Provincial Seperation

[geoffrey]

The Clarity Act doesn't provide a means for escape due to it's undemocratic and poorly constructed nature.

My dear fellow, it's brilliantly constructed to achieve it's real purpose.

And hence the increased divide in Quebec over it.

It's a blatantly undemocratic act, created to be that way. It makes it impossible for the will of a provincial population to be respected, and instead consolidates further power to the Federal government. Independant nations are held here against their will, with really no means of legally seperating.

-hold a referendum that complies with the Clarity Act and then attempt to negotiate a constitutional amendment of separation with the federal government and the other provinces, OR,

No referendum complies with the Clarity act. The criteria are ambiguous. The Federal government would just claim a violation uppon the success of a seperation movement.

-they can ignore the Clarity Act and attempt to negotiate a constitutional amendment of separation with the federal government and other provinces.

In either case, if the federal government and 7 provinces representing over 50% of the population approves, the amendment passes.

That's ridiculous. With 7 provinces on Alberta welfare, who'd let us go?

[Riverwind]

It's a blatantly undemocratic act, created to be that way. It makes it impossible for the will of a provincial population to be respected, and instead consolidates further power to the Federal government. Independant nations are held here against their will, with really no means of legally separating.

Give me a break. What are the alternatives? It is absurd to suggest that a province should dictate the terms of succession. If terms cannot be negotiated then the status quo must prevail. Claiming that a single province should be able to impose its will on the rest of the country is extremely anti-democratic.

[seabee]

It is absurd to suggest that a province should dictate the terms of succession. If terms cannot be negotiated then the status quo must prevail.

I agree that neither side shoud dictate to the other. In case of provincial separation, the federal government wants to maintain the status quo. If the status quo must prevail, as you say, the federal simply have to negotiate in bad faith and bingo! its side has won and can and does dictate to the other side. There lies the contradiction. The only way to solve blocked negotiations woud be, as the SCC suggests, to bring the issue to an outside body, the United Nations.

[Riverwind]

The only way to solve blocked negotiations woud be, as the SCC suggests, to bring the issue to an outside body, the United Nations.

In the end the UN will not be able to resolve anything since they have no real legal authority that can force one side to comply with a judgement that it considers unfair. For example, I doubt the separatists in Quebec City would ever agree to be bound by the terms of an international tribunal if it was possible that the tribunal would rule that either 1) Quebec has no right to succeed under international law or 2) Quebec cannot stop pieces of the province from breaking off and staying with Canada.

So we are stuck with a situtation where there must be a 'default' if negotiations fail to come to a resolution and that default should be the status quo. If Quebequers really want a seperate country then they will have to be willing to put an offer on the table that is acceptable to the rest of Canada.

[Figleaf]

...It's a blatantly undemocratic act, created to be that way. It makes it impossible for the will of a provincial population to be respected, and instead consolidates further power to the Federal government.

I disagree. It's a very democratic act. It spells out to geographic minorities how the federal government will respond to any proposed separation. It was passed constitutionally in our elected Parliament. Nothing undemocratic in the least.

Independant nations are held here against their will, with really no means of legally seperating.

Utter nonsense. Provinces are not independent nations. They are not here against their will. And I've already described a legal means of separation. No province has ever decided to attempt separation.

No referendum complies with the Clarity act. The criteria are ambiguous. The Federal government would just claim a violation uppon the success of a seperation movement.

Why do people say silly things like this. The Clarity Act is very detailed and in a dispute it would be interpreted in court.

In either case, if the federal government and 7 provinces representing over 50% of the population approves, the amendment passes.

That's ridiculous. With 7 provinces on Alberta welfare, who'd let us go?

That's the constitutional amending formula, ridiculous or not.

But I love your comment. That's what this is all about to Alberta separatists, isn't it... Your claim of entitlement to be rich, even if it means stealing part of our country for yourselves. I'm glad a majority of Albertans don't buy into that kind of zero-sum thinking.

[geoffrey]

Give me a break. What are the alternatives? It is absurd to suggest that a province should dictate the terms of succession. If terms cannot be negotiated then the status quo must prevail. Claiming that a single province should be able to impose its will on the rest of the country is extremely anti-democratic.

