Canadian Division

[langeweile]

A lot of you Canadians like to point out how dvided the USA is. In my three years in this country I have noticed some of my own.

1) Quebec
Probably the biggest divider within this country. While currrently it is kind of on hold. The issue doesn't seem resolved yet.

2)Alberta
A frasier poll last year showed that 42% of the people in Alberta would prefer to belong to the USA. Is Quebec and the pandering to them part of that reason? Is the other part the fact that they have to pay a lot in to the kitty and don't get much out? You have to like provincial taxes in AB

3) Native land claims
i have heard that a lot of the cases are stuck in the courts. Will there be a resolution? Other than monetary issues, does that mean Canada couuld split up?


4) The ever present notwithstanding clause. Wow there is a mouthful. Any chances that will be taken out? It seems it allows provinces to leave any federal deal they don't like, on a constitutional level. While I like believe in states righs/provincial rights. I don't like the way QC has applied this clause.

 

[papasmerf]

Damn you and these facts to cloud issues.

 

[papasmerf]

Don

Have yet to see a devided America, only ones claiming it is the news.

Yes we send millitary devisions with the armorment and troopps to provide military and logisic support.

 

[Asterix]

Don

Have yet to see a devided America, only ones claiming it is the news.

Yes we send millitary devisions with the armorment and troopps to provide military and logisic support.

papa,

Just a kindly suggestion. Once you've hit the eighth beer of the afternoon, you might want to reconsider posting.

 

[papasmerf]

papa,

Just a kindly suggestion. Once you've hit the eighth beer of the afternoon, you might want to reconsider posting.

Um no

I live in the US and do not see the division in the people or idealolgy the networks wish us to believe. Sure there are basic differences from party to party. The conservitives are not as big on the goventment supporting the masses as the liberals are. And conservitives are likely to be for the death penalty and not abouttion. while the liberals tend to be pro-abortion and anti- death penalty. Liberals support more taxes to run programs to coddle the people, while conservitives suggest strength from personal growth.

The kerry campaign has tried to call Iraq a viet-nam and many parrot those words. But in general the public is not buying it. We are not having knock down drag out fights over disagreements in the war. Will I reconsider??
Not on your life. A life that like it or not is protected by America.

 

[james t kirk]

1) Quebec
Probably the biggest divider within this country. While currrently it is kind of on hold. The issue doesn't seem resolved yet.

Quebec, yes, there's a problem from one point of view, a success story in tolerance from another point of view.

If you look at it from the point of view as the perverbial glass being half full, Quebec is still part of Canada. This despite the dog / cat relationship between France and England that goes back throughout all history.

Somehow, we have managed to get along pretty peacefully for a couple of hundred years, and things have been more live and let live in the last 40 I would say than ever.

The Separtists in Quebec have been around for a long time, only now, they can't get it together. Bouchard, now Landry, they both knew / know that they will not win a referendum.

They have tried trickery and toning down the reality of separation through foggy questions, but the reality is that the people of Quebec are becoming more part of the greater whole than less in the last 20 years.

Young Quebecers today reject the isolationism that fueled the separtist movement of 30 and 40 years ago. And in this day and age of information, and travel, isolationism is slowly loosing its grip.

I have worked much in Quebec and I have come to realize that Quebecers for the most part just want ecoomic security like anyone else, and as long as the economy is doing ok, and they don't feel their culture threatened, I seriously doubt tha there will be a successful (from a separatist point of view) movement toward Quebec independence.

2)Alberta
A frasier poll last year showed that 42% of the people in Alberta would prefer to belong to the USA. Is Quebec and the pandering to them part of that reason? Is the other part the fact that they have to pay a lot in to the kitty and don't get much out? You have to like provincial taxes in AB

Ok, quoting the Fraser institute on anything is going to give you a skewed line of thinking. They are just slightly to the left of Atila the Hun.

Albertans are actually the most anti-American lot I have ever met in my life. So I would be amazed that 42% would rather belong to the USA, though they may identify more closely with American conservatives than Canadian liberals tis true.

Alberta would do well to learn that revenue generated by the sale of natural resources in the United States is tapped into by the US federal government, unlike in Canada where the oil winfall is their own. I wonder how the Albertans would like that?

3) Native land claims
i have heard that a lot of the cases are stuck in the courts. Will there be a resolution? Other than monetary issues, does that mean Canada couuld split up?

Not likely.

I can't say I am up on all the native land claims, but the cynical side of me just figures its another cash grab on the part of the natives.

The logical side says let the courts figure it out.

Natives were never treated that well in Canadian history, although there are exceptions where they have been treated with respect.

Canada never had its "Trail of Tears" I will let you do your own google search on that one.

