reasonoverpassion Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Given the importance of Canada to the world, by this I mean the ideal of a free and just society which aspires to provide equal opportunity for all its citizens, a multicultural society where people of vastly different origins live in peace. Where two founding ethnic groups managed to move beyond their hatreds and prejuduces to found a union which put individual rights and freedoms above those of the group. This is the Canada worth fighting for. To see this ideal destroyed by provinical narrow interests would be tragic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Interesting how the US is at least as diverse as Canada with ten times the population, yet this subject almost never comes up except on extreme fringes of their society and we maintain our system is working. Either it is clearly not or we are merely a nation of whiners. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the future. I would have to go with the latter. most people aren't serious about what they say. Also, the US system doesn't really allow this type of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donaill Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 The US has faced many divisive periods in history. Sometimes resulting in violence. Where the US was once divided between the North and South they now seeom to be divided between the heavily populated urban areas and the predominantly Evangelical midwest. I don't think Canada should or will collapse. However I do think that coalition goverments will become more the norm for us in the future. I do believe that we are a lesson for the rest of the world about how many groups of people can live together with relative ease. This conversation is not the first time that we have talked about such an idea. It was most likely discussed when it was discovered that the French would be a permanent part of BNA. It was discussed when the Irish fled here from the "famine" and probably when teh Highlanders came here during the Clearences. It was one of the concerns, and one of the excuses for human rights abuses, with regards to the Asians that helped build the railway in Canada. However we made it through all of that. Canada, and the sense of Canadianism, came through war as much as it did in peace. Some of the major events that helped define Canada were Pashendale, Vimy, Ortana, D Day, the 1972 hockey game, Cyprus, the Golan heights, the discovery of Penicilon, the Canada Arm, and the Killer Dwarfs and Gordon Lightfoot. Many things that we consider and love about Canada came from some where else. You only have to eat one East Coast style Donair to know what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Nice post. I wish I could have said it that well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 The US has faced many divisive periods in history. Sometimes resulting in violence. Where the US was once divided between the North and South they now seeom to be divided between the heavily populated urban areas and the predominantly Evangelical midwest.... No....the US is actually far more complicated than that, with even more diversity than Canada, if only because of sheer population. One of the main differences between Canada and the US is faith and confidence in the format of governance itself, regardless of the divisive issue at hand. It would seem that Canada has not yet "settled" on an acceptable, full faith format, be it Senate reform or proportional representation in general, to squabbling over equalization payments.....some even complain about the cost/expense of an election. It's like a family game of Monopoly.....everyone has to have faith in the rules, even when they are changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 No....the US is actually far more complicated than that, with even more diversity than Canada, if only because of sheer population. One of the main differences between Canada and the US is faith and confidence in the format of governance itself, regardless of the divisive issue at hand. It would seem that Canada has not yet "settled" on an acceptable, full faith format, be it Senate reform or proportional representation in general, to squabbling over equalization payments.....some even complain about the cost/expense of an election. It's like a family game of Monopoly.....everyone has to have faith in the rules, even when they are changed. Most Canadians do have faith in the system. What you get here or on AM radio is not a true sample. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 IF certain areas didn't have fiscal capacity to run programs, how would we be better off? At one time or another throughout equalization, every province has needed help, so I ask, how would we be better off. The way things are going (if they continue in this direction), it won't be all that long until Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador again need equalization, so how would we all be better off? Quit being blinded by your ideology. equalization is good for Canada and it always has been. it allows everyone in this country to live on at least somewhat equal footing. It helps all of us when the entire country is strong. Nope no equalization. If programs can't be afforded, then they should be cut. Alberta, SK, and Newfoundland will have diversified their economy so they will not need equalization. Perhaps if they weren't being raided, they can retain their earnings. Equalization is the reason why Canada is divided. Without equalization, people can see how stupid socialism is and will be forced to figure out how to get their own economies on track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Nope no equalization. If programs can't be afforded, then they should be cut. Alberta, SK, and Newfoundland will have diversified their economy so they will not need equalization. Perhaps if they weren't being raided, they can retain their earnings. Equalization is