Wilber

One thing that bugs me about ICBC is that government has gradually made it the God of all things automotive. It started out as just an insurance company but now it looks after driver licensing and testing as well as vehicle licensing. This is typical of government operations. They start off by setting up an agency to do one thing then channel a bunch of other government functions into its mandate. This is not a partisan view, all our governments have been guilty of it since ICBC was formed. Canada Direct with whom I get all my optional coverage offers a collision avoidance course from Driving Unlimited, an outfit who works with groups such as the BMW, Viper and Corvette owners clubs as well as giving racing training. It was a one day course costing me 60 bucks. The normal price is $150, the rest subsidized by Canada Direct. For taking the course I get a 10% discount for 5 years. I more than recouped the cost of the course on the first renewal. ICBC offers nothing for improving your skills, they put all their faith in testing instead of good training.

My posts go back to a question I was asked as to whether I would be prepared to use force in the event a part of the country decided to secede. I was trying to point out to the person who asked the question that one might not have a choice. I don't dispute what you say about the legality of it, just that in such a situation people may act regardless of legality resulting in chaos.

It does make a basic departure from regular pension plans found in the private sector. At any company where I have worked which had them, disability benefits and pension plans were strictly separate. It's another case of government doing something which would be illegal in the private sector. The government does not consider it just a naming problem when it comes to private plans. CPP disability payments do not really depend on how much you have contributed. A person on disability receives more than they would on pension even though they are not contributing. It is only after they reach pensionable age that their benefit drops to that which they would receive on pension. I do think we should provide assistance to those who are disabled but not under the guise of a pension plan.

I'm not complaining about what I paid in but the way the benefits are paid out and that it is used for other purposes than a retirement pension. I agree, the premiums were unrealistically low. If it was a real pension plan, benefits would be proportional to what was paid in. It was supposed to be a pension plan, not a disability plan. If you are on disability, not contributing and not retired you should not be collecting from a fund set up and paid for by others for their retirement. I'm not saying that people who are disabled shouldn't be looked after but it shouldn't come out of the CPP fund until they are over 60.

The thing that bothers me about things like EI is it is not optional. I have a choice when it comes to buying other types of in insurance but not that one. Never mind, I just retired so I no longer pay into it but then I was fortunate enough never to collect it either. The thing that bothers me about CPP is that it is used for other purposes (disability benefits) and the benefit is not really proportional to what you put in. A person can pay the maximum into it for 30 years and only get a couple of hundred bucks a month more than someone who contributed far less for 15 years.

Why must they? How would you stop them short of using force if they just gave the rest of the country the finger, set up border check points and stopped sending tax revenue to Ottawa? If they decide to secede they would say we are not part of Canada anymore and your Constitution, your Crown and Supreme Court mean nothing to us. Like any government their power is limited to whatever their people are prepared to give them. There are those who will believe that a majority in a referendum gives them the authority to use force and there will be those who are prepared to use it in return. Exactly my point. No one should assume that separation by any Province would be a gentlemanly and peaceful process.

You're playing with semantics here. There is nothing wrong with how I posed the question. I was asking someone if they would personally be willing to kill someone for trying to secede. The person who the question was addressed to understood what it meant. gc, the point I was trying to make is that it is not that simple. Say for example there is a referendum in a Province, the Yes side gets just over a 50% majority and the government of the day decides to secede. What if a large portion of the 40+% who voted no decided that they weren't about to let their country be taken away from them and were willing to fight to prevent it. What if they had the backing of a large number of people in the rest of the country who were willing to support them, with or without government approval? What if it was your Province? Would you try and stay neutral while your neighbours decided your future? Do you think they would let you stay neutral? Would you pack up and leave to become a refugee? These things happen all the time in the rest of the world. It is all very well to say you will not get involved but that is just you. The actions of others make take that choice away. IMO, those who would use the separatist card are playing a very dangerous game.

We have never done that. Except for a short period near the end of the world wars when there was conscription, the Canadian military has always been made up of volunteers.

Agreed Agreed .Yes but sometimes the only other option is dieing.

