Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Iranian regime denounces Canada for rights violations | Main | Click »

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Nations within nations

My thinking has been evolving on this subject, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about Stephen Harper's recognition of the Quebecois "nation" within Canada. After all, it appears the Tory position refers to the sociological or ethnic body that is the Quebecois, not the political entity that is the province of Quebec. That being the case, the recognition doesn't necessarily mean that Quebec is entitled to special rights based on any alleged nationhood.

Anyway, if one really wants to get hot under the collar about the whole concept of nations within nations, then a much better target of inquiry would be the scores of "First Nations" in B.C. that are in the process of receiving special rights within Canada.

 

Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 22, 2006 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834fdd76969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nations within nations:

Comments

Not much history can be taught in our education systems today because there were winners and losers, we can no longer have losers, it's against the socialist sensibilities which have infiltrated our systems across the board.

Speller, you have to remember, Paul Martin was supposed to be close to the Messiah in Canadian politics, let alone the Liberal Party. He was given a chance, or he connived and back stabbed his way to the top. He got the job and had no idea what to do with it.He was a worse failure than Joe Clark because he put forth such expectations.
Harper has the job, worked his way through fairly and he knows how to do it. No comparison.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-23 2:23:27 PM


"Speller, you have to remember, Paul Martin was supposed to be close to the Messiah in Canadian politics, let alone the Liberal Party.

Harper has the job, worked his way through fairly and he knows how to do it. No comparison."
Posted by: Liz J | 23-Nov-06 2:23:27 PM

Yes Liz J, that is a very good point.
I agree with you and think all fair knowledgeable Canadians who want whats best for the future of Canada will agree with you too.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-23 2:35:55 PM


This message just came in from that great nation of Newfoundland. Stephen Gray

Newfies are a nation to. If dis Keebec can be made a nation because they have a distinct culture and language, then us Newfies are claiming Nation status as well. We have a distinct language and we have a great culture. We are separate, and live on an island, called the Rock. We are rock hardened people and the most generous in dis world. We don’t complain da way dose Keebeckers are always whining about der lot. Sh-t dey gets special status every time dey open der mouths. Keebecers are not separate. Dey only live on an imaginary island in der mind. Isa going to call up Rexie Murphies about dis sh-t and see what he says about dis Keebec being a nation. Where is dat Danny Boy when you need him? The Newfie Nation wants recognition.

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-11-23 3:30:05 PM


SG:

Now you understand the brilliance of the designation.

We are all different nations and we are all equal as Canadians.

Once the seperatists start feeling the rug move, they'll know the final outcome of the game.

Equalization? No more ‘some are more equal than others.'

It reminds me of Cal Murphy, when he was coach of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

A female reporter was assigned to cover the team and Murphy denied access into the area where the players walked around with nothing on.

She demanded equal access and got it ... Murphy banned all reporters from the locker room equally.

So, it will be with the Quebecois (as cagily distinguished from the province of Quebec). One day they will wake up and see they are indeed equals in Canada.

They will have the freedom to be a nation in a country of nations. And, they will have to foot the bill for it themselves.

No more $5.5 billlion transferred from the ROC.

Poor saps won't know what hit them.


Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-23 6:59:19 PM


i think the ndp should be given nation within a nation status, because like quebec, they hate fighting for any cause overseas, are always begging for money, like expensive governments, and think there better than everyone else

Posted by: john a. | 2006-11-23 7:01:56 PM


Mr. Macleod,

I'm wondering if the book from Mr. Parkman also talks about the fact that those Canadian Westerners forefathers were just a bunch of coward Brits who fled in the woods (West) to escape the American Independence War...?
Nah, of course not.

Hey! How's everybody tonight??!

Of course we are a NATION. We're much more than that. We're the reason why Canada is looking so charming and “in advance» into the eyes of the World.
*We are*
-Maurice Richard (and the rest of the list…)
-René Lévesque
-Georges-Henri Lévesque
-Gilles Villeneuve (and Jacques)
-Armand Bombardier
-Bernard Lemaire
-Guy Laliberté
-Celine (it’s crap, but still)
-Charles Binamé
-Leonard Cohen
-Émile Nelligan
-Félix Leclair
-Jacques Lemaire
-Lucie Laurier
-Pascale Bussières
-Denys Arcand
-André Chagnon
-Daniel Langlois
-John Molson
-The Bronfman Family
-Éric Lucas
-Martin Bouchard
-Marc-Aurèle Fortin
-Jean Drapeau
-Serge Godin
-Robert Charlebois
-Jean Leloup
-Gilles Groulx
-Claude Jutras
-Oliver Jones
-Oscar Emmanuel Peterson
-frère Marie-Victorin
-DJ Champion
-Norman Laprise
-Hubert Reeves
-Gerald Bull (most of his prolific period)
-Louis-Joseph Papineau
-Pierre Perrault & Norman McLaren
-Geneviève Cadieux
-Louis Cyr
-Broue, the Piece (…not the habit)
-Mtl International Jazz Festival
-Le Festival “Juste pour rire” (+ your version…)
-Hydro-Québec
-ALCAN
-A Worldwide example for performance in telecommunications.
-A Worldwide example in Multimedia.

