Provincial Seperation

[geoffrey]

There are many ways to address these issues. Calling for separation is perhaps the most childish and unproductive (and I don't think "Quebec does it so we should do it too" is a good argument).

Actually, it's worked quite well for Quebec. The Federal government now gives them whatever they desire.

A suitably motivated Alberta premier could make good progress on both of those points now - provided he does not piss away political capital by demanding symbolic but largely pointless changes to key federal programs like EI.

It wouldn't be a pointless change. It would be huge step for fixing the consistantly-on-welfare-provinces problem by having Alberta opt-out of EI and force the RoC to actually develop economies.

I don't know why the Premier doesn't just go out and violate the act outright. The Federal government can't really give Alberta the 'we are cutting your funding now' BS with the SCC on our side and the ability for us to collapse the equalisation program by replying with 'Alberta taxes are now collected here and they're not going anywhere.'

I am strong believer in incrementalism and gradual change. The federation today is a radically different place than it was 30 years ago and will be a very different place 30 years from now. There is no need to provoke a crisis to produce change because the change is happening anyways.

There is a clear need. No one believes Alberta will leave so Alberta remains on the backburner. A nice close 49.9-50.1 referendum would change that. Alberta would be the prime issue, and all the pandering would come here.

I mean lets face it. Quebec provides next to nothing to Canada outside of Quebec, where as Alberta provides generally only outside of it's own borders (everyone else has better social programs than we do, despite us paying the bill for them). It's way more in Canada's interest to keep Alberta in than Quebec in. They'd pay any price to do so. We just need to make it clear that we are ready to go if they don't.

[Riverwind]

The federal Dominion is a 139 year old experiment, based upon premises that are ridiculously outdated, that has failed, or, at the very least, is seriously on the brink of failure.

Failure? By what measure? Because a few of the pampered citizens living in the country don't understand how good they have it so they complain endlessly about irrelevant points?. If you actually look at any relevant measure of succees - wealth, standard of living, freedom, etc. You will find that Canada is success. That does not mean Canada is perfect - it just means that your characterization of it being a failure is a fiction created to justify political beliefs.

Why not look at replacement solutions, even if it means several independant countries?

Because breaking up the country is a pandora's box that will bring out the worst in people and make our current problems seem inconsequential. What people such as yourselves seem to forget is that if Canada is divisible then so is Quebec. Montreal could easily turn into the Belfast of North America no matter what happens (i.e. there will be groups willing to bomb no matter what the outcome because Quebec society is so divided on this point).

Incremental change has worked for 137 years and will continue to work. There is no justification for a break up.

[Riverwind]

There is a clear need. No one believes Alberta will leave so Alberta remains on the backburner. A nice close 49.9-50.1 referendum would change that. Alberta would be the prime issue, and all the pandering would come here.

It is not possible to manipulate politics like that. Promoting separatism is a fundamentally destructive activity that will bring out the worst in people and lead to a much less friendly federation. The saying 'you catch more flies with honey than vinegar' definitely applies in this situation. However, I want to emphasize that a constructive approach is not a do nothing approach and might require some showdowns with Ottawa (i.e. Alberta could deliberately violate the Canada Health Act and dare Ottawa to challenge it). That said, challenging Ottawa is a lot different than threating to take your marbles and go home.

Incidently, I don't think seperatism has worked for Quebequers. It has worked for Quebec politicians who have a lot more money to spend on their pet projects but on the whole, all the average Quebequer has gotten is high taxes and skittish business sector that depend way too much on gov't handouts.

[Charles Anthony]

There is a clear need. No one believes Alberta will leave so Alberta remains on the backburner. A nice close 49.9-50.1 referendum would change that. Alberta would be the prime issue, and all the pandering would come here.

I agree. I believe that a separatist threat is healthy because it keeps centralist-big-government-federalists in check at all times.

Promoting separatism is a fundamentally destructive activity that will bring out the worst in people and lead to a much less friendly federation.

Why do you fear that it will bring out the worst in people? Have faith in the market.

