A Liberal MP says she and her parliamentary colleagues will take part in a delegation to Taiwan this fall, despite a warning from China’s envoy that such visits are “hurtful” to relations with Beijing.
MP Judy Sgro, chair of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, told The Canadian Press Liberal and Conservative MPs in the group will visit the self-governing island the week of Oct. 11.
“It’s extremely important to do these kind of exchanges,” Sgro said, adding Taiwan is “a beacon of hope in that part of the world for democratic principles.”
In an interview with The Globe and Mail in April, Chinese Ambassador to Canada Wang Di was quoted as saying that Canadian parliamentarians have official status and so any engagement with Taiwan is “hurtful” to efforts to establish stronger bilateral ties.
…
“It’s a democratic country and they have their regular elections. The Taiwanese are immensely proud people and very proud of the fact that they’re living in a democracy in a part of the world that that doesn’t necessarily exist,” [Sgro] said.
“They’re very similar to Canadians … They’re respectful, quiet, law-abiding citizens who look at Canada as the model that they want to be like and to promote. And they have a strong economy.”
Sgro said the Prime Minister’s Office has not contacted her about the trip and MPs have never needed permission for such visits.
…
Vina Nadjibulla, vice-president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, said it’s crucial for the exchanges with Taiwan to continue — particularly those involving multiple political parties — after the unclear message sent when the two MPs had ended their visit early.
…
“It’s important from a perspective of democratic solidarity. At a time when democracies are under assault, both internally and from external challenges, we do need to work closely together,” she said.
Taiwan and Canada can learn from each other as they grapple with disinformation, foreign interference and transnational repression, Nadjibulla said. Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy also called for deepening economic and scientific collaboration with Taiwan, she noted.
…
Sorry, but Quebec and Alberta are parts of Canada. Even they admit that they are presently under the control of Canada’s federal government, and were not forced into that at gunpoint (Quebec, in particular, voluntarily joined Confederation when it was first set up and has been a part of Canada from the moment there was a Canada). That a minority of their citizens don’t like that state of affairs is does not make them separate countries.
Taiwan, on the other hand, is not part of China, even if China would like it to be. It is acknowledged as a separate country by the international community, and its government is in no way beholden to that of China. The difference is not subtle and not a matter of debate.
Quebec was brought into British North America as a result of the Seven Years’ War (through a literal invasion, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and all that). After 100 years of direct colonial rule, Confederation was enacted.
Also Quebec was made by breaking the British Colony of Canada into two provinces. The Anglo-Protestant western half of Canada became Ontario and the French-Catholic eastern half became Quebec. This is why Catholic and French school boards exist in Ontario, Quebec got rid of their protestant school boards a while ago for secularism. This is just middle school history.
This is the backdrop against which Quebec nationalism stood and stands on.
Facts are indeed independent of the wishes and opinions of any government, such as China. However you forget that facts also don’t care about your feelings.
The United Nations voted on this in 1971 and Taiwan is indeed a part of the People’s Republic of China: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/654350
The Republic of China (basically de facto Taiwan) was a founding member of the United Nations, but that seat now belongs to PRC.
Taiwan is not a separate country, it is a province. It does not have a separate constitution nor passport. It says Republic of China on it. It is China, the only question is PRC or RoC.
Also Taiwanization is the process of turning the losers of the Chinese civil war, the RoC, into a Taiwan identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanization
Quebec had the option of not joining Canada and remaining a separate colony (yes, a British colony, but nothing was going to change that after France abandoned them so that it could keep Guadeloupe), as Newfoundland did until 1949. Had they followed that path, they likely would be independent today. Regardless of the results of the Seven Years’ War, they chose to throw in with Ontario and the Maritimes at Confederation. They were not forced to become part of Canada.
Apparently you’ve never considered what the history you learned in middle school actually means. Of course, neither have some Quebecois. Their separatism is just as much founded on BS as the Albertans’.
As for Taiwan, you’re being just as disingenuous as someone who claims that Poland belongs to Lithuania because Lithuania ruled that area during the 15th century. Despite the vote you cite, UN members wanting to establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan do not go through China, because the Taiwanese government is not subordinate to the Chinese government and cannot be commanded by it. Therefore, it is a separate country. That’s the simple, practical test.
The name on the passports is meaningless, and claiming otherwise is like claiming that the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have to be the same country because parts of their formal names are shared.
You are literally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Quebec was not a separate colony before Confederation it was a part of the united Colony of Canada together with Ontario.
I will lay the proof here: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-empire/collections1/parliament-and-canada/union-act-1840/
In this sense the British Imperial Parliament united, by act of Parliament, what would become Quebec with Ontario to create a new united Province of Canada.
The proposal for separation is here https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/cdn_confederation-ef/2005-07/www.collectionscanada.ca/confederation/023001-245-e.html
The literal 72 Quebec Resolutions that laid the groundwork for Confederation. It mentions Canadas, plural for Upper and Lower Canada. There is no mention of Quebec.
P.E.I. was written as if it will join but refused to to join because of the Senate. Newfoundland was written as being invited to join.
Confederation created the modern southern borders of Quebec not the other way around. Later Constitution Acts created the now modern borders of Quebec. Confederation was needed to split the united Colony into two separate provinces. Even if Quebec did not join Confederation it would not have the current borders, unlike Newfoundland which had approximately it’s current borders at that time, and while as a separate Dominion.
The Constitution Act, 1867 section 6 literally created the modern southern borders of Quebec:
Source of the Constitution Act, 1867: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html#h-2
From a constitutional perspective, Ontario and Quebec did not enter Confederation as existing provinces; they were created by Confederation from the dissolution of the Province of Canada.
I have given primary sources. I would like you to do the same.
Saying things without sources does not make you right.
I will adopt your position if and only if you provide a primary source where it states that there was a serious option of dividing the province of Canada and for Quebec (Lower Canada) not joining Confederation. I’ll wait.
For someone who tries to monopolize what history actually means you have a lack of use of primary or secondary sources.
For the Republic of China: This is the official list of official Embassies (i.e. not unofficial “embassies”, you will not see a single NATO member country, including Canada, on the list): https://en.mofa.gov.tw/AlliesIndex.aspx?n=1294&sms=1007
Every single one is named as “Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan)” not “Embassy of the Republic of Taiwan”.
Every country on that list does not have an official Embassy in the PRC.
Where is the “Constitution of Taiwan”? There is only the constitution of the Republic of China.
At least give a primary source for that.
So no, not a single country has formal official diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
The Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth was dissolved due to the 1795 St. Petersburg Convention of the Third Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between Russia, Prussia, and Austria.
From Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Partitions-of-Poland
So there is no modern claim Lithuania has on Poland, since the official sovereign that would bound them together ceased to exist. And the land officially partitioned.
There is no such treaty separating the Province of Taiwan from China.
As for Korea. From the Korean perspective, division was always meant to be temporary. See, from an RoK government primary source, Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea:
Link: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsInfoR.do?lsiSeq=61603
The DPRK had something similar until 2023, now military means is acceptable for unification.
Korea, at least officially from the government, has always viewed itself as a single country with a temporary split.
Again, where are your primary sources?
My sources:
.un.org(United Nations).gc.ca(Government of Canada).gov.tw(Government of the Republic of China).go.kr(Government of the Republic of Korea).britannica.com(Encyclopaedia Britannica)Your sources: