Boydfish

But the actual make up of the vote is reflected in our system. If we stop and realize that we don't have one transprovincial, confederation wide election, but rather over 300 individual elections, it helps make it clear. I like the fact that merely being a member of the lunatic fringe does not qualify you for seats in the government house. That may sound cold, but until a particular point of view is widespread enough to be the largest in at least one community, it's perfectly democratic to not give it much power in government. I dislike the STV system that was proposed. It is too complex and far too easy to be misunderstood by voters. Worse, it allows candidates to avoid personal local accountability in large ridings. Even worse, it virtually thwarts the idea of democracy by allowing parties in urban centres to move votes from areas where they are assured to have large turn out in their favour to areas where they wouldn't have so much support. Vote splitting is the best facet of our democratic system. If a person, or more accurately a party, is so unwilling to adopt policies that appeal broadly, then they have no business holding office. I don't want limited issue zealots like Layton anywhere near the levers of power because of their intolerance of others and their ideas. Until he grows up and becomes able to accept the point of view of others(Eg.Dosanjh, Rae), the fact that his party hives off into vote split nightmares is a good thing.

I'm not clear what you mean by proportional representation. If you're suggesting that the seat distribution be done by proportion of population, that simply duplicates what the House of Commons is supposed to be. I know that it isn't due to the adjustments to seat distribution that artifically keeps certain provinces over-represented, but what's the point of two houses set up the same way? If you're suggesting that in the sense of the electoral format, where people with unpopular views are given undue political power, I'd also disagree with you. Just because a person votes for somebody that ultimately isn't elected doesn't mean that they aren't represented or their vote is "wasted" as the rhetoric often suggests. The person still has an MP and they represent them.

Nor were several provinces allowed to hold referendums on joining confederation. In fact, BC didn't have an official referendum on the subject and the closest we came to having one was an election where the pro-Confederation party was soundly and totally defeated. There is also no such thing as reference questions by the sovereign governments to the general appeal courts in other countries. We do things differently here. Just because people elsewhere do things differently doesn't make it better. They already do. The fact is that people vote on party lines, not for their specific candidate. We don't like voting every 18 months. What makes you think we're going to vote every 18 days? a) The overwhelming majority of voters are indifferent to election dates. We don't plan our lives around them. B ) Term limits have some merit, but are hard to integrate into our Parliamentary system of government. For example, does the term limit apply to cabinet positions? Or just the PM? Or even just for the MP positions? Because if the last two were the case, Trudeau would have topped out as Justice Minister. That would be a very compelling argument west of the Great Lakes for it, but in Upper and Lower Canada, it would make them hate the idea. c) It's been shown that those kinds of initiatives often turn into political footballs or are drafted too complexly to be workable. It's a nice idea on paper, but so is communism. Sure. Just figure out a way to convince Quebec and Ontario that they should give up the drivers seat and it'll fly. The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with a voter. -W.Churchill.

I'm not sure you understand the elastic nature of our constitution based on that statement. The recent events in Ottawa over the proposed coalition and the public's general blank stare over the issues kinda showed that no, we don't generally understand the issues. Part of the problem is that constitutional law is not definiative, it's not clear, it's generally unsettled law and the people who can make a credible claim as to actually understanding the entire constitutional body of law can fit in a small room(Worse, they agree on little with each other). I wouldn't be invited into that small room either, if it's any consolation. If we make an amendment, it needs to be rock solid clear with no wiggle room for the policy agenda of the SCC in making it's interpretations of case law. To further hammer the point home, the last major amendment to the constitution happened in 1982. And we're still sorting out the impacts of that in case law.

The biggest stumbling blocks to constitutional reform by referendum are that it doesn't address the issue of complexity/clarity and it doesn't seem to be the way we've agreed to do amendments to the constitution. If you made the referendum question specific to the actual question, the only people who could understand it ad how it would affect would be constitutional scholars. For example, if we put a question to the public "Shall we add to s.92 a 17th clause stating "All provinces shall have absolute interjurisdictional immunity in all of their areas of authority under the constitution.", unless you happen to know what that means, the bulk of the voters will go "Um...no? Yes? Maybe?". As well, if we're talking about a large amendment, the individual ballots will be 95 pages long. On the other hand, if you allow them absolute freedom on drafting the referendum question, you'd see questions like "Do you support motherhood, freedom and democracy?", and it turns out the amendment is actually an amendment ordering the internment of all British Columbians and Albertans. Finally, you'd have to amend the amending formula to do that. Kind of a paradox, isn't it?

