The Federal Republic of Canada

[M.Dancer]

Itès a proven fact we have built the roads for the Nafta super highway into Alberta,

I believe it is a proven fact we have built roads.

To my knowledge they weren't built out of tinfoil, nor are they named "Nafta Super Highway" but that would be a cool name...

[Smallc]

It would be a cool name. I also like the route it would supposedly take. It would be good for my city. Bring on the superhighway!

[benny]

It would be a cool name. I also like the route it would supposedly take. It would be good for my city. Bring on the superhighway!

Countries with of lot of roads like this one are usually called banana republics.

Edited July 17, 2009 by benny

[Craig1]

I believe it is a proven fact we have built roads.

To my knowledge they weren't built out of tinfoil, nor are they named "Nafta Super Highway" but that would be a cool name...

Sorry thought i was talking to someone with more than a grade 3 education.

To be precise its called the CANAMEX highway

CAn- CAnada

AM= AMerica

MEx- Mexico

stick your tinfoil up your ars!

[Smallc]

That's a different highway. The NAFTA Superhighway runs from Winnipeg to Mexico City.

[benny]

Instead of exporting Canadian natural resources, why not taxing these exports to simulate their transformation here in Canada!?

[Craig1]

That's a different highway. The NAFTA Superhighway runs from Winnipeg to Mexico City.

I dont think so maybe old plans but Albertas getting a port anf Vancouver has its built for the Asia pacific coridor, maybe something for the east will happen later and maybe why Manitoba has those equalization payments going for the infastructure but west is first priority we have the passage.

[benny]

I dont think so maybe old plans but Albertas getting a port anf Vancouver has its built for the Asia pacific coridor, maybe something for the east will happen later and maybe why Manitoba has those equalization payments going for the infastructure but west is first priority we have the passage.

Exporting Canadian natural resources to Asia will appreciate the Canadian dollar at more than parity with the US dollar which will break Canada by killing Central Canada's manufacturing sector.

[Smallc]

Nope, CANAMEX is a different highway. CANAMEX is quite real as is the NAFTA Superhighway. The highway is to connect the new Port of Winnipeg with other inland ports along the route.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Second, Equalization is completely separate from the Building Canada money and the Canada's Economic Action Plan money that is being directed to improve infrastructure is support of Centreport.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Smallc

[Craig1]

Exporting Canadian natural resources to Asia will appreciate the Canadian dollar at more than parity with the US dollar which will break Canada by killing Central Canada's manufacturing sector.

Very well could but depends on what curency will be chosen and wether we are integrated with the American dollar, China wants its own and its bull will be 3 times as big and they carry a $5 trillion in US debt. Either we trade on a Chinese curency or it will be a AMERO its to early to say.

[benny]

Nope, CANAMEX is a different highway. CANAMEX is quite real as is the NAFTA Superhighway. The highway is to connect the new Port of Winnipeg with other inland ports along the route.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

Second, Equalization is completely separate from the Building Canada money and the Canada's Economic Action Plan money that is being directed to improve infrastructure is support of Centreport.

These highways will bring the Dutch disease to Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

[Craig1]

These highways will bring the Dutch disease to Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

i agree and unless some new form of technology comes out that the east can manufature or they diversify in some way its going to turn into a house you take a dump in. East aint got nothing and this port will destroy them.

I donèt know what am i suposeto do lauph hahahhaha or say i told you so, ah they will never get it.

[benny]

i agree and unless some new form of technology comes out that the east can manufature or they diversify in some way its going to turn into a house you take a dump in. East aint got nothing and this port will destroy them.

I donèt know what am i suposeto do lauph hahahhaha or say i told you so, ah they will never get it.

If this dirty post becomes a typical Canadian post, Quebec has a lot of renewable energy on which it is already building ZENN (zero emission no noise) cars and also building its own country.

[jbg]

That's a different highway. The NAFTA Superhighway runs from Winnipeg to Mexico City.

Maybe they could extend it to Churchill, to give it port access on Hudson Bay.

[Smallc]

That's the plan actually. There will in the next decade or so be a fixed link to mainland Nunavut.

[benny]

That's the plan actually. There will in the next decade or so be a fixed link to mainland Nunavut.

...a fixed link to the mines of Nunavut rather.

[Smallc]

Hopefully so. The other territories are prospering, but that is made difficult for Nunavut because of the lack of a fixed link.

[benny]

Hopefully so. The other territories are prospering, but that is made difficult for Nunavut because of the lack of a fixed link.

...the other territories are being spoiled at a (overly) rapid pace because of their fixed links rather.

Edited July 18, 2009 by benny

[nicky10013]

Frankly, after 40 pages of responses, I was too lazy to read through them all. This argument might have been made before so I apologize if it's merely a repeat, though, the question was intriguing enough for me to want to sign up and chime in.

