Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country

[tober]

Did I say that.

That's what I asked. I notice you often answer questions with questions. It is often a sign of somebody trying to mislead.

You have a problem understanding what I stated about sovereign funds, power blocks locking up resources

Yup. Please explain more clearly.

I think the opposite.

That much I understood. So do you think Canada should welcome US companies to help us?

I also think that the Govt's should have a stake as part of any deals on leases, pipelines and such, yes includes the provinces as well.

Good thing you approve provincial involvement. In Canada these things are constitutionally a provincial head of power. Section 92(13) is what you want (underlined below). I have noticed how much Americans seem to love trotting out the constitution, so here ya go.

Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures
​

Marginal note:Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

• 1. Repealed. (4)
• 2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
• 3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
• 4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
• 5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
• 6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
• 7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
• 8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.
• 9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
• 10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
  • (a)
    Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
  • (b)
    Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
  • (c)
    Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
• 11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
• 12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
• 13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
• 14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
• 15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
• 16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

Before the Charter came into existence, arguing constitutional law in Canada did not mean that governments were constitutionally prohibited from doing things in the American sense. "Unconstitutional" in Canadian terms meant "division of powers" arguments. If the feds enacted a law that was exclusively reserved to provincial powers, it could be declared ultra vires, or unconstitutional. Otherwise Parliament and the various Legislatures were supreme. In this sense we owe much to American law. In the US something could be declared unconstitutional because it violated individual legal rights. Thanks to the Charter we can do that in Canada now. Under the Charter our courts can declare parts of statutes invalid, and rule that evidence and police actions that violate constitutional rights cannot be used as evidence.

 

[Vancouverite]

Won't happen in the near future, but we should have a customs union, where the stupid border is removed.

 

[tober]

Won't happen in the near future, but we should have a customs union, where the stupid border is removed.

Disagree. One by one so many barriers are being removed that soon we will be past a tipping point. America has huge industrial processes, as well as massive subsidies in some areas such as agriculture. I personally can think of many things which America exports legally and illegally that we are better off keeping out of Canada. We cannot afford to forget that we are sleeping beside the elephant and can be wounded in entirely unintended ways. Maintaining our national identity is something we have to be prepared to pay for. The general American approach to everything is to throw money at it. I think we need the border to protect us.

 

[Machjo]

Diane Francis knows only one thing. She's pro business, nothing wrong with that in itself, but she sees everything through the single lens of what's good for business. The nuances of political, social, and cultural differences go right over her head.

Depending on the details, some form of decentralized federation would allow for even more cultural exchange than we have now, enriching both countries culturally, just as NL, QB, Nunavut, etc. enrich Canadian culture and one another.

Disagree. One by one so many barriers are being removed that soon we will be past a tipping point. America has huge industrial processes, as well as massive subsidies in some areas such as agriculture. I personally can think of many things which America exports legally and illegally that we are better off keeping out of Canada. We cannot afford to forget that we are sleeping beside the elephant and can be wounded in entirely unintended ways. Maintaining our national identity is something we have to be prepared to pay for. The general American approach to everything is to throw money at it. I think we need the border to protect us.

You could use the same argument between Canadian provinces.

 

[tober]

Depending on the details, some form of decentralized federation would allow for even more cultural exchange than we have now, enriching both countries culturally, just as NL, QB, Nunavut, etc. enrich Canadian culture and one another.

Lack of cultural cross fertilization between Canada and the US has never been a problem. With an amazingly consistent 10-1 ratio between our populations and US economic and cultural influences that often threaten Canadians, we need controls.

You could use the same argument between Canadian provinces.

Only if you ignore the fact that provinces are part of the culture of Canada while America is a foreign country. The idea has never been to make Canada a melting pot, which your suggestion hints. We are a mosaic. Whatever that really means, and it could be debated ad nauseum, what remains is the reality that Canada has never sought amalgamation with America.

 

[Machjo]

Lack of cultural cross fertilization between Canada and the US has never been a problem. With an amazingly consistent 10-1 ratio between our populations and US economic and cultural influences that often threaten Canadians, we need controls.