Etc… etc…

I mean, if some of those pals and expertises right here cannot help you figuring out and accept WHY *Quebec* is such a special and distinct place; totally disconnect from a BIG part of ol’Canada…Well…then don’t…
You, not being proud of that shit up there, is about 75% of reasons why Quebec is slowly, but surely getting out of the big house…
Anyways, Quebec never looks into the eyes of their fellow Canadians for a gentle tap on the back.
What can I say? …Others around the world do understand the beauty of our specific culture and most important: we know how much we’re talented.
So, if Canada’s split up tomorrow because people are tired of this failing system “la Confederation”…well, I’ll stick with those guys up here + the “MINORITY” of 50% of Independentists. (nice twist man) who’s already fed up with our “brothers in laws”.


Have a good night people.

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 7:21:57 PM


I'm with you on that Stephen Gray. And thanks for Micheal Rider !!!

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 7:24:59 PM


Marc,
That's an impressive list. Good luck in your future endeavours. I hope independence is all that you dreamt it was.

I hope we can still be friends.

Bonne chance.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-23 7:31:46 PM


SYF:

I do not want to rain on your parade about the $5.5 Billion but that idea (not the amount but the idea) is mandated in the Constitution.

From the Constitution Act (1982), Section III, Paragraph (2) mandates equalization:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#III

I know some of the Alberta Independence sites talk about wealth "stolen" from Alberta, but Alberta signed on to this in 1982 so it is not correct to talk about this as "stolen" wealth. As I read this, the only way to end the equalization payments for Alberta is for Constitutional change (highly unlikely) or the withdrawal of Alberta from Canada. I hope you have an umbrella :)).

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-23 7:36:43 PM


@John a.
Since the begining of 2006, Quebec gave the ROC the higher score in Millitary recruitment. Plus, once and for all: The 2 WW where a war betwen England and Germany. England, for French Canadians, was also the "Enemy" in those days. Plus, I'm not gonna let you tarnish French Canadians/Quebecers veterants: I went to Dieppe and I went to Italy.
You're having BS language about our veterants and you want me to beleive that you served ? Well...**** you.

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 7:42:23 PM


Hey, H2, What do you have poker face ?

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 7:44:33 PM


Marc
"Hey, H2, What do you have poker face ?"

Pourquoi? Do you think that I am calling your bluff?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-23 7:51:50 PM


Please, go All in !

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 7:57:08 PM


You have to ante up to see my cards.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-23 8:01:07 PM


I wasn't too thrilled when I heard about Prime Minister Harper's speech and the vote on Monday, because I think Quebec has been holding the rest of Canada hostage for far too long: "We either get this or that or we're leaving Canada."

Lately, I've been thinking, then leave, already.

Then this morning I had an epiphany. I'm quite clear that Prime Minister Harper knows what he's doing. I'm willing to follow his lead, because I'm sure he has a longer-term goal in mind.

He's a brilliant strategist and though it may not be clear to everyone at this point just where he's taking Canada, you just have to look back at how he's come from where he's come from--and where he's brought the Alliance and the Conservatives from very modest beginnings--to realize the guy knows what he's doing.

So, I'm willing to suspend judgment at this point and just watch what PMSH is going to do. I trust him and his instincts. Interesting times ahead...

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-23 10:02:39 PM


I really had a good laugh reading comments tonight. Thank you folks.

I think we are kind of a funny country. During Expo 67, I worked on the site with a guy from Scotland. He teased me on my being a french canadian pea soup. And I teased him on his shortcomings.

Overall I suggest it was a good thing that in 1763, we were abandoned by that stupid king of France, Louis 14.

I believe most of people who came in Canada during the french regime, were outcasts unfitted for life in France. Just like Australia was used as a deportation land for undesirable persons in England.

