Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate countries


iamcanadian
#1
Here is a scenario that could work:

1) A separate Quebec Nation.
2) A separate Western Canada Nation
3) A separate Northern Native Canada Nation
4) Ontario joins the USA as the 51st state in their union.
5) The Maritimes can become part of the State of Maine

Lets hear some pros and cons.
 
the caracal kid
#2
why do you think ontario and the maritimes would join the US while the west and quebec become separate countries?
 
Summer
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

4) Ontario joins the USA as the 51st state in their union.
5) The Maritimes can become part of the State of Maine

No freakin' way.

Besides, I'm moving to Ontario to get AWAY from the U.S., thankyouverymuch.
 
iamcanadian
#4
Ontario is very much like some of the northern US states.

Maine and Maritimes have more in common with each other than the rest of Canada.

Quebec is there already.

The West and North are the last remnants of the way Canada once was and can be preserved by this way.

Vancouver may want to split off and join Washington State.
 
Summer
#5
Uh, IAC, you haven't by any chance been into the holiday libations a tad early, have you?
 
tracy
#6
IME Ontario has some of the most anti-Americanism in the entire country. I could see Alberta joining the US before Ontario.

I also don't think Vancouver should join Washington State, I think Washington state should join BC.
 
the caracal kid
#7
yes tracy. BC should have the columbia as its southern border the way it was before the land negotiations. tee hee. (just think of the fun that having two vancouvers would be for confusing people)
 
Ocean Breeze
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

yes tracy. BC should have the columbia as its southern border the way it was before the land negotiations. tee hee. (just think of the fun that having two vancouvers would be for confusing people)

what a hoot.

It would take at least two centuries to come to an agreement as to how it (Vancouver Issue) should be handled. The west coast is well noted for "casual" approach to things. .......being the laid back mentality we are.
 
tracy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

yes tracy. BC should have the columbia as its southern border the way it was before the land negotiations. tee hee. (just think of the fun that having two vancouvers would be for confusing people)

I heard that came up when an American woman crossing the border to go to Vancouver BC with a grenade in the car. She was apparently trying to go to Vancouver Wa and didn't know her hubby who was in the military had left the grenade in the vehicle.
 
zenfisher
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

IME Ontario has some of the most anti-Americanism in the entire country. I could see Alberta joining the US before Ontario.

I also don't think Vancouver should join Washington State, I think Washington state should join BC.

Hear, hear
 
Finder
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

Ontario is very much like some of the northern US states.

Maine and Maritimes have more in common with each other than the rest of Canada.

Quebec is there already.

The West and North are the last remnants of the way Canada once was and can be preserved by this way.

Vancouver may want to split off and join Washington State.



EXCUSE me, Ontario is Canada!. We are Upper Canada and would never join the USA. I prefer to think if Canada split into pieces. Ontario being one of the most populace province and one of the richist would annex Manaitoba and make it a Province of Ontario and then defeand the United Empire of Ontario =-D

J/K

But for sure we'd never join the USA. Ontario is very progressive minded people and I doubt we'd ever wish to be dominated by those guys down south.

=-(
 
the caracal kid
#12
i remember hearing recently about a proposed plan to offload the northwestern part of ontario onto Manitoba for cost effectiveness.

anyway, why not split her up into new countries?
we can have BC = Pacifica
Alberta+Sask+Man = The canadian badlands
Ontario = Ontario
Quebec = New France
NB+NS+PEI+NFL=Atlantica
 
Finder
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

i remember hearing recently about a proposed plan to offload the northwestern part of ontario onto Manitoba for cost effectiveness.

anyway, why not split her up into new countries?
we can have BC = Pacifica
Alberta+Sask+Man = The canadian badlands
Ontario = Ontario
Quebec = New France
NB+NS+PEI+NFL=Atlantica

Hmmm never heard that.

But see, if Ontario was to go alone we would need a buffer between the strange folks in the west and civilized Canada. =-D

j./k
 
iamcanadian
#14
My view is that any change is good. Making changes allows us to preserve what is best and weed out the worst.

When it comes to government systems and practices change should happen often to avoid stagnation and corruption of its systems.
 
the caracal kid
#15
i agree that change is necessary to avoid stagnation and irrelevence. However, change to quickly can cause destabilization which is not of much benefit either unless you are an anarchist.

