Topaz Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? Should the Feds be only responsible for the military, banking, laws of the country, etc. and give over to the province all social programs, all healthcare programs. The Fed. income tax would be cut from them and probably go to the provinces instead. Any thoughts? Quote
jbg Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? Should the Feds be only responsible for the military, banking, laws of the country, etc. and give over to the province all social programs, all healthcare programs. The Fed. income tax would be cut from them and probably go to the provinces instead. Any thoughts? Isn't that how it's supposed to work in practice, but for the Fed's muscling in on those areas, with some provincial acquiesence/request? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
WestViking Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? Should the Feds be only responsible for the military, banking, laws of the country, etc. and give over to the province all social programs, all healthcare programs. The Fed. income tax would be cut from them and probably go to the provinces instead. Any thoughts? Following the constitutional split of powers would be a good start. Federal would entail: Aboriginal Affairs Air Transport Banking Bankruptcy and Insolvency. Broadcasting Census and Statistics Citizenship Copyrrights Criminal Law Currency and Coins Employment Insurance Federal Borrowing Federal salaries Federal Taxation Ferries between provinces Fisheries Interest Interprovinvial roads Legal Tender Marriage and Divorce Military and Defence Military Hospitals Navigation and Shipping Patents Postal Service Prisons Public Debt and Property Railways Trade and Commerce Water Navigation Aids Weights and measures Items not on the Provincial list. Quote Hall Monitor of the Shadowy Group
Saturn Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? Should the Feds be only responsible for the military, banking, laws of the country, etc. and give over to the province all social programs, all healthcare programs. The Fed. income tax would be cut from them and probably go to the provinces instead. Any thoughts? Isn't that how it's supposed to work in practice, but for the Fed's muscling in on those areas, with some provincial acquiesence/request? No, the feds have the responsibility to ensure that Canadians across the country have a similar quality of life and similar access to services. That kind of forces them to "meddle" into what you prefer to think of as provincial responsibilities. Quote
jdobbin Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 Isn't that how it's supposed to work in practice, but for the Fed's muscling in on those areas, with some provincial acquiesence/request? And vice versa with the provinces wanting a say on foreign policy, immigration and even defence matters. Quote
Saturn Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? I'd get rid of provincial governments altogether and leave everything to the feds. Having 11 governments instead of 1 is a huge waste IMO, and it creates constant friction between the feds and the provinces and between the provinces. It is unproductive and it gives politicians an excuse for failing to do their jobs - blame the other level of government. It is ridiculous that a doctor from Alberta would not be able to practice in Ontario and that the EU would have one securities commission and Canada would have 9. Quote
jbg Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? I'd get rid of provincial governments altogether and leave everything to the feds. Having 11 governments instead of 1 is a huge waste IMO, and it creates constant friction between the feds and the provinces and between the provinces. It is unproductive and it gives politicians an excuse for failing to do their jobs - blame the other level of government. It is ridiculous that a doctor from Alberta would not be able to practice in Ontario and that the EU would have one securities commission and Canada would have 9. Try that one on Quebec. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Saturn Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 Try that one on Quebec. Quebec should have left the confederation long time ago. I wouldn't mind helping them out the door. Quote
jbg Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 Try that one on Quebec. Quebec should have left the confederation long time ago. I wouldn't mind helping them out the door. My point is that those people definitely won't stand for a defederalized Canada. The result might well be bloodshed there since the Anglophones clearly won't go with a separate Francophone province under those circumstances. Provinces are a good compromise for a country with severe regional differences, as a country with the varied geography of Canada must have. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Topaz Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? Should the Feds be only responsible for the military, banking, laws of the country, etc. and give over to the province all social programs, all healthcare programs. The Fed. income tax would be cut from them and probably go to the provinces instead. Any thoughts? Following the constitutional split of powers would be a good start. Federal would entail: Aboriginal Affairs Air Transport Banking Bankruptcy and Insolvency. Broadcasting Census and Statistics Citizenship Copyrrights Criminal Law Currency and Coins Employment Insurance Federal Borrowing Federal salaries Federal Taxation Ferries between provinces Fisheries Interest Interprovinvial roads Legal Tender Marriage and Divorce Military and Defence Military Hospitals Navigation and Shipping Patents Postal Service Prisons Public Debt and Property Railways Trade and Commerce Water Navigation Aids Weights and measures Items not on the Provincial list. I think the IE should go to the provinces and not the Feds. They just took ot 51 BILLION out of the fund! We are paying too much to the Feds. Quote
