Jump to content

The Federal Republic of Canada


Canada as a federal republic  

114 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Any attempt to make Canada a republic would plunge the country into a year-long debate. I'm not sure any politician would want to let such a topic dominate the stage.

A year long debate? Look how long it took to patriate the constitution simply because we couldn't agree on an amending formula! Removing the Monarchy from the constitution would not be a matter of changing the words "Queen" and "Governor General" to "President." It would require an almost entire re-writing.

No wonder no politician wants to bring it up.

If Harper adopted a republican stance, would it be popular? You tell me:

What does a timeline of Canadian independence, with a failed Metis republic thrown in there, have to do with Canada becoming a republic now? Or, are you one of those who believes republics to be the pinnacle of a nation's evolution? Perhaps you should look to France (now on it's, what... fifth republic?) as an example of how that isn't necessarily so.

As much as I would prefer the republican question be considered on it own merits - Australia held a referendum - in Canada, the question is inextricably mixed up in English/French issues and with a dose of English-Canadian anti-Americanism thrown into the brew for good measure. That's unfortunate and I envy the Australians their ability to treat the question of a republic purely on its merits.

Strangely, English/French issues do arise in the monarchy vs. republic debate - as minimal as it is. It is, however, strange when we consider that, as I mentioned in my previous post, the sovereigntists really don't care about the Monarchy one way or another. A Canadian republic will be no more appealing to them that the kingdom we are now.

Also, wanting to be distinguished from the United States is not anti-American. Despite what republicans assert, maple syrop, beavers, and a Canadian president will not differentiate us enough from the US republic.

And, Australians didn't look at republicanism purely on merit. Australian republicans tried to win over the populace like a used car salesman trying to rope in a customer. It wasn't about how the government would function better, or how Australians would lead more productive lives, or be more free. Instead it was about false symbolism (the lies about colonial status again), international insecurity (what do other countries think of us?), political correctness that bordered on reverse racism (why does one white "foreigner" get all our power? (that'd be the politicians talking, of course)), slander (Charles is a moron (behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated against any other individual)), and using celebrity endorsement to pitch the sale. They even wanted the words "republic" and "president" kept off the referendum ballot! Yea, purely on merit! Right!

Sometimes I suspect that many English Canadians are orphans, and your rant above supports my suspicion. Argus, you can blame Trudeau for taking away your parents but in fact it's modern life that committed regicide. Despite what bambino posts here, Canada (English Canada included) for all intents is not a monarchy. Even in English Canada, the Queen is as relevant as a 1938 Eaton's catalogue.

Ah, the old "it is because it is" argument. Answer this question, August (and I'm sure I've asked you this before, but still lack a response): Why is the Queen not relevant to many Canadians today? While pondering on that, ask yourself: Could it be because Trudeau and his political descendants have made sure Canadians don't know anything about their institutions or the history behind them, which parallels the history of the country? Could it be because history has been revised to teach that the "real" Canada began in 1967, and everything before that was mean British people beating up Indians and French people? Could it be because today image and showmanship is valued more than substance and stability?

Oh, and when you're done with that, ask yourself: What is a country headed by a monarch? That one's simple - so I won't offer any further insight.

Canada (English Canada included) must grow up and decide what it is. Becoming a federal republic would be an honest step in the right direction.

All of Canada needs to decide - for the past 40 years or so we've been having our government tell us what it means to be a Canadian, but it hasn't sat well with anyone - Francophone or Anglophone, or speaker of any language in between. But, when Canadians will be no wealthier, no more secure, no more unified, no better represented, and a republic would be a foreign concept imposed on them after 500+ years of monarchy, how could a "federal republic" possibly be a step in the right direction? You've constantly asserted this since March 14, 2004, yet have never given one convincing argument as to why it is so. Like most republicans (and many politicians) your full of patriotic rhetoric, and certainly repetitious, but ultimately your arguments are a shallow front to a hollow, desperate plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with the practical. If Harper supported such a thing the heart and core of conservatives would abandon the Tories completely....

To be practical, I tend to agree with Riverview above. There are other more pressing issues than making Canada a republic. In addition, any constitutional change would require approval of all 10 provincial governments. The last time that was attempted, a provincial premier reneged and an Indian MLA decided to grandstand. Canada's Constitution is like Poland's interbellum parliament - frozen by unanimity.