I liked this thread because it was a legit place to refer to alberchewanitoba as the candian badlands. tee hee.
 
iamcanadian
#16
Canada has not gone through very much change structurally. The only changes we see are a kind of slow putrification. So I think Canada need some major changes to its structure to allow some clenzing and renewal of the more tired and corrupt systems and practices.
 
Daz_Hockey
#17
Dont do it, you know you dont want to!!!

do you really want to become the next colony, sorry, "liberated society under armed US control that is in no way a colony, not one of those british things that only the british do and just because it looks like we are doing the same thing, no sir we are not, no way"

here's a legit statement......be a proper country, dont be a de facto colony, Brock and Wolf would be horrified.

sorry about that, carry on
 
Ocean Breeze
#18
for the life of me........I don't know why this is even being entertained. Splitting the large country into smaller countries is leaving each one even more vulnerable.

but dang...........there are malcontents , no matter how contructive things are........as they just look to cause problems where there should not be any.

Instead of working to strengthening the nation......they are babbling about splitting it up.

Maybe they just don't know how dang good they have it here.......compared to MANY other nations on this planet.

a little appreciation for what one has would be nice too.....and work at correcting the flaws that do exist in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner.
 
Calberty
#19
I'm encouraged by the way the election is shaping up. It's a true reflection of the different visions within the country and wil encourage Quebec independence and Alberta throwing up a firewall and achieving what Quebec has today; sovereignty without the legal trappings of of a country.

Quebec wiil be 100% Bloq in Francophone ridings. Alberta will be 100% Conservative or at a minimum that less one seat. A Liberal government will govern even more dependent as an Ontario-based party.

The fractured result will lead to greater autonomy and power closer to the people. This election couldn't be going any better than it is. There's distinct regional visons of what Canadians visions want their country to be. none are 'wrong' but just reflect philosophies and expectations that are no longer possible under one banner.

Why shouldn't Ontarionians have the Gun Registry and National Daycare, etc. if that's what they truly want? Albertans want a different society. Quebecers another.

This entity called 'Canada' is now an obstacle in the way of democratic expression and shoehorns too much diversity into 'one size fits all'.
 
Said1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Summer

Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

4) Ontario joins the USA as the 51st state in their union.
5) The Maritimes can become part of the State of Maine

No freakin' way.

Besides, I'm moving to Ontario to get AWAY from the U.S., thankyouverymuch.

Where in Ontario?

One big pro of sovereignty is jobs - here in Ottawa that is. This city employes many, many Quebecers. I think the national language policy would be junked too. Wooooooooooot!!
 
the caracal kid
#21
i agree with you calberty on the need for more provincial independence and power within canada. i think we are in the minority on this idea though.
 
Calberty
#22
Not a minority within Quebec and Alberta. Canada will 'snap' before it becomes more flexible. Quebec has about 53% now in the polls to assert independence and Alberta has the money in the bank to reclaim power in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
 
Finder
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Calberty

I'm encouraged by the way the election is shaping up. It's a true reflection of the different visions within the country and wil encourage Quebec independence and Alberta throwing up a firewall and achieving what Quebec has today; sovereignty without the legal trappings of of a country.

Quebec wiil be 100% Bloq in Francophone ridings. Alberta will be 100% Conservative or at a minimum that less one seat. A Liberal government will govern even more dependent as an Ontario-based party.

The fractured result will lead to greater autonomy and power closer to the people. This election couldn't be going any better than it is. There's distinct regional visons of what Canadians visions want their country to be. none are 'wrong' but just reflect philosophies and expectations that are no longer possible under one banner.

Why shouldn't Ontarionians have the Gun Registry and National Daycare, etc. if that's what they truly want? Albertans want a different society. Quebecers another.

This entity called 'Canada' is now an obstacle in the way of democratic expression and shoehorns too much diversity into 'one size fits all'.


I highly doubt the bloq will capture every riding in Quebec. Though I know it will be close to that. A few will still go Liberal. But I think the bigger picture here is that yes a magority of Quebecors are going to vote for the Bloq, but at the same time just about 40% of Quebec won't have any to little represantation at all. Thats a pretty high number. With the NDP and conservatives showing ok numbers in quebec and even the liberals still polling good each party should have some represtation. This is the big f-up of Paul Martin who used to talk about Electoral reform. The Big federalist party, the liberals in Quebec was abusing the fact the most quebecers know that FPTP is only good for two party systems so many NDP and Conservatives would vote Bloq, xp if they believed in federalism. Now we see the weakness of this system which Paul Martin could have changed in Quebec and the rest of Canada to help the Liberals and the rest of the parties. Now that the Liberals are mostly discredited in Quebec alot of feds who might not be liberal supporters just don't know what to do. So they are floating back to the parties who policy they support. Unforunitly with the Bloq's higher populity because of the liberals as well, it appears as if about 40% of Quebec will have very little representation.