Topaz Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Posted March 11, 2007 Try that one on Quebec. Quebec should have left the confederation long time ago. I wouldn't mind helping them out the door. No, it's not Quebec as a whole, its a few % that want change, get rid of them instead! Quote
Topaz Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Posted March 11, 2007 I was just thinking if Canadians could change what their government was in charge of, what would you choose? I'd get rid of provincial governments altogether and leave everything to the feds. Having 11 governments instead of 1 is a huge waste IMO, and it creates constant friction between the feds and the provinces and between the provinces. It is unproductive and it gives politicians an excuse for failing to do their jobs - blame the other level of government. It is ridiculous that a doctor from Alberta would not be able to practice in Ontario and that the EU would have one securities commission and Canada would have 9. Try that one on Quebec. I don't think the people of Alberta would agree with you. Each right now are keep rebates back from the province. When as anyone got a rebate back the Feds?? Quote
Wilber Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 Personally, with the exception of being able to impose the death penalty, I think the provinces should have more control over criminal law. Different regions have much different problems with regard to crime and should be able to tailor their laws accordingly, as long as they comply with the Charter. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Topaz Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Posted March 11, 2007 After I wrote this, I went down to Polynewbie's "north american union" and read it and printed it out and now I know why Emmerson cross the floor to the Cons. The Libs and the Cons are working with the US and Mexico to get rid of Canada, US and Mexico and have only North America. Before you reply, scroll down to this topic and read it! Quote
madmax Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 My poitn is that those people definitely won't stand for a defederalized Canada. The result might well be bloodshed there since the Anglophones clearly won't go with a separate Francophone province under those circumstances. Provinces are a good compromise for a country with severe regional differences, as a country with the varied geography of Canada must have. You sure your not from Canada? It would make a great Rick Mercer show, if he asked all those stupid questions and he got you in New York, just batting the answers out of the ball park. Canadians don't know their country or their political system very well. But you have a very good grasp. Even though I disagree with every keystroke you make Quote
jbg Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 Personally, with the exception of being able to impose the death penalty, I think the provinces should have more control over criminal law. Different regions have much different problems with regard to crime and should be able to tailor their laws accordingly, as long as they comply with the Charter. Agreed. In the US the States control 90% of criminal law issues, and the courts that laws are enforced in. This expressly includes the death penalty. There is, of course, a separate federal death penalty, which took down one of the two Oklahoma City bombers. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 11, 2007 Report Posted March 11, 2007 My point is that those people definitely won't stand for a defederalized Canada. The result might well be bloodshed there since the Anglophones clearly won't go with a separate Francophone province under those circumstances. Provinces are a good compromise for a country with severe regional differences, as a country with the varied geography of Canada must have. You sure your not from Canada? It would make a great Rick Mercer show, if he asked all those stupid questions and he got you in New York, just batting the answers out of the ball park. Canadians don't know their country or their political system very well. But you have a very good grasp. Even though I disagree with every keystroke you make Thanks for the compliment. It would make a very boring board if everyone agreed with everybody. As far as where I'm from here are my various locations: April - December 1957 - Riverdale, New York City, New York, USA Apartment Number 1 (don't know address); December 1957 - July 29, 1964 - 5545 Henry Hudson Parkway, Riverdale, New York City, New York, USA; July 29, 1964 - July 1974 - House #1, (undisclosed Town #1), Westchester County, New York, USA; July, 1974 - August 1975 - House #2, (undisclosed Town #1), Westchester County, New York, USA; August 1975 - May 1979 - College in upstate New York, USA; August 1979 - May 1982 - Law School in Boston, Massachusetts, USA; May 1982 - July 20, 1992 - House #2, (undisclosed Town #1), Westchester County, New York, USA (also rented and lived in New York City Apartment); July 20, 1992 - Date - House #3, (undisclosed Town #2), Westchester County, New York, USA American enough for you? Am I right on most Canadian issues? By the way, I just finished reading Seymour Martin Lipset's excellent book Continental Divide, which contrasts the US and Canadian systems. Quite a good read. As far as Rick Mercer goes, funny you mentioned that. For a long time, my dream has been that he would run into me (hopefully I'd have a dictaphone in my pocket since I know the resulting show would never be broadcast) and start asking me questions. I would play along with the "ignorant American" theme for a while, and then start asking him questions about Canada (such as to lay out the King/Byng affair, or to explain King's cabinet minister's statement that "one Jew would be too many) that he either wouldn't have a clue how to answer or be thoroughly embarrassed about. And yes, I do donate to save Saskatchewan's endangered seals. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
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.