Any attempt to make Canada a republic would plunge the country into a year-long debate.

I think you're being unduly optimistic

Argus, you imply that republicanism is a losing proposition to Harper. I disagree. First, politics is often the judicious art of the cross-over. Tony Blair can defend free trade and Bush Jnr can promote education. The trick, admittedly, is to keep traditional supporters while gaining a few fence-sitters. This is possible if the issue is chosen wisely.

Perhaps, but this is not a wise issue. Neither you nor anyone else can show how Canada would be richer, culturally or economically, as a Republic.

If Harper adopted a republican stance, would it be popular?

No.

2002 – Ipsos-Reid/Globe and Mail/CTV poll results in February determine that nearly half of Canadians (48%) would prefer a republican system of government with an elected head of state and two-thirds (65%) believe the royals are merely celebrities and should not have any formal role in Canada. Oddly, the same poll determines that 79% agree with the statement: "I support a constitutional monarchy as Canada’s form of government where we elect governments whose leader becomes the Prime Minister".

You can play with poll questions all you want. Even if those who say they would "prefer" a Republican government exceed 50% you're talking about people who would "prefer" Republicanism, but not as much as they'd prefer a free coffee from Tim Hortons. In other words, their support is an inch deep - at best. You put them up against 10% who are practically willing to kill to maintain the monarchy and that 50% will melt away pretty quick. In political terms, few or none of that 50% will change their vote in your favour for taking Canada into Republicanism, but ALL those in the 10% group will despise you for the rest of your life, and then piss on your grave after you die. And to make matters more interesting virtually that entire latter group are loyal Conservatives while most of those who would really support Republicanism wouldn't vote Conservative if Harper walked on water. So where is the upside for him? Where is the upside for the Conservatives? Where is the upside for Canada to go through all this?

It's funny you would even include this. You've mused before about the lack of identity among English Canadians. In the thread on "Canada Day" I pointed out a few things in that regard. Among them is that Quebec, and the elitists in English Canada have been busily erasing all traces of English Canada's history and traditions over the past few decades, in large measure to please Quebec (which hasn't worked at all) and in doing so have robbed us of that unity of shared history we used to have.
A complete response deserves a new thread, since it concerns Canadian symbols - and specifically the symbols of English Canada.

Sometimes I suspect that many English Canadians are orphans, and your rant above supports my suspicion. Argus, you can blame Trudeau for taking away your parents but in fact it's modern life that committed regicide. Despite what bambino posts here, Canada (English Canada included) for all intents is not a monarchy. Even in English Canada, the Queen is as relevant as a 1938 Eaton's catalogue.

Relevant to whom as what? You think turning the GG into a glorified "president" would be more relevant to Canadians? How? Maybe the symbolism of monarchy is something you don't see as being at all important. Maybe you see it as an anarchronism, and maybe it is. But it's still woven into the fabric of what it means to be a Canadian - at least to English Canadians. It's one of those things not noticed in everyday life. But if it disappeared, we would notice and miss it.

Canada (English Canada included) must grow up and decide what it is. Becoming a federal republic would be an honest step in the right direction.

Why? And given Quebec's obsessive desire to protect its culture and language what do you think the likelihood is of them climbing into the twenty-first century any time soon? Cast off your old, inefficient, ineffective, provincial, timeworn linguistic obsession, August, and make sure everyone in Quebec learns English. We'd be a far more united and mature country. French is old and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. That's what a truly grown-up people would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? And given Quebec's obsessive desire to protect its culture and language what do you think the likelihood is of them climbing into the twenty-first century any time soon? Cast off your old, inefficient, ineffective, provincial, timeworn linguistic obsession, August, and make sure everyone in Quebec learns English. We'd be a far more united and mature country. French is old and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. That's what a truly grown-up people would do.

So should English if your talking about numbers. I suggest you start leaning Cantonese and Mandarin, your language is really becoming a minority interest in the larger scheme of things Argus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really like to help you fellas out way over there in central Canada. Tell you what, there is a whole herd of red necks in Alberta like myself who think a republic is a fine idea, and we would just love to show you how it can work real good in Alberta.

You guys can argue with the Frenchies and the Rock dwellers about how to set it up for yourselves, but out here in the west we are eyeballing a republic of our own. I have to tell you that it just doesn't matter to a bunch of us red neck Albertans who is running the show in Ottawa. We are not fond of sad comedies out here. When we have it set up and running maybe we will amble over and buy some nice real estate and build a few embassies and have you folks over for a few beers.