So really in this election we will not be helping the cause for higher voter turnout xp in quebec when 40% of the votes will be ignored anyways!. Great system we live in, EH?
 
FiveParadox
#24
With all due respect, the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin cannot be held entirely responsible for a failure to have electoral reform legislation introduced during the Thirty-eighth Parliament. While most Canadians can agree that some sort of reform needs to be implemented, most cannot agree on what specific strategy should be pursued. In the House of Commons and the Senate, this would be no different.

The past session had been controversial enough without any talk of reform hanging about the House of Commons. To introduce reforming legislation during this Parliament could well have shortened the length of an already borderline-dysfunctional session. Personally, I would not like to see any reform legislation tabled until such time as the Lower House is somewhat more stable. That's just my opinion, though.

...

I concur with Finder in the assertion that the Bloc Québecois will not hold every riding in Québec, although I have no doubt that their results in the Thirty-ninth General Election will be stronger than the previous one. However, a "sweep" is highly unlikely.

As for the notion of the need for "more Provincial independence," I disagree. I think that the Provinces are autonomous enough in their own internal workings; they have the authority to opt out of most Government programs where desired, and they can even invoke notwithstanding clauses to opt out of Federal legislative measures in certain cases. In my opinion, the Provinces are as independant as they should be within a Confederation such as that of Canada.
 
Finder
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

With all due respect, the Rt. Hon. Paul Martin cannot be held entirely responsible for a failure to have electoral reform legislation introduced during the Thirty-eighth Parliament. While most Canadians can agree that some sort of reform needs to be implemented, most cannot agree on what specific strategy should be pursued. In the House of Commons and the Senate, this would be no different.

The past session had been controversial enough without any talk of reform hanging about the House of Commons. To introduce reforming legislation during this Parliament could well have shortened the length of an already borderline-dysfunctional session. Personally, I would not like to see any reform legislation tabled until such time as the Lower House is somewhat more stable. That's just my opinion, though.

...

I concur with Finder in the assertion that the Bloc Québecois will not hold every riding in Québec, although I have no doubt that their results in the Thirty-ninth General Election will be stronger than the previous one. However, a "sweep" is highly unlikely.

As for the notion of the need for "more Provincial independence," I disagree. I think that the Provinces are autonomous enough in their own internal workings; they have the authority to opt out of most Government programs where desired, and they can even invoke notwithstanding clauses to opt out of Federal legislative measures in certain cases. In my opinion, the Provinces are as independant as they should be within a Confederation such as that of Canada.

Just to make sure nobody gets my idea's mixed up with someone elses. I do not support this notion of "Provincial independance" and Paradox brings up a very good point which I've brought up in the past is that the provinces already have a ton of powers already. Plus you have to relieze that even the commons is extrmely regional and the Senate as well. Though I'd love to kick start the system with a more of a republican aspect of government, I think all we need to do is give the current bodies of government manadates by the ppl and provinces. Very simple to do and very few minor changes.

Paradox. I do blame Paul Martin because he has been talking the talk about electoral reform for years and even critized Jean about it. One of the first things he does in this parliment is to appoint senators the same old way! Also Any mention of Commons electoral reform has been extremely slow coming and it appears as if the Liberals will stick with the staus quo. I do not see Paul Martin as a champion of Electoral reform as he once presented himself as. If Anyone in Parliment is, it's Jack Layton and to a lesser extent, Mr Harper, and of course Mr Harris from the green party even. I've even seen Bloq MP's talk more about electoral reform then Liberal mp's.

So yes, as usual the Liberals talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
 
FiveParadox
#26
The following is a consolidated proposal regarding Senate reform, amended since my last post, keeping in mind some of the arguments that I have heard thus far.

First List

The Prime Minister shall draw up a list of eligible persons to be appointed to the Senate; the Speaker of the House of Commons shall transmit that list to the Legislature of the Province which the vacant seat in the Senate is to represent.

