Provincial Seperation

[Hydraboss]

I'm just curious what people on this board think. Should Canada remain status quo, or should it operate as a confederation of independant/semi-independant states?

Every once in a while, the seperation issue is brought up although it most often is regarding Kwebek. What about the other provinces? If you agree that they should have the power, what conditions should be placed upon the seperation?

[M.Dancer]

I'm just curious what people on this board think. Should Canada remain status quo, or should it operate as a confederation of independant/semi-independant states?

Every once in a while, the seperation issue is brought up although it most often is regarding Kwebek. What about the other provinces? If you agree that they should have the power, what conditions should be placed upon the seperation?

I think there can be no separation without first a plebiscite and then negotiations.

[Hydraboss]

My apologies. I should have worded it differently to read "If the majority of residents of a province wish for the province to seperate...."

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Riverwind]

If you agree that they should have the power, what conditions should be placed upon the separation?

I think the bigger question is how it would be possible to prevent a province from separating if such a move was the clearly expressed will of the people? In fact, there little the rest of the country could do to 'force' said province to assume its share of the national debt.

That said, I think and discussion of separation is largely a waste of time since the economic costs would outstrip any benefit for any province (even Alberta which would likely be forced to deal with a massive influx of internal immigrants trying to cash in on the oil). I think the federation that we already have is workable and all we need to do is reduce federal taxes to the point where the federal gov't is no longer paying for programs with provincial jurisdiction.

[Hydraboss]

As for immigration influx, Alberta is already dealing with that and has been for some time. As for forcing a province to accept financial responsiblity, it could be done but it would not be pretty (trade embargoes, etc.). I would like to think that it would not come to that, but who knows?

As for programs that are provincial jurisdiction, health care and education fit that description. Yet the federal government uses transfer payments to "equalize" services across the country. Should they back out of that? Would they ever give up the self-imposed responsibility of nurse-maiding "have-not" provinces?

[M.Dancer]

In fact, there little the rest of the country could do to 'force' said province to assume its share of the national debt.

An entity that separated without due process would have a hard time gaining recognition from other states with the exception of Venezuela, Iran... etc

If the divorce was contested, nations wishing to do business with the rogue province may in all consideration find themselves entangled in legal snares and such.

I have no fear that any of that, including the departure of Quebec or Alberta will happen anytime soon.

[Riverwind]

As for immigration influx, Alberta is already dealing with that and has been for some time. As for forcing a province to accept financial responsiblity, it could be done but it would not be pretty (trade embargoes, etc.). I would like to think that it would not come to that, but who knows?

The devil is always in the detail. Quebec seperatists have created some pretty self-serving policy documents that 'prove' that Quebec's share of the national debt is much less than their per capita share. This kind of funny business with the numbers will make a nasty showdown over the debt inevitable. Think about it: if the provinces can't agree on reforms to the system today how would they ever agree on something like the division of debt where the stakes would be infinitely higher?

As for programs that are provincial jurisdiction, health care and education fit that description. Yet the federal government uses transfer payments to "equalize" services across the country. Should they back out of that? Would they ever give up the self-imposed responsibility of nurse-maiding "have-not" provinces?

Two points:

1) Equalization is only a small part of the monies transferred to the provinces. We have a situation where the federal gov't taxes too much and the provincial gov't taxes too little. I think we could vastly improve the system if we adjusted tax rates to eliminate these transfers even if we did not touch the equalization formula.

2) I used to be a big supporter of equalization but I have come to realize how fundementally unfair the system is. Consider two people: one person works two jobs and makes family sacrifices to bring home more income. The other works fewer hours but spends more time with the family. The first person can obviously afford to pay for better services and the second person should not mind this because the second person made the choice to work less and accept less income. Equalization assumes that people choosing to work less for lifestyle reasons deserve to have the same level of services. This is an unresonable assumption.

[Figleaf]

.

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Hydraboss]

Granted, there are differences in prior state of some provinces. But what about now? What are your feelings at this time, with the Confederation as it is?

We can always look back and say "150 years ago, *this* was the case and therefore *this* must happen", but what about the rights (only term I could think of) of a province to become an independant state?

Why should different answers apply to different provinces?

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Hydraboss]

However, N, O, P, S, and V co's do not have rights because they are entities of one type or another. Provinces (meaning the physical land itself) cannot separate, but the people of the province can because they do have rights.

In your example, N, O, and P are only a joint venture, not a combined entity. That would not be comparable to Canada, only to agreements such as the European Union. In the EU, the individual countries have never given up their identities, and therefore they are not separating in the same sense of the word as is being used here.

Provincial separation would more clearly and accurately be likened to a divorce, with children. Years ago, divorce was illegal and still is in some countries. This is not the case in Canada.

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Provinces can leave confederation, that has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The process is not exactly complicated.

Alberta will leave, in 2012.

[geoffrey]

Provinces can leave confederation, that has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The process is not exactly complicated.

Alberta will leave, in 2012.

I disagree. We are too valuable, they'd let Quebec go, but not the golden egg laying hen. We'll get a much more powerful, acceptable place in Canada's democracy before we seperated.