The society of today is a mirror of that ancestry. In normal times we are whinners. Complaining about the rest of Canada, complaining about Bush.

If we are put under challenge like we were during WWI and WWII, we were very good fighters. I think Germans were upset when they were engaging french canadian soldiers because they were fearless and crazy fighters who would not back up.

I hope we will perform well in the near future because WWIII is already raging. I would not be surprised that the federal government will need to use conscription like it did in 1941.

Right now, if I would be general Hillier, I would suggest to PM Harper to recruit at least one million soldiers and send battalions to:
Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Iran (special attention to avenge the murder of our fellow citizen in prison), North Korea, Somalia, Sudan.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-11-23 10:15:50 PM


@H2
Because I'm a gentleman, I will not force you to show me your hand.

And yes, We can still be friends.

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 10:44:22 PM


Rémi,
Dont just THINK that Germans were shaking when having to face crazy French Canadians. It is common knowledge. Many documentaries are proving it.

Maybe our good friend Alain a. here could have second me but he's about to backstab our Army just to tarnish Quebec...

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 11:06:17 PM


Posted by: Brent Weston | 23-Nov-06 7:36:43 PM

Sound OK in theory, but Quebec did not sign onto the 1982 constitution ... therefore, they are not legally entitled to take a sou from other Canadians.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-23 11:17:00 PM


PS Brent:

And, when push comes to shove, none of the provinces that signed onto the 1982 constitution are obligated to send a penny to Quebec.

No need to change the constitution. Just cut off the funding like you would to a spoiled teenaged kid.

They're ready to be independent, so why do they need any of the money we earn through our hard work?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-23 11:21:45 PM


Hey Set,
Quebec has nothing to do with the Spoiled teenage kid you're trying to paint. We're more like the beautiful and amazing woman that endure you and makes you look great. If you keep treat her like shit and/or stop sharing like you accepted in the prenuptial agreement...well, she will get the hell out.

You will then be this fat drab guy with a bigger wallet. More money for sure, but whitout soul.

Posted by: Marc | 2006-11-23 11:45:52 PM


Hey Marc, what about acclaimed Western Standard columnist Mark Steyn? Doesn't he count in your list of "Quebecers who have gained prominance?"

Posted by: Feynman & Coulter's Love Child | 2006-11-24 2:29:34 AM


As for "We're more like the beautiful and amazing woman that endure you and makes you look great." may I remind you of one of the most important rules of life I have ever learned:

"There's always another chicky-poo."

If I really need my country to look better, I'll invade New York State.

Posted by: Feynman & Coulter's Love Child | 2006-11-24 2:33:34 AM


Well Marc,
It's been about 30 years and counting since Quebec has been pretending to threaten to separate....what are you guys still waiting for?
Go already, I say, and lets be friends apart instead of antagonists together. But DO IT and quit whining.

Posted by: Just looking | 2006-11-24 5:43:57 AM


SYF:

Agreed that Quebec remains a non-signer to the 1982 Constitution.

"And, when push comes to shove, none of the provinces that signed onto the 1982 constitution are obligated to send a penny to Quebec."

Now, I am not a constitutional lawyer but this is how I read that paragraph: it is not Alberta and Ontario sending to Quebec and it is not Quebec and the other seven taking from AB and ON. It is the Canadian gov't doing the redistribution. So, even if AB wanted to stop, it does not have the power to stop the Federal gov't from continuing. Now because Quebec was not a signatory, perhaps it could be argued (I am speculating here) that the Feds are not "required" to send equalization payments to Quebec, but nothing in the Constitution prevents them from sending them - it could remain optional.

What I mean to say is that I think we need to put the issue in the correct terms. I understand that many Albertans see the transfer payments as "theft" of Alberta's wealth. It may be perceived that way by many, it could also be asked "What was Lougheed thinking when he signed in 1982?". Quebec is not "stealing" Alberta's future; not only is legal for the Feds to do so, there is a Consitutional requirement that the Feds transfer for at least 7 of the 8 receiving provinces and it is either a requirement or it is a legal option for the Feds to transfer to Quebec.

Now I did not say that I think this is a wise policy, I am only commenting on the legality of it and the hurdles to change the transfers. I support the Independence of Alberta and it was when I found out the transfer payments are mandated in the Constitution that I changed to support Independence. If I believed enough provinces would agree to a Constitutional change in this matter, I would reconsider. Albertans have three choices 1) perpetual and increasing transfer payments out of the province, 2) lobby for and get from the other provinces a Constitutional change with regards to transfer payments, or 3) Independence.