In practical terms, my instinct tells me that our dependence on capitalist-cronyism will make sure that separation is peaceful. The banks will come knocking. In other words, when the time comes to a definite declaration of indepence, the rich guys will get on a telephone conference call with the Premier Klein or PrimierMinistre Bouchard or Prime Minister Chretien and a quick deal will be made over-night. No ifs ands or buts.

Alberta does not have a police force?

Fine. The banks will finance one.

Why?? because the banks need civil obedience more than anybody else in the economy.

I see no reason to fear civil unrest. In fact, I am willing to bet my life that the banks have already been planning this ahead of time. It is completely foolish for them to NOT already have a contingency plan.

[nickjbor]

what surprises me is Ontario - they have the most to gain from independence yet they constantly say no, and instead whine about thier position in canada - which just makes everyone else want to leave

[Riverwind]

Why do you fear that it will bring out the worst in people? Have faith in the market.

If economics was the priority then there would be no discussion of separation because from an economic perspective it is a really dumb idea because of the risks involved. At its core, separation is about refusing to compromise and screwing your neighbors so you can have more for yourself. When faced with that attitude the neighbors are unlikely to be accommodating. The bigger issue will not be the people outside of Quebec but the people inside of Quebec who are opposed to the project. There will be calls to carve up Quebec into smaller pieces and it is extremely unlikely that the separatists will accept that. This sets the stage for covert or the overt use of violence by either self-proclaimed terrorist groups a la FLQ or by the police themselves.

Obviously, know one can know for certain what would happen post separation but the risks do exist and denying that ecourages people to make dumb decisions.

[jdobbin]

If economics was the priority then there would be no discussion of separation because from an economic perspective it is a really dumb idea because of the risks involved. At its core, separation is about refusing to compromise and screwing your neighbors so you can have more for yourself. When faced with that attitude the neighbors are unlikely to be accommodating. The bigger issue will not be the people outside of Quebec but the people inside of Quebec who are opposed to the project. There will be calls to carve up Quebec into smaller pieces and it is extremely unlikely that the separatists will accept that. This sets the stage for covert or the overt use of violence by either self-proclaimed terrorist groups a la FLQ or by the police themselves.

Obviously, know one can know for certain what would happen post separation but the risks do exist and denying that ecourages people to make dumb decisions.

This is what separatists often delude themselves about: that everything will go peacefully and that people won't decide to become violent. Not everyone will be bought off. Some would probably fight and kill to prevent it or to support it.

[Figleaf]

... The Clarity Act pretty much prevents seperation completely, unless the Federal government allows them to go.[/qoute]

The constitutional position, Clarity Act or no Clarity Act, is that no province can separate without a constitutional amendment (i.e. federal consent and 7 provinces).

I disagree. It's a very democratic act. It spells out to geographic minorities how the federal government will respond to any proposed separation.

Yup. React with complete dismissal of the will of a segement of people and complete oppression of their freedom.

Oppression of their freedom? Nonsense. They are as free as anyone else in the country and if they don't like that they are free to emigrate.

[guyser]

what surprises me is Ontario - they have the most to gain from independence yet they constantly say no, and instead whine about thier position in canada - which just makes everyone else want to leave

Yup, no one in Ontario wants separation. They whine because they are the hand that rocks the cradle.Pay the most, want to get the most.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Lets turn that around a bit and ask ourselves about Quebecs Bill 101 shall we? What is with that whole pile of crap legislation anyway, and why has Ottawa to this day allowed Quebec to violate the spirit and intent of the constitution. Further to that, what is with Quebecs refusal to sign the 1982 Constitution, and still lay claim to articles of it to protect their own interests?

Lets think about that for a minute then enlighten us with your views of fair and equal treatment under the constitution.

I have no idea what your last sentence is supposed to indicate, but regarding your questions:

a-"why has Ottawa to this day allowed Quebec to violate the spirit and intent of the constitution"

b-"what is with Quebecs refusal to sign the 1982 Constitution, and still lay claim to articles of it to protect their own interests?"

A: I think Bill 101 and the use of the notwithstanding clause to protect it has been tested in litigation and found legal. (Though I'm not 100% sure).

B: It's ironic, isn't it?

The reality is that in politics demographics are everything. Quebec sits on a very large demographic, and as such the feds are reluctant to mess with it.

