Re: [OT] Pro-Palestinians in Toronto CELEBRATE Iranian bombs falling on Israel

Rhino  <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:21:50 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:35:28 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>: 

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote: 

 

I'm pretty sure that was true though government in the US has
always been more fragmented than in Canada due to there being many
more states than Canadian provinces. 

 

No. It's federalism, not fragmentation. Canada isn't a voluntary
federation like the United States. 

 

Fair enough - though you might think differently if you knew the
history of British Columbia, my home province. 

 
I stand corrected. Your province voluntarily federated with the
Dominion of Canada. Of course the price was construction of the
Canadian Pacific Railroad on that useless all-Canada route instead of
heading toward St. Paul to get to Chicago, which is what would have
happened if they'd federated with the United States instead.
 

Got the same impression
when I visited the PEI Legislature back in 2004. The difference
between BC and PEI is that BC started small (population-wise) and
became relatively big (at least by Canadian standards) at 5 m vs PEI
which started small and remained small (population roughly 130k) -
one grew, the other really didn't. Land size wasn't really a factor
in BC as 90+% of the population is within 100 miles of Vancouver
(which happens to be the largest Canadian port not only on the west
coast but in Canada - and larger than #2, #3, #4, and #5 combined at
least in terms of annual tonnage moved) 

 
Ok. I just read the brief political history of Prince Edward Island on
its Wikipedia page. Federation into the Dominion of Canada wasn't
desired on the terms offered and they remained a colony and briefly
explored federation with the United States. Basically, they had a
series of financial scandals, starting with all of its land having
been gifted to political supporters of George III who intended to run
the place under feudal law. They were all bought out over close to a
century. Then they had an unaffordable debt for railroad construction.
 
They joined Canada and not the United States not as a voluntary
association of equals nor in the best interest of both parties, but
having been bought out. This is comparable to the purchases of
Louisiana and Alaska by the United States and not voluntary
federation.
 
It set the stage for bailing Newfoundland out and its joining Canada,
which was not voluntary in any way.

>
I think you're missing some facts. Newfoundland got independence from
the British in 1907 and was a full Dominion. Then the Great Depression
came along and Newfoundland couldn't make a go of things and returned
to being dependent on the British.

There was a ruinous financial scandal, from what little I've read, much
larger that Prince Edward Island's.

After WWII, Britain encouraged
Newfoundland to stand on its own two feet again. Three different
ideas materialized: become a standalone country again; join Canada or
join the US. A referendum was held offering all three options and the
"standalone country" option won. Since none of the choices got 50%
of vote, a second referendum was held offering only "standalone
country" or "join Canada", which were the two most popular options
from the 1st referendum. This time, "join Canada" won. If the referenda
results had been different, presumably Newfoundland's fate would also
have been different. I'd call that democracy in action!

London was highly opposed to the United States expanding, so British
Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland were blocked. And
again, the "join Canada" option came with a major resolution of the
massive debt. Not exactly voluntary.

Let's see if Quebec asks to leave Canada and federate with the US. I'll
bet London wouldn't care at this point.