Shwa

What would "vastly better books bring in the future" though? I agree that there is a certain point where debt becomes too burdensome, but there is also a point where some debt is preferred by the creditors what,with all those juicy and regular interest payments. I am trying to understand why the opposite sides keep sniping at each other over the debt and then, when they are in power, grow the debt anyways. I think it is a big intellectual scam, like the price of gasoline. Either way, it seems the public is being hosed.

Do you consider the Ontario Liberal Party a right leaning party? Because the popular vote - reflected in the seat count - shows that what people in Ontario don't want is a move to the right.

For all intents and purposes, the Charlottetown Accord was a federal referendum. No, but the only thing that is different is the context that the term is being used in. But the term still signifies the same concept. Pretty much, yep. Yes, but the point being is that in such questions there are deals and compromises to be made to get the provinces to agree and that the provinces can agree on certain questions if the climate is right. Has anyone indicated that the Feds have a unilateral power to force a referendum?

The only reason the Constitution would be amended would be for the purpose of severing ties with the current monarchy and moving to a republic. Now, I am sure that if it ever came to that, there might be some other changes added, to appease the provinces and get them on-board. What sufficiently large changes would be required, especially if the goal is a parliamentary republic? Not really because any rational republican recognizes Part V, Section 41. However, as it stands now that is the only thing legally preventing a republic. There aren't any structural or practical impediments other than consent.

But you do agree that the Charlottetown Accord was a Federal referendum right? Then what other instruments would affect it since entities are all based on a commonly accepted definition usually, but not always, specified in the document itself? While the "Crown" may be used in different contexts, it still signifies a common product. I can't see why changing the signified wouldn't apply to all Constitutional documents if the term refers to a common product throughout. Very true, but other than some temporary sentimental musings here and there, there isn't a widespread desire for a monarchy either. However, the discussion is always good for Canadians. I dunno. I am a decentralist at heart, so I see the devolution of certain powers to the provinces as a good thing and provides for a more tangible level of representation for the public. The Charlottetown Accord for example shows that provinces are willing to deal when it comes to gaining control over some aspects of governance. Politics is like that. That is an interesting question and it could come down to convention versus legality I think. Part V, Section 42 appears to refer Senate reform to 38(1) which requires measure of legislative approval. I don't see a way you can, one way or another. Well, you can send anything to the SC, but the amending formulas were put in there to replace the convention. However, with power politics with the provinces, the right sort of environment, who knows? Perhaps it won't be an outright amendement concerning the office of the Queen, but rather an amendment to the amending formula for some other Constitutional purpose.

I "glossed over it" to engage in a further discussion about the legal structure of the Constitution with regard to changing the governmental system into something more republican. Does the concept of supposition elude you?

What should laws reflect? Some sort of irrefutable logic of justice?

Rossland and Ritson in Oshawa. Use Google maps. The churches on the opposite corners are 'normal' churches with normal sized parking lots. I'm not sure how many marked parking spaces there are in the Baptist lot, but there is an expansion area in the back of the church that allows for quite a few more cars to be parked. And, as you can see, smack dab in the middle of a residential area. I am sure it will have to be a large piece of land, WalMart sized. Maybe they are expecting more clients in the future? I can't provide a rationale for why the City of Markham does what they do, but one councillor does:

You are, as I have already pointed out. You haven't really brought much to the discussion other than saying you will let TB & GB articulate for you. I am down with that.

Charlottetown Accord - surely you remember this. It was a big deal back in the day. Not really. wyly pointed it out, change the the signified since the signifier is basically immaterial. The "Crown" could refer to some in-house body or government-as-a-whole as invested in an elected president or governor-general. A referendum doesn't have to binding, but it can guage the support for such a move. Now, if concentrations of monarchists could derail the process, so be it IF they exist in sufficient numbers to alter the majority of a provincial legislature. At the current time, I would say they could. However, support for the monarchy ain't what it used to be I am not suggesting that provincial constitutional rights can be swept away. However, such rights, under the proper conditions, can be ameliorated to provide the meands required for republicanism. So let's go back to 1981 and the Patriation Reference ruling. This, of course, refers to the unpatriated Constitution as it existed in 1981, but it would be interesting to know if the same ruling would provide any sort of equivalent precedent to the current Constitution. For example, in Part V, Section 41, is the "office of the Queen" a legal definition or a conventional definition?

And if all the provinces agree, it could easily happen because there isn't any other legal structure preventing it. Get it? I am making perfect sense, you are dodging because you are getting close to being out of your league. I rest my case about the above statement. You haven't offered any conclusive evidence that there are any legal structures - other than the will of the people - that prevent Canada from being a republic. I am not going to change a thing, are you? The point is - again - is that there are no legal impediments to us getting rid of the monarchy and so the only obstacle is the will of the people. With a little education, some well placed propaganda, it could happen. For example. If you have some evidence that there are some built in Constitutional roadblocks that makes republicanism illegal in Canada, you are free to bring it up. Or maybe you should move aside and let TB talk for you.

Turn that frown upside down. If the alternatives are "worse" then the status quo must be "better." Therefore you are voting for the "better" choice. Hey, it might be cheap semantics, but it might help you sleep at night.

It could very well tear the country to pieces. Then again it might not. Conjecture works that way. With the repatriation of the Constitution, there was no tearing of the country to pieces and any harm done, directly caused by that act, has more or less been mended. People get over it. However, a federal referendum can be held, they are perfectly legal. They do not have to propose an act, but the possibility of an act. A Royal Commission can be held as well, to gauge "the people" and their thoughts on the subject. Those two things alone - as an intellectual benefit to the country - are worthy of doing right now. Whether people are for or against, the resulting education of Canadians, about Canada, is worthwhile IMO. Yep, I have read enough of the Constitutional documents in my time, and a pile of other dry, detailed and boring legislative docs. The term "Crown" is a signifier. The word can be kept - even as a relic - but point to a new signified. What that would turn out to be could be an interesting concept. But either or - keep the relic or determine a new term - we only need to change the signified.

