Riverwind

The concept of each province be given equal representation ia a not particularily the existing provincial boundries are artificial constructs that have no connection to shared interest. Not to mentions the unequal distributions of populations between provinces woudl really distort the concept of one person one vote. Better off havig a directly elected govern general and leave the PM as is. Very wishful thinking. The party systems exist in every democratic country because there are a necessary marketing tool. You could start with 'independents' but the parties will come back in an election or two. Democracy is one person one vote. Not one province one vote. Even with the an 'equal' senate the commons should still have most of the power. That is the way every major democratic country I know about works. This is rediculous. No gov't can function unless it has powers to raise taxes directly. The US tried this model in 1776 - it was an unmitigated failure. They has to rewrite their constitution in 1784 to give the federal gov't taxation powers. And they would create a whole bunch of new problems that would likely be worse than the current ones.

This statement makes no sense. Doctors are private for profit business people who are funded by the public system. Does paying doctors today take money away from the system?

Eureka, look at the experiences of the other non-US OECD countries. Almost all provide universal healthcare to everyone and have a private parallel system. This idea that the private care is going to destroy the public system is a uniquely Canadian myth that has no facts to back it up.

A mixed race couple are partners with different races, same race couple are partners of the same race. Different things. I'd post pictures, but that'd probably get me banned too. At one point in time it was considered immoral for a white person to marry a black person (considered against the laws of nature and an abominiation). It don't see any difference between the racial bigotry of the past and the gay bigotry that SSM opponents seem to have.

More provinces has to the worst possible solution. You need to have a critical mass of population before having a provincial gov't becomes cost effective. That is why the territories will likely always be territories. Quebec nationalists insist that Canada has only two partners: English Canada and Quebec. I don't agree with this attitude (it is extremely arrogant and self-serving on the part of Quebequers), however, this attitude means that Quebec's representation in the senate can never go down. That why talking about senate reform is a big waste of time unless Quebec seperates or some miracle occurs and Quebec politcians discover that acting like a team player instead of a prima donna would better serve the interests of Quebec in the long run.

Are you assuming proportational representation or first past the post with large ridings (like the US senate)? The conservatives would get more seats with FPP (i.e. they would sweep Alberta and have more seats in BC and Sask).

Some stats on taxation: The difference between these figures and the ancedotal evidence provided in the thread is probably caused by: 1) Larger US salaries == Larger take home pay 2) Differences between taxation levels in different states 3) The effect of the home owner mortgage interest deduction. 4) Differences in taxation at higher/lower income brackets. Factors that also need to be included are the cost of real estate which I believe is higher in US in most places (this increases the cost of living so a higher take home pay does not mean as much). Whenever I have looked at moving to the US, the big draw for me has always been the larger US dollar salaries for doing the same job. However, my understanding is my total tax paid as a pecentage of salary would be about the same.

It would more meaningful to use the current seat allocations since there is zero chance of changing the current formula in this generation:

Colonialism affected the entire world from Indonesia to Argentina. It is quite legimite to ask why Africa is the only area of the world that still suffers from wide spread poverty and failed states.

This data is from a survey printed in the Economist magazine. Questioned asked: Where would you go for a good life? Country Surveyed -> Most Popular Destination Britain Canada Germany Netherlands -> Australia US France China -> Canada Poland Spain -> Britain Turkey Russia -> Germany India -> US Pakistan -> China Lebenon -> France Indonesia -> Japan Says wonders about geopolitics doesn't it?

What about men and woman who get married with no intention of having children? Many older people getting married for the second time are way past their child bearing years so they could not even claim that is their intention. Do we need another type of marriage for them? How about gays or lesbians that have children from previous relationships and now want to create a family with their same-sex partner? Is that another category? What about gays an lesbians that don't have sex? They just want to have a long term committed realtionship - something that definately has a social purpose in our society.