Now, back to the point of the thread. I am having a hard time understanding Harper's move. Several people are suggesting this will help Harper in the next election in Quebec. I do not yet see how. The people outside Quebec may have their differences with the main policies of the province of Quebec. But the people of Quebec are politically astute. The Charlottetown Accord was not enough for Quebec, they mean something by "distinct society", they mean something by "sovereignty association". If Harper means to give nothing in law (and I think that is his intention), will the Quebecois simply state "well, thank you, that is exactly what we have wanted all along and nothing more. We just want to be called a nation - we do not want to be a nation"? I expect that the people of Quebec will want more than Harper is prepared to give.

I understand that Harper generally knows what he is doing. Perhaps this is simply a move to get Quebec onside to have the Feds back out of the provincial intrusions and return to the Constitutional limits for the division of powers. If this is the case, then I can see that transfer payments will be affected significantly and I can then see your point. If this is his play, then I think I understand it, but I think he could have made the same point in another manner. Whatever the real motive for this move, I am sure that it will become clear soon enough; I simply confess that all my own questions are not yet answered satisfactorily.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-24 6:02:21 AM


Keep giving us everything we ask for or we'll separate is the message from the Quebec people when they elect a separatist party to represent them in our government. It's the perfect tool to keep the threat in our faces and succumb to their demands. We are onto the game.

Separation as a complete act will not happen without a huge legal quagmire. They will have a much smaller land mass than they currently have.
Then the little matter of self-sufficiency after being cut off Canada's dole out as a have-not will result in lifestyle change for most.
Then the problem of their own complete tiny country walled in as a linguistic, monolithic society will force them to learn English to move about the rest of North America.French language will die out in the Country Canada to further diminish it's global usage.
They will need their own Army, currency and passports to cross our bridges.
The list goes on. It's a big deal in pipe dreams, but a nightmare in reality.
There will be no free lunches or handouts when they leave and cut ties with "home".

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-24 6:13:12 AM


Recognition as a nation of people within Canada may be enough for many Quebecois because they will still have their cake and be able to eat it too. Nothing will change economically for them.
Sovereignty association would also give them the distinctness they can pompously flaunt while still leaving all the heavy burdens to Canada while they wave their own flag to the world.
To be fair, a clean surgical split may be the way to go in the end, au revoir et bon chance.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-24 6:43:02 AM


SYF:

This is what I mean:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=615c2a34-1688-4cd6-8578-61642fb22778&k=99174

Marc/Remi:

Would you each please comment on this as well? Thanks.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-24 7:43:31 AM


Within the next few days the International Credit and Bond Rating for the Canadian Province of Quebec will change drastically as international investors consider that the now more or less "isolated" Province will opt out of the massive Federal Financial Support which the Province must retain in order to function on a daily basis. The so called Quebec Aerospace Industry with the exception of the US Owned United Technologies Pratt Whtney Canada
which is primarily Bombardier could not exist without massive Federal financial support and long term Federal financial guarantees through Federal operated International Development Agencies. Average Quebecers will wake up to the fact that in "this poker game" PM Harper and his country bumpkins, hold all the cards, own the deck and even the tables the games is played on. Despite all the bullshit emenating from the MSM, Harper undertook a political gamble, but he will easily come out ahead, as the Bloc and Liberals splutter
-nobody in Quebec to my knowledge ever pays attention to the Socialist horde.The fact is of course Quebec ain't a Nation and never will be
MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-24 7:46:12 AM


Harper isn't saying anything that doesn't have historical precedence. The USA used to be called "these United States of America". Each state considered itself a sovereign nation. This seems to be the way Canada is going by giving each province more autonomy and sovereignty.

Posted by: Bruce D | 2006-11-24 8:01:48 AM


Bruce D,
According to the 1867 Constitution Act that autonomy is already there.

What the Prime Minister is doing is dismantling the Trudeaupian Centralized State and recognizing the Confederation that existed before.

The Liberals have been insinuating the Federal government into Provicial jurisdiction for many decades now, mirroring Provincial ministries, and interfering in Provincial areas where the Feds have no business.

Meanwhile, the true areas of Federal resposibility have been left to wither and have been done badly or not at all.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-11-24 8:41:49 AM


Jack Macleod,

Very interesting comments.

I would really like to see Sheila Fraser do a full audit on the EDC. I've emailed that request to the CPC, no answer.

The EDC is a de facto bank to the companies you name. Maybe it is a good policy maybe it's bad. But it's my money they are playing "poker" with and I'd like Parliament to debate it and be accountable for my de facto investment in these Quebec companies.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-11-24 9:24:56 AM


The Auditor General was not independent of Chretien's PMO during his tenure nor Martin's.
I agree Federal Agencies responsible for "Development" Resources should be subject to an immediate forensic audit. CIDA for instance is still
providing money to the People's Republic of China
(PRC)EDC, ACOA etc., are de facto Banks and are for one thing not subject to Federal legislation contained in the Competition Act. We have been advocating that Harper abolish ACOA as recently as this morning, especially with that fool Peter MacKay responsible for the Agency, which recently funded forty "projects" on PEI in one week, which to me and our group of companies is exactly the same as taking (your money and ours) out on the streeet and burning it. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-24 10:28:39 AM


Jack:

If you notice, most of Thursday's story referred to Quebec rather than Quebecois.

The motion was about the Quebecois, which are a different, somewhat humility-challenged breed.

That's why I have no problem with it and all of today's MSM arguments about provinces also getting nation status.

The motion was not about provincial jurisdiction, it was about a specific ethnic group, ancestors of French peasants.

As I pointed out before, in a large agricultural area north and east of Edmonton, a Ukrainian culture existed and the Ukrainian language was the main language spoken among its populace for several generations.

They, too, could be considered a nation in the same way the Quebecois is considered a nation. I have no problem with that definition.

Like the Quebecois, the population of Little Ukraine is a very friendly, very distinct group of people.

The reality is that most of Canada's population, even the natives, arrived here from somewhere else.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-24 10:32:58 AM


"EDC and ACOA are de facto banks"

Also add in the BDC. As Chretien knew , the best way to steal from a bank is to own one.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-11-24 11:10:42 AM


Maybe Peter McKay is rewarding the Red Sand Potato Province for consistently voting for the Libranos.
The sitting Liberal MP from PEI, name escapes, must feel he's getting action from his new found boisterous voice in QP.
Development Banks are nothing but vote government buying institutions. We know how the Liberals scandalized them, we hope the Conservatives will at least have them audited, the optics are not good at all at this point.

ACOA is providing fuel to the now infamous statement "culture of defeat".

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-24 11:29:32 AM


SYF: I know the area you refer to. Two friends that served with us at RCAF Station Gimli Manitoba in the 'fifties were Ukrainian. I remember going to the wedding of one of their sisters, and the great pride the families had when their sons arrived in the uniform of Flying Officers in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Canada is The Country, and cannot go forward without a commonality of purpose and uniformity in
government. The men who created Canada envisioned
a consortium of former British Colonies and called them Provinces. Created primarily to thwart invasion by the Federal Army of the United States
which had just won a bloody Civil War, fought over the principals of "State's Rights" as envisaged by the Defeated Confederate States of America. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-24 11:30:29 AM


SYF: I know the area you refer to. Two friends that served with us at RCAF Station Gimli Manitoba in the 'fifties were Ukrainian. I remember going to the wedding of one of their sisters, and the great pride the families had when their sons arrived in the uniform of Flying Officers in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Canada is The Country, and cannot go forward without a commonality of purpose and uniformity in
government. The men who created Canada envisioned
a consortium of former British Colonies and called them Provinces. Created primarily to thwart invasion by the Federal Army of the United States
which had just won a bloody Civil War, fought over the principals of "State's Rights" as envisaged by the Defeated Confederate States of America. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-24 11:32:22 AM


Or was it "culture of dependence"?

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-24 11:35:06 AM


Just read all the comments.
Jeez, my head aches!

Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2006-11-24 11:36:57 AM


Me too, R R. And ain't it great to see a mostly intelligent discussion about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's continuing flare in flummoxing the useful idiots in all of the other parties and the MSM?

As a daughter's ex-boyfriend (my heart's still breaking) used to say: Sweet.

Posted by: 'been around the block | 2006-11-24 12:06:53 PM


Harper's move has caused both Dion and Kennedy to over to the Ignatieff Camp, as well as Joe "The God Father" Volpe. The Toronto Liberal Brain Trust who created Ignatieff as a leadership candidate don't get "flummoxed" (look it up) too easily, so I would think they are talking counter strategy, but Ignatieff will easily win the Prize in any event.
Exciting days ahead (more or less) MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-24 12:32:40 PM


Jack:

If Iggy is now ready to be crowned, it was because PM SH wanted it so.

