VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:07:31 12/31/04 Fri
Author: AHMET SEZER
Subject: Re: manifest destiny
In reply to: shawn meades 's message, "Re: manifest destiny" on 17:53:37 12/27/01 Thu

>
>> Perhaps adding the new provinces mentioned in
>>previous postings would drown out Quebec's whining.
>>With more voices of people willing to be reasonable
>>suddenly in the picture, perhaps Quebec will have to
>>stop being such a thorn in Canada's collective side.
>
>Unfortunately, Québec isn't just a tweenie upset they
>haven't reached puberty yet. It's FAR more
>complicated. It goes all the way back to the Plains
>of Abraham, it's existed since confederation, and a
>couple "add-ons" sadly won't fix it. Newfoundland
>voting to join confederation didn't do anything (It
>actually made things worse due to conflicts over the
>border of Labrador).
>
>>
>> Our proposal for Kalaalit Nunaat is to amalgamate it
>>with Nunavut. This way, the two together would qualify
>>to be a province. That being the case, it is in their
>>interest to join Canada. Even though currently
>>Kalaalit Nunaat is a 'self governing' territory of
>>Denmark, it is a very limited self government, nowhere
>>near the level of self government of a Canadian
>>province. They would profit greatly with Imperial
>>Canada's proposal. Being admitted as a full province,
>>they would not have to fear being neglected or
>ignored.
>
>That's rather naive, I think. Personally, I think
>that's even worse. Alone, Kalaalit Nunaat would
>qualify for at the most, two seats in the House of
>Commons (more likely just one), and either one, or two
>in the Senate- no more. The population of most
>Toronto ridings is over 100 000. The population of
>Nunavut currently is (elections Canada stats) 24 730,
>while the population of Kalaalit Nunaat (July 2001
>est.) is 56 352. Together, they would have a
>population of aproximately 81 082. That would mean
>that at the ABSOLUTE most, they would have
>collectively 3 seats in the HoC (possibly even just
>one), and most likely 2 in the Senate (again, possibly
>even just one, when you consider that Newfoundland has
>5 seats, and a population of around 500000). Also,
>currently, Kalaalit Nunaat has 2 seats in the Danish
>Folketing out of 179, whereas they would probably have
>two seats in the House of Commons (or maybe even just
>one) out of 301 (302-303 after they join)- that is a
>drastic decrease in representation.
>
>> It would not have to be done on a national level.
>>Inuit is spoken in Nunavut and government there
>>provides services in Inuit there. It is a regional
>>language, not used on a national level. The same could
>>be the case with Icelandic.
>
>True, but Nunavut was not independent before it came
>into being in 1999- It was part of the Northwest
>Territories. Nunavut also has a population of 24 000.
> The citizens of Kalaalit Nunaat and Iceland should
>have access to the documents of their federal
>governments in their own languages. Anyway, I don't
>think this is a very big issue since all that's needed
>is staff to translate hansard and other documents into
>Icelandic, and Inuktitut (and other Inuit languages).
>It wouldn't be necesary to make the languages official
>to the degree that French is since French is found in
>every corner of the country, whereas Icelandic and
>Inuktitut are not.
>>>
>
>> You are correct with Alaska. As was said in a
>>previous message, their delegation to Parliament in
>>Ottawa would be seven times as many people as they
>>send to Washington, DC. However, I can't agree with
>>your statement about Kalaalit Nunaat, quite the
>>contrary, they stand to gain quite a bit. They have
>>only two people representing them in Copenhagen.
>>Amalgamated with Nunavut, they would have four people
>>representinig their new province in Ottawa
>
>No, they would have at the most 3- 1 of which would be
>Nunavut, so really they'd have at the most 2. Who
>knows, they might even have to SHARE ONE seat with
>Nunavut!!!! And this is out of 301, as opposed to the
>Danish 179. Again, this is a drastic decrease in
>representation.
>
>. Plus they
>>would also be eligable to have Senators as well. Right
>>off hand, I don't know how many, but they would have
>>some Senators for sure.
>
>One or two- no more. And that doesn't mean more
>representation since Denmark has no upper house of
>parliament.
>>
>>
>> Sovereignty association would not be necessary, I am
>>sure the new provinces would be quite happy with being
>>normal provinces. I disagree about your fear of things
>>being made more complicated with Quebec. I belive that
>>Quebec would have to get the message and, quit their
>>whining!
