Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby Americalex » Jan 06, 2013 2:14 pm

jonathan.jam wrote:So the government basically did it and told the people to get over themselves?

Here in Michigan, the state government has been very anti-city. Counties and cities can't be merged unless both parties agree to it via a popular election. Land can be annexed from townships, but many townships around cities haved become charter townships (which means that it is virtually impossible for land to be annexed). Since amalgamation needs the support of the majority vote, I don't forsee it happening any time soon. It would likely do wonders for local/regional governance, but the will of the people just isn't there.

As I recall it (and I haven't paid much attention to these affairs), it passed, and then it was later undone, and that was a costly affair. Finally, it was done again, this time it kind of worked.

That's it, people were often justly concerned that their taxes would go up, which was the main driver of opposition for mergers. They found some middle ground where such concerns were addressed. So definitely, any municipal mergers tend to affect the interests of real constituents and it is inevitable that such talks require negotiations and open hearings where all the corners can be ironed out so that it becomes agreeable to enough people.

It is easy to say that there are economies of scale to be had by such mergers, but at the same, if this cannot be rationally demonstrated through verifiable and communicable facts, it is difficult to get the affected residents to concede to such massive changes. The principle of subsidiary in government tends to agree that keeping policies closest to the communities that have to live with them is the soundest approach to governance, and municipal mergers kind of go against that logic.

But again, there is a reasonable case for them, based on a need to maintain logistical efficiencies, because after all the demographic growth certainly affects the initial balance envisaged when those municipalities were originally created.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby Milton » Jan 06, 2013 8:42 pm

One of the local towns has been wanting to annex my neighborhood for years, because most of us are retirees who have done pretty well, and most of us are either people who never had any kids, or "empty nesters" whose kids have moved away. The town wants to annex us to get us to help pay for things like schools, streets, and other facilities that we don't need. People here are the more successful people in this area, and this annexation thing is basically a socialistic wealth transfer. We keep voting against annexation by about 80%, but the town keeps trying.---Milton
"A true friend is not a rubber stamp" - Milton
"The best measure of your religion is the kind of person it has made you." - Milton
User avatar
Milton
Supporter
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Jun 29, 2003 3:43 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby dans » Apr 08, 2013 11:06 pm

I was rereading this thread, and now I have a question about Labrador. I know that Labrador is pretty sparsely populated, vis-a-vis Newfoundland. Just how much of Labrador's population is non-First Nation? The First Nations have a slightly different role in any territorial exchange than ROCers, since their lands are usually controlled federally and since representatives of Quebec have acknoledged that the First Nations retain their sovereignty, should Quebec secede, thus the transfer to a different province doesn't affect them as much, assuming the First Nations retain their self-governing regions.
Anyway, it looks like Labrador has fewer people than my hometown, which is only a modest city, as far as Illinois goes. Living in the US has probably distorted my sense of population density.
Say YES! to Puerto Rico! Tell your Representatives, tell your Senators: "Just 51% for the 51st State!"
User avatar
dans
Supporter
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Aug 29, 2012 11:01 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby Americalex » Apr 09, 2013 6:05 pm

dans wrote:I was rereading this thread, and now I have a question about Labrador. I know that Labrador is pretty sparsely populated, vis-a-vis Newfoundland. Just how much of Labrador's population is non-First Nation? The First Nations have a slightly different role in any territorial exchange than ROCers, since their lands are usually controlled federally and since representatives of Quebec have acknoledged that the First Nations retain their sovereignty, should Quebec secede, thus the transfer to a different province doesn't affect them as much, assuming the First Nations retain their self-governing regions.
Anyway, it looks like Labrador has fewer people than my hometown, which is only a modest city, as far as Illinois goes. Living in the US has probably distorted my sense of population density.

That's an interesting consideration, I found this which relates to your suggestion, while investigating the status of the terroritorial disputes over Labrador:

Possible separation from Newfoundland

A Royal Commission in 2002 determined that there is a certain amount of public pressure from Labradorians to break off from Newfoundland and become a separate province or territory. Some of the Innu nation would have the area become a homeland for them, much as Nunavut is for the Inuit; a 1999 resolution of the Assembly of First Nations claimed Labrador as a homeland for the Innu and demanded recognition in any further constitutional negotiations regarding the region.[9] The northern Inuit self-government region of Nunatsiavut was recently created through agreements with the provincial and federal governments. The Southern Inuit of Nunatukavut (NunatuKavut), who are also seeking self-government, have their land claim before the federal government. The provincial government of Newfoundland refuses to recognize or negotiate with the Inuit of NunatuKavut until their claim has been accepted by the federal government.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador#T ... ry_dispute

I don't know how Newfoundland would go about dealing with such a movement if one becomes mainstream in Labrador.. It's their territory, I don't see why they should relinquish it.