Barring reform of the Senate to adopt a EEE model, perhaps the easiest method would be to make a requirement to sit in the upper house to be the current holder of a provincial legislative seat? In other words, the PM via the GG could appoint literally anybody to the post, provided that they hold a seat in that province's legislature. It would give a form of democratic legitimacy to the chamber, as they would need to continue to hold their seat to continue to be Senators. An interesting side benefit could be that you could cut the Senate salaries by 75% and when combined with the salary already drawn provincially, they'd still be well compensated. A watered down alternate method for that would be create a requirement/practice/tradition of the Senators to be holders of provincially elected office at some point. It would create a large pool of potential applicants from the legislatures that the provinces themselves found to be acceptable at one time at least. The only down side would be that for the overrepresented provinces like Quebec and Ontario, they'd have a significant percentage of the legislature sitting in Ottawa rather than in Quebec or Queen's Park. Perhaps knock them down to 12 Senators each?

I suppose there might be some merit to the idea, but from a strictly British Columbian perspective, who cares if the Canadians do or don't realize that BC is pretty damn different from the other provinces? We're barely aware that there is anything on the other side of the Rockies.

No, the Diefenbaker and Mulroney governments also proved that the PMO has too much power in it. Then your confederation is a lie. Thank you for admitting that. This is your one and only opportunity to retract that statement. The massive percentage of Quebecker's who draw their pay from direct and indirect Canadian government funding would disagree strongly. Without the massive subsidies of the Canadian government, Bombardier would be an artillery rank. I think you truly don't understand how little BC pays attention to Canada. Or their government. I noticed that Quebeckers lined up nice and good to register their guns because Papa Ottawa told them to, but oddly, that didn't happen out west. I wonder why?

What exactly do you think a confederation is? Yeah, great, leave it all in the hands of the collection of Liberal hacks called the House of Commons. Why simply disband them and have the entire confederation run out of the PMO? Having less, but still crappy, government isn't the answer: Having effective and reasonable government is.

Yes, but the Canadian government refuses to do anything to protect the Punjabi and Cantonese lingusitic minorities in British Columbia. So your point is moot. OK, then Quebec can leave. Where are they going to get the $7 billion dollars in aid per year that they need to be a province, not even counting the billions more they'd need to be a country? Quebec seperatism is an empty threat. As well, without EEE, Alberta, BC and probably Saskatchewan will be out of your confederation in less than 10 years. So, without putting too fine a point on it, failing to put in a EEE senate will destroy your confederation faster than anything else. OK, Quebec doesn't accept it. So what? They're irrelevant.

Caesar, I think you'd be best to limit yourself to speaking for yourself. British Columbia and British Columbians have, at best, a nominal connection to Canada. I'd also be wary of assuming that the NDP will default back into power if the Liberals get voted out. Not only does that seem unlikely, you're trying to draw a connection where none exists. Enough people remember the mismanagement and utter incompetence of the NDP. Sure, there has been some corruption with the Liberals, but at least they've been corrupt and competent, whereas the NDP were not even good at their jobs while being corrupt.

A couple of issues that should be addressed: Sentencing The biggest reason that the justice system is held in contempt is that few understand how sentencing translates into time served, as well as parole and probation issues. The judges get blamed for most of this, but the reality is that both the federal and provincial correction services tend to have more control over a prisoner's time behind bars than the judge themselves. As well, I think that the sentencing portion of our justice system should be changed. I'd prefer fixed sentences for all crimes; no more 2-5 years type discretion on the part of a judge. If you're guilty of charge "A", then you do X amount of time. The logic is pretty compelling, in that a murder is murder, regardless of other factors. The reality is that the really major indictable crimes are already broken into different charges and the "mid-range" crimes are already dual procedure. Policing The first required change should be a massive pull out of the RCMP from contract policing. The RCMP was never designed to be much more than 5-10 man detachments; the severe problems in the large RCMP detachments reflect this. I'd say that when a community hits 30,000 people, the RCMP is withdrawn and the municipality gets it's own police force. As well, pull the RCMP out of the provincial policing contracts. Next, use the same concept that gave BC it's excellent Sheriff's Service and get Police constables out of doing second tier priorities. What it boils down to is that a Sheriff takes 9 weeks to train at the JIBC v. a municipal constable takes over 2 years in both JIBC and field training. The cost difference is clear, but the level of responsibility is similar. Areas such as General Duty Policing, VIP security*, traffic and other areas are areas that should be examined. *As well, I'd suggest expanding the BC Sheriff's to take over responsibility for security for all public infrastructure, not just court houses.

