Tories and Quebec Sovereignty
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty
I was actually referring to comments made in this thread to war between Quebec and teh ROC. In that kind of scenario, not only would the natives in Quebec want out (figuring that this is an issue for the whites and nothing to do with them), but that natives across Canada would be thinking the same thing. After all, in an all out war with 25% in Quebec, the whole military would be there! Perfect opportunity for the natives out west to start claiming land of their own too.
sanch said:
I was actually referring to comments made in this thread to war between Quebec and teh ROC. In that kind of scenario, not only would the natives in Quebec want out (figuring that this is an issue for the whites and nothing to do with them), but that natives across Canada would be thinking the same thing. After all, in an all out war with 25% in Quebec, the whole military would be there! Perfect opportunity for the natives out west to start claiming land of their own too.
People claim that it would take the whole army to go into Quebec. It should be noted that in the last referendum that only 60% of all francophone voters voted for independence.
Now, if a war did start, it would be difficult and there could very well be Native People who rise up to create their own nations.
However, the native people in Quebec and the natives in the ROC have said they want to stay Canadian.
Jersay said:
Sure, being Canadian is advantageous in peace time; would they still want to be Canadian in a wartorn country, especially when the war has nothing to do with them? I knwo I'd want out!
Alberta likewise would probably prefer saving its money and bailing out rather than wasting all its money on a war way out east!
So with the natives and Alberta bailing out, and Quebec most likely not wanting war either (after all, it would be fought on their own soil!), who'd be left to fight the war?
So with the natives and Alberta bailing out, and Quebec most likely not wanting war either (after all, it would be fought on their own soil!), who'd be left to fight the war?
In the remotest of scenarios I see Quebec winning a referendum. Civil war though is another enchilada. It would involve a rallying cry and mobilization and not every province would respond to the same message. Who knows by the time Albertans got to Ontario they might be tired and decide to sack Toronto rather than move on the Montreal. I think any war would be a total free for all.
There is a lot of literature on how aboriginals would respond to separation.
There is a lot of literature on how aboriginals would respond to separation.
All speculation, if the Bloc showed anything, the seperatists will never get 50% of the popular vote. Even though we will have to wait and see for the provincial election because that is what matters.
Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty
The Native claims, are just that... Claims. They won't get their land without the consent of the Québec Government. Even if the Cree opted out, they only have spots of land here and there. Only large are of land that is in Native hands in Nunavut.
Go look it up on the Canadian Government websites, theirs maps of native owned land in Québec. Only the Inuits own a region, and that region is endless tundra.
As for the rest, the Canadian military is in no position to occupy any region. Theirs wouldnt be foreign investment in Canada either because of the uncertainty. The UN would support our existance if a foreign power pressed for it, like France. Why would NAFTA recognise us? Its a treaty.
Canada would loose its spot on the G8. Would be deeply weekened both economicly and politicly.
This is why, negotiating seperation in good faith after a mandate from the people is in the best intrest of everyone. The UDI option only came about after the Clarity Act.
sanch said:
The Native claims, are just that... Claims. They won't get their land without the consent of the Québec Government. Even if the Cree opted out, they only have spots of land here and there. Only large are of land that is in Native hands in Nunavut.
Go look it up on the Canadian Government websites, theirs maps of native owned land in Québec. Only the Inuits own a region, and that region is endless tundra.
As for the rest, the Canadian military is in no position to occupy any region. Theirs wouldnt be foreign investment in Canada either because of the uncertainty. The UN would support our existance if a foreign power pressed for it, like France. Why would NAFTA recognise us? Its a treaty.
Canada would loose its spot on the G8. Would be deeply weekened both economicly and politicly.
This is why, negotiating seperation in good faith after a mandate from the people is in the best intrest of everyone. The UDI option only came about after the Clarity Act.
sanch said:
Exactly! So those who think they could keep Quebec in the federation through war are sadly mistaken. Their best option would be to let Quebec go and focus rather on keeping the rest of the country together. The second they would delare war, everyone would walk out! Good news is, there would be no war even with a declaration of war. But the declaration itself would be the nail in Canada's coffin.
Native Claims. They are the only one who should truly own the land, not the French and not the English. However as you bring it up, I am sure that the Canadian government would accept most of the traditional territory that Native people claim.
You people give the Canadian military less credit than it deserves. I am apart of the military, and we have the best special forces and the best communication squads in the world.
We went on war games with the American Rangers and the British Special Forces and the Canadian Special forces beat them.
And why does it seem last time the seperatists went to Paris they were returned without even meeting the President or Parliment. France has said that an Independent Quebec is not in their interest.
Native Land
Native land is held by the Queen in Right of Canada — it is not the property of Québec. Therefore, it would stand to reason that in the event that Québec would attain sovereignty, that each and every band of Native Canadians would have the right to choose whether to opt into Québec, or to remain a part of Canada — whether or not there is a land divide between them.