We have heard a lot of talk in the media about how Canada should increase its aid to Africa to 0.7% of GDP. I knew this number is deceptive because federal government budget (where the aid would have to come from) is a some fraction of the GDP. So I did some number crunching: Canada GDP 2004: 1,216 Billion Federal Gov't Revenue 2004: 186.2 Billion GST Revenue 2004: 28.3 Billion 0.7% GDP Target: 8.4 Billion It would take a 2% increase in the GST or a similar reduction in services to pay for that foreign aid. I wonder how much support Geldolf and Live 8 would get if he ran around telling Canadians to demand that politicians raise the GST to 9% in order to pay for aid to Africa.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The PC tried to do a deal with the BQ that would have forced an election that would have likely given the BQ a near sweep of Quebec ridings. It would have also given the BQ an even bigger financial advantage in future elections because of the new party funding rules. The deal the Liberals did was to simply to get a budget bill passed that had already passed in the commons on May 19th in return for a promise to pass the SSM bill this summer.

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry, Quebec can probably manage better on its own. In abstract, any system managed by an indepedent Quebec will likely be no better and no worse than the system that we will end up after the reforms that will happen in the next 5 years. However, once you take into account the billions upon billions of dollars that would be wasted negotiating seperation you would likely find that the most cost effective way to reform to the system is to work within the existing structures. So having a better healthcare system is not a rational argument for seperation. In fact, it is rational argue against seperation. What about Pettigrew and Chretian? There were elected in franophone ridings. My point is that if you are not happy with the diversity of opinion from Quebec within the current federal gov't there are solutions other than seperation. The fact that most francophpone Quebequers vote for the BQ instead of supporting another federalist party and then blame the federal system for not representing their views is extremely hypocritical. Following your logic then the City of Montreal would be able to more efficiently collect taxes from people in Montreal. As long as people are free to move anywhere in Canada and work the most efficient income tax system will be one that is Canada wide. Times change. There was a time when the Martin-Charest health care deal would have been impossible. The federation is flexible and adaptable, there is no need to break it up. A francophone Quebequer who believes in the federation has the most to lose if Quebec seperates because the society that they grew up in would become another country. So it makes sense that they would fight the hardest against seperation. You are really letting you hatred of the federal Liberals colour your judgement of people who have honest and sincere convictions about the country. August get real, there is no conspiracy among federalists to block a new constituational deal. The only reason there is no talk of a new deal at this time is because fedaralists realize that whatever deal they offered it would be another complex and messy set of compromises like Charlottetown that would likely attract enough criticism inside and outside Quebec that it could not get the 50% required in the referendums. Imagine, a politician who can be honest. I said nothing about him being honest - just that he could afford to sit back and not get emotionally in the debate since no votes were at stake for him. If Quebequers cannot collaborate with Canada within the current federation they will not be able to collaborate in any other arrangement. This is my key point. Seperatists talk all about reconcilation and co-operation while they do their best to undermine the federation by refusing to reconcile or compromise (setting minimum terms for compromise that you know that they other side will refuse is the same as refusing to compromise). Seperatists will find that their negative attitude toward the federation today will come back to haunt them during any post-yes vote negotiations. If Quebequers really want to get along with English Canada then they should stand up for the federation and express a willingness to work with it instead of tearing it down at ever opportunity.

Three out of the four parties agreed on this course of action. Sounds like compromise and co-operation to me. About as democratic as conservatives that tried to call a vote on a committe report a confidence matter.

My feeling is public healthcare is a complex issue and there will always be serious issues no what the political structures. Saying that seperation would magically fix the 'problem' is a cop-out and a way to avoid making any serious decisions now. Separation would cost hundreds of billions if not a trillion dollars over a decade or more. How much healthcare would that pay for? It is still about learning a language. People would not send their kids to learn French if they did not believe that French was a useful thing to learn. They do not represent political beliefs of some portion of the Quebec population - just like the BQ does not represent the views of at least 40% of population. It is not reasonable to say they do not represent at least some of Quebec. If nationalist Quebequers stopped villifiying Quebequers who try to work within the system then you would likely see a wider range of of viewpoints within Quebec reflected at the federal level. In other words: if the representation of Quebequers at the federal level has problems there are many solutions that do not require seperation. Income/sales tax collection is a different issue than municipal government. I agree that not all government programs are best handled at higher levels of government, however, I argue that tax collection is one of those programs that does benefit from an economies of scale. No need to formalize? That was one of the Meech Lake five conditions. You make it sound as if Meech passed. The recent healthcare deal is an example of Meech in action without Meech. There is no reason to believe that similar deals would not happen in the future (i.e. daycare). If really don't understand where you get this idea from. The only political parties that use the 'unsigned' constitution as a political tool are the BQ and PQ. If the federal Liberal party is unwilling to attempt to re-open the constitutional discussion then it is because they know that any effort would likely fail because the self-absorbed me-first culture that pervades our society (inside and outside Quebec) makes it impossible to put together complex compromises. The recent rejection of the EU constitution in France and the Netherlands demostrates that this malaise is not unique to Canada. Only because he had nothing to gain - Duceppe does not care about getting votes from anyone who watched the English debate so it was easy to sit back and sound reasonable in comparison. Quebec nationalists aways talk about wanting to collaborate with Canada after a yes vote while there are working hard to sabotague our national institutions today. This two faced attitude is destructive an will untimately poison any future negotiations.

