The Federal Republic of Canada

[Michael Bluth]

I understand from the link that there are companies out there trying to sell British license plates for more than 20,000 $ CAD, but that doesn't mean anybody is foolish enough to buy them at that price. Does it?

[jdobbin]

53% or 55% - no big difference. It matters not who occupies the position. Our head of state should not be a foreigner and should not be decided by birth.

I doubt anyone wants to open the Constitution for this one area. Everyone would pile on in their demands for this and that instead of just focusing on the one issue.

[jennie]

Well, bambino, whaddya think of this?

Reuters

53% or 55% - no big difference. It matters not who occupies the position. Our head of state should not be a foreigner and should not be decided by birth.

Link

I like the checks and balances in our present system. The Constitutional Monarchy is not just an add on: It has specific functions that would have to be rebalanced. I think this is a very tricky issue to open up. As the 'Crown in Canada', the Governor General has some powers in case of an 'ill-intentioned' government, for example.

Edited October 2, 2007 by jennie

[mikedavid00]

I like the checks and balances in our present system. The Constitutional Monarchy is not just an add on: It has specific functions that would have to be rebalanced. I think this is a very tricky issue to open up. As the 'Crown in Canada', the Governor General has some powers in case of an 'ill-intentioned' government, for example.

The American system is the best political system on the planet IMO.

See for yourself what being American is all about.

[kengs333]

The American system is the best political system on the planet IMO.

See for yourself what being American is all about.

An opinion shared by just about no one who follows American politics. How corrupt and dysfunctional does a system have to become before people realize that it just doesn't work? The United States is the last place we should be looking to for ideas on politics. The system that we have is the right one, although in my opinions we seriously have to undo changes that have resulted due to creeping republicanism. Most importantly, we have to start appointing GGs who are suited for the role.

[Visionseeker]

BTW, I made up the 95% statistic.

74% of all statistics are made-up on the spot.

[mikedavid00]

An opinion shared by just about no one who follows American politics. How corrupt and dysfunctional does a system have to become before people realize that it just doesn't work? The United States is the last place we should be looking to for ideas on politics. The system that we have is the right one, although in my opinions we seriously have to undo changes that have resulted due to creeping republicanism. Most importantly, we have to start appointing GGs who are suited for the role.

If you saw the video, would see something completely foreign to you. Something that happens in NO OTHER country in the world.

You have no idea how grass roots American politics is. Us Canadians only see the federal news. You should watch the US satellites and local channels to really show just how much Americans control their own policy. It would be something completely, utterly foreign to you if you saw it.

[Visionseeker]

If you saw the video, would see something completely foreign to you. Something that happens in NO OTHER country in the world.

You have no idea how grass roots American politics is. Us Canadians only see the federal news. You should watch the US satellites and local channels to really show just how much Americans control their own policy. It would be something completely, utterly foreign to you if you saw it.

Yup. They're controlling that Iraq thing exactly as they would like.[/sarcasm]

CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007

"From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

Increase 6%

Same Number 21%

Decrease 39%

Remove All 29%

Unsure 5%

68% of Americans what to reduce troops in Iraq or get out altogether (71% excluding the "unsure"). No doubt they'll all be back home by Christmas.[/sarcasm]

The US system has its own flaws and its own merits. It may "work" for them, but I for one don't see it as a suitable import to supplant our own model.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US system has its own flaws and its own merits. It may "work" for them, but I for one don't see it as a suitable import to supplant our own model.

True...the American system is for Americans. Nevertheless, that there is even discussion about "supplanting" your own model with anything speaks volumes.

[Visionseeker]

Nevertheless, that there is even discussion about "supplanting" your own model with anything speaks volumes.

Most Canadians are not opposed to considering reforms to our system of governance and I believe that is healthy (to a degree). Senate reform has often been raised in such discourse, but inevitably fixates on how such a body shall be formed rather than focusing on what it shall perform.

As a country, we seem to have become remarkably concerned about structures with little care for the more important components of systems and process.

[bush_cheney2004]

Most Canadians are not opposed to considering reforms to our system of governance and I believe that is healthy (to a degree). Senate reform has often been raised in such discourse, but inevitably fixates on how such a body shall be formed rather than focusing on what it shall perform.