In the mean time, we do need to give the rest of Canada a good smack upside the head and have them work on allowing Alberta to suceed without Canada's oppression of our potential. A rich Alberta is a rich Canada, a rich Alberta without a place in the process is an independant Alberta. That's the option.

[Figleaf]

'

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Hydraboss]

Provinces can leave confederation, that has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The process is not exactly complicated.

Alberta will leave, in 2012.

I disagree. We are too valuable, they'd let Quebec go, but not the golden egg laying hen. We'll get a much more powerful, acceptable place in Canada's democracy before we seperated.

In the mean time, we do need to give the rest of Canada a good smack upside the head and have them work on allowing Alberta to suceed without Canada's oppression of our potential. A rich Alberta is a rich Canada, a rich Alberta without a place in the process is an independant Alberta. That's the option.

Absolutely correct. But let me add one thing here. Geoff, you're going to buy a truck this weekend, right? In your attempt to get the best deal, you make your "final offer" and then if it doesn't look like it's going to be accepted, you threaten to leave. Right? Do you want to know how to get your deal? (you'll have to trust me on this) Don't just threaten to leave. Leave.

Make the salesman call you later that day or the next. And he will because his sales manager will be crawling up his ass for letting you go. Chances are you won't even make it off the lot before they tackle your car.

The same logic applies to Alberta. Maybe if we threaten enough, we will get to sit at the grown-ups table at Thanksgiving. But when they say "no special treatment for Alberta. Who do they think they are? Kwebek?" then we say "Bye now. Bye, bye. See ya." and separate. The ROC will come begging, and if they don't? Who cares.

p.s. - if you're buying a *choke, cough* Ford, I know someone in Okotoks that runs the Ford store. Let me know.

[iamcanadian2]

This is a biased poll. Why put two yes and one no?

Why not just ask a straight forward question "Do You Want Quebec out of Canada? Yes or No

No one wants to ask this most important question because everyone knows the majority vote will be YES.

[Hydraboss]

First of all, the poll is not biased. I included both absolutes: yes and no. I also included a "yes" with conditions because a lot of people cannot comfortably vote for either of the first two. How do you word a "no - but only if they accept a portion of debt"?

Second, the intention of the poll is for OVERALL ability of ANY province or territory to separate, not just Kwebek.

p.s. - I couldn't care less what Kwebek does - I am an ALBERTA separatist.

So either vote or don't. Either comment or don't. It's your choice.

[Figleaf]

- I am an ALBERTA separatist.

-deleted-

[ft.niagara]

You in Canada have something of the same problems of Iraq. Different languages, resources, and geographies. I guess the religion is not an issue as it is in Iraq, But in an attempt to make it fair to all, you make it fair to none. In Iraq, separation may be the final solution, as it is in Canada.

[BubberMiley]

Nobody can take away any region's right to separate, but they always have to win the war first.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Provinces can leave confederation, that has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

You're mistaken. The court did not say that.

Really? What the court said was that in the case of a clear concensus by a specific group of people within a given location by a majority who were in favour of leaving confedration that the federal government would be obligated to negotiate according to both our constitution and international law. While the Canadian Constitution does not describe the means of it disolution, that does not mean that the means is unavailable.

The court in fact did rule that the means was available, not through unilateral action but through a negotiated solution.

[Figleaf]

..

Edited July 19, 2007 by Figleaf

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Provinces can leave confederation, that has been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

You're mistaken. The court did not say that.

Really? What the court said was that in the case of a clear concensus by a specific group of people within a given location by a majority who were in favour of leaving confedration that the federal government would be obligated to negotiate according to both our constitution and international law. While the Canadian Constitution does not describe the means of it disolution, that does not mean that the means is unavailable.

Since neither the constitution nor international law provide any right of separation, it's clear that the court's statement does not suggest there is such a right.

Not a right, that is a misleading statement. The court resolved that Quebec could through a legally visible concensus of its citizens compel the federal government to negotiate their departure from confederation.

[Temagami Scourge]

I'm all for Quebec separation. Always have been, always will be.

however, it's probably not for reasons shared by others here.

To me, a unilateral declaration of separation by Quebec means that I and many other Natives will have to go into Quebec and defend our Native brothers and sisters from their oppressors. Having been around Quebec myself, I always note that the population lives primarily along the St. Lawerence. Once you get a couple of hours north of Montreal and Quecbec City, you notice that the majority of people are Native. the further north you go, the more apparent this becomes.

Hence, "Quebec" pretty much constitutes a thin strip of land abutting the St. Lawerence. everything else is Cree, Naskapi, Maliseet etc.

These people will need protection because Quebec claims the northern half of the province, however, I see no problem with the northern half separating from the southern half for the same reasons. Essentially, as Quebec tries to extend its power north, we'll have to protect the north from this power grab.

That is what allies of the Crown will do. After Quebec is done, then we can drive west and deal with Alberta next.

I have no problem accepting anyone's surrender in the intereests of Canada.