>
>I think you're kidding yourself. Québec didn't "shut
>up" when Newfoundland joined confederation- nor when
>BC, PEI, Red River Colony, or the North West
>Territories (Now Nunavut, NWT, Yukon, Alberta, Sask.,
>and much of present day BC abd Ontario) jopined
>confederation. It's been done, and it didn't stop, or
>slow down anything.
>
>Personally, when I went to Québec, I actually came
>back sympathetic to the sovereigntists/separatists-
>it's a feeling you can't explain- But if I were
>presently in Québec, I would sooner vote Bloc
>Québecois then I would for our current oligarchic
>government (Liberals)- or their blue photocopies in
>opposition, the Progressive conservatives. I find it
>deeply offensive that you would equate the concerns of
>Québecers with "whining"- Have you ever been to
>Québec? Do you speak French?
>
>Also, Iceland elects its head of state- would they
>REALLY be willing to give that up to become a province
>of a country that while it would have its own head of
>state, it would still be a king/Queen? And Iceland
>would lose A LOT of sovereignty if it joined Canada-
>National defence, foreign affairs and international
>trade, banking system, criminal law, marriage and
>divorce, postal services, plus distribution of wealth,
>and due to recent federal power grabs, much of health
>and other services. Iceland being an island, all
>offshore resources would be owned by the federal
>government- would they REALLY want to become a
>province? Sovereignty association would probably be
>the only way to convince Iceland to join confederation.
>>
>>
>> As for Saint Pierre and Miquelon, that is a problem
>>that will solve itself. The section of the French
>>constitution to which you are referring speaks only of
>>France itself. That same constitution also proivides
>>the option of independence for extra-territorial
>>French possessions. If a French territory can be given
>>independence, surely it can be sold to another
>>country, can it not? France got the message when the
>>World Court ruled in Canada's favour in the fishing
>>dispute over the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, thus
>>rendering Saint Pierre and Miquelon economically
>>worthless to France. France dosen't even want them
>>anymore. As for France making them an overseas
>>department, they were for a while, but when that
>>proved to be way to expensive for France to handle,
>>they redesignated them as a 'territorial collective'
>>whatever that is supposed to mean. I am sure that for
>>the right amount of money, France would gladly sell
>>them to Canada. If any islanders didn't want to stay,
>>I suppose Canada could agre to also pay for their
>>relocation expenses as part of the deal. Since there
>>are only 6,500 islanders there, that would not be too
>>expensive. A small price to pay really, when you
>>consider that they would be out of our faces for good.
>>No more drunken Frenchmen sailing around in Canadian
>>waters to give hte Canadian Coast Guard any
>headaches.
>
>Asides from the comment about "drunken Frenchmen" (
>>:( which has actually never been a problem, BTW),
>okay. But in light of recent oil and gas exploration
>in the region, I don't think France will be quite as
>ready to cash out just when the jackpot starts to
>grow. Also, SP&M has its own assembly (Conseil
>Général- 19 seats), and their small population would
>prevent them from even having one seat (in general) in
>the House of Commons and Senate. I'm not sure they'd
>want to give that up.
>>
>> We dont propose to impose our will on anybody, so no
>>need to take offense.
>>
>> Many thanks for your enlightening comments. We hope
>>to see more postings from you soon,
>> Ronald Dykeman
>> Founder of the Imperial Canada Association
>
>Okay, that's nice to know :) To tidy up my
>suggestions a bit, I'll sum everything up:
>
>Even though I think the only regions that would ever
>join Canada out of those listed would be Angle Inlet,
>I have a few suggestions for the rest;
>
>-You should suggest sovereignty association for
>Iceland.
>-Guaranteed provincehood for Kalaalit Nunaat (outside
>of Nunavut).
>-St. Pierre & Miquelon should become a territory. If
>not, it should become part of Québec with a guaranteed
>seat in L'Assemblé Nationale. They should also have a
>guaranteed seat in the House of Commons and Senate.
>-Angle Inlet should become party of Manitoba (It just
>makes more sense, despite making the border "squigly").
>-Alaska should have guaranteed provincehood.
>-You should promise to reform the Senate, and change
>the electoral process by which the House of Commons is
>chosen.
>
>I think all these suggestions would sweeten the pot
>for those land which you would like to see join
>Canada- Though I'm just a bit cynical, as ever ;)
>
>Your site is very interesting, keep it up :)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.