 

[stainless]

Divided nation ? Canada vs US - there is simply no contest

Last time i checked Canada has never had a civil war, Canada gives equal rights to health care no matter how much money u have, university education is made more affordable for everyone versus the rich in the US.

The US is far more the divided nation based on money, power, race, and regilion - it has been based on it's history and it's future !!

 

[Keebler Elf]

Liberals support more taxes to run programs to coddle the people, while conservitives suggest strength from personal growth.

*rolls eyes*

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

 

[Keebler Elf]

The other thing about Albertans is that they have a definite perception (rightly or wrongly) that the West is not heard in Ottawa. A lot of the rhetoric you hear is fueled by this.

Quebec? Same thing but grown out of anxiety over its fracophone-on-an-island-of-anglophones situation. Quebec has known for a long time that it can leverage its position to get more out of the federal gov't, and they do so.

The key thing to remember is that people will say they want to seperate, until they find out how much that will cost them. Then it will be a whole 'nother story. Really, it's just power-politics. Use whatever leverage you have to get what you want.

It's interesting that Ontario never threatens to split from the rest of Canada. It's one of the few provinces that could. And this despite the fact that Ontario pays more to the federal gov't than it gets back (not that I think that's wrong, but that's another issue).

 

[someone]

Personally, I think that Ontarians are the only Canadians that really think of them selves as Canadians first. That my be partly because what Ontario wants, Canada gets .

However, in general, I don’t think the division is totally bad, given the lack of checks at the federal level. To some extent the provinces act as a defacto check on the power of the federal government. All the other checks are federal appointees e.g. the Supreme court, the Senate, the Governor General (Ok, technically the Queen makes that appointment but in reality it is a government appointment). Moreover, given that the majority of these appointments were made by curent or past liberal governments in power, they are not even checked by appointments made by past governments or other parties. Thus, the type of provincial divisions you mention (e.g. Alberta and Quebec) are really the only effective check we have on the Federal government. If Canada ever did get a elected senate to act as a check, I think you would find that provincial governments in those provinces would lose at lot of their legitimacy in opposing federal policies and not be able to fan the flames of division as much.

 

[Keebler Elf]

I agree that Ontario has a lot of pull. I know a lot of people, however, who would disagree with Ontarians identifying themselves as Canadians first. Remember, ON has the most immigrants and some will argue that some of them don't identify themselves as Canadians first. Actually, outside of Quebec, I think the vast majority of Canadians from ALL provinces consider themselves Canadian first.

How would an elected Senate act as any different a check than the elected House?

 

[langeweile]

How would an elected Senate act as any different a check than the elected House? [/B][/QUOTE]

The mebers would not be appointed and would be elected. All legislation would have to be signed by the senate as well.
In some cases the make up of both houses could be diiferent, which creates and enviroment for compromise.

 

[Keebler Elf]

The mebers would not be appointed and would be elected. All legislation would have to be signed by the senate as well.
In some cases the make up of both houses could be diiferent, which creates and enviroment for compromise.

But I don't see how any of that will change the views of Quebec or Alberta. Right now, the House can't agree. I don't see how the Senate would be any different. IMO, it would just create more tension.

From what I see and know, the Senate is really a check on the House and a "research" body that can study legislation passed by the House. And a place for retired politicians to go to. How often does the Senate veto House bills? I dunno, but it ain't often otherwise we'd hear about it a lot more than we do. I think it's there in case the House does something outrageous, then the Senate can step in and check their authority. The Canadian Senate is NOT like the American Senate.

Also, the Notwithstanding Clause. It's another check that's there but not meant to be used except in the rarest of circumstances. I believe it's only been invoked once or twice. It's more of an emergency life raft than a check on power.

 

[langeweile]

Re: Re: Canadian Division

OK Asshat lets look at your facts

1) Regarding Quebec seperation. This is more about cultural identity and Provincial Rights. You idiots fought one of the bloodiest wars known to man over State rights what gives you the right to critize us when we discuss it in a civilized manner.

2) Alberta is again about Provincial Rights where the people believe that the Federal Government takes way too much revenue from their Natural Resources. If they knew what the US Feds view on a States Natural resources they would understand what a sweet deal they already have and would never leave.

3)Native land claims - Wow is this ever the dumbest thing I've heard a Yank say. The US Government has broken every treaty they ever signed with a Native American group. While Canada has a similar reputation up until recently, Canada granted self rule to several large native groups - I'll see how fair it's treated when the Natural Resources in the North become an issue.
But like I said, being lectured on treatment of native Americans by an American is laughable at best.

As for court cases, I suspect we have fewer cases than what is going on in the US. For instance, the State of California is considering raising taxes on Native Casinos despite the fact that agreements have been made on no taxation. Native Canadians pay no personal taxes and enterprises pay no Corp. Taxes.

