Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate countries

[the caracal kid]

RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

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]

RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

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]

Re: RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate c

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]

Blame for reform failure misplaced

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]

Re: Blame for reform failure misplaced

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]

RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

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]

Re: RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate c

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]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

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]

RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

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]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

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".

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

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".

BRAVO!!! thanks for injecting some REALISTIC thinking onto a subject that is not much more than provocative.......and potentially destructive.

HNY

 

[Jersay]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

Thank you, I am a French-Canadian and when I was younger I agreed with seperatism for Quebec. However, now turning 19 tomorrow I see that there is no point in breaking up this great country of Canada into smaller pieces, on some wacko's idea that smaller means better.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

Thank you, I am a French-Canadian and when I was younger I agreed with seperatism for Quebec. However, now turning 19 tomorrow I see that there is no point in breaking up this great country of Canada into smaller pieces, on some wacko's idea that smaller means better.

sounds like you have wisdom well beyond your young years..


and happy Birthday.... ccasion4:

 

[Jersay]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

Thank you

 

[iamcanadian]

RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

Bigger does not mean better or stronger.

Canada is a weak and fragile country because it is culturally fragmented, sparsly populated, and too big to manage effectively because if it.

Smaller countries (which will not be smaller than many very strong countries in any event) will become stronger and richer by becoming easier to manage and responsive to the different cultural make ups.

 

[Jersay]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

What different culutral make ups are you talking about. Besides Quebec and Aboriginal territories the other provinces are of a British culture as a majority, period. Learn what a freaking culture is. There are differences yes, but that doesn't make it a different culture.

In the world today my friend, the bigger you are the more people are going to listen to you. If America split apart back in the 1860s it wouldn't be a superpower today. China which does have competing cultures seperated many times but now is intact.

To be a culture, you need to have a distinct language, or a distinct set of ideology that is seperate from the majority. Being afraid of same-sex marriage just doesn't cut it, or having conservative values while everyone else has progressive doesn't cut it.

 

[iamcanadian]

RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

Ontario is a multi-cultural State.

Quebec is a uni-cultural State.

The Maritimes is a melting pot.

The North is aboriginal.

The West is a melting pot.

We have at least five distinctive cultures in Canada that have no resemblence to each other and are counterproductive to each others cultural needs and desires. Each would become stronger countries being separate and better for each of their distinct cultures.

 

[Summer]

RE: Pros and Cons on Spli

If the Maritimes and the West are melting pots, then that's the same thing. And Ontario being multicultural is similar enough to that as to make little difference. That means you've got 3 things at most, not 5.

What you're missing is that Canada itself is multicultural, including its own varying internal cultures.

 

[Jersay]

Re: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

The aboriginal people of Canada do not want to seperate.

The multi-cultural people in B.C, Ontario, Maritimes and others don't want to seperate.

If they don't want to seperate there is no need to force them.

And still the majority culture is British. Doesn't matter where you are it is still British.

Ethnic-minorities did not come to Canada to help break it apart. So put that crazy scheme back into your head. They fled from strife and seperation and they want stability that is Canada.

 

[iamcanadian]

RE: Pros and Cons on Splitting up Canada into separate count

Ontario is the true multi-cultural part of Canada and those of british descent here are deaspretly trying to keep their fingers in the pie for their descendants but will eventually lose since they are already clutching at straws using every dirty trick they can to hold on to power they obtain as a birthright.

The rest of Canada has meting pot structures of French or British.

The country can be split up and form a union of seperate states without causing any difficulties that I can see.