There is a lot of support in Alberta for a republic, but not within Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favour. Any monarchists on the bench? I'll argue, and happily explain why you're wrong.

I say, let's run our own affairs our own way, and let's be upfront about it. Why the heck is that foreign face on our money anyway?

I think symbols matter, and English Canadians cannot imagine the effect it would have among French Canadians.

So, is Canada a "real" country?

There's a simple reason why it won't happen: it would involve opening up the constitution again. No one wants that because it would not just be a simple thing making a Governor-General an elected position.

Every time the constitution opens, everyone piles on a list of demands: an elected, equal Senate, Aboriginal self-government, proportional representation, term limits, anti-flag burning Constitutional amendments and property rights. The list goes on and on.

And what happens? The country tears itself apart.

So Republican dreamers are probably doing just that: dreaming.

I have no opinion on whether A Republic will be good or bad. If it was done as a "made in Canada" solution, it could probably be good. But the idea that it could happen without everyone tossing their pet projects in as well is probably wishful thinking. And that would be bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was done as a "made in Canada" solution...

How can there be a solution when there's no problem?

Potentially, it could be. I don't think there is any rush to change things at the moment but this assumes the monarchy as we know it is perpetual. Britain itself might end the monarchy which would make Canada's consitutional monarchy questionable.

So yes, a made in Canada solution might eventually have to be made. But that day isn't here yet. And why open up a constitutionall nightmare for a non-issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks think there is no problem? No recall legislation, no elected senate, no free votes, no electing a leader and no problem.

Ontario and Quebec get to call the ball for the rest of the country and there is no problem. Equalization pays some(most) provinces to sit on their hands and do nothing about their fiscal situation and there is no problem.

I have to ask what you folks think a problem would be if these things do cut it for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The monarchy in Canada will never die but it will be reduced to car flags and bumper stickers where it belongs.

There's a simple reason why it won't happen: it would involve opening up the constitution again.
There is an even simpler reason why it will happen: Quebec will separate.

The ease with which Quebec will dispense of the monarchy (and of a government in Ottawa, for that matter as well) will be a glaring wake up call to the rest of Canada.

And what happens? The country tears itself apart.
No doubt. After Quebec separates, every other Canadian will ask: why Ottawa??? why monarchy???
So Republican dreamers are probably doing just that: dreaming.
So, monarchist ostriches can keep their heads in the sand until Quebec sovereignty kicks them in the ass.
I have no opinion on whether A Republic will be good or bad.
Neither do I (except for the money saved by not having to fund the Governor General's festivities) but the question will come up after Quebec separates. There will not be a chance to avoid the question.
You folks think there is no problem? No recall legislation, no elected senate, no free votes, no electing a leader and no problem.

Ontario and Quebec get to call the ball for the rest of the country and there is no problem. Equalization pays some(most) provinces to sit on their hands and do nothing about their fiscal situation and there is no problem.

Relax. Stop worrying about solving those "problems" in Canada and start promoting Quebec sovereignty. It is the most fair and efficient way to open up constitutional debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks think there is no problem? No recall legislation, no elected senate, no free votes, no electing a leader and no problem.

Ontario and Quebec get to call the ball for the rest of the country and there is no problem. Equalization pays some(most) provinces to sit on their hands and do nothing about their fiscal situation and there is no problem.

I have to ask what you folks think a problem would be if these things do cut it for you?

Every industrialized nation has some form of equalization except the United States. And their equalization program is called the Interstate Highway system where every state gets a share of the cash.

As for not having a problem with things, I go back to the "can or worms" agument. Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Greens, Natives, minorities will all have something to add to the mix if the constitution is opened.

People can't expect that things will open just a bit to allow one amendment say for...recall and not have everyone else pile on their demands. Quite simply, the amending formula would collapse unless there was *total* agreement on an issue and complete understanding that only that issue would be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The monarchy in Canada will never die but it will be reduced to car flags and bumper stickers where it belongs.
There's a simple reason why it won't happen: it would involve opening up the constitution again.
There is an even simpler reason why it will happen: Quebec will separate.

The ease with which Quebec will dispense of the monarchy (and of a government in Ottawa, for that matter as well) will be a glaring wake up call to the rest of Canada.