Second List

The Legislature shall, by a majority of voices, decide to either adopt the list in its entirety, reject the list outright (prompting the Prime Minister to create a new list), or propose amendments to the list. The Speaker of the Legislature shall soonafter transmit that second list to the Speaker of the House of Commons; if the first list had been defeated, then the list shall be "empty."

Negotiations

If the list proposed by the Legislature differs greatly from that proposed by the Prime Minister, then several subsequent lists may be transmitted between the Legislature and the House of Commons until the list is adopted in an identical form by both the Prime Minister and the Legislature.

Appointment and Ratification

The Prime Minister shall select one eligible person from the adopted list, and shall forthwith transmit his or her choice to the Legislature of the Province. The Legislature shall vote to either accept or reject the appointment. If the appointment is accepted, then the Lieutenant Governor and the Prime Minister shall jointly recommend to the Governor General that said person be appointed to the Senate. If the Lieutenant Governor in right of the Province does not provide his or her consent to the appointment, then the Governor General shall at all reasonable times avoid making the appointment.

Special Provisions

If a Province has been left with compromised representation in the Senate due to an unreasonably long period of negotiations, as brought to the attention of the Governor General by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province in question, then the Governor General shall have the right, from time to time, to take whatever steps may be necessary, including an executive order superceding the authority of either the Legislature of the Province or the House of Commons, to remedy the situation. (Note that this proposal assumes that Governors General and Lieutenant Governors receive a mandate through ratification of their appointments.)

Note lol, okay, this post would have been far more appropriate in the Senate Reform thread. Sometimes I forget which one I'm in. I'm going to re-post this there, but for the time being, I shall keep this post here, since it is at least somewhat relevent to the topic at hand.
 
Finder
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

The following is a consolidated proposal regarding Senate reform, amended since my last post, keeping in mind some of the arguments that I have heard thus far.

First List

The Prime Minister shall draw up a list of eligible persons to be appointed to the Senate; the Speaker of the House of Commons shall transmit that list to the Legislature of the Province which the vacant seat in the Senate is to represent.

Second List

The Legislature shall, by a majority of voices, decide to either adopt the list in its entirety, reject the list outright (prompting the Prime Minister to create a new list), or propose amendments to the list. The Speaker of the Legislature shall soonafter transmit that second list to the Speaker of the House of Commons; if the first list had been defeated, then the list shall be "empty."

Negotiations

If the list proposed by the Legislature differs greatly from that proposed by the Prime Minister, then several subsequent lists may be transmitted between the Legislature and the House of Commons until the list is adopted in an identical form by both the Prime Minister and the Legislature.

Appointment and Ratification

The Prime Minister shall select one eligible person from the adopted list, and shall forthwith transmit his or her choice to the Legislature of the Province. The Legislature shall vote to either accept or reject the appointment. If the appointment is accepted, then the Lieutenant Governor and the Prime Minister shall jointly recommend to the Governor General that said person be appointed to the Senate. If the Lieutenant Governor in right of the Province does not provide his or her consent to the appointment, then the Governor General shall at all reasonable times avoid making the appointment.

Special Provisions

If a Province has been left with compromised representation in the Senate due to an unreasonably long period of negotiations, as brought to the attention of the Governor General by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province in question, then the Governor General shall have the right, from time to time, to take whatever steps may be necessary, including an executive order superceding the authority of either the Legislature of the Province or the House of Commons, to remedy the situation. (Note that this proposal assumes that Governors General and Lieutenant Governors receive a mandate through ratification of their appointments.)

Note lol, okay, this post would have been far more appropriate in the Senate Reform thread. Sometimes I forget which one I'm in. I'm going to re-post this there, but for the time being, I shall keep this post here, since it is at least somewhat relevent to the topic at hand.

I've noticed you made the same post in another thread so I'llpose my question to you here.

You know I'm in favoured of a multi layered democracy as we have now but does not funtion at all right now. Currently the one elected body, the commons, is elected FPTP. Now listen to my electoral reform proposal. It's not even a draft really but just my basic idea's for reforms.

Commons/Lower house
Currently FPTP
I think Canada's democratic tempiture would be best taken if we went to a provincial PR or Mixed (PR/FPTP). This is basically how PR by province would work. You would vote for the party you wished to be in power. Provincial the pop vote would be taken and divided among the parties in the province to be sent to Ottawa.