With respect to the constitution of 1982, its a joke! We lost our right to own property for starters. What is worse is the fact that us lowly citizens didn't get the chance to ratify it only our politicians did!!! On top of that according to the constitution elected members to the House of Commons are supposed to take an oath of allegiance to this nation. Having said that, can a person then take a stand against the country without being in conflict with that oath? Utilizing that logic how can the Bloc exist a political party within federal political system with a public expressed position of provincial seperation which can only be described as contrary to the best interests of the nation. Again the reality is in the numbers.

Lacking a political spine has always been the problem with Canadian Federal politics.

[Charles Anthony]

On top of that according to the constitution elected members to the House of Commons are supposed to take an oath of allegiance to this nation. Having said that, can a person then take a stand against the country without being in conflict with that oath?

Of course.

Allegiance to a nation (we have a new definition, now!) is not the same as allegiance to a specific form of bureaucracy.

[Does a family break-up every time a child wants to move out? Certainly the family finances change.]

Not everyone will be bought off. Some would probably fight and kill to prevent it or to support it.

Would YOU fight? and if so, for what?

If economics was the priority then there would be no discussion of separation because from an economic perspective it is a really dumb idea because of the risks involved.

It may only be a dumb idea if we are looking at a statistical macro-economic perspective. However, for the individual, it may be advantageous to have only one small government.

At its core, separation is about refusing to compromise and screwing your neighbors so you can have more for yourself.

No. Separation is about refusing to be screwed by your neighbors.

When faced with that attitude the neighbors are unlikely to be accommodating.

Good fences make better neighbors.

The bigger issue will not be the people outside of Quebec but the people inside of Quebec who are opposed to the project. There will be calls to carve up Quebec into smaller pieces and it is extremely unlikely that the separatists will accept that.

I think the separatists will compromise.

Obviously, know one can know for certain what would happen post separation but the risks do exist and denying that ecourages people to make dumb decisions.

I place my bet on the invisible power of the market.

[geoffrey]

Oppression of their freedom? Nonsense. They are as free as anyone else in the country and if they don't like that they are free to emigrate.

They should be free to seperate too. I doubt if many now would oppose Hungary's dreams of succession from Austria or maybe the Ukraine's from the Soviet Union?

[jdobbin]

Would YOU fight? and if so, for what?

I have family in Quebec. If they were threatened, I'd be prepared to kill.

[Riverwind]

The bigger issue will not be the people outside of Quebec but the people inside of Quebec who are opposed to the project. There will be calls to carve up Quebec into smaller pieces and it is extremely unlikely that the separatists will accept that.

I think the separatists will compromise.

I would bet they don't even consider it and until after there is blood on the streets - by then it might too late. As I said before, separatism is a fundamentally irrational concept. If someone wanted smaller gov't the most rational thing to do would be to vote for parties that would work within the existing constitutional framework to cut the size of gov't. However, Quebec separatists don't want less gov't - they want more gov't. That is why they are the most heavily taxed and over regulated jurisdiction on the continent.

[Charles Anthony]

I have family in Quebec. If they were threatened, I'd be prepared to kill.

You are not the only one who has family in Quebec. There are many people throughout Canada who have family and heartfelt ties in Quebec. It is completely absurd to fear civil war. Canadians, whether they like eachother or not, depend on eachother for their own individual livelihood more than they need war.

Who would fight who? You are your own human shields to eachother! Do you get it?

Only stupid people would fight and stupid people do not last long.

As I said before, separatism is a fundamentally irrational concept.

Now, I ask for a convincing argument.

If someone wanted smaller gov't the most rational thing to do would be to vote for parties that would work within the existing constitutional framework to cut the size of gov't.

Why would that be the most rational?

However, Quebec separatists don't want less gov't - they want more gov't. That is why they are the most heavily taxed and over regulated jurisdiction on the continent.

That is a diversion. Who cares what Quebec separatists want?

If I were to tell a non-Canadian about our governmental irrationality, would it be fair to ONLY tell him about Ed Broadbent's party? or about Pierre Trudeau's egomania?

[jdobbin]

You are not the only one who has family in Quebec. There are many people throughout Canada who have family and heartfelt ties in Quebec. It is completely absurd to fear civil war. Canadians, whether they like eachother or not, depend on eachother for their own individual livelihood more than they need war.