And what happens? The country tears itself apart.
No doubt. After Quebec separates, every other Canadian will ask: why Ottawa??? why monarchy???
So Republican dreamers are probably doing just that: dreaming.
So, monarchist ostriches can keep their heads in the sand until Quebec sovereignty kicks them in the ass.
I have no opinion on whether A Republic will be good or bad.
Neither do I (except for the money saved by not having to fund the Governor General's festivities) but the question will come up after Quebec separates. There will not be a chance to avoid the question.
You folks think there is no problem? No recall legislation, no elected senate, no free votes, no electing a leader and no problem.

Ontario and Quebec get to call the ball for the rest of the country and there is no problem. Equalization pays some(most) provinces to sit on their hands and do nothing about their fiscal situation and there is no problem.

Relax. Stop worrying about solving those "problems" in Canada and start promoting Quebec sovereignty. It is the most fair and efficient way to open up constitutional debate.

So when do you think this Quebec separation will take place?

As for saving money, a Republic will likely cost just as much or more. That has been the example thus far from constitutional monarchies that have become Republics. The Australians have looked into this a lot and cost savings was not one of the things that a Republic offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? And given Quebec's obsessive desire to protect its culture and language what do you think the likelihood is of them climbing into the twenty-first century any time soon? Cast off your old, inefficient, ineffective, provincial, timeworn linguistic obsession, August, and make sure everyone in Quebec learns English. We'd be a far more united and mature country. French is old and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. That's what a truly grown-up people would do.

So should English if your talking about numbers. I suggest you start leaning Cantonese and Mandarin, your language is really becoming a minority interest in the larger scheme of things Argus.

Twaddle. We're not talking about mere numbers. Go to Algeria and try to speak Chinese. Go to Nigeria, or Uganda or Zambia, go to Brazil or Argentina, go to India or Thailand or Germany or Sweden and yap at them in Cantonese. You'll find someone to speak English, though. You'll find lots of someone's to speak English. English is becoming the international language, in part because of the importance of English business, scientific and cultural messages, in part because it's comparatively easy to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when do you think this Quebec separation will take place?
Not soon enough. Hopefully in my lifetime.

If you want a more precise time, you are making a stupid request to avoid the issue of Quebec's independence on the longevity of the monarchy.

As for saving money, a Republic will likely cost just as much or more.
Paying money to a monarchy will cost just as much or more than not paying money to a monarchy???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when do you think this Quebec separation will take place?
Not soon enough. Hopefully in my lifetime.

If you want a more precise time, you are making a stupid request to avoid the issue of Quebec's independence on the longevity of the monarchy.

As for saving money, a Republic will likely cost just as much or more.
Paying money to a monarchy will cost just as much or more than not paying money to a monarchy???

Quebecers rarely use the word separation. It's always couched in the terms of sovereignty.

As for stupid for asking when you think it will happen, I guess I'm curious as to what sort of timetable you think this independence will happen. Time is on the side of Canada. The old sovereignty movement is aging, in fact some of the old warhorses have departed the scene. It remains to be seen whether the new PQ ledership has the fire to go the a referendum again. Quebec's population is static without immigration. It is that new population that Canada has to win over.

I was referring to paying for a Governor General as head of state. It is less expensive than a republic head of state according to countries who have made the switch. But that is neither here nor there.

The head of state in Canada is merely a figurehead. We don't pay for a monarchy in and of itself. We pay for our parliamentary system of which the Governor General is but one small part.

I see no great itch in Canada to move to a republic, not even in Alberta if the latest polls are any indication. There are far greater issues to deal with than constutional reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for Quebec sovereignty. I don't think they can make it on their own, but that is their choice I think. I am an Alberta seperatist so I am going to side with the Quebec fellas on this one.

The cost of government is indeed a consideration, but accountability and democracy have a far higher priority in my books. Until there is a viable means of holding their fingers to the fire we will not see any real change in the way things are going. Citizenss need a means of interaction with the government in order to provide their input, which to my view is an imperative in a democracy. It is the public who the government is supposed to work for, they are supposed to be servants of the public. Under the current system the PMO has far more power and far less accountability than the Presidents office in a republic.

What we now have is a representative parlimentary system. In this system there is too many appointed positions and too few free votes. There are no term limits to office and there is no recall legislation. They can get in and stay in with no way to get rid of them. There is nothing democratic about that.