I saw a couple responses denoting that people want more symbols to believe in, and that republicanism is reflective of democracy. While theoretically true, voter turnout these days everywhere, not just in Canada, point to the fact that symbols no longer enthrall the populations of democracies like they once did.

Indeed, people seem to fall in love with the idea of a republic over the symbology alone, as if creating in Canada that catch-all phrase republic would somehow turn around the democratic malaise that, is frankly a lot worse in places that do indeed declare them to be said republics.

The fact is, when we talk about transforming our political system, it won't be in name only. We have to recognize that the very essence of the political legislative process will be changed. People fantasize about the system of checks and balances but in reality in the United States those checks and balances do a lot more to harm the process than to help it. People hate government because it gets nothing done and fosters corruption and massive redundancy in the bureaucracy. The mere fact that there are so many points in the legislative process to kill legislation to "protect us from tyranny" allows private interests to easily bribe congressmen who aren't bound by parliamentary discipline and said reps (or other bureaucrats from powerful deparments *ahem* pentagon *ahem*) can easily add spending into legislation to get it passed (porkbarrel politics). In the end, this does happen in Canada but in no shape or form is anywhere close to the leve it occurs in the United States.

The republican system cripples the legislative process in that legislation moves at a snails pace in comparison to that of the HoC in Canada. In the end, this has to somewhat influence electoral politics. In the technological age people and information move at the speed of light and in the end Americans can't relate to their 18th century political system because it can't keep up with society. Look at the health care debate. Though a clear majority of Americans want changes to health care, the entrenched interests in Congress with funding from the AMA and the Health Insurance lobby will more than likely kill any attempt at health reform. In fact, the fastest thing that the congress has done in the past ten years was to approve a motion to sing the anthem on the steps of the capitol after 9/11. After that, everything is a dog fight.

In Canada, if there's a majority, which Canadians are now again craving, the government can get down to business and get things done. In the end, Canadian democracy is entrenched to the point that if a majority government is doing thing that the population resents, they can be kicked out (Mulroney) and we don't need checks and balances to keep us from giving ourselves a dictator.

For those people who use regional differences and decentralization as a means to gain a republic, honestly, the west has merely taken a huge sip of the Alliance/Reform/Conservative kool-aid. Regional differences (with the exception of Quebec) never factored in to elections to the point that they have until Stockwell Day, panicky as most Conservative leaders are, started airing ads that the east hated the west even though Chretien's ads were a pan-canadian message that didn't change from riding to riding (which Conservative ads did. Clearly the we love Ontario ads during that period were never played in Calgary. Thank god we got the real message when Mr. Baird told Toronto to Fuck Off). Since then, the only way the Conservatives have been able to get in is to play on that regional divide rather than strengthening the unity of the nation. In my opinion, thats as bad as seperatism.

[benny]

Frankly, after 40 pages of responses, I was too lazy to read through them all. This argument might have been made before so I apologize if it's merely a repeat, though, the question was intriguing enough for me to want to sign up and chime in.

I saw a couple responses denoting that people want more symbols to believe in, and that republicanism is reflective of democracy. While theoretically true, voter turnout these days everywhere, not just in Canada, point to the fact that symbols no longer enthrall the populations of democracies like they once did.

Indeed, people seem to fall in love with the idea of a republic over the symbology alone, as if creating in Canada that catch-all phrase republic would somehow turn around the democratic malaise that, is frankly a lot worse in places that do indeed declare them to be said republics.

The fact is, when we talk about transforming our political system, it won't be in name only. We have to recognize that the very essence of the political legislative process will be changed. People fantasize about the system of checks and balances but in reality in the United States those checks and balances do a lot more to harm the process than to help it. People hate government because it gets nothing done and fosters corruption and massive redundancy in the bureaucracy. The mere fact that there are so many points in the legislative process to kill legislation to "protect us from tyranny" allows private interests to easily bribe congressmen who aren't bound by parliamentary discipline and said reps (or other bureaucrats from powerful deparments *ahem* pentagon *ahem*) can easily add spending into legislation to get it passed (porkbarrel politics). In the end, this does happen in Canada but in no shape or form is anywhere close to the leve it occurs in the United States.

The republican system cripples the legislative process in that legislation moves at a snails pace in comparison to that of the HoC in Canada. In the end, this has to somewhat influence electoral politics. In the technological age people and information move at the speed of light and in the end Americans can't relate to their 18th century political system because it can't keep up with society. Look at the health care debate. Though a clear majority of Americans want changes to health care, the entrenched interests in Congress with funding from the AMA and the Health Insurance lobby will more than likely kill any attempt at health reform. In fact, the fastest thing that the congress has done in the past ten years was to approve a motion to sing the anthem on the steps of the capitol after 9/11. After that, everything is a dog fight.

