibily of a peaceful breakup if Quebec seperatists were willing to acknowlegde that if Canada is divisible then so if Quebec.

The idea of dividing Quebec has always struck me as, at best, a negotiating tactic on the part of some in the ROC and at worst, a seeming way to belittle sovereignists. In any case, it entirely misses the point about what is at stake here.

There is a good English expression: Good fences make good neighbours. It is in everyone's interests to rearrange the political affairs of this country.

From the Wikipedia article linked above:

After a transition period of roughly four years, during which the relations between the states could be characterised as a "post-divorce trauma", the present relations between Czechs and Slovaks, as many people point out, are probably better than they have ever been.

[Guest eureka]

Rbacon, I think you must have missed Sunday School today. That utterly silly post about a Court decision that has no reference to what you are claiming other than your own incomprehensible wording mixed in with supposed legal arguments.

[Guest eureka]

August, I will repeat that not in all modern history is there a single example of a state dissolving itself. Not since the days of dynastic ownership has there been one.

Norway and Czechoslovakia are not examples: both were states formed by the negotiated joining of separate peoples who later decided to sever the connexion. Nor are the states of the old USSR as they wre independant peoples joined either by force or agreement.

The division of Quebec would not be merely a negotiatin tactic in the event of any negotiation about the breakup of Canada. It would be desirable and necessary. Using

Quebec's own logic, the Anglos of Quebec would be entitled to the principle of self-determination and could detach territory from quebec. That territory would also necessarily include the areas of French Canadian habitation where the people consider themselves to be Canadian.

Using Quebec's logic again, they would be, for historic reasons, entitled to the "Lion's share" of the territory. Canada also would be justified in annexing the Ruperts Land territory for legal and historic reasons.

[Riverwind]

The idea of dividing Quebec has always struck me as, at best, a negotiating tactic on the part of some in the ROC and at worst, a seeming way to belittle sovereignists.  In any case, it entirely misses the point about what is at stake here.

Actually, your response does prove my point: Quebec nationalists claim territory that does not belong to them if you follow the rule of self-determination. How do you think Quebequers will react if several municipalities declare independence from Quebec? Will they try to use force (economic or physical) to keep control? I suspect an emotional outcome is most likely because separatist politicians have been lying to Quebequers about the realities of breaking up a country. Once the emotions get high then the violence starts.

That is one of the reasons why I think the only fair referendum question is: "do you want Quebec to become an independent state even if it means using violence to prevent parts of Quebec from separating". I wonder how many Quebequers would vote yes to that?

This is also one of the reasons that the comparisons to Czechoslovakia are not appropriate. In the Czech case there was little disagreement about where the border should be.

[rbacon]

Just for the illiterate here, a link to the Public Archives of the Government of Canada. I guess Eureka didn't pass Canadian History studies in school. Maybe you never went to school in Canada. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederat...001-2100-e.html

[rbacon]

Another virtually identical definition of Confederation. There are reference after reference all saying basically this------confederation

a group of sovereign states or communities that unite for one or more specific purposes, yet allow each state or community to act independently on all other purposes.

[Guest eureka]

Read the Confederation for Kids part and then go and play with the other kids. I don't know anything about you but, if you are an adult, you are an embarrassment.

[rbacon]

For one so sure of themself, about facts of Canadian history your actual knowledge is pathetic. You should be held up as an example as an uneducated Liberal. Just like the CBC pokes fun of Americans who seem to know nothing about Canada. The sure sign of an uneducated Liberal is that when they lose an argument and embarrass themselves they resort to name calling. The last defense of an uneducated Liberal. Pathetic.

[Riverwind]

For one so sure of themself, about facts of Canadian history your actual knowledge is pathetic.

Your knowledge of Canadian history is weak. You keep harping on a word but have know understanding of the context. Canada was originally designed to be a much more centralized federation than the US (Canada is, in practice, much more decentralized than the US today). The idea that pieces of the federation could come and go at will was never considered by the founders of the Canada and you can be certain that Ontario and Quebec would have never allowed Alberta to become a province if they believed that allowing Alberta to become a province would give it the right to leave the country whenever it wanted.

[Hawk]

For one so sure of themself, about facts of Canadian history your actual knowledge is pathetic.

Your knowledge of Canadian history is weak. You keep harping on a word but have know understanding of the context. Canada was originally designed to be a much more centralized federation than the US (Canada is, in practice, much more decentralized than the US today). The idea that pieces of the federation could come and go at will was never considered by the founders of the Canada and you can be certain that Ontario and Quebec would have never allowed Alberta to become a province if they believed that allowing Alberta to become a province would give it the right to leave the country whenever it wanted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LoL I can't believe you are berating rbacon for his posts as opposed to eureka's, at least rbacon is supplying links and backing up his arguments with historic fact rather than emotion garbage.

As for Provincial sovereignty, nobody cares about considerations or implications. The FACT is that Provinces ARE sovereign in a Confederation, and therefore they have a RIGHT to seperate should they decide to. If you don't like that, then go to the USA where they are on a different system (hence the Civil War was necessary)

If you are honestly implying violence is the only answer to Provincial Seperation in a Confederation then you are the true monster here, and any spilled blood will be yet again on the hands of the socialists... as it always has been throughout history.

[Riverwind]

If you are honestly implying violence is the only answer to Provincial Seperation in a Confederation then you are the true monster here, and any spilled blood will be yet again on the hands of the socialists... as it always has been throughout history.

What I have said is UDIs are acts of war and no province has right to use it a means to leave the federation. A negotiated secession, on the other hand is an option. If there is blood on anyone's hands in is on the people who insist that a UDI is legimate option.

As for your assertion about 'sovereignty' belonging to the provinces is crap. Canada is the soveriegn power and the provinces are just administrative districts. The BNA Act makes that quuite clear:

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.(4)

4. Unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.(5)

5. Canada shall be divided into Four Provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.(6)

In fact the word 'Confederation' does not even appear in the BNA Act at all!

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...sh/ca_1867.html

Just out of curiousity, I checked the Alberta act as well:

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/...sh/aa_1905.html

The word 'Confederation' does not show up there either. Seems to me that if there was any merit to rbacon's arguments then it would be supported by the original Constitutional documents.

[Guest eureka]

I am not going to bother with these two, Soarhawk. Hawk claimed to be a 20 year old University student, if I recall correctly. Heaven help Alberta if this level of obstinate ignorance is whar its Universities graduate. I have been through all this several times and he still won't learn.

As for Rbacon, his rederence was to a childrens' link. I doubt his capacity to understand these matters.