That's because the HoC should be elected based on population, while the EEE Senate should be aimed at ensuring that each province has a fair voice in the confederation. That way one balances out the other. Let's get that topic sorted out right here: The "five regions" concept is bunk. You can't lump BC in with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Each has vastly different interests and cultures. As is the arbitrary line between Scotland and England. Or countless other lines drawn in as borders(Including every province in the confederation, bar none.). Of course, Alberta's western frontier existed prior to it's creation from the NWT, so perhaps it's not as arbitrary as you're implying. Australia, NZ and the colony of Canada all had the same status. In fact, you'll note that NZ's past shares a large degree of commonality with BC's relationship with Australia. There are three ways that I can answer that. The first way would be to abuse your typical Canadian ignorance of British Columbia and point out that the City of Vancouver leaving BC would be a small problem, but the surrounding cities of North and West Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Delta and Abbotsford, among others, would retain a large degree of viability to BC. The second way would be to force you to answer the question reflected back at Canada and the other provinces: Could Ontario survive without Toronto? Quebec without Montreal? Alberta without Calgary? The third way would be to point out that Vancouver is part of BC and is only viable in and of itself due to the shipping that flows out from the rest of BC. But there is no indication that if BC were to withdraw from confederation that the Kootenay's would then immediately exit BC. You're overstating the importance and relevance of the Canadian confederation to British Columbia, both in general and in terms of it's cohesion. And then they will cycle up again too. Thus is the nature of economies. But resource based economies don't work like that. Alberta having petro-dollars only translates into an economic boom in one of two ways: Either Alberta has to pay a much higher share, creating a trend that removes reward for productivity or oil has to be trucked to PEI to be planted in the ground so they can drill it back up. Both ideas are equally stupid. First, spare me the histronics of the poor and starving, especially in the Canadian confederation. There is no part of the confederation that has any reasonable excuse to be anything less than incredibly wealthy compared to the rest of the world. The only reason that we have failing economies in most of the provinces is due to extreme mismanagement at the confederal level of government(For the most part, with a few notable exceptions). Second, you can't import wealth like you're implying, you can only export their misfortune to the wealthy region. Using your example, you won't end up with everybody driving SUV's with leather seats, you end up with everybody driving Yugos, when they can afford to run them. Actually, the BC Marijuana Party is extremely right wing. They tend to hold what is called a Libertarian agenda. Actually, the pro-native independence movement in BC is heavily integrated with "European" origin British Columbians. If you look at the people that holed up at Gustafsen Lake, whole lotta white faces there. It wouldn't be a bad idea. Imagine your local government, the one that you can access the easiest, being the most powerful. I'll answer your question after you answer mine: What was the exact percentage breakdown of Yes/No on the referendum that brought BC into confederation? And you'll note that since then, the people of British Columbia have determined that it is vital that any constitutional question in relation to confederation should have a referendum(It's a law). Any guesses as to why? As this particular computer is now obsolete and built in a vastly different time with different needs(The only reason for BC to be in confederation was to present a common front against US military expansion; since the Canadian Army cannot get to BC without US aid, I don't think that they'll be much help in an unlikely invasion), isn't it time to look at something smaller, faster and less "buggy"?

If you dumped the french language stations out west and replaced them with a bilingual version, perhaps. The current french language stations compete with the all-static channel out here in BC in terms of ratings, so it literally can't hurt(Best quote on the french language news from my old journalism prof, who actually worked for the CBC: "CBC French news in BC, unique because it may be the only news broadcast with more people in it than watching it.")

You can't discuss western alienation without the subject of the profound flaws in the democratic process in the confederation. That's one of the major points of friction on the subject. As well, why is a left-right balance more important than a democratic balance? Or even important at all? If we want a left-right balance, why not just appoint one leftie and one rightie from each province and be done with it?