The Not withstanding Clause. Boy you really know nothing about Canadian law. Typical as most Yanks try to relate their notion of law with anyone else - as if they have the perfect system. For the US to change it's Constitution it has to get a very hard to get legislative vote and then ratified by 2/3rds of the States. While Canada has an amending forumla for the constitution that is twice as hard to ratify, the not withstanding clause can be used to reflect the values or concerns of the day. A Provincial or Federal government that invoke the not withstanding clause takes the risk that they may not have the popular support that they think they have. In addition any change is subject to legislative review once every five years. The main purpose of the Not Withstanding clause is to limit changes to the Canadian Constitution. It is a peculiarly Canadian concept that the country's Constitution is as unwavering as possible. You may disagree, but at least have the facts - I think our aproach is better than going thru the difficult process of putting a man/women marriage clause thru or better still - the old proabition clause and it's repeal. In Canada those two examples would have been processed quickly.

What I don't get Lange if you loved everything American why did you leave that gawd forsaken place called Texas and move to of all place Quebec.

And Papasmerf, once again you prove yourself to be a class A cement head.



bbk

Can anybody point out to me, at what point did I attack Canada in this thread. I was doing some reading and I had some questions. I agree I don't know shit about Canadian history. If your approach to share knowledge is what I get for asking, then i am not sure I want to go any further.

BBK you need to take some of those pills, that you accuse papa of not taking.
WOW do you have issues.

PS Thanks..between your rants you actually provided some useful info..Thanks my good friend.

 

[Scarey]

Re:Alberta and wanting to be americans

Trust me..since George W closed your borders to our beef cattle due to pressure from the cattlemens association, er BSE.....I don't think you'd find 42 albertans wanting to be americans..let alone 42 %.

 

[langeweile]

Re: Re:Alberta and wanting to be americans

Trust me..since George W closed your borders to our beef cattle due to pressure from the cattlemens association, er BSE.....I don't think you'd find 42 albertans wanting to be americans..let alone 42 %.

Don't talk about things that you don't understand.
The USDA had the border opened unofficially. The Cattlemens association got a temporary injunction in a California circuit court (surprise surprise, there is another state we would gladly give to you}. They claimed that the USDA didn't do enough to make the supply safe.
So the judge had to close the border until the USDA could prove, that the beef supply was safe.
Another examples were the left is soo full of hatred that they can't see the forest from the trees anymore.

 

[langeweile]

Re: Re: Re: Re:Alberta and wanting to be americans

What the fark are you talking about. Canada is very aware of the efforts of the Cattlemens association to close access to US markets for Canadian farmers - nothing new there other than again the right wing cement heads of the US are punishing the average US consumer to benefit large corporations by pushing up the price for beef. Canadian controls on mad cow are greater than that in the States a fact that Japan seems to be telling the US these days.



bbk

Read scarey's post. Do you belief that Bush had closed the border?
it is raining today, maybe that is Bush's fault too.You give GWB powers he doesn't have.
The new closure is due to a laywers trick. GWB had nothing to do withb this

 

[langeweile]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Alberta and wanting to be americans

The original closure - sure he did and Bush and his administration didn't stop the Cattlemen or Congress from continuing the closure. I don't know what world your from - but a decission like this would be made by Dept. directly under the control of the Potus and his minions.


bbk

BBK I thought you knew better. Are you suggesting that W should have influenced a circuit court?
The California circuit court (i forgot the number) is one of the most left wing circuit courts in the country. If W just would have made an attempt to influence it. They would have had his head...IMPEACHMENT.

 

[someone]

How would an elected Senate act as any different a check than the elected House?

In the case of both the Australian and U.S. senates, seats in the upper house are distributed according to region (e.g. every state in the U.S gets two Senators) while seats in the lower house are distributed by population. Thus, the Senate is more representative of regional concerns. It seems to me that under the current system provinces have a lot of moral authority (at least among residents of the province in question) in less populated provinces because people feel that is the only way their views are heard when their interests differ from Ontario and Quebec. To some extend this allows provincial governments to fan the flames of division. With an elected Senate, I don't think provinces would not have the same moral authority with regard to federal legislation. Newfoundland might still have only 7 seats in the commons but their regional interests would still be represented in the upper house.

 

[Cobra1]

Re: Re: Re: Canadian Division

Can anybody point out to me, at what point did I attack Canada in this thread. I was doing some reading and I had some questions.

BBK you need to take some of those pills, that you accuse papa of not taking.
WOW do you have issues.

PS Thanks..between your rants you actually provided some useful info..Thanks my good friend.

In probably the only instance ever - Lang is right on this one - his questions were clearly information seeking - no need to jump all over him for wanting to find out more of the Canadian issues.