Yes, there are almost a limitless number of scenarios. That is my point. Don't assume that your life won't change much if the country goes to pieces. Once the genie is out of the bottle there will be no way of putting it back or foreseeing the final consequences. I don't know, it would depend on the circumstances but if you look at civil wars that have occurred, it is quite possible that one could find themselves in a position where they have no choice. Do you think that all the people who fought and died in the breakup of Yugoslavia chose to do so of their own free will?

When was that?

Your explanation made assumptions as to why the country could be invaded and how you might respond. You presume. I am suggesting that anything can happen, nothing more and that making assumptions about anything is a mugs game. What you or I would rather happen could easily have no relationship to what does happen. Again, you presume a lot. If a Province gets a mandate from its people to separate are you going to go to war to get the answers that satisfy you before they leave? What if the rest of your countrymen don't agree with you? You could wind up poor and dead. I don't know the answer to that question but if they feel much more strongly about their country than you, it is possible that many could. It has happened many times before in other countries. This is my original post and your reply. You brought up the issue of civil war, not me. I was just making a comparison between us and our neighbours to the south when it came to national unity.

So foreigners telling you what form your country will take and how you will live is not OK but other Canadians or British Columbians doing so is. You will just sit back and take what comes. Have we become so fat dumb and happy that we think we can indulge in regional navel gazing to the point that our country disintegrates and expect nothing material in our lives will change when history and the world around us shows us that is quite unlikely. If the country can be Balkanized, why can't Provinces? BC's Peace region which holds most of our gas and oil is on the east side of the Rockies and a lot closer to Edmonton than Vancouver. Golden, Cranbrook and the rest of the Rocky Mountain Trench is far more accessible to Calgary than Vancouver and Victoria as well as sharing the same time zone. You don't think there could be floods of economic and political refugees across Provincial borders and sporadic if not all out war along some of those borders as each tries to carve out their turf as in the partition of so many countries? Why not, because we are somehow superior to those people? How would you split the country up? How would you handle its debt? How would you provide all the services that we have come to rely on from the government of a united country. What currency would you use that still had any value? Are your investments and income in Canadian dollars? What will they be worth if the country splits? How would you defend what remained from a bunch of new countries that now are looking solely after their own interests? Although I think it unlikely, there is no guaranty that your new neighbours or even your new country will have the same commitment to freedom and human rights as the one we just trashed. Once a Province leaves Confederation, the Constitution and Charter go in the shredder unless the new country decides to adopt them. All bets are off and anything would be possible. I have been surprised often enough in my life when results that seemed completely logical before hand turned out completely wrong after the fact, to realize that anyone who pretends they know what will happen if this box is opened is kidding themselves big time. My question is are we a country like the US which can come out of a bloody civil war stronger, richer and more united than ever or are we more like a Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia or Soviet Union? A bunch of regions stuck together to form a country in order to solve a problem of the day which is no longer relevant, splitting up either peacefully or bloodily but for almost all, poorer than they used to be. I have been told on another thread that learning languages and about computers is more important than learning that this country was once capable of putting its regional squabbles aside to make great sacrifices for a good cause in the name of a united country. Is that still possible? When I listen to our people in Afghanistan talk about how they feel about this country and see what they are prepared to do to prove it, I have hope. When I hear at home, , not so much.

Would the same apply to defending Canada from another country that threatened it's existance? What if the choice was neither but that of another country imposed upon you by force?

So what is best for Canadians could be that there are no more Canadians. OK But not important enough to go to the same extremes as other countries have done in order to remain Canadians and a country called Canada. OK

Civil wars are the worst kind. There is no such thing as neutrality when everyone around you is taking sides. Even if you decided not to take sides, you would be accused of it by one side or another, probably both.

I never said I would do nothing to prevent it, so that is a bit of a strawman. If there were other options to keep the country together, other than a civil war, then I'd be interested in hearing them. But, I am not prepared to go to war over the issue. It's not worth the loss of lives and millions (billions?) of dollars that would likely result. And just because civil wars were found hundreds or thousands of years ago, doesnt mean that is the best option today. It is not a straw man at all. Who said it is the best option. War is the best option only when there are no other options. If a country has to go to war with itself to be a country then thats the way it is, either that or there is no more country. Why do you think Canada has some sort of special God given exemption from those rules because this is the 21st century? Look around, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of civil wars. If you don't think Canada is that important or special, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, just get you to ask yourself what this country really means to you and what you would really do to be part of it. I keep asking myself all the time and the answer is not always the same. If BC did decide to separate what would you do? Would you just shrug your shoulders and follow the crowd? If it came to a fight, which side would you be on? Remember the Empire Loyalists, there is no reason why any one of us couldn't be the 21st century equivalent.