Yes, but Canada also had representation within Westminster prior to and after 1867. Not in the form of MPs, but they did indeed have a large degree of influence. You sound as if you're describing a person catching a cold rather than depriving them of their democratic rights. It may be easy to say "It's not ideal, but it's practical." when your rights are not being trampled. No, it's not. Quebec is one of ten provinces. No greater and no lesser than the others, but it is one of ten. That's it. Why do Canadians have a problem accepting that making one vote worth the same across the confederation? It's so bloody simple as to be absurd that Canadians can argue with a straight face that votes shouldn't be worth exactly the same across the confederation. Which is why we need things like a EEE senate to avoid tyranny of the majority and that we need to remove the "constiutional quirks" that make votes worth more in certain provinces. Because with them still there, even when BC and Alberta outnumber Ontario and Quebec, we'll still be run from there. You seem hell bent to only see this in the franco-socialist republican mindset, that of "seperatism". The problem is that it's not relevant to the discussion. When Australia, Canada and New Zealand became Dominions as opposed to colonies, did this "division" cause them to pull apart from each other? No, actually, they became tighter friends. Seperatism is a fraco-republican concept that has no relevance to BC or Alberta, which are Westminster nations. So where are the discussions of building giant walls around the Edmonton city core to keep out the rurals? There isn't? But since we're using a democratic model, as long as a majority agree with the division, isn't that OK? Or will we only use a democratic method when it gets results that a small group wants it to get? You still haven't proven that sub-division is a bad thing, but I don't see how the BNA keeps the Kootenays in BC or the Gaspe in Quebec. So unless the larger whole can show the benefit of sharing those resources, why should a small group be forced to support the larger group? The right of self-determination. The exact same one that the Canadians played to get the BNA and Westminster Act passed. So does BC. So does BC. Ditto. BC does as well. For several decades after confederation, few nations outside of the British Empire recognized Canada as a soveriegn nation. Nope, sorry, but Canada already played that card, several times. When they brought in the BNA and then again when they took away our status as British subjects in the 1970's. Nobody in Ottawa consulted any of the provinces, including British Columbians if they wanted to lose that. If our citizenship doesn't matter, then neither does yours. Nearly two-thirds of the MPs from BC are CPC. Alberta is a sea of blue. You gotta admit, it seems that British Columbians and Albertans seem to have a pretty substantial lean towards the right. I'd hardly say that seems likely. So the bottom line is not that the circumstance is important, but the necessity of it? So if BC says it's necessary, then if it's a confederal withdrawl or a colonial retreat from Empire is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? It's also created places like Australia and the Canadian confederation. Considering that history, I'd say that we're more likely to see a peaceful withdraw rather than a Yugoslavian meltdown. When Brampton has over 2 million people, I would hope that they would. As well, since you admitted earlier that the MP system is flawed due to little "quirks", aren't you asking to have your cake and eat it too?

How interesting! Your comment reminds me of a spoiled teenager telling their parents that feed them, clothe them, pay their bills and provide all of their support that they "just don't do anything to help them".

Yes, it is a myth. I'm not saying that the Soviets never lost a single bullet, but the simple fact is that the effective strength of the Sovet Armed Forces was somewhat questionable in terms of operational equipment. It never occurs to those of us who live in non-totalitarian states, but a factory manager, especially one in a defence industry, in the old USSR ain't going to put on paper "Failed to meet quota, will report to gulag presently". What happened was that the Politburo ordered things built and manufactured, but instead of reporting back that delays had happened, factory managers and generals would report positive results. Um, Canada doesn't guard it's ports. The problem of illegal Chinese migrants seems to indicate that quite strongly. Their safety isn't the problem, it's that no matter how well you pad or isolate them, you're dealing with a device with microscopic tolerances that deal with conventional explosives that decay at a regular and constant rate. I'd say that you've learned everything you know about nuclear weapons from watching bad movies about the subject. OK, the devices that were the subject of these rumors were tactical devices meant to be delivered short range to circumvent NATO air defences. On the other hand, the NMD/ABM concept is involved with shooting down ballistic missiles(Hence, A-B-M standing for "anti-ballistic missile"). Claiming that old Soviet tactical devices are the reason that ABM is needed is non-sensical.