Only if you ignore the fact that provinces are part of the culture of Canada while America is a foreign country. The idea has never been to make Canada a melting pot, which your suggestion hints. We are a mosaic. Whatever that really means, and it could be debated ad nauseum, what remains is the reality that Canada has never sought amalgamation with America.

I hear that alot, Tober, that the US is thretening Canada culturally?

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Also, I don't define culture according to the narrow confines of a nation's political boundaries. For instance, there are certain cultural similarities between Vancouverites and Seattle residents that defy national boundaries, even though they will be different from Atlantic Canadian on those same traits. Culturs is not so neatly defined I'm afraid.

Second, the so-called 'mozaic is a myth. All Canada has is two melting pots, or the so-called two-solitudes. When Heritage Canada is asking First Nations to record the deaths of their languages, I don't call that a mozaic, sorry.

 

[BaalsTears]

Why do most Canadians want to maintain their national identity?

 

[Machjo]

Why do most Canadians want to maintain their national identity?

Habit. People fear change, people fear the unknown. Same reason that it was so difficult to evolve from the city states to the nation states. same reason it was so difficult to confederate Canada itself.

 

[tober]

I hear that alot, Tober, that the US is thretening Canada culturally?

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Not in a single sentence or a sound byte.

Also, I don't define culture according to the narrow confines of a nation's political boundaries. For instance, there are certain cultural similarities between Vancouverites and Seattle residents that defy national boundaries, even though they will be different from Atlantic Canadian on those same traits. Culturs is not so neatly defined I'm afraid.

No argument there.

Second, the so-called 'mozaic is a myth. All Canada has is two melting pots, or the so-called two-solitudes. When Heritage Canada is asking First Nations to record the deaths of their languages, I don't call that a mozaic, sorry.

You sound like you want a simple, clear definition of culture that doesn’t confuse you at all.

If you prefer Canada amalgamating with America just come out and say so.

 

[Goober]

Unfortunately US law prevents a third party ever being formed (or at least that's what I was told by a US teacher).

Dufus- Never heard back on this little bit of brainlessness. You never did reply on that particular stupidity.
Post trimmed so as to not cause you confusion.

Not done yet.
Another one for ya.
The 19th century (January 1, 1801 – December 31, 1900

Have any ever formed part of the federal government in modern times?

Law and practice are often quoted under the generic term "law". Many things that are not legally prohibited are, practically speaking, legally impossible. Has there ever been a third national party taking up seats in the US Congress since the 19th Century? "None is the correct answer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)
Whig Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have not trimmed the the post, hope this is not a hardship as you are easily confused.
Just a couple of links
United States presidential election, 1836 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whig Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Whig Party was a political party active in the early 19th century in the United States. Four Presidents of the United States were members of the Whig Party. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s,[1] the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism. This name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence, and because "Whig" was then a widely recognized label of choice for people who identified as opposing tyranny.[2] The Whig Party counted among its members such national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their preeminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also nominated war hero generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott.

In its two decades of existence, the Whig Party had two of its candidates, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, elected President.


Thanks
Your Pal
Goober

 

[tober]

Why do most Canadians want to maintain their national identity?

Why do Americans?

Dufus- Never heard back on this little bit of brainlessness. You never did reply on that particular stupidity.
Post trimmed so as to not cause you confusion.

Not done yet.
Another one for ya.
The 19th century (January 1, 1801 – December 31, 1900



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)
Whig Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have not trimmed the the post, hope this is not a hardship as you are easily confused.
Just a couple of links
United States presidential election, 1836 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whig Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Whig Party was a political party active in the early 19th century in the United States. Four Presidents of the United States were members of the Whig Party. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s,[1] the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism. This name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence, and because "Whig" was then a widely recognized label of choice for people who identified as opposing tyranny.[2] The Whig Party counted among its members such national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their preeminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also nominated war hero generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott.

In its two decades of existence, the Whig Party had two of its candidates, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, elected President.