Everyone throws something into the curriculum. Did they teach computer when you were in school? There were no computers. I was in my late twenties before I saw a calculator. My father didn't get a computer until he was eighty but he can still use one for anything he is interested in. I still occasionaly have to tell cashiers how much change they owe me when the machine can't tell them. I only need the exchange rate to figure out if gas is cheaper across the border. I take your point however, learning to use computers is very important in this age but so is knowing about your country if you want to have one. I've always been a lover of history. When my son once said to me who cares about history, aside from all the lessons we can learn from it, I asked him, doesn't he ever wonder how he came to live where he lives, is the colour he is, speaks the language he does, etc, etc? I don't know if he does but I do.

BC would only leave after Alberta, and even then it's not clear that they would actually separate. I live in B.C. and I've never met a single person who is openly for separation (though things could change if other provinces separated). But let's say that Albert did separate, follwed by B.C. etc...could you imagine Canada fighting a civil war with Alberta and B.C.? What if Quebec also left? A civil war on three fronts? I'm not in favour of separation, but I'd still rather see every province become it's own country rather than have all of the provinces fighting eachother. You make my point, you are not in favor or separation but would do nothing to prevent it. All great countries like the US, Britain, France, even ancient Greece and Rome fought revolutions and civil wars to establish their identities. If you are in a majority you are saying that Canadians do not value their country enough to make the sacrifices necessary to keep it whole. Perhaps Lucien Bouchard was right and Canada is not a real country.

There is no Canadian history. Canada is too new as a nation. Not when I went to school. Seems the older the country gets, the less its history is taught.

Who else is likely to separate besides maybe Alberta? Again, I'd rather see them leave than go through a civil war. Why do you think Alberta would be the end of it. BC would then be isolated from the rest of Canada and it would have more in common with Alberta, Washington State and the rest of the west coast US than the rest of Canada. In many ways its economy is doing as well as Alberta. It now has the lowest unemployment rate in its history. Like Alberta and much of Canada, most of its trade is north south. I would fear the separation of Alberta more than Quebec. I think the rest of the country might survive if Quebec left. If Alberta left, it is highly likely other western Provinces would eventually follow.

I wouldn't. I'd rather see Quebec leave than go through a civil war. That's part of the problem, the fixation on Quebec while igoring the rest of the country. Quebec would just be the first. It might not even be the first.

Well, not since the 1860's anyways.... Maybe what happened last time (civil war) has put a few people off the idea of separation. Maybe that's what it would take. Would Canadians care enough about their country to fight to keep it together? I have serious doubts. If you look back in history, it seems like all great country's have gone through at least one civil war before they became great.

The country to the south of us is at least as diverse. There is probably a higher proportion of Hispanics there than there are Francophone's here, yet for all their faults you never hear talk of separation in the US or debate over whether the country is ungovernable. Trouble is, this country hasn't realy been tested since WWII. It has been so long since it has had to pull together that it may have lost the ability to do so. This troubles me as I think it is a real possibility. We have had it so good for so long that if faced with a real crisis, we may not be up to the task.

Great point. Not that I agree with it (even though I fall underJerrySeinfeld's oft-repeated, overly generalized term "lefty"), but the difference is simple. Some homosexuals might want to ban religion because it is generally comprised of organizations that plot to defame and discriminate against them. Homosexuals, on the contrary, do not by definition plot to defame religion. One actively promotes hatred against the other. That's the difference. (Again, I don't agree. I'm just stating the difference because Seinfeld often has problems with "nuance.") I don't think it is fair to say that organized religion in general promotes hatred against homosexuals. Some do, others just don't approve of it as a lifestyle and still others are quite accepting. While I can appreciate his animosity toward some in the religious community, I think it ironic that a gay person would promote banning a certain point of view or lifestyle. Him of all people and not a road you want to start down.