This is an out-of-date internet myth. The Russians didn't lose 200 tactical nukes. They had some accounting problems in the early 90's, but the accepted stance by all nuclear powers is that the accounting was flawed based on items that were supposed to have been manufactured, but never were. Even if the above is incorrect, the simple fact is that nukes are extremely delicate and complex feats of engineering. They go "stale" very quick, often in less than a year after assembly. This is very true for tactical devices. Even assuming that all of this is wrong, these are tactical devices meant to be deployed via SF troops by hand or via conventional artillery. The NMD/ABM system is meant to shoot down sea-launched and inter-continental ballistic missles. Wrong. Totally wrong. A full, 6,000 device exchange between the US and Russia might do signifigant damage, but life would still go on, albeit, with a great deal less infrastructure. <snip> The gun registry should be scrapped and we should support NMD as a matter of course in support of the NORAD treaty. Both are common sense, but since Ontario and Quebec didn't feel that the Liberals had stolen enough money, they will screw this up too.

I don't think that anybody, even the Quebec seperatists themselves, take the idea of an "independent" Quebec seriously. If they can become viable as a province of a greater confederation first, maybe, but until then, not gonna happen. They need $7 billion dollars a year in direct aid from the confederation, plus several billion more in indirect aid and are still plumetting into debt. In terms of dividing Quebec post-exit from confederation, there are several methods for that. I doubt that interal referendums would be useful or relevant, as they would be administered by Quebec itself. What would be relevant is that Lower Canada was given the territory of Ungava to administer as part of confederation. With Lower Canada no longer in confederation, Ungava reverts to territorial status. That means that post-exit, Quebec is two tiny strips of land on the St.Lawrence.

Nor does British Columbia within Canada. That might be a myth that is commonly held, but PEI sends four MP's to Ottawa with a population that is less than half the lone British Columbian riding I live in. There are 7 million people in BC and Alberta. There are 7 million people in Quebec. There are 60 seats in BC and Alberta combined. There are 75 seats in Quebec. The simple fact is that Ontario and Quebec are dead set against to the elections being held on democratic weight. Actually, there was no such thing as a "Canadian" in 1867, at least beyond the sense that there were British citizens living in Canada. They also did have a degree of input that appears to be greater than you're implying. You'll note that John A. MacDonald was able to push the British Colonial Secretary to appoint the pro-confederation extremist Andrew Musgrave to the job of Governor of British Columbia upon the death of Andrew Seymour in office. In comparible terms, if BC could influence Ottawa on who to appoint as LG of Ontario today, you might be right. I doubt it, however. The comparison has differences, granted, but no comparison is going to be exact. Where I stop isn't important, where the community feels comfortable is. Why not? Even setting aside the truism of carrying a point to an illogical, absurd extreme, you make the point yourself: They have different needs and agendas. Why can't they have their needs be the priority of their government? If the disagreement is truly fundamental, isn't it better for those two regions to find their own solutions? Instead of having both regions unhappy with a compromise solution, both regions adopt plans that work for them. The BNA was passed in 1867, with further updates and additions happening all the way up to 1949. The Westminster Act happened in 1931. The BNA was seriously amended in 1982. I'm curious what portions of this process stike you as "immediate". Or the hydroelectric resources. Or the forestry. Or the port facilities. I think that you'll find that oil is not quite as divisive as you're implying. OK, I'll agree that a line must be drawn somewhere, but I'm curious by what fiat you and Upper/Lower Canada in general feel qualified to be the final arbiters of that line? Actually, I'm far more of a law and order type than would be acceptable to an anarchist. I think that until sexual offenders are registered as opposed to duck hunters, the question of degree of imposition is quite secondary. Actually, the entire point of the Liberal's legislation on it is that they can do exactly that. Untrue. Even if I register a 17 round magazine for my Glock, I am not allowed to have it. So unless the majority agrees, there is no protection for a minority group's rights? If we get enough English speakers to vote to outlaw french, does that make it right? Grudgingly accepted then. I think that once you've strapped on anti-rifle ballistic armour in the height of summer to guard an abortion clinic by standing out front to act as a warning shot or stormed a room backed by a pair of openly gay co-workers, you'll have a footing to debate my thoughts and feelings on abortion or gay rights. Then perhaps you have a very small amount of experience on this topic. That leads to two thoughts in my mind. First, if the main body of support for exiting confederation is from "the right", then considering the overwhelming right lean of the western provinces, doesn't that indicate a large support for it? Second, I'm not so sure that people fall as neatly into the categories of left, centre and right as you're implying. I think that most people have varying elements of all parts of the spectrum in their beliefs. I think that you're looking for a mathematical number where none exists. You can't quantify people and cultures in the manner that you're trying to. We do have seperate political systems. In fact, British Columbia's pre-dates it's inclusion in the Canadian confederation. This is not a discussion of absolutes. We'll once again flip the mirror back at Canada on your question: Is the cultural difference between Britain and Canada in 1867 greater or lesser than the ones between BC and Canada today? Depends on how you look at it: If you look at the confederal government as being merely an expression of Ontario and Quebec, yes, Ontario has a big say in BC affairs. Profitable for whom? I have yet to hear of a Canadian politician worrying after how a major decision will play in BC. The US has been openly and brazenly violating NAFTA with softwood lumber tarrifs to BC's economic detriment, but there has been at best a limp reaction from Canada. I also find that there is little effort by the Canadian government to preserve or enhance the cultural aspects that BC brings to confederation. In fact, it is generally the reverse: Be like Ontario and Quebec and forget that you have your own history.