As a country, we seem to have become remarkably concerned about structures with little care for the more important components of systems and process.

Agreed, and even in my ignorance (and arrogance) from afar, it is remarkable to have watched the dynamics just in my lifetime: Repatriation of the Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Charter Politics, Mulroney's Senate stacking, Meech Lake, Charlottetown, Quebec seperatism referendum, etc., etc., etc.

The system should have a mechanism for reform, but clearly Canada is not finished figuring out such processes.

Edited October 2, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[geoffrey]

As a country, we seem to have become remarkably concerned about structures with little care for the more important components of systems and process.

That is actually the most intelligent contribution to the debate here I've read in awhile... plus from someone I never agree with.

Great observation, I wholeheartedly agree. That's why the Canadian system hasn't really been reformed... ever. People don't seem interested in results in Canada, more in rhetoric. Hence why for some silly reason Trudeau generally polls above Mulroney.

Lots of other items prove your point.

Look at the equalisation program. It's no longer providing equalisation, but just political scoring points with the favoured region of the day. Look at Health Canada, the biggest intrusion into provincial domain, not because it has a purpose, but because it's a nice structure that makes people feel like Ottawa is in control.

[Visionseeker]

That is actually the most intelligent contribution to the debate here I've read in awhile... plus from someone I never agree with.

Great observation, I wholeheartedly agree. That's why the Canadian system hasn't really been reformed... ever. People don't seem interested in results in Canada, more in rhetoric. Hence why for some silly reason Trudeau generally polls above Mulroney.

Lots of other items prove your point.

Look at the equalisation program. It's no longer providing equalisation, but just political scoring points with the favoured region of the day. Look at Health Canada, the biggest intrusion into provincial domain, not because it has a purpose, but because it's a nice structure that makes people feel like Ottawa is in control.

I appreciate the compliment (particularly from someone I often disagree with) . And I think the Trudeau/Mulroney split is best understood when one considers our national preoccupation.

Trudeau gave us both structure and process in April 1981, but he also left a lot of unanswered questions. Mulroney sought to answer those questions before the country really had a chance to think about them.

Under the gun, Quebec arrived at certain (guided) conclusions, the West developed their own, and somewhere in between were the other Canadians who just couldn’t understand why they weren’t given the appropriate hangover recovery time. A Constitution simply cannot withstand modification with every mandate.

That being said, the course of time should allow for the melding of divergent views toward a consensus. I for one believe that proper Senate reform can provide the political buffer that some provinces desire with respect to federal spending powers. This model actually melds the centralization of Trudeau with the provincialism of Mulroney in a national arena; one whose structure and process should be the subject of debate.

[kengs333]

Most Canadians are not opposed to considering reforms to our system of governance and I believe that is healthy (to a degree). Senate reform has often been raised in such discourse, but inevitably fixates on how such a body shall be formed rather than focusing on what it shall perform.

As a country, we seem to have become remarkably concerned about structures with little care for the more important components of systems and process.

Oh, I really don't get that impression. People seem to want no change in the electoral process, let alone the system of governance. The only people who make an issue about it are Albertans and some other western radicals who still carry the ideological dead weight of their immigrant American ancestors. Currently we have a party in power that in some respects is founded on those principles and yet it's leader, our PM, goes about acting as though he has the best interest of Canada in mind. The faster he gets the boot, then better. I really hope there's an election this fall.

[margrace]

Human nature seems to need someone to worship and then tear apart. Notice the American worship of movie stars especially when they get them in government. Canada is no better and we are better having the Queen than some Canadian who might divide the country. It suits us to bring her over and then send her home. Do we need a Reagan?

[bush_cheney2004]

Human nature seems to need someone to worship and then tear apart. Notice the American worship of movie stars especially when they get them in government. Canada is no better and we are better having the Queen than some Canadian who might divide the country. It suits us to bring her over and then send her home. Do we need a Reagan?

Well....continuing that thought...there you go again.

Comparisons to the American form of government or its presidents as cults of personality just continues the trend of definition by contrast, not political objectives or process that best suits Canada. Being the UnCola is a poor way to get the job done.