Thanks
Your Pal
Goober

I was aware of the Whigs which is why I said "since" the 19th Century. Republicans replaced them. Do you have anything for the 20th or 21st Centuries? This is the 21st Century.

 

[Goober]

Why do Americans?



I was aware of the Whigs which is why I said "since" the 19th Century. Republicans replaced them. Do you have anything for the 20th or 21st Centuries? This is the 21st Century.

https://www.google.ca/#q=define+since
since
/sins/
Preposition

In the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present.
For the reason that: because: "delegates were delighted, since protection of rhino reserves will help protect other rare species".

Try harder.
PS- What about those illegal 3rd Parties in the US - No reply on that one Buck.

So here ya go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Chafee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

 

[Sal]

I am super curious which of our members on here would gladly give up their Canadian status and let them overwhelm us. Maybe we need a poll.

 

[JLM]

I am super curious which of our members on here would gladly give up their Canadian status and let them overwhelm us. Maybe we need a poll.

You can mark me down as No.

 

[Colpy]

You can mark me down as No.

A surprise to many, but simple adoption into the US system??

Put me down as a NO!!

Great way to ruin both countries.

 

[Goober]

I am super curious which of our members on here would gladly give up their Canadian status and let them overwhelm us. Maybe we need a poll.

The topic that Francis wrote on had various options. From unification to opening up resources.
The Sovereign Funds( China- Russia) and other countries are locking up resources long time.
Our North, Ont and Quebec are heavy with resources.

Presently these resources have sat for decades. And will sit for future decades due to no long term plan for investment.

Malaysia spending 36 Billion on LNG- in BC - Canada - BC should have retained a percentage of the operations.
Taxes and revenues.

Who do we prefer to develop those resources in a partnership. US along with other EU companies- Both Fed and Prov ownership. Receive income from processing plants and tax as well.

Look at oil- The countries that own their Companies- about 80 of the worlds oil is controlled by these countries.
Yet we have resources to develop - where would business invest safely.

Even in the mining sector, companies are moving back to develop EU sources, older manes due to the companies being expropriated by some countries.

These countries are then taken to a world body to determine costs for reimbursement- can take a decade or longer.

Reason why money will go to the democracy, rule of law. Property rights.

 

[Sal]

I put up a poll just for the heck of it.

 

[Goober]

I put up a poll just for the heck of it.

I voted. No.

 

[tober]

https://www.google.ca/#q=define+since
since
/sins/
Preposition

In the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present.
For the reason that: because: "delegates were delighted, since protection of rhino reserves will help protect other rare species".

Try harder.

Does anybody know what he's writing about?

PS- What about those illegal 3rd Parties in the US - No reply on that one Buck.

I answered a while back. Among other things I never said 3rd parties were "illegal", I said I had been told they could not be raised due to legal impediments. There is a difference, if recognizing such is within your undoubted abilities. The topic is about your government, not mine. Is there any particular reason why I should know minutiae about a foreign government?

I have sure got Y'all upset, eh boy? LOL!

 

[tay]

This is the first part of two posts exploring the political consequences that would happen if Canada became part of the United States. The second part can be found here.

A note to all Canadian readers: this post was written for the intent of a good laugh, and some serious political analysis along with it. It is not meant to offend, and sincere apologies are offered if any offense at all is taken.

Now…onto the post.

Part 1: What If Canada Was Part of the United States?


Canada would thus add around 50 electoral votes in the electoral college:

These votes would almost certainly be Democratic ones. Most people would agree that Canada is a more liberal place than the United States.

This is fairly apparent in the policies Canada pursues; it has universal health care and is less skeptical of climate change than the United States. It would not be too unreasonable to suggest, therefore, that Canada would vote for the more liberal party.
Canada’s Importance

Adding another California to the United States would definitely be a good thing for the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, one should not overemphasize Canada’s importance. After all, it’s population is barely one-tenth that of the United States.

While the addition of Canada would shift America leftward, it is easy to overstate the degree of this.


more

Part 1: What If Canada Was Part of the United States? | The Politikal Blog