This analogy makes no sense, countries and governments are not the same people. Quebec seperatists and their sympathizers/enablers ouside of Quebec like to make it sound like negotiating a new deal will be as simple as shaking hands. This is an extremely niave and dangerous attitude. Think about it: we already have a political environment in this country that makes it impossible for the various parties to agree on a new constitution. Compromise would be even less likely in the emotionally charged environment after a yes vote.

This is a blanket statement that is really more of an opinion than a fact. All constitutional federations have to have a certain amount of 'rigidity' otherwise they simply cannot function. In practice, the Canadian federation is very flexible when it comes to the division federal-provincial powers - For example, the Quebec government has powers over immigration and taxation that are normally not given to provincial/state governments. The healthcare mess is definitely not going to be solved by seperation. In fact, Quebec seperation would only make the mess worse because of at least a decade of economic growth would be wasted on the costs of restructing the political and economic arrangements. During that time any construtive discussion about how to reform the system would take back seat to arguments about citizenship and national debt. If seperatists really cared about healthcare they would work within the existing framework to reform the system and stop blaming the feds for the problems. I live in Richmond BC where 60% of the population is Chinese and speak Mandarin or Cantonese. All of the French immersion schools are filled to capacity and have waiting lists - many of the kids in these classes are children of immigrants learning their third language. I don't see where you get the idea that immigrants don't know that there are French speakers in Canada. Furthermore, the province of Quebec is already has powers over education and immigration that allows it to encourage immigrates to learn French. Being a seperate country will not change anything - look at the challenges that the Americans are having getting hispanic immigrants to speak English. Why? Quebequers vote for federal politicians that represent their views on the world stage. Just because you disagree with the political views of the Quebequers who represent Quebec at the federal level does not mean Quebec is not adequately represented. The same can be said for free trade agreements. The desire you express for Quebec to be visible at the international level is nothing more than emotional/nationalist argument. There are clear economies of scale if tax collection is done at federal level instead of provicial level. The Quebec gov't insisted on setting up its own tax system at great expense because the Quebec gov't wants to have power for the sake of power. Other provinces are able to develop distinct tax policies without paying for the duplication there is no reason Quebec could not do the same. Similar arguments exist in almost every area of 'duplication' within Quebec. Bad decisions made by the provincial Quebec government for purely emotional reasons are not rational arguments for seperation. I am not familiar with this issue, however, if Quebec elected federal representatives that thad an interest in co-operating with the country there would likely be fewer battles like this. Whenever Quebec negotiates a deal to opt out of a federal program it negotiates compensation at that time. There is no need to formalize the right to opt out in the constitution. A veto, in practice, already exists. It is not in the constitution at this time because it is very difficult to put together a package of constitutional reforms that everyone will like. This is because, in today's society, it is easy to be a critic and very hard to be constructive - that is why Duceppe decided to stay in Ottawa. There is no such thing as a constitution that a seperatist will sign because having an 'unsigned' constitution is a useful political tool. Quebec federalists also cannot sign the consitutution because they would be villified in the poisonous Quebec political culture for 'selling-out' Quebec no matter how reaonable the deal is. The fact that the constitution is not signed is not rational argument for seperation but rather an indication of how some Quebequers are more interested in sabotaging the current system so they can use it as an excuse for seperation. Respect is a two way street. The Quebec gov't, particularly seperatists, show no repsect for the federal gov't and the rest of the country yet expect to be treated with respect in return. When it comes to spending money for municipal infrastructure, there is absolutely no reason why it is better for the money to come from the provincial government instead of the federal government. For people commuting to work in Vancouver, Victoria can seem as distant as Ottawa.