Iggy was in free-fall because of his series of contradictory statements.

So now if it's a coronation of a guy who can't make up his mind against a Prime Minister who has acted decisively several times this week, I'm betting Canadians will go for the decisive guy and not the fence-sitter.

The best part is the Libs won't be able to figure out what hit them or how they were hit.

Go, Iggy, go!

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-11-24 1:00:22 PM


SYF, I agree. It was obvious for months that Ignatieff was the Liberal choice, but he will not lead a Party capable of defeating Stephen Harper
-none of the Liberal contenders is capable of leading a Party capable of defeating Harper. The only weakness in the Harper Conservative Government is the military adventure in Afghanistan, which the Opposition may use as a political strategy to force
a General Election. I hope not, too divisive an issue for most Canadians. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2006-11-24 1:20:22 PM


First Nations are not nations within Canada, rather they are Nations alongside Canada, or more correctly, Nations that predate Canada.

Moreover they are not seeking 'special rights' but rather the recognition of the rights that Canada agreed to in the treaties sighed with the Crown that handed over the lands the we are now living on. If you don't like the rights, give back the land.

You would think that a conservative based website would appreciate the importance of rule of law and signed contracts...


Posted by: True Nations | 2006-11-24 1:53:35 PM


True Nations: So you are not in Canada, your along side Canada.
Now if we were to give you the land "back" what would we do about the development and real estate on said lands? Would we be entitled to being reimbursed for them or would we have standoffs and lawless thuggery?
If early immigrants hadn't forged ahead under great hardships to build the Country we call Canada what would be here today?

Natives do have special rights through Treaties and the people of Canada pay dearly to those rights on an ongoing basis as they are renewed.
We do know all about the rule of law and the fact that Natives are above it. Witness standoffs like the one at Caledonia. Not a very nice spectacle in our civilized country of the 21st century.
Aboriginals do form a nation within Canada or a group of nations, whatever. We are in the same borders and we breath the same air.

If Quebecois wish to be considered a nation of people through culture and language within a united Canada, it amounts to the same thing. the only difference is there are no costly Treaty obligations.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-24 2:33:34 PM


True Nations
"You would think that a conservative based website would appreciate the importance of rule of law and signed contracts..."

Actually, I agree with you. Contracts must be honoured. That means according to the lens of the time period in which they were written.

I'm sure you'll agree that we in the 21st century enjoy so many advances that were not around when the treaties were signed.

Weren't some natives recently flown from northern Ontario to Ottawa as a result of poor water quality?

Shall we start with that?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-11-24 3:06:06 PM


ebt:

"I don't think anyone reading it at the time would have read it as a delegation to the judiciary of the authority to govern."

Yes, my understanding is that the S. Court held a lot of weight from the perspective of a recommendation but still deferred to Parliament to make law before 1982. This is the only part I can find in the Constitution regarding the Judiciary. I think it was much the same as before 1982.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#judicature

There are a few "notwithstanding"s in the Constitution. I think that this one here in Section 91 is the more famous one:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#distribution

But it makes no reference to the Supreme Court. It would be nice if the WS would do a follow up on the earlier article to determine just what changed to give the Supreme Court the power that it now "thinks" it has. Once again, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but would it not be nice to find out that the Supreme Court has been acting "unconstitutionally" since 1982 and we could correct its abuses of powers without a constitutional change? And, if so, would the government have the courage to "strike its perceived power down" in the same way the Supreme Court has "struck down" laws of the land for the last several years.

Terry/Kevin/Ezra:
How about a follow up article?

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-11-24 5:36:22 PM


Another amazing Harper scew-up. Can he do anything right?

Posted by: Surely Jones | 2006-11-25 9:44:31 AM


Surely Jones:
Harper must be doing some things right he has the Liberals and their friends in the media in a tizzy.

Take a look at the Liberal Party for an example of screw-up. Scandal under Chretien and then Martin couldn't handle the job he coveted for decades, he simply didn't have the ability, he was in over his head.
He back-stabbed his nemesis, Chretien, and it all backfired on him when he called the Adscam Inquiry into CORRUPTION. Of course he and the Shawinigan Mauler had no knowledge of scandal, they were in the dark. Right?
Gawd, reading what's gone down under the Liberals for the past two decades one would think it was an account from a Banana Republic.
Whoever gets crowned as Lib leader will have to get going with that wire brush Martin talked about and clean the Liberal stable really well. We await Mr. Clean.
Meanwhile we are in good hands with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-11-25 11:19:09 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.