But the rest of the country imposing it's will on one province isn't? I thought we got away from this minority oppression a century or so ago up here in the North.

The Clarity Act could have been a democratic bill, but Mr. Dion decided to throw so much ambiguity into it that the only possible outcome is the Federal government rejecting the referendum. The Clarity Act pretty much prevents seperation completely, unless the Federal government allows them to go.

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.

Utter nonsense. Provinces are not independent nations. They are not here against their will. And I've already described a legal means of separation. No province has ever decided to attempt separation.

The legal means of separation is nearly impossible, you know that.

Why do people say silly things like this. The Clarity Act is very detailed and in a dispute it would be interpreted in court.

No it's not detailed in the least.

The House of Commons has the ability to decide based on whatever the political tide of the day is, whether the question is fair. There are no criteria, just whatever the majority in power decides is the criteria... therefore any vote would likely be ignored due to 'bad wording.'

It also gives the House of Common's the ability to ignore a vote based on an ambiguous clear majority. They have the power to say that 51% isn't enough... they have the power to say that 70% isn't enough. It's up to them. It's HoC vote that decides what a majority is. Very clever Mr. Dion.

That's not democratic. The Clarity Act should have specificed what a clear question is (ie. "Do you wish to seperate from Canada?") and what a clear majority is. Instead, we have a bill that allows the HoC to ignore any democratic referedum at will. It has nothing to do with the Courts.

That's the constitutional amending formula, ridiculous or not.

But I love your comment. That's what this is all about to Alberta separatists, isn't it... Your claim of entitlement to be rich, even if it means stealing part of our country for yourselves. I'm glad a majority of Albertans don't buy into that kind of zero-sum thinking.

Alberta is as unlike the RoC as Quebec is. Language isn't the only determinor of nationhood or distinct culture. I would know, I've lived here, in Ontario, in Quebec. Comparing Calgary to Toronto to Montreal, Calgary is the odd one out.

[Riverwind]

But the rest of the country imposing it's will on one province isn't? I thought we got away from this minority oppression a century or so ago up here in the North.

A vote for separation will never be unanimous. It is likely a large minority of Albertans would be opposed to such a move yet you seem to be perfectly happy to impose the will of the majority on them. By definition democracy is the tyranny of the majority. We attempt to address this problem by having multiple tiers of gov't with different responsibility but at each tier the majority rules.

Breaking up the country, by definition, involves the entire country. So no break up should be allowed unless the majority of people in the country agree. If you don't like you should go talk to Taft and Mason. I am sure they would have lots of sympathy for someone who thinks they are getting screwed by the democratic majority.

[Charles Anthony]

Breaking up the country, by definition, involves the entire country. So no break up should be allowed unless the majority of people in the country agree.

Breaking up Canada will also affect people outside of Canada -- should non-Canadians dictate provincial separation too?

The legal means of separation is nearly impossible, you know that.

Why should separation be legal? The rest-of-Canadians are not going to go to civil war, so why worry?

[Riverwind]

Breaking up the country, by definition, involves the entire country. So no break up should be allowed unless the majority of people in the country agree.

Breaking up Canada will also affect people outside of Canada -- should non-Canadians dictate provincial separation too?

Canada is the sovereign state and the borders of the country can only be changed with the approval of Canada. Therefore, it is the democratic majority within Canada that sets the rules reguarding seperation. Those rules are no more arbitrary than the rules that say Alberta has the sole authority over natural resources within its borders.

Why should separation be legal? The rest-of-Canadians are not going to go to civil war, so why worry?

Illegal seperation simply makes violance a more likely outcome. Seperation is a pandora's box and anyone who thinks that civil war would never happen is hopelessly naive and deluded. Any province that wants to seperate will have to table an offer that addresses the concerns of the rest of the country.

[Charles Anthony]

Canada is the sovereign state and the borders of the country can only be changed with the approval of Canada.

Big deal. None of that matters if there is a unilateral declaration of independence.