On the contrary. Finally there is a very intelligent and capable leader ready to take the reins and to outline very rational reasons for going. There are plenty of rational reasons for separation. In fact, I see no other reason other than emotion for Quebec to remain a part of Canada. No offence but you seem a lot more emotional about this than separtists like Bakunin. Sorry, what rational reasons? Having a leader that is willing to lead Quebequers off the proverbial cliff is not a rational reason. Canada is a politicial an economic construct that exists today. It is not perfect but it more or less works - "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a very rational/pragmatic reason for Quebequers to work with the existing political framework. (BTW - the fact that politicians in democratic country disagree on different policy issues does not mean the system is broken - it means the system is working as expected). You seem to share the illusion that separatists have that breaking apart a modern integrated economy like Canada is a trivial thing to do. It is not: any attempt, no matter how good the intentions are, will create economic disruptions that far out weigh the 'emotional' benefits of being king of your own little island.

Sovreignty is something evry country or nation has. Its not specific to quebeckers. It is equally self-centered where ever linguistic/ethnic identity is used a justification to break up democratic countries where rights of minorities are respected. There is no rational reason for Quebec seperation - it is nothing but a useless emotional argument that some how having a Quebec seat at a UN will allow some Quebequers to feel better about themselves. Seperation is a movement that is willing to sacrifice the economic and personal well being of the majority of the population in order to satisfy the emotional needs of a few. If sovereigntists really cared about Quebequers they would spend their time convincing them that being a proud of their Quebequois identity is possible within the current political and economic arrangements. Instead, the feed on the fears of Quebequers and try to convince Quebequers that they can never be happy unless they have more 'sovereignty' (what ever that means).

Quebec has no reason to need more sovereignty that it already has. The one valid argument for soereignty is to protect the French language but Quebec already has the powers it needs to do that. Asymetrical federalism is a work is progress. It does happen all at once and changes as needs change over time. Currently asymetrical federalism is working well enough except in the eyes of seperatists. The province of Quebec already has almost as much sovereignty within Canada than HK has within China (with possible expection of border controls). So this solution is already working. This 'solution' will create must economic and social chaos and offers nothing more than satisfying the egos of the a few seperatist leaders because they want to go down in history as the 'founders' of the Quebec country. Only the PQ option has failed over the last 45 years.

Why does federal funding of municipal infrastructure mean the system does not work well? Probably because there are too many politicians in provincial capitals hope to gain politically by complaining about 'federal' intrusions. Are you suggesting that cities should be given taxation powers to allow them to completely fund their own infrastructure? If not why would a provincial gov't be any more effective at funding municipal infrastructure? Asymetrical federalism is the status quo. What is missing are Quebequers who are willing to acknowledge that they already have most of the autonomy they need. A vote for separation will open a pandora's box that could cause serious economic and social consequences for everyone. What is wrong are seperatists who run around telling Quebequers that seperation will be a painless exercise (for obvious self-interested reasons).

The is no such thing as a positive standpoint for sovereignty. Sovereignty has and always will be about a self-centered ethocentric nationalism no matter how sovereigntists try to dress it up. I say it is self centered because there are no cultural or poliltical problems that will be solved by sovereignty - most problems have been addressed within the current federal framework. Those that remain are not large enough to justify the social and economic upheaveal that would come with separation. I say it is ethnocentric because preserving the French language in North America is a 'ethnocentric' idea. When seperatists talk about wanting a multi-cultural French speaking society they are really saying we want to create a state where someone's ethnic identity is based French and people who do not want to be part of their ethnically-linguistically pure state are not welcome (like the anglos).

August did not complain about my posts which include a lot of pro-Liberal statements. Don't try to dismiss the criticisms from August as pure partisanship.

In other words you are saying "the US system is great as long as you don't include anyone who will pull down the numbers". That is a creative way to manipulate statistics. The US is the worst system in the developed world because it fails to provide anything better than 3rd world quality healthcare for a large percentage of its population. The fact that the rich and the upper middle class happen to enjoy top quality healthcare does not redeem the system.