Personally I think the just way to look at it is that Labrador (with the accepted Privy Council borders from 1927) is a Territory of the Province of Newfoundland. As such it holds no direct sovereignty (much in the same way as the Federal territories). The only way Quebec could accrue all or some it, would be through bilateral negotiations with Newfoundland, involving their consent, and compensation. Newfoundland may never agree ever, it is their right.

But I believe that with the right price -an overpriced offer, basically- and by gaining the support of the Labrador residents through some autonomous arrangement similar to Nunavik, there might be a possibility to achieve this. But the compensation would have to be literally great for Newfoundlanders, and they would have to have a stomach for it. Otherwise I just don't see it in the cards.

The government of Quebec seems to be promoting an official stance according to which the B line is legitimate, based on some understanding that the Privy council decision was not a permanent delimitation of borders, but a temporary one until permanent definitions would be established. That is doubtful, but I guess they feel that there is some value in keeping this as an object of contention, perhaps in the context of possible separation from Canada.
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby Americalex » Apr 10, 2013 3:09 pm

Check out this old map I dug up:

http://i7.minus.com/ibswW6PKdC0gfW.png

This is the magnified portion relevant to the Labrador discussion:

Image
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby billydan225 » Jun 24, 2013 3:21 pm

Why not have a confederation between the US and Canada
User avatar
billydan225
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Jun 24, 2013 12:59 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby Americalex » Jun 24, 2013 7:59 pm

billydan225 wrote:Why not have a confederation between the US and Canada

It's actually the most desirable and best option available to us if the point is achieving unity by consent while affirming our sovereignty in a digital age framework. Accomplishing this lawfully is also possible, while respecting the political traditions, institutions and constitutional compacts of both our countries: it would certainly lead to momentous discussions to define what this confederation would look like, although from all these years of discussing such things here I think I've gotten a pretty well defined idea of what would work and be worthwhile for everybody.

Good to meet you by the way!
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby CTMountaineer » Jan 01, 2014 4:32 am

Alex, my friend, I enjoy reading your posts. I also read some of the others posted on the site since last I was here, and continue to be puzzled by the moral superiority position taken by English Canadians any time this topic is brought up. Any time I stumble upon a discussion such as this, I never cease to be amazed at how full Canadians are of themselves.

Having any province join USA is far from a slam dunk on this side of the border. It isn't that Americans dislike Canadians, they don't, it is that having you guys join here would threaten our treasured status quo in more ways than we would find comfortable.

To the English Canadians, I have this to say...

I read your comments, and I see English Canadians have been well educated on every problem we face here and choose to transfer that to our entire being. We do currently have too much national debt. No thinking person here, or there, would suppose otherwise. But, we have been buried in debt more than once in our history and because of our enormous resources and productivity dug ourselves right out of it when we set our minds to do it. That has actually happened within the past 30 years. It will happen again.

You want to feel superior because you have fewer people incarcerated, according to what I'm reading. Well, any of you who have been here knows that this is a huge, multifaceted country with a whole lot going on in it. Some of those things are good, and some are bad. Fact is, we have more of both here because we basically have a lot more of everything. We are NOT the racist society you suppose, even in our Deep South. That said, we do have some subcultural differences that seem to lead to more crime in minority neighborhoods. That leads to more incarceration of people who commit those crimes. Conversely, we have much better relations with the aboriginals here than you do in Canada, and do not have more of them incarcerated than other groups. In Canada, that is not the case, where a much larger percentage of your aboriginals are locked up.

You say our government is dysfunctional. It has its problems, although they pale in comparison with your problems in dealing with a purposely multicultural entity, and it also has some elements of corruption as might be expected when the super rich wield so much power, but it has been running uninterrupted for 250 years... the longest free standing democracy in the world. In the process, it has overcome a bloody Civil War, and numerous economic and social upheavals and emerged better after than before them. Overall, our government has functioned better than anyone elses over time.

We do support the right to bear arms here. That has created zero problems for our population, because it is not the people who legally own firearms who cause problems with them. Criminals don't obey gun laws in any case, and depriving law abiding citizens the right to bear arms only strengthens the position of criminals. Trying to deny lawful firearm possession is like trying to stop drunk driving by depriving sober people from owning cars. It is ridiculous on the face, and the notion is generally promulgated by air headed space cadets who have never really thought the whole process through. Oh, but you say, our gun deaths are fewer per capita. Perhaps, but most of your population is like our residents in the Midwest farm states, and because of your relative size, you lack as many inner city neighborhoods where most of our crime originates. In 99% of our country, the crime rate is no higher than yours.
We're smart enough here to avoid the trouble spots after dark, and if we do go there after dark we can arm ourselves for protection if we choose.

Some of you like your socialized medicine. I don't believe the feeling is universal there, because I notice many Canadians coming here and paying for treatment with their own funds because they have been placed on lengthy waiting lists for important surgery, so I have a hunch your system isn't perfect any more than is ours.

You like it that you are dependent on us militarily, and since you spend a smaller portion of your wealth defending yourselves (and simultaneously shove that responsibility off on us) you are somehow morally superior. I think it goes without saying that this line of reasoning is flawed and unethical. Some of your social "benefits" are, in fact, garnered at our expense and not all of us are happy about that.

Consider also that without being attached to our economy, half of you would be unemployed. If we ever got a government in place that wanted to do the logical thing and protect American workers rather than provide cheap labor for the super rich, and if that government ever decided to actually seal off the border to the north, your entire economic system would be in utter chaos. Ours would suffer too, for a couple months while adjustments were made, then it would resume normal operations without missing a beat. But... but, you say, we need your energy. Perhaps, but not to the degree you suppose. And, we could find alternative sources a lot easier than you could replace all those jobs lost in not sending those hundreds of tractor trailers loaded with Canadian produced goods down here. There isn't a day that goes by that we aren't more energy independent than we were the previous day, and massive new energy sources are being developed here on an ongoing basis.

I'm not blaming you, mind you, for wanting to maintain your autonomy and independence. It's just that the attitude I get from you guys sometimes is insulting, and often based on faulty logic. Most Americans know little of, and care even less about, Canada but it seems you guys are flat out obsessed with us. If the average American actually had a notion of just how leftist you are, very few would opt to invite you to join us. A solid argument could easily be made on this side of the border for just staying friends.
User avatar
CTMountaineer
Opponent
 
Posts: 3199
Joined: Mar 01, 2006 12:26 am
Location: West Virginia

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby Windwalker » Jan 08, 2014 11:15 pm

dans wrote:I was rereading this thread, and now I have a question about Labrador. I know that Labrador is pretty sparsely populated, vis-a-vis Newfoundland. Just how much of Labrador's population is non-First Nation? The First Nations have a slightly different role in any territorial exchange than ROCers, since their lands are usually controlled federally and since representatives of Quebec have acknoledged that the First Nations retain their sovereignty, should Quebec secede, thus the transfer to a different province doesn't affect them as much, assuming the First Nations retain their self-governing regions.
Anyway, it looks like Labrador has fewer people than my hometown, which is only a modest city, as far as Illinois goes. Living in the US has probably distorted my sense of population density.


According to Wikipedia, 30.9% of Labrador's population are "Aboriginals". This would put their total numbers at just a little under 10,000 souls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador#Demographics

As far as their actual land claims, someone posted a detailed map in pdf form here: http://nunatsiavut.com/images/stories/nunsgovernment/lilca/landclaim_poster.pdf
User avatar
Windwalker
Supporter
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: Dec 09, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Canadian fragmentation following Quebec secession

Postby Americalex » Jan 13, 2014 4:45 pm

CTMountaineer wrote:Alex, my friend, I enjoy reading your posts. I also read some of the others posted on the site since last I was here, and continue to be puzzled by the moral superiority position taken by English Canadians any time this topic is brought up. Any time I stumble upon a discussion such as this, I never cease to be amazed at how full Canadians are of themselves.

Thanks for the kind words CT, the feeling is reciprocal.

Image
User avatar
Americalex
Supporter
 
Posts: 20149
Joined: Aug 27, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Quebec

Previous

Return to Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests
cron