Therefore, it is the democratic majority within Canada that sets the rules reguarding seperation. Those rules are no more arbitrary than the rules that say Alberta has the sole authority over natural resources within its borders.

Who cares about the rules? Unless rest-of-Canadians can enforce those rules, the discussion is a waste.

Illegal seperation simply makes violance a more likely outcome. Seperation is a pandora's box and anyone who thinks that civil war would never happen is hopelessly naive and deluded.

Yeah, I can see armies of federal public servants and provincial public servants fighting over turf. Everybody else in the country will either change the channel or go back to work.

Any province that wants to seperate will have to table an offer that addresses the concerns of the rest of the country.

An offer of what?

The only thing that will be under discussion will be the division of debt -- and the banks will decide that on our behalf. No need for consulting "the democratic majority" there.

[Riverwind]

Unless rest-of-Canadians can enforce those rules, the discussion is a waste.

What are we talking about here? The pratical realities or the theory? The discussion started out with Geoffery's rant about how anti-democratic the Clarity Act is. My response that it is perfectly democratic because the jurisdiction affected by the separation is the federal gov't which means it is up to the federal gov't to agree to any changes. A UDI is a declaration of war and, by definition, anti-democratic. It is an act of war because the people making the declaration are claiming that they have the power to control the territory they claim and they are giving the existing power permission to use whatever force is necessary to prove them wrong. The fact that the people you are declaring war on might not choose to fight back does not change the fact that a UDI is an act of war.

[Charles Anthony]

What are we talking about here? The pratical realities or the theory?

I guess I am focussing only on the practicalities. Although I never thought of it that way before, I concur that a unilateral declaration of independence is technically the same as a declaration of war.

Whether it be Quebec or Alberta, I am convinced that there will be little hostility. It is in everybody's commercial interest to be peaceful.

[jdobbin]

I guess I am focussing only on the practicalities. Although I never thought of it that way before, I concur that a unilateral declaration of independence is technically the same as a declaration of war.

Whether it be Quebec or Alberta, I am convinced that there will be little hostility. It is in everybody's commercial interest to be peaceful.

I think quite a few reserves would basically go to war over this. Who would handle that in Alberta? The RCMP?

[Charles Anthony]

I think quite a few reserves would basically go to war over this. Who would handle that in Alberta? The RCMP?

Nobody.

Be practical. What would these reserves want? to remain part of Canada?

Alright. Everybody in Canada will likely say "To hell with you! You are now in Alberta! We do not want your reserves!" Problem solved.

[Riverwind]

Be practical. What would these reserves want? to remain part of Canada?

It is unlikely that they would limit their territorial claim to the existing reserves. Big chunks of Northern Alberta break off using the same rules that Alberta wants to use (just like the Cree would be able to take most of Northern Quebec by following democratic prinicipals).

[seabee]

Unlike Québec, Alberta cannot separate; it does not collect its own income tax, as does Québec. If Alberta ever voted to secede, the federal government could simply stop giving that money to the province. Just as Israel is now doing with Palestine. If it ever wants to secede, it will first have to start collecting its own income tax. Québec does!

[jdobbin]

Nobody.

Be practical. What would these reserves want? to remain part of Canada?

Alright. Everybody in Canada will likely say "To hell with you! You are now in Alberta! We do not want your reserves!" Problem solved.

I doubt that everyone would be as passive as you think.

Some reserves would want to remain part of Canada as they don't have treaties with Alberta. A few have indicated as much. A few would want to be independent of Alberta but would want a much larger, in fact a huge amount of Alberta as a land claim. A few would be willing to fight, perhaps use terror tactics.

I'm afraid some separatists in Alberta have the same rose-coloured glasses as those that went into Iraq.

[Riverwind]

Unlike Québec, Alberta cannot separate; it does not collect its own income tax, as does Québec.

Rather strange logic. You are assuming that the Quebec gov't can compel companies to submit the federal portion to Quebec instead of Ottawa. Something that would be difficult to do with companies that want to do business in both places especially since the law clearly states that Quebec is part of Canada until the constitution is changed. Any executive with half a brain will understand this and will continue to send taxes to Ottawa until the law is changed. Now the Quebec gov't could starting acting like a Russian mafia boss and threaten companies with consequences, however, I don't think that would go over well with the business community.