OR:
Mixed by Prvince. We vote as we do now for the MP in your riding. Each province has seats attached to ridings and seats for just plan PR. Out of the vote for the MP or even a second vote for party, the second amount of seats would come right from PR. For instance in Ontario if we had 100 seats, 50 or 75 could by by the traditional FPTP and the rest 25-50 could be PR. Thus if lets for say the Green Party were to get 5-10% of the vote but there vote was spread out and didn't win a single riding. The people who voted for them in ontario would still have one or two people to speak for them in the commons.

Ok a mixed system is not PR and it has the same problem as FPTP as it will not give the losers as much representation as they should but it's alot closer to giving them a voice so the people who voted for them will at least believe they have a stack in our system and will hopefully keep bvelieving in it.

The Senate.
I've always believed as all the classical thinkers that the Senate/house of lords, should have a more conservative feel to it. Older people, elder statesman/woman, basically the elders in our society. Thus The age to become a senator should be high. something like 35. Now I think it should be done by FPTP since we want to vote for the person who's best for the job and not so much on the party as you do in the commons.

OR:
Have the provincal governments appoint them.

Of course thses could become traditions and ultimately without changing the con the pm would still be appointing them but this would be more like a rubber stamp as the will of the people have given these people the manadate to govern as a Senator and a PM would/SHOULD not ignore that.

Paradox what do you think of those simple reforms. Would someone like you be for our against them?
 
Summer
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

Quote: Originally Posted by Summer

Quote: Originally Posted by iamcanadian

4) Ontario joins the USA as the 51st state in their union.
5) The Maritimes can become part of the State of Maine

No freakin' way.

Besides, I'm moving to Ontario to get AWAY from the U.S., thankyouverymuch.

Where in Ontario?

One big pro of sovereignty is jobs - here in Ottawa that is. This city employes many, many Quebecers. I think the national language policy would be junked too. Wooooooooooot!!

Toronto. The company my fiance works for is planning to open a location there sometime in the next few years, and we're hoping he gets transferred there. He's planning to ask for it, and has already mentioned that to people farther up in the company.
 
iamcanadian
#29
I have not herad any cons about splitting up Canada into several separate countries here.

The pros are that each separate country will be stronger, richer and more of a reflection of the distinct cultures in each separate area.
 
Jersay
#30
Quote:

I have not herad any cons about splitting up Canada into several separate countries here.

The pros are that each separate country will be stronger, richer and more of a reflection of the distinct cultures in each separate area.

Are you a hopeless hill-billy who has just seen civilization.

If you have a large country and you break it up into smaller pieces. Then the smaller pieces are going to be mindless satelites were larger countries or are sucked up by larger countries, lets say America. Now if you want to go to America, fine by me, but you are not taking Canada with you.

Second, Alberta, has enough oil for 20 years, 50 at the most. Once the oil is gone it will have nothing and will be looking to join with these other smaller states or America and suck of them like a parasite.

Alberta does not have a distinct culture. Quebec does, the areas under aboriginal control have a distinct culture, but Alberta, B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, the maritimes have a large "British" culture. They might have differences to them, the Praires being more 'rural' and conservative, but they are fundamentaly the same.

How can each newly seperate nation be 'richer' if they all have deficits, the Quebec one the one I can think of now. Alberta when they run out of oil, will rack up so much deficet everything will go. Use your head, oil does not grow on trees. Alberta has nothing else except oil, I should know I lived there for five years. It is a cold crapy province that complains to much.

The only pro I can see for B.C. seperating is that Marijuna will finally be legalized.

But the point is that, the only two places that want to seperate are Alberta and Quebec. Alberta then heading to the states! And because Alberta uses "Western Seperatism" Easterners think that it is the entire west. If they said Alberta, Ontario and Quebec would enjoy kicking Alberta out.

So IAMCanadian even though you are not, those are the cons to confederation. Talk amongst your friends and when you say that oil will be gone at the most 50 years and you have no way to fund any programs then they will say, "I am Canadian".
 

Similar Threads

398
Quebec shouldn't separate from Canada
by data-unlimited | Jan 20th, 2010
10
Charter of Rights & Freedons - Pros & Cons
by westmanguy | Feb 14th, 2007
38
Pros and Cons of each?
by canada | Jun 1st, 2004