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: 20:23:49 12/26/01 Wed
Author: Ronald Dykeman
Subject: Re: manifest destiny
In reply to: shawn meades 's message, "manifest destiny" on 19:21:21 12/26/01 Wed

>While I'm not opposed to Canadian expandion, I am
>wrather opposed to imperialism. Naturally, I don't
>think you are proposing that we force ourselves upon
>the territories mentioned below:
>
> Alaska, Point Roberts and the San Juan Islands, the
>North West Angle of Lake of the Woods ***(This is
>known as Angle Inlet, BTW)***, Isle Royale of Lake
>Superior, Saint Pierre and Miquelon Islands,
>Greenland, and Iceland.
>
>But I'm not keen on the idea of our country admitting
>to expantionist tendencies. If these areas take the
>initiative on their own to join Canada, GREAT! We'll
>welcome them with open arms! but I just don't think we
>should coax any people with "land of milk and honey"
>delusions. We're in quite a fix as it is trying to
>figure out the position of our existing provinces in
>Confederation- is expantion necesarily good?

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.
>
>While politically, I'd like nothing more than for
>Kalaalit Nunaat to join confederation- think about it-
>the three main established parties consiste of Social
>Democrats, Liberals, and communists! It's about time
>a few more leftists were sent to the House of Commons
>(though Kalaalit Nunaat would get at the most two
>seats- same as they've got with Denmark. It wouldn't
>be all that much of an advantage for them)! But what
>about the extra equalization payments? The
>maintenance of yet more northern infrastructure?
>Trying to keep prices down in isolated areas? It
>would cost the federal government TONNES (that's how
>metric tonnes are spelt) of money! Money that our
>current government would rather use to "reward" those
>who vote for them. Personally, I'd be afraid that
>Kalaalit Nunaat and others would be completely ignored.

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.

>
>Also, if Iceland, Alaska, and Kalaalit Nunaat were to
>join confederation- wouldn't it only be fair to make
>Icelandic and various Inuit languages OFFICIAL
>languages? This isn't TOO expensive, but it's
>certainly not cheap!

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.
>
>Another can of worms we open up is how much
>sovereignty would certain areas such as Kalaalit
>Nunaat and Iceland have? Alaska stands to gain
>sovereignty, so it's practically a non-issue in that
>sense, but Iceland and Kalaalit Nunaat stand to lose
>quite a bit!

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. 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.

Wouldn't sovereignty association or
>something similar be better in those cases? If we go
>down that road, then what's to stop the future Premier
>of Québec (or even Alberta for crissakes!) from saying
>they are deserving of such a position in
>confederation? It seams that the policies of Imperial
>Canada wouldn't ease things with Québec, but
>complicate them to degrees we haven't seen since the
>1995 referendum! :o

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!

>
>And St. Pierre & Miquelon is quite complicated.
>France's constitution forbids the disolution of the
>Republic- and if France wanted to hold on to the North
>American territories against the wishes of the
>residents (being theoretical here- I haven't seen any
>evidence that the People of SP&M would either desire
>union with Canada, nor that it would be favourable)
>then it wouldn't be hard for France to encorporate the
>Islands into full French departments, I believe. Even
>if they did join- would they be a province? Would
>they join Québec? Would they join Newfoundland &
>Labrador? Would an alternative and unique arrangement
>be necessary?

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.
>
>One last point- claiming sovereignty over a territory
>is one thing, but over an independant nation (Iceland,
>and to a certain lesser degree, Kalaalit Nunaat [it
>being a self-governing territory]) I find to be
>utterly immoral, and offensive.

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

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

Replies:

[ 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.