[rbacon]

UEL are legal and are not considered an act of war..Maybe you could find a reference to back up that claim...I think we will find it is just your own fantasy.....And even if it did come to civil war TROC could and would do nothing they are all left wing sheep.....Ottawa only has what money it extorts from Alberta and Ontario....If Alberta quit sending money to Ottawa you would have to get out your tin cup and follow a crow's ass for your next meal....

[Riverwind]

UEL are legal and are not considered an act of war

The only law that exists in Canada is the law defined by the Canadian constitution. UDI is illegal under the Canadian constitution. International Law is not law since it is unenforceable. It would be better called 'International Politics'. A UDI would be illegal under rules of 'International Politics' if a majority of the world players decided that it was illegal at the time. I am pretty sure that most countries would be lining up to support Canada's position that a UDI is illegal because of the dangerous precedent.

[rbacon]

Riverwhine here is a list of Countries that have declaed UDI...Some worked out some didn't......Ask yourself what the root cause of the growth of Seperatist desires of Alberta and Quebec....Not hard to figure out...Both Provinces grew a Separatist movement because of the big centralist policies of Ottawa and Trudeau the Commie Ass Kisser....And the encroachment of Ottawa into the jurisdiction of the Provinces....If you want to blame some one blame Great Leader and the Liberals....List of UDIs

Declaration of Arbroath (Scotland, 1320) - The first known formal declaration of independence in which Scottish leaders declared Scotland's independence from England on behalf of the Scottish people.

Oath of Abjuration (Low Countries, 1581) - The Plakkaat van Verlatinghe was the formal declaration of independence on July 26, 1581 of the independence of the northern Low Countries from King Philip II of Spain.

United States Declaration of Independence (1776) - Made by thirteen of Great Britain's North American colonies. In 1778, the Treaty of Alliance and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce were signed by the United States and France signaling the first official recognition of the new country. The Kingdom of Great Britain formally recognized the new country following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Brazilian Declaration of Independence (1822) - Brazil was declared independent from Portugal on September 7 by then regent Pedro de Bragança e Bourbon, who was then crowned Emperor Peter I of Brazil.

Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand (1835) - This was a declaration of the independence of the Maori tribes.

Texan Declaration of Independence (1836) - Texas declared its independence from Mexico as the Republic of Texas.

Philippine Declaration of Independence (1898) - The Philippines were declared independent from Spain by Emilio Aguinaldo on June 12, 1898 when the Spanish-American War was still under way. However, neither Spain nor the United States recognized the declaration. De facto Philippine independence was finally achieved and recognized on July 4, 1946 after 48 years of United States colonial rule.

Easter Proclamation (Ireland, 1916) - During the Easter Rising in Dublin Irish rebels proclaimed, on behalf of the Irish people, the establishment of an independent Irish republic. Unlike the later Declaration of Independence of 1919, the Proclamation of the Republic was not issued by an elected body and was not followed by the establishment of any de facto political institutions.

Irish Declaration of Independence (1919) - The Irish Republic, encompassing the whole island of Ireland, was declared by Dáil Éireann (an extra-legal revolutionary parliament) in 1919. By the declaration the Dáil claimed to "ratify" the earlier Easter Proclamation. The new Irish Republic was recognized by no country except the Russian SFSR, was rivaled by the administration of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland during the Anglo-Irish War, and was ultimately superseded by the Irish Free State in 1922.

Icelandic Declaration of Independence (1944) - Iceland unilaterally declared its independence from Denmark, following a plebiscite of the local population, on June 17, 1944. The Danish King Christian X, whose country was under Nazi occupation at the time, had urged Iceland to wait until the end of the war before making any such move but otherwise did nothing to prevent it (and was unable to do so in any case).

Indonesian Declaration of Independence (1945) - Indonesia declared independence from the Netherlands on August 17, 1945. Its independence was soon recognized by the United States and Australia, but not by the Netherlands until 1949.

Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (1948) - The declaration was made on May 14, 1948 (the day in which the British Mandate over Palestine expired) by the Jewish People's Council.

Katangan Declaration of Independence (1960) - Katanga, a former a province of the Belgian Congo, attempted to seceded by means of a UDI in 1960, when Congo was granted its independence. The attempted secession was ended by the implementation of the United Nations supervised National Conciliation Plan in January, 1963.

Rhodesian Declaration of Independence (1965) - Ian Smith's white minority government declared independence from the United Kingdom in 1965. Few states accepted this declaration's legitimacy. The UDI Rhodesian state was ultimately replaced under the Lancaster House Agreement by a restored British regime under a governor: Lord Soames. Within a short time, a new, much more widely recognized independent state, Zimbabwe, came into existence.

Declaration of Independence of Guinea-Bissau (1973) - Guinea-Bissau, formerly Portuguese Guinea, declared independence from Portugal. The declaration was recognized by many countries, before Portugal formally granted independence in 1974.

East Timorese Declaration of Independence (1975) - East Timor, formerly Portuguese Timor, declared independence from Portugal on November 28. The declaration was recognized by several Communist (Marxist-Leninist) and Third World nations, including the People's Republic of China, but not by neighboring Australia, Portugal or Indonesia. Indonesia invaded on December 7, 1975, and annexed East Timor as its 'twenty-seventh province' on July 17, 1976.

Declaration of Independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (1983) - The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was proclaimed in northern Cyprus in 1983. The area had been occupied by Turkish forces since a Turkish invasion in 1974. The state has only received international recognition from Turkey and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic.

Palestinian Declaration of Independence (1988) - The Palestinian Liberation Organization unilaterally proclaimed the State of Palestine in 1988. The PLO had no control of any territory at the time and a de facto state has yet to come into existence in the occupied territories.

Somaliland Declaration of Independence (1991) - With Somalia sliding down into total anarchy, the former colony of British Somaliland, which became a constituent state of the newly independent Somalia in 1960, reasserted its independence. Despite the non-recognition of Somaliland by the international community, Somaliland has enjoyed stability and economic growth.

Recent self-declared states include Chechnya and Puntland.

[edit]

[Riverwind]

here is a list of Countries that have declaed UDI...Some worked out some didn't

In other words, you agree that UDI is not something that is automatically legal or acceptable. However, there is no precendent for the breakup of a democratic state. Canada can argue that a UDI is illegal under International Law because it is a democracy. I beleive most countries will find that it is in their self interest to accept Canada's position.

Ask yourself what the root cause of the growth of Separatist desires of Alberta and Quebec....Not hard to figure out...Both Provinces grew a Separatist movement because of...

Self obsessed local politicians who decided it was easier to get elected by pandering to people's fear and greed. The Alberta separation movement (if you want to call it that) is driven exclusively by greed and the desire to share the oil revenues with as few people as possible.

[geoffrey]

The Alberta separation movement (if you want to call it that) is driven exclusively by greed and the desire to share the oil revenues with as few people as possible.

Untrue. Years of 'screw the west, we'll take the rest' mentality and pandering to Quebec first in every issue may have something to do with it.

Alberta has little interest in a country that generally views them as the resource colony... no say in politics is allowed but a major contribution to Canada is required. Between Alberta and BC we have a greater population than Quebec. You tell me who has more influence, Quebec or Alberta/BC?

There is no equality in representation of values and culture, and the equality in funding confederation is even more skewd.

[Riverwind]

There is no equality in representation of values and culture, and the equality in funding confederation is even more skewd.

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).

If you want to change the federation in productive ways then I would put your energies towards getting the feds out of provincial jurisdiction. The leaders of _both_ national parties on the record supporting such a move. Furthermore, the SCC has already put a stake in the heath of the Canada Health Act by ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny access to private care. 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.

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.

[seabee]

If you want to change the federation in productive ways [...]

Why?

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.

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

Do we still need a hereditary head of state?

Does the "supremacy of God" clause make sense today?