Now a direct democracy may be unworkable for a large country like Canada, but it would ertainly function well in a smaller country like Alberta. In that system there is true democracy, the citizens determine the outcome of just about everything that effects them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for Quebec sovereignty. I don't think they can make it on their own, but that is their choice I think. I am an Alberta seperatist so I am going to side with the Quebec fellas on this one.

The cost of government is indeed a consideration, but accountability and democracy have a far higher priority in my books. Until there is a viable means of holding their fingers to the fire we will not see any real change in the way things are going. Citizenss need a means of interaction with the government in order to provide their input, which to my view is an imperative in a democracy. It is the public who the government is supposed to work for, they are supposed to be servants of the public. Under the current system the PMO has far more power and far less accountability than the Presidents office in a republic.

What we now have is a representative parlimentary system. In this system there is too many appointed positions and too few free votes. There are no term limits to office and there is no recall legislation. They can get in and stay in with no way to get rid of them. There is nothing democratic about that.

Now a direct democracy may be unworkable for a large country like Canada, but it would ertainly function well in a smaller country like Alberta. In that system there is true democracy, the citizens determine the outcome of just about everything that effects them.

The Separation Party of Alberta has been quiet as of late. Their website has barely been updated. The last poll by the Standard on separation was prior to the election and it would be interesting to see where the standing are now.

True separation thinking is when a view doesn't change regardless of who is in government. I haven't see that type of determination in a majority of Albertans or Quebecers at any time in our history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quebecers rarely use the word separation. It's always couched in the terms of sovereignty.
I use the terms interchangeably.
As for stupid for asking when you think it will happen,
Please forgive me for being harsh. I get enraged when I see big government and the opportunity to have small government is dismissed or questioned. My blinders go up.
I guess I'm curious as to what sort of timetable you think this independence will happen.
I guess MY answer was the stupid one. I was avoiding YOUR question.

I have no idea when Quebec will separate. However, I am convinced that it will be inevitable -- as convinced that I am that the government in Ottawa serves no purpose that the government in Quebec City can not serve.

Time is on the side of Canada. The old sovereignty movement is aging, in fact some of the old warhorses have departed the scene. It remains to be seen whether the new PQ ledership has the fire to go the a referendum again. Quebec's population is static without immigration. It is that new population that Canada has to win over.
I believe time is against Canada.

As time goes by, more Canadians will continue to realize that they are getting nothing from Ottawa that is worth their money. I give every Canadian the benefit of the doubt with respect to eventually figuring that out.

I was referring to paying for a Governor General as head of state. It is less expensive than a republic head of state according to countries who have made the switch. But that is neither here nor there.
As far as waste is concerned, sending money to the Governor General is the same as sending money to the monarchy. It is actually worse than burning the same money.
The head of state in Canada is merely a figurehead. We don't pay for a monarchy in and of itself. We pay for our parliamentary system of which the Governor General is but one small part.
As far as waste and efficiency and bang-for-your-buck are concerned, sending money to the Governor General is the same as sending money to the monarchy. In fact, we would be better off burning the same money.
I see no great itch in Canada to move to a republic, not even in Alberta if the latest polls are any indication. There are far greater issues to deal with than constutional reform.
Unfortunately, I believe your observation is correct.
but it would ertainly function well in a smaller country like Alberta. In that system there is true democracy,
Get to work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Separation Party of Alberta is a dead duck. Infighting has done them in. The idea didn't die, but that party will. There are several alternatives in the works. Most of them involve a republican setting. Perhaps more important to the rest of the nation is a soon to be created federal party of Alberta origin. The design of which is very similiar to the Bloc. Not necessarily separation but separation if necessary. It will get my vote in federal politics, and probably a lot of other Albertan votes. Bad news for the Tories here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potentially, it could be. I don't think there is any rush to change things at the moment but this assumes the monarchy as we know it is perpetual. Britain itself might end the monarchy which would make Canada's consitutional monarchy questionable.

So yes, a made in Canada solution might eventually have to be made. But that day isn't here yet. And why open up a constitutionall nightmare for a non-issue?

Ah, I see. Well, yes, I suppose all things have a life span. However, that applies as much to Canada itself as it does to the Monarchy. So, you're right that there's no need to alter anything now because of what potentially might happen in the future; otherwise we'd have to also discuss and plan for what to do with the country when its borders are eventually redistributed, or erradicated all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks think there is no problem? No recall legislation, no elected senate, no free votes, no electing a leader and no problem.