Who would fight who? You are your own human shields to eachother! Do you get it?

Only stupid people would fight and stupid people do not last long.

It isn't absurd to fear sectarian violence and possible civil war. What is absurd is to say it won't happen.

American officials said it was absurd to think civil war would come to Iraq. They said people there would look out for their mutual interests. To be sure there have been some who have tried to rise above it. Many of those people have been killed.

I certainly wouldn't kill someone unprovoked. But I certainly wouldn't stand for my family being pegged off one at a time simply for resisting having their province being taken out of Canada. Can you say that you would stand idly by too? This is what happens when terror strikes. No one knows what the trigger will be but once it starts, it is difficult to stop.

Perhaps you might be like those Iraq official who tell the populace to remain calm. They seem rather impotent now. Maybe they were impotent all along since it was the United States who have guided this process forward.

Desperate and ruthless people fight. It might seem stupid to you but terror sometimes works. Armed resistance sometimes works. And civil was sometimes erupts.

[Charles Anthony]

We can have sectarian violence and civil war now if we wanted. Should I fear that now?

It isn't absurd to fear sectarian violence and possible civil war. What is absurd is to say it won't happen.

Of course it is absurd. There is too much money to be lost in war.

I certainly wouldn't kill someone unprovoked. But I certainly wouldn't stand

Who is going to pay your bills while you are away??

for my family being pegged off one at a time simply for resisting having their province being taken out of Canada.

Pegged off by who?

Can you say that you would stand idly by too?

I can not say that I can afford to go to war. Can YOU??

This is what happens when terror strikes. No one knows what the trigger will be but once it starts, it is difficult to stop.

If I went off as a guerilla, my family and I would starve.

If you conscripted me, my family would starve and I would probably go crazy.

In either case, the war is over.

You are comparing Canada to Irak.

Why not compare Canada to Somalia or Ruanda or Slovenia or Rhodesia or Marsillia or Mandalore?

Why did you choose Irak?

[jdobbin]

Of course it is absurd. There is too much money to be lost in war.

Who is going to pay your bills while you are away??

You are comparing Canada to Irak.

Why not compare Canada to Somalia or Ruanda or Slovenia or Rhodesia or Marsillia or Mandalore?

Why did you choose Irak?

It is not always about money. If that was the case, Quebec wouldn't even be thinking about separation.

You argument doesn't make any sense. Why choose Iraq? Because Iraq has enough oil to enrich its people but they choose to fight anyways.

Violence happens when people don't accept a situation. You can get very rich being on the winning side.

[Charles Anthony]

It is not always about money.

I disagree.

You argument doesn't make any sense. Why choose Iraq? Because Iraq has enough oil to enrich its people but they choose to fight anyways.

Oil. So.... that makes Irak a good comparison with Canada. I see.

Why not say "Irak has enough water" (Canada has water) or "Irak has enough sand" (Canada has sand) or "Irak has enough poets" (Canada has poets) or "Irak has enough politicians" (Canada has politicians) or -- Why oil?

Violence happens when people don't accept a situation.

Not everybody can afford to be violent.

You are treating politics as if it were a board-game devoid of real people.

[jonnygrit]

Canada is only as strong as it's parts. We may be from different provinces and have different backgrounds and beliefs, but we're all Canadian and that's the way we should stay.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The issue is not Canadian, it is far less encompassing than that. It is all about the individual, its about freedom. Citizens should be free to associate and interact with other citizens at their own discretion. Citizens should be free to choose a system of government and political association as best suits their needs and desires. Likeminded citizens have the right to associate and interact within society as they choose. In a democracy these concepts must be preserved and promoted.

[Wilber]

What is Canadian then if not the integrety of the country? Without it, there is no Canadian.

[tml12]

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?

Choice#2...if they take their share of the national debt.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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?

Choice#2...if they take their share of the national debt.

Alberta has already paid for its share of the debt several times over, but I agree with your intent.

[geoffrey]

Let's go with instead of paying their share of the debt (though we could do that too)... also refund your equalisation. Now Quebec could never leave.

And Alberta would likely get a cheque.