Native land is held by the Queen in Right of Canada — it is not the property of Québec. Therefore, it would stand to reason that in the event that Québec would attain sovereignty, that each and every band of Native Canadians would have the right to choose whether to opt into Québec, or to remain a part of Canada — whether or not there is a land divide between them.
No native land is the right of the province. Alberta, Ontario or Quebec or any other province. It is crown land so the head of that is the Queen.
So the Native people can decide to seceed from Quebec they can, it just depends if it would be the reserves they have now, or all crown land which is suppose to go to them.
So it would either be the traditional lands of the Native people in Quebec, where there is a ton, or the small amounts they have now.
When Québec decides to secede, she must keep in her mind that the land on which First Nations reserves are located, or any land that is reserved by the First Nations people of Canada, are not the property of Québec, but rather the Queen.
RE: Tories and Quebec Sov
The Queen has no legal property of any land. The land is owned, by the Provinces. And the Reserves, are owned not even by the indians, but by the federal government.
You continue to say that it is the Queen's land, I ask of you to show me legal proof that it the Queen's land.
The Queen has no legal property of any land. The land is owned, by the Provinces. And the Reserves, are owned not even by the indians, but by the federal government.
You continue to say that it is the Queen's land, I ask of you to show me legal proof that it the Queen's land.
Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty
It seems that the lands would revert back to the Native Tribes in their own right with each First Nation being just that, a Soveriegn Nation under the protection of the "HOST" nation with local matters being administrated by the local council on the Preserve and "Foriegn" matters being decided en Le Ville de Quebec.
Secondly, any public property in Quebec is held in the "Right of the Queen" at present, so will the Public Building pass title? If you look at past disassociations with the British Crown, title of ownership passes to the New Governmetn or Head of State, why would this be any different?
Depending on the deal offered, the First Ntions could better their position in this matter.
FiveParadox said:
It seems that the lands would revert back to the Native Tribes in their own right with each First Nation being just that, a Soveriegn Nation under the protection of the "HOST" nation with local matters being administrated by the local council on the Preserve and "Foriegn" matters being decided en Le Ville de Quebec.
Secondly, any public property in Quebec is held in the "Right of the Queen" at present, so will the Public Building pass title? If you look at past disassociations with the British Crown, title of ownership passes to the New Governmetn or Head of State, why would this be any different?
Depending on the deal offered, the First Ntions could better their position in this matter.
:roll:
Will we ever stop talking about that old woman in her palace in London. She has nothing to do with Canadian politics despite her symbolic role. This is a Canadian issue and anyone talking about the Queen loses any form of credibilty to me.
I totally respect any federalist argument but please, please keep the Queen out of this!
Will we ever stop talking about that old woman in her palace in London. She has nothing to do with Canadian politics despite her symbolic role. This is a Canadian issue and anyone talking about the Queen loses any form of credibilty to me.
I totally respect any federalist argument but please, please keep the Queen out of this!
the queen, the queen, the queen,...
a relic of a colonial past that lives on in name.
she is really nothing other than a dunsel and has no say in canadianna. She could voice an opinion, but she won't because she knows she only retains her current status because she has not tried to exert any influence over canadianna.
a relic of a colonial past that lives on in name.
she is really nothing other than a dunsel and has no say in canadianna. She could voice an opinion, but she won't because she knows she only retains her current status because she has not tried to exert any influence over canadianna.
You can call it whatever you want, Queen's land and such, but it is not the property of the provincial government it is not their land.
It is federal land held in trust for the aboriginal people of Canada for their benefit.
So it depends that if a vote of independence was held, if all crown land that is held in trust for natives, which is huge will go out of Quebec control or if only their reserves will go.
Because if it is the total crown land, say good-bye to Quebec's north.
And second, the Hudson Bay Company gave the north of Quebec, as well as northern ontario to Canada, so technically they didn't give it to Quebec but Canada so say good bye to that territory as well.
Now if the HBC agreement for Rupert's Land had been to the provinces you could keep it but it wasn't.
It is federal land held in trust for the aboriginal people of Canada for their benefit.
So it depends that if a vote of independence was held, if all crown land that is held in trust for natives, which is huge will go out of Quebec control or if only their reserves will go.
Because if it is the total crown land, say good-bye to Quebec's north.
And second, the Hudson Bay Company gave the north of Quebec, as well as northern ontario to Canada, so technically they didn't give it to Quebec but Canada so say good bye to that territory as well.
Now if the HBC agreement for Rupert's Land had been to the provinces you could keep it but it wasn't.
RE: Tories and Quebec Sov
Well, the Bloc DID lose support this election, maybe that is a positive sign.
I really don't care if Quebec wants to seperate, if they do, they should get no funding from Ottawa to pay for their funding. You seperate, you lose. Thats how I see it.
Well, the Bloc DID lose support this election, maybe that is a positive sign.
I really don't care if Quebec wants to seperate, if they do, they should get no funding from Ottawa to pay for their funding. You seperate, you lose. Thats how I see it.