[Pliny]

The American system is the best political system on the planet IMO.

See for yourself what being American is all about.

I agree that the American system is the best political system on the planet but this video clip is hardly an example of what the American system is about. It seems more Canadian. These citizens have lost sight of what private property is and have a good concept of the force of law. Granted they are not the Federal Government but a community wishing to live a particular lifestyle defined by what some in the community consider aesthetically pleasing, moral, righteous and convenient. Sounds Canadian, eh?

I believe the American system today is not the American system that was intended by its founders. It's economics, constitution, freedoms and liberties have been somewhat eroded by interests outside and within it's own federal government. Having said that, in my opinion, there are more individuals in America than in any other country that have a better concept of government, it's role, society's role and it's relationship to freedom and liberties. Some Americans, increasingly so, do think European and Canadian socialism are acceptable, well maybe not so much European.

I didn't vote in this poll because the Constitution of a federal republic would have to be known before I would say yes to a federal republic. The USSR was a republic, after all. A constitutional Monarchy has served us well until more recently in history as governments usurp and centralize more powers to themselves. The abolishment of the monarchy is more of the same, symbolic as it may be, but as I said a constitution not designed for the benefit of government and politicians should be presented before such a fundamental change is made.

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if the concerned citizens of Arcadia didn't have a billboard or two propped up somewhere outside city limits advertising measures N and P be supported.

[Topaz]

IF you want Canada to become a republic then are you for the North American union and if so just wait and you may get your wish if the US can make Canada part of their country.

[bush_cheney2004]

IF you want Canada to become a republic then are you for the North American union and if so just wait and you may get your wish if the US can make Canada part of their country.

Sorry, but the US does not want to make "Canada part of their country" (we already get the milk without buying the cow, so to speak).....Canadians would only be 8% of a so called North American Union. The Americans figured it out for themselves well over 200 years ago and fought a war to make it stick....you'll just have to figure it out too.

Edited October 7, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[kengs333]

Sorry, but the US does not want to make "Canada part of their country" (we already get the milk without buying the cow, so to speak).....Canadians would only be 8% of a so called North American Union. The Americans figured it out for themselves well over 200 years ago and fought a war to make it stick....you'll just have to figure it out too.

Yes, so long as Canada remains passive and compliant, this policy should continue. But let's face it, Canada is quite rich in natural resources and currently claims to have jurisdiction over much of the arctic. If ever Canada tried to assert itself, elected a government that was not willing to bend over whenever the US tells it to, then there would be a problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, so long as Canada remains passive and compliant, this policy should continue. But let's face it, Canada is quite rich in natural resources and currently claims to have jurisdiction over much of the arctic. If ever Canada tried to assert itself, elected a government that was not willing to bend over whenever the US tells it to, then there would be a problem.

In this context, Canada "asserting itself" is an oxymoron. When I was in the US Navy we would transit over and under Canadian territorial waters at will. If ever caught, we were instructed that Canada would assert itself by granting permission after the fact.

If you can find a better market for tar sands oil, hydro, and timber, withdraw from NAFTA and ship it to somebody else. And please, this time around, try to do this without US capital investment.

[Guest coot]

Is it true what they say about guys in the navy?

[M.Dancer]

Is it true what they say about guys in the navy?

Yes. That's why they visit Vancouver so often. More fun than say.....Dubai

[geoffrey]

IF you want Canada to become a republic then are you for the North American union and if so just wait and you may get your wish if the US can make Canada part of their country.

Canada would be as likely to join the US as a parliamentary monarchy or a republic. I don't see why eliminating the Queen makes us any closer to the Americans.

When anti-Americanism blinds your rational senses, it's a big problem. Most Canadians suffer from this unfortunate disease.

[Wilber]

If you can find a better market for tar sands oil, hydro, and timber, withdraw from NAFTA and ship it to somebody else. And please, this time around, try to do this without US capital investment.

The US is a huge market for Canada but you don't buy our resources out of charity. Americans invest in Canada for the same reason anyone invests anywhere, to make money. American investors in Canadian resources would make money no matter who they are sold to.