the reason why Canada is divided. Without equalization, people can see how stupid socialism is and will be forced to figure out how to get their own economies on track. Like I've told you before. Thank God you don't run the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Like I've told you before. Thank God you don't run the country. Interesting.....does this mean that there is a preference for how somebody else "runs" the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Interesting.....does this mean that there is a preference for how somebody else "runs" the country? What are you even talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 What are you even talking about? "Running the country".......your preference over blueblood's. Isn't it one (non-proportional) vote to a customer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 "Running the country".......your preference over blueblood's. Isn't it one (non-proportional) vote to a customer? You still make no sense whatsoever. My preference to him not running the country is mine. Yes, I have a preference that my governments be pragmatic and centrist, as most Canadians do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 You still make no sense whatsoever. My preference to him not running the country is mine. Yes, I have a preference that my governments be pragmatic and centrist, as most Canadians do. Right....so another member doesn't run the country any more than you do. I assume that you also would not like yourself to be "running" the country....but I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 Right....so another member doesn't run the country any more than you do. I assume that you also would not like yourself to be "running" the country....but I could be wrong. You assume correctly...and your still being nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 I would have to go with the latter. most people aren't serious about what they say. Also, the US system doesn't really allow this type of thing. Actually it does but because they have a political system that is more representative than ours (their elected representatives have much more independence and they have an elected senate where all states are equal regardless of size) and is much more restrictive when it comes to the power invested in a head of government, the subject rarely comes up. Where the US system falls down is in the shear cost of getting elected. Their system with meaningful restrictions on campaign financing would be preferable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 (edited) Ah........... were all going to end up Americans anyway sooner or later! Edited November 30, 2008 by wulf42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 Actually it does but because they have a political system that is more representative than ours Actually, I would argue that it isn't being that we have a far smaller population per representative than they do. Our senate is completely different and was set up to represent regions....that actually are equal (except for the Atlantic region, the only thing I'd like fixed). Our system is very much a party line though, you are right about that, but I would say individual concerns are much more likely to be addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 Ah........... were all going to end up Americans anyway sooner or later! Or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 Actually, I would argue that it isn't being that we have a far smaller population per representative than they do. Our senate is completely different and was set up to represent regions....that actually are equal (except for the Atlantic region, the only thing I'd like fixed). Our system is very much a party line though, you are right about that, but I would say individual concerns are much more likely to be addressed. That may be true at the constituent level but that representation is next to nonexistent in Parliament because of party discipline. Our Senate is for the most part an old boys (and girls) club for political hacks. To a large degree it represents the people who gave them their appointments and is totally undemocratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 To a large degree it represents the people who gave them their appointments and is totally undemocratic. As I have said before, an elected senate would pervert the purpose of the Canadian senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesterDC Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 (edited) Why are we even having this argument..? Breaking up Canada? What..? Anyhow.. At most I would like to see two things: 1) Senate reform 2) Quebec signing the constitution EDIT: Constitution Act of 1982 There is no reason to break up this great nation Edited November 30, 2008 by LesterDC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 ...Anyhow.. At most I would like to see two things: 1) Senate reform 2) Quebec signing the constitution EDIT: Constitution Act of 1982 There is no reason to break up this great nation .....and the beat goes on. Breaking up is hard to do......Neil Sedaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 A lot of problems would be solved if Alberta did seperate, though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ontario Loyalist Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 Why are we even having this argument..? Breaking up Canada? What..? Anyhow.. At most I would like to see two things: 1) Senate reform 2) Quebec signing the constitution EDIT: Constitution Act of 1982 There is no reason to break up this great nation Senate reform is such a non-issue. It's fine the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 30, 2008 Report Share Posted November 30, 2008 A lot of problems would be solved if Alberta did seperate, though.... Great....but it's not America's role or place to baby-sit Alberta, or be used as a threat against the "ROC". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.