Canadian sovereignty?

I am of firm belief that this issue has been consistently ignored, politically, as an issue that affects Canadians, therefore undermining the Canadian democratic institution and ultimately, the Canadian people's right to choose their own destiny. For a issue as important as sovereignty public debate is necessary and all views must be taken into account in forming an educated choice in voting for the future.

Europian counterparts have been allowed to choose through a referendum and has been allowed to socially debate the issue, more in some and less in others. In France, where the constituion has been pulled apart and analyzed nationally with help and cooperation of the media. France can be considered a model in its application of democracy.

Canadian politicians have long abused the Canadian people, in a strong but passive and sometimes complacent Canada. Canadian politicians have distanced themselves from the people but have placed more importance in themselves with the practices of corruption and self fullfillment. This undermines Canada and its future. My firm belief is that Canada`s political system has a desperate need for reform, reevaluation, and rectification. Canada cannot continue move forward in a treaty as important as Deep Integration as a respectable stable and sovereign country until these ills have been rectified and independance more firmly established.

I vote to stall the process of deeper integration, review and rectify and ensure that deeper integration works for Canada as an independant nation, if and when the time is right for Canada. For Canadian politicians, NO cause can be as important as Canada and its sovereignty cannot be sacrificed for the short term gain, or Canada will SINK.

While so distracted on keeping food on the table, Canadians may lose the whole country in the process by being subject to hostile takeovers. However, trade barriers in export markets have a damaging impact on key industrial sectors so what to do? Clearly NAFTA is a botched job and it is better to be free of it now and get back to returning control of Canada back to Canadians instead of having everything not nailed down sold on us. We can supplement out recuperation with sales to Asia and the EU.

NAFTA is a shame

The thing missing in Canada is a sense of nationalism that I don't think I've ever seen outside of this site.

Nationalism is considered crass in Canada and unless you folks make waving the Maple Leaf a tad more fashionable it'll be reduced to a fond memory.

it's just that Canada in my nation and I'd fight to keep it a soverign nation. This is not a rare feeling in Canada by any means. We may not shout it out, but it's the way most Canadians feel I think

Canadian Sovereignty, America-Style

By Ryan McGreal
Wednesday March 2, 2005

US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci has warned Canadians that the United States will have no qualms about launching interceptor missiles into Canadian airspace as part of its Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), claiming that Canada "[gave] up its sovereignty" [1] when it decided not to participate in the program. Cellucci is referring to Canada's right to decide whether the United States is allowed to launch a missile interceptor over Canadian airspace.

Prime Minister Martin, showing a rare display of integrity after over a year of flirting with missile defence, responded to Cellucci's chide about Canada giving up its sovereignty by stating that Canada "would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our space." [2]

By contrast, opposition Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper made a typically servile, grovelling response, bewailing the fact that Canada continues to defy Washington. "This will really poison any ability [Martin] has to move Canada-U.S. relations forward. What it means in practical terms is that we'll just be invisible in Washington." [3]

Of course, the idea that America would ever respect Canada's - or any other nation's - sovereignty is absurd. As the world's predominant superpower, America does what it wants, where it wants, basing its decisions entirely on how the government decides its interests can best be served.

Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew asserted this essential fact when he asked, rhetorically, "Would it have been otherwise?" if Canada had decided to take what Cellucci called "its seat at the table". [4]

Even if Canada was helping to finance BMDS, the ultimate decision on when and where to launch missiles would fall to the United States. It is foolish to believe the US government would ever relinquish control over its own defences.

This is what makes Cellucci's remarks so galling. He came right out and told Canada that it can retain its "sovereignty" only to the extent that it does what America wants it to do. Or as Linda McQuaig cleverly observes, "It's only rape if you resist." [5]

It's a foregone conclusion that the Stephen Harpers of the Canadian establishment will attach themselves to Cellucci's line of reasoning and use it as an excuse to blame Martin for damaging relations with America, but this decision, like Prime Minister Jean Chretien's decision to stay out of the Iraq invasion, will look better and better as time goes on.

The Associated Press wrote of Martin's decision that "he bowed to pressures to protect his weak minority government and follow the majority of Canadians who have condemned the missile defense program as a rehash of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars." [6] (Aside: since when is following the majority of your citizens "bow[ing] to pressures"? I thought that was called "democracy".)

Paul Martin and the Liberal Party cabinet have generally supported joining the BMDS, and Martin promised during his last election campaign to improve relations with the United States after they were strained by Canada's decision not to join the US-led invasion of Iraq. Martin bowed out only because, in a multi-party minority government, he is more constrained by what Canadians actually want than he wouuld be with a majority.

This must be frustrating to Cellucci, who hoped that Canada would be willing to fulfill his vision of an "independent but complementary" ally - i.e. willing to serve America's interests in areas where "there's a lot of resentment around the world towards the United States." [7] As Cellucci explained, "To the extent that Canada has a foreign policy that's independent but complementary to the U.S. and is perceived to be the best friend of the U.S. - that will enhance the role of Canada in the world." [8]

Not likely. I can only assume Cellucci actually hopes Canada's "independent" support for US policies will enhance the role of the United States in the world. If anything, Canada itself is more likely to suffer from being perceived as an American lapdog than America is likely to benefit from whatever moral prestige attaches to Canada's endorsement of its policies.