In Canada, if there's a majority, which Canadians are now again craving, the government can get down to business and get things done. In the end, Canadian democracy is entrenched to the point that if a majority government is doing thing that the population resents, they can be kicked out (Mulroney) and we don't need checks and balances to keep us from giving ourselves a dictator.

For those people who use regional differences and decentralization as a means to gain a republic, honestly, the west has merely taken a huge sip of the Alliance/Reform/Conservative kool-aid. Regional differences (with the exception of Quebec) never factored in to elections to the point that they have until Stockwell Day, panicky as most Conservative leaders are, started airing ads that the east hated the west even though Chretien's ads were a pan-canadian message that didn't change from riding to riding (which Conservative ads did. Clearly the we love Ontario ads during that period were never played in Calgary. Thank god we got the real message when Mr. Baird told Toronto to Fuck Off). Since then, the only way the Conservatives have been able to get in is to play on that regional divide rather than strengthening the unity of the nation. In my opinion, thats as bad as seperatism.

But can the English Royal family be said responsible for the alleged superiority of Canadian political system over that of the US?

[jbg]

Deleted. Double post and "benny'd".

Edited July 23, 2009 by jbg

[benny]

In theory, a symbolic President, such as Israel, Germany and certain other republics have would not require a change of "the very essence of the political legislative process." The problem is that the exercise of the reserve powers would have less apparent neutrality than the times it was exercised, such as the Whitlam-Kerr and King-Byng affairs. Thus, the symbol of a neutral above the fray is important.

Checks and balances have nothing to do with the bureaucracy. What creates the bureaucracy is the willingness of elected politicians in both the Westminister and U.S. systems to "pass the buck" and establish agencies with "expertise" to deal with problems rather than mucking with the details.

The bureaucracy is such a symbol of neutrality.

[g_bambino]

Indeed, people seem to fall in love with the idea of a republic over the symbology alone, as if creating in Canada that catch-all phrase republic would somehow turn around the democratic malaise that, is frankly a lot worse in places that do indeed declare them to be said republics.

That is a very, very good point that manages to summarize what I've felt for some time but wasn't able to condense into a digestible sentence or two. I might go further to break the group down into two sub-categories: those who focus on symbols to destroy them as part of a personal vendetta - the iconoclasts who translate symbols on a purely emotional level, painting the monarchy as a foreign, oppressive, colonial institution - and those who think symbolic change will translate into tangible change - the ultra-libertarians who believe happiness lies nowhere but the ballot box. These views are, of course, two sides of the same extreme coin, and history has taught us that neither tends to be particularly successful, mere symbols always failing to cover the ugly reality that tends to develop out of irrationally conceived plots.

[benny]

the ultra-libertarians who believe happiness lies nowhere but the ballot box.

The ultra-libertarians don't believe in the majority rule, for them democracy is a catch hidding the mob's rule.

[nicky10013]

But can the English Royal family be said responsible for the alleged superiority of Canadian political system over that of the US?

No, however, the English Royal Family is indeed a part of our history. The Queen doesn't have any "power" over Canada, but what is wrong with history if it no longer holds sway over our legislative process? If we switch to a more symbolic system like that of Germany or Israel, what the hell is the point? You're basically keeping every institution the same but just changing the name. That would be to deny our history. Even though it would probably be better for them, it would be like the Americans switching to a westminster system and tearing up the declaration of independence. Again I ask, if there's going to be no substantive reform in the legislative process, why does it need to be changed? The only thing that could possibly be reformed is the senate...even then, it should only be reformed to the point where term limits are introduced and nothing else. Having an effective check on the HoC, like I argued before, would be detrimental to the legislative process in that it would slow things down to a snails pace.

Also, unfortunately, checks and balances DO have a lot to do with the bureaucracy. In the United States there are 21 different intelligence agencies and every single department (Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines) within the pentagon has their own, redundant, air force which gets billions of dollars in spending. Why? Because checks and balances deem it incredibly easy to kill legislation. If lobbyists from the Pentagon or the INtelligence establishment get to a single congressmen because lets remember, there is no parliamentary discipline, that could be the difference between a higher and lower budget for said department.

And so what about NEP? Short-sighted? Sure. In the end, Trudeau wanted a grand vision for us to be buying energy from the west. He wanted to unite the country west-east instead of just having our natural resources go on the north-south axis to the states. In the end, his message was pan-Canadian. My point was that the Conservatives today and the Alliance of yesterday are deliberately playing west and east off each other in order to make electoral gains. Are we different? Sure. IS there a lot we can learn from each other? Absolutely. Is it ok for parties to try and tear the country apart to win a majority? No. Considering the divide between east and west today, it's just as bad as seperatism.