Then I would suggest you up your librium. Imposition isn't the question really, but there isn't anything - other than "the people" that could prevent such a referendum. You know TB, I really didn't think that it was possible that the Soviet Union would fall either, but there you go. Shit happens. Here we go, the meat. So what "substantial amendments" would be required at this point in time? A little bit of wording, a bit of shifting of personnel here or there, a couple of decisions. But even substantial amendments, by defintion, are not preventative. In other words, there isn't anything preventing us - structurally - from becoming a republic. For sure, pretty common knowledge. However, get the right government in there, sending out some key messages and that low number could drop. Could it drop to less than 25%? I think that if there was a reason for it, that reason would originate in England, not Canada. What danger? If the will is there in sufficient degrees, I see no structural dangers at all, in fact, we seem to be heading in that direction anyways, if the past 100 years of Canadian history is any indication. One common argument of the republicans is that it is inevitable. It certainly seems that way. So perhaps the move to a republic doesn't have to be a big move, but more incremental. Like a new girlfriend. First it's the toothbrush for overnighters... Stephen Harper is no Lech Walesa that's for sure. You see though? When you say "bedrock" you are referring to a real, tangible structure and I don't see it that way, other that the will of the people - which you may be referring to I suppose. But even IF it was "the people" the bedrock is still only a notion and notions can change. In other words, within the Constitution or articles of governance, I don't see any "bedrock" outside of sentementality and loyalty that would prevent the move towards republicanism.

Meh, "tone" is your problem not mine. I dunno. Seems kind of lazy and dangerous to me. Although, if we can find some sort of common ground where like-policies would apply, it is worth exploring. For example, Portugal has set up safe injection sites, but those seem to be Dutch and Swiss programs, at least in the modern sense. And medically supervised sites seems to show Oz and Canada in the forefront. Someone had to adopt them to start it out.

My brother-in-law is Portugese. His parents live in Portugal and they live quite differently than we do. They don't have the USA 45 miles away for example. And they drink alot. In what ways are they the "same" that would make apt comparisons between cultures for the purposes of evaluating their policies against ours? I mean, is an addict and addict and addict?

Well it's a damned good thing you got the franchise son. Me? I can imagine a far worse alternative apple manager. For example, one who doesn't spend much time talking about real alternatives and spends an election campaign with simpleton attack ads.

Did my response to the OP make it seem like I wanted a white paper? You know, asking questions about the differences between Portugal and Canada. You want me to cite make-believe policy? Sure, here's one: Don't follow Portugal's example.

I am no republican, well, usually not. But it is an interesting discussion because if the will of the people, acting through their elected representatives, decides to roll like a republican, there really isn't anything holding us back structurally. If there is, I don't see it. Sure there would be lots of details to be worked out, etc. But nothing is preventing it, except the will of the people who will, presumably, take great interest in the process. Or much more than the 60% who bother to show up at the voting booths on a good day. Plus it beats having another country come in an impose a form of government on a population. You know, cause those Yanks make me nervous.

And what if all the provinces did, as indicated by a decisive referendum? Do you "get" that part? Does our Charter of Rights make us incompatible with a parliamentary republic? All that power can be invested in another figurehead, no problem. Relatively simple and relatively easy and, based on what you have offered as an argument thus far, I ain't imagining anything. Seems pretty straight forward. All you are doing is saying it can't be done, without explaining why. "just because" doesn't cut it. Why not, seems easy enough. A couple of more steps and we'll be there. A free and independent Republic of Canada. Likely get a little more world respect too, you know, with having dared challenge the supremacy of the monarchy that has people tied up all these can't-be-done knots. Meh. We should be governed more like the US anyways. They certainly think so and now is no time for thoughtless Canadian chauvenism. But it does indicate that severing such formal governance ties are not such a big deal - they are do-able and, with the right amount of support, entirely possible in this age. The main benefit is that it gets Canadians talking about Canada, what we are, how we want to roll in the future, get involved with governing ourselves.

I agree, but let's see some other jusrisdictions. All I am seeing is Portugal. The value of the discussion increases with more examples, policies, etc. Do I think the drug policies are working... hmmm good question. I think there could be a level of deciminalization for so-called 'soft-drugs' in conjunction with a massive education campaign about the problems of drug and alcohol consumption. And an increase in the severity for under-the-influence type infractions.

Portugal has less population that Ontario in a land mass 1/10th the size so it is comparable to Southern Ontario at best. Then there are other social and cultural aspects that exist in Portugal that don't here, visa versa, etc. The point being bud is that we can't simply cherry pick general examples in isolation of everything else, especially with a culture that is much different from ours. In that case our best guess might be a better solution, which seems to be what we are doing now, collectively.

No, you pick one, since you are the one saying that the current approach isn't working. If you choose to measure our approach against, say, the Portugese, then that leads back to my question about the applicability of the Portugese model and the underlying issues they started with in the first place. Alcohol Consumption in Portugal: The Burden of Disease So we decriminalize drugs and turn them all into alcoholics?

Well... we need to curtail freedoms in order to address the problem dontchya know. Isn't that the 21st century mantra?

I said 'stylized' not an exacting imitation. For Tim Hudak, the stylization doesn't appear to be working much. Canadians have demonstrated they upset the poorly run apple cart almost every time. Come on now.