Ontario and Quebec get to call the ball for the rest of the country and there is no problem. Equalization pays some(most) provinces to sit on their hands and do nothing about their fiscal situation and there is no problem.

I have to ask what you folks think a problem would be if these things do cut it for you?

Some of those things you listed can be changed without the removal of the Monarchy.

If you wish for the "electing of a leader" (which I take to mean you want to elect a president), and recall legislation, you'll have to push for the rewriting of the entire constitution in a format which mirrors that of the United States. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I know that Canadians won't stand for it. But Albertans like the idea a lot.

Now I'm understanding what it is you're advocating - an independent Alberta with a US style constitution.

Interesting.

But, Alberta is currently one of the more loyal provinces - without commenting on separation, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that a US American system is better for Alberta than the constitutional monarchy you have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an Alberta seperatist...

Only sith deal in absolutes :ph34r::lol: , your telling me no matter what your a seperatist and want nothing to do with Canada?

True separation thinking is when a view doesn't change regardless of who is in government. I haven't see that type of determination in a majority of Albertans or Quebecers at any time in our history.

That's because it's not true seperation thinking in Quebec or Alberta. Both provinces have a commonality in that they have considerably different cultures and ways of life than the rest of Canada. Both provinces want to be able to live their lives so to speak, and not have the meddling of Ontario in their business.

The Separation Party of Alberta is a dead duck. Infighting has done them in. The idea didn't die, but that party will. There are several alternatives in the works. Most of them involve a republican setting. Perhaps more important to the rest of the nation is a soon to be created federal party of Alberta origin. The design of which is very similiar to the Bloc. Not necessarily separation but separation if necessary. It will get my vote in federal politics, and probably a lot of other Albertan votes. Bad news for the Tories here.

An Alberta Bloc type party would clearly get my vote without a doubt. I would even considering running for it... and I'm in Harper's riding ;).

Now I'm understanding what it is you're advocating - an independent Alberta with a US style constitution.

Interesting.

But, Alberta is currently one of the more loyal provinces - without commenting on separation, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that a US American system is better for Alberta than the constitutional monarchy you have now.

I don't want a US style constitution, their system is as flawed as Canada's. There are better ways of governing, and we don't need Canada or the US as examples.

Alberta is only as loyal as an NEP is far away. Try it again Ontario/Quebec and soverignty, especially financial soverignty (the firewall theory) will become widely popular in Alberta. Harper has already refused to protect our rights, and with his bed-in with Charest, I wouldn't be overly suprised to see a Carbon Tax (ie. NEP).

The good thankful thing is that Alberta would devaste Canada's economy if we aren't strong, Ontario is suffering, Quebec has been for years. This is what protects us from another NEP, that and Harper's Alberta connections.

Other than that, I can't see much that would spur any success of a completely soverignty based Alberta party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I advocate a republican tri-cameral system, that is true. I have no desire to re-create an American style government in Alberta. I do advocate direct democracy based on a tri-cameral system. We need to be able to choose a leader ourselves instead of leaving such an important position to chance and the internal selection of partisan effort.

Alberta citizens want to see an end to equalization because our taxes leave the province forever. The whole idea behind taxation is setting a levy upon citizens to fund the programs and services that the citizens desire. Alberta citizens want to see some changes in the healthcare system. Alberta citizens want a triple E senate. We simply will never get these things staying inside confederation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I advocate a republican tri-cameral system, that is true. I have no desire to re-create an American style government in Alberta. I do advocate direct democracy based on a tri-cameral system. We need to be able to choose a leader ourselves instead of leaving such an important position to chance and the internal selection of partisan effort.

Alberta citizens want to see an end to equalization because our taxes leave the province forever. The whole idea behind taxation is setting a levy upon citizens to fund the programs and services that the citizens desire. Alberta citizens want to see some changes in the healthcare system. Alberta citizens want a triple E senate. We simply will never get these things staying inside confederation.

Very true. I personally am very fearful of Ottawa based intervention in our economic situation. There is talk that the Bank of Canada won't increase interest rates to protect a failing Ontario economy. That will be a blow to Alberta's future. Economic growth is killing us, we need to slow it with sound monetary policy. Instead, we protect Ontario, why? We need our own fiscal policy, our economy functions seperate from Canada's, what works for the East rarely works for the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,743
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...