I never said that BC was superior to Canada. I've said that BC is different, not superior. So why don't we eliminate the confederal government and return power to Westminster? We'd save billions. That's a pretty large leap that, I'm afraid, you're taking on your own. Did the BNA of 1867 make the British Empire illegitimate? Exactly where did J.MacDonald say "The British government is not legitimate!". I wouldn't fear him in the slightest. If it makes more sense for BC to split back down to British Columbia, Vancouver Island and New Caledonia, then have at 'er. That's one of the beauties of the Westminster System of government: You can get a whole new country without once being a traitor to the Crown. I own guns. As such, lad, I can rest certain that there is a high degree of Canadian government interference in my life. You have no idea on my positions on either topic, so what you're doing is applying a stereotype onto me. The first time that Ontario and Quebec don't get the rest they wanted, we'll see about that. You know, perhaps we should both stop posting: You seem to want to speak for both your side and mine. I am not claiming that the west is homogenous. In fact, I'd say that British Columbians are as different from Albertans as we are from Canadians. Next, we're seperate from Australia, Britain and even the US, but that doesn't seem to hamper us in any way. Explain why it is important for Ontario to even have a little say into BC's affairs or vice versa. Excuse me, but we're talking about the border areas, aren't we? You claimed that the differences between the people living on either side of the BC-Alberta border were insignifigant. I'm sure that you can say the same of Ontario and Quebec. Nor can it be counted on absolutely. Yet again, I'll throw the example of Canada back at you: No Union Jacks were burned in 1867, nor were the British chased out. Ditto in 1931. Yet again in 1982. Unlike franco-socialist republics, the Westminster system promotes a lawful and peaceful change of government.

So where is Canada willing to compromise? Which parts of your culture are you willing to "compromise" on? Both Stockwell Day and Steven Harper have represented a large compromise on the part of westerners, being far more Central leaning than Preston Manning and the original Reformers. Ah, so I should leave my home because you don't like my belief that British Columbia should have the same right of self-determination that Ottawa got from London? Less than 100 years ago, the commonly held opinion of people in Upper and Lower Canada was not that they were "Canadian", in as much as they were British people living in North America. I suspect that you were born after 1976, but for those of who weren't, if you were born in Canada, you were born a British subject. In many ways, this is also an accurate description of British Columbians in the context of Canada. It is also is showing the same trends in BC that Canada showed in relation to Westminster. It makes sense; the distance, including political, cultural and financially is almost the same in comparing Upper and Lower Canada's relationship with Westminster and BC's relationship with Ottawa. I'm curious why you seem to think that Canada is not a legitimate demarcation. Actually, I support the concept that the more local a government, the more powerful it should be. A politician's power should be directly proportional to the proximity of that politician's electorate. That way, we don't have distant governments dictating to people how they should live. Oddly, John A. MacDonald had the exact same position. Either you learned french via "Hooked on Phonics" and agree with me or you're whining. Never said that there wasn't diversity in BC. But aren't you saying exactly what you're accusing me of about "Canada"? I mean, aren't you saying that the citizens of all ten provinces are exactly like each other? So we're only going to accept policies that all people agree with? That's gonna make it real difficult to run a country. And how would you feel if the senators for Ontario and Quebec were selected by Calgarians? So if anybody can represent any part of the confederation, why haven't any Albertans been appointed to represent Quebec? Surely it must work both ways. I see little difference between Ontario and Quebec, especially along the border regions? Why not drop 24 of the senators and have those two provinces share too? Let me get this right: You don't think that ensuring that a vote is worth the exact same across the confederation is worth putting in the constitution over clauses that dictate what is government approved speech? Then explain the Canadian government disregarding it's own constitution on numerous topics and intruding on provincial areas? Absolute democracy is simply mob rule. You need to have controls in place to prevent any one area having too much of a sway over the others. Fight? First, Canada doesn't have one combat capable Army, let alone two, so you can forget any notions of a civil war. As a wise old farmer called my Dad was fond of saying, "It takes two to fight". Second, you're assuming a Quebec approach to exiting confederation. This may shock you, but we're not Quebeckers. I doubt you'll see a FLQ type uprising, instead you'll see an evolution much like the same one that lead to the British Statuate of Westminster in 1931. Third, you're attempting to bait the conversation in an absolutely silly direction: You're trying to provoke a response that you can then hold up as proof of the "dangerous" British Columbian gun toting redneck. It has failed absolutely and you should be ashamed of such a pathetic attempt. So your choice is to try and figure out a way to solve it that is going to work for the aggrieved parties or accept that the confederation is done. Just a suggestion, but your approach of "Floggings will continue until morale improves" seems to be a non-starter.

It's interesting hearing the Canadian sentiments and opinions on what it will take to "fix" Western Alienation. First, any option that includes or suggests that British Columbians and Albertans should change who they are and what they believe to be more like the Canadians is unfair: Why should we change? It's supposed to be a confederation of ten equal provinces. That means that my culture and heritage as a British Columbian is just as valid as your Canadian one. Would you suggest to the French Canadians in Quebec that the only way to eliminate seperatism is to act more like the English Canadians in Ontario? We are who we are and will never be "Canadians", either in your eyes or our own. We're British Columbians and Albertans first. Second, the concept of the "regions" in the Senate is offensive and obsolete. An Albertan can no more represent British Columbia than a Canadian can. Lumping "The West" into one region like that was reasonable 100 years ago. The painfully obvious time for this to have been corrected was in 1982, but it was more important to Upper and Lower Canadians to entrench their position and Trudeau's personal political agenda in the CCRF than treat us as the equals that we are. The set up grows less reasonable and fair every day. One hundred years ago, it was semi-reasonable for Lower Canada to have a large voice in confederal affairs. The ratio has shifted however and BC and Alberta are their equal in population. In less than 25 years, we'll dwarf Quebec. But there is no effort on the part of Canadians to accept that is no longer 1871 or even 1905. The historical aspects aside, there is also an utter lack of regard by Canadians for western affairs. I have yet to hear a single political party or leader worry after "How will it play in Vancouver?". I hear lots of concern about Toronto, Montreal and Quebec, but nothing for British Columbians. In the final analysis, Upper and Lower Canada have a choice: They can adopt a true confederal government or accept that BC and then Alberta will leave. The status quo is not going to cut it.

This is part of the root problem: An Albertan can no more represent BC's interests than a Central Canadian can. As well, that may have made sense in the late 1800's, but the current population levels make that a silly set-up. <snip> The constitution being re-opened is not that tough of a problem. The problem is that people have been conditioned to think that the Westminster System is like a republic system in terms of changing the constituion. The franco-republicans like to think that Turd-o's update to the BNA, as well as his Charter of Repeated Rights means jack. The reality is that in a Westminster System, Parliament is Supreme(This refers to both the confederal and the provincial governments). If the government passes and Act that cancels the 1982 amendments, there is nothing to stop it from doing so. The Supreme Court is no problem either, since they are created not via the constitution, but the Supreme Court Act. The demands of the west are simple: EEE. The first "E", elected, is actually the easiest to deal with. Just let each province select their own method. If Alberta and BC want to elect, they elect. If the Canadians want to appoint, they appoint. If the Atlantic provinces want to send the guy who catches the biggest fish every year, that's how they do it. The second "E", equal, is a no-brainer. It's a confederation. That means each province must be held to be equal. No brainer. The third "E", effective means that they do more than just rubber stamp.