Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

They already have my provinces electricity supply. We have a quota basically. Even if we cant meet the demands of our people and we need the power we are selling, too bad, they get that amount. They didnt pay for a couple years and i dont even know if they have, the story left the news before they paid, so i have no idea.
And yes, i think Canada will become part of the US, some way shape or form. They want/need our resources. They put us to court over our water. So they will get the resources eventually.
I do not have a blind hatred for the US. I disagree with a lot of their methods, and often question the morality of their actions. This is the government. My best friend is american and puts down canada and hates the queen. Now those two things get me the most, but i understand where he's coming from and it makes sense i guess if you werent involved in it. I'm know for being a Canada freak (which incudes the Queen of Canada, which is NOT a FOREIGN head of state). O, and the PM does not appoint the Governor, the queen appoints the governor. The PM does not have supreme power, the Queen does (and thus her rep.). Its just that the last time the queen exorcised power was something like in 1911 when the PM was booted. The PM is elected. Its democracy with the safeguard that if the PM goes wacko, the governor can boot him. Although in this day and age, if this happens, i think the people will boot the governor.
Rep by pop is a more fair than rep by state. Each person has the same say as the next. They all pay the taxes. So why should my say be worth more than 10 other people becuase of the state in which i live. Or why should my say be worth only 1/10th of someone else's? That is not fair at all, it is MY country just as well as his, so we should have the same say in how the country is run.
How does the queen take away from our sovereignty? Yes, Canada has a queen, and a PM, and premiers. Our head of state is the queen, theoretically, but in reality our head of state is really acted out by our PM. The US head of state is the President, does that take away from their sovereignty? I dont understand that comment .

We swear loyalty to the Queen, because the Queen represents Canada, as our head of state, she is the Symbol, much like our flag. However, she can speak (as opposed to the flag), so as our head of state, she is Canada. I believe that Manley should have been critisized. Would it be cool if someone in the US said stuff along the lines of getting rid of the president?

Why is being founded on the notion of maintaining allegiance to our queen a backword notion? Most of the people that founded Canada, were british. They were subjects of her majesty, and they took pride in that. So what if the people below us decided taht they didnt like the fact that they had to pay taxes to the british cuz the british army had to go break them up for fighting with the natives all the time. They didnt want to maintain loyalty, so they started killing instead of talking. So that means we have to do whatever they do? I think the slower process of negotiating for Canada's independance was much better than having to lose thousands of lives. I think that war is a backwards notion on which the US was founded on. Honestly now, how much influence does the queen have on us as canadians? She instills pride, the PM does not do the same thing, nor does the President, they are ppl, elected by ppl, they are human, just like everyone else in the coutry. The queen is a symbol, beyond reproach, she symbolised this country, and everything that we believe is good. I take pride in my flag, and my queen. And how does throwing off the queen make us more independant. It will make us more american but not more independant. When was the last time our queen interfered with what the ppl of Canada wanted? When was the last time our queen hindered our independance. I fail to see your logic on this matter
We are not a colony of England. We are an independant country, so there is no conflict, because you are right, we cannot be both, and guess what? We're not.

Okay, yes, but whats wrong with it? Except Military leaders are not appointed by the PM really. The minister, the General. Only the most senior is appointed. All of the other military leaders are appointed by the mil. The Governor is appointed by the queen as the governor represents the queen in canada, cuz obviously the queen is not always here.
Yes, the reps have dresticaly less power than the PM individually. But the entire house has more power than the PM. Our current PM was forced to resign. Altho he has a lot of power, it also makes it so that there is no deadlock. If the PM drastically screws over Canada, he will be booted by the Queen (its happened before). If he is not, the people can boot him through the use of thousands of signatures.

The purpose of the commonwealth is not to help starving ppl in africa, or to stop wars. It is not the UN.
from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page310.asp
"The Queen is not only Queen of the United Kingdom, but Head of the Commonwealth, a voluntary association of 54 independent countries.

Most of these countries have progressed from British rule to independent self-government, and the Commonwealth now serves to foster international co-operation and trade links between people all over the world.

The Queen is also Queen of a number of Commonwealth realms, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada."

so basically the commonwealth is an association of countries, which were once the British Empire, but are now independant, but still have loyalty to their queen. They have trade links, and thats about it. The commonwealth helps us ever so slightly, and doesnt hinder us at all.

I'm really sorry that this post is so unorganised. I kind of randomly took posts and answered them. And i left and came back to it a couple times. So if im completly mixed up or somthing, just let me know. thanks

   

Matrix mentioned NAFTA as a starting point for an economic union with the US and Mexico. It is basically an economic union, but it is a very poor one. Canada gave the US favoured nation status to guarantee them access to our resources...fossil fuels, eletcricity and water are all part of that. Once we start selling to them, we can't stop even if we need the resources for ourselves. The result is that they control our oil supply and have a huge influence on our hydro-electric power. We cannot start selling water to them because if we do we can't stop.

Meanwhile the benefit we are supposed to be getting from the deal...access to a huge market...is being challenged with tariffs. They've imposed an unfair duty on our lumber because we can produce it more cheaply than they can. They are going after the Canadian Wheat Board, trying to force us to dismantle something started by our farmers, because our farmers have become so adept that US farmers can't compete even with their massive subsidy program. The US also won't allow industrial hemp into their country because of their ridiculous drug laws. You could smoke a whole field of hemp and not get high, but their anti-drug laws (heavily lobbied for by the cotton and oil industries) do not allow hemp in because there are trace amounts of THC in it.

I say we should tear up NAFTA, call everybody in North and South America as well as the leaders of the EU and say, "Hey, let's make a deal that's fair to everybody."

   

Well, besides NAFTA, I also suggested that Canada join the EU, even tho we are not geographically part of Europe, we also arent geographjically part of Asia, yet we are apart of APEC.

I am not saying we are European in anyway, its just that based on our small market, which is the typical market of a Euro country, I think its better off that we join a powerful European Union.

The US is too large compared to Canada, not that it matters, however, the Americans use the large market to Bully canada with ridiculas rules that can drain us of natural resources to the point of "starvation" and stupid subsidies. Its like they can take advantage of NAFTA, but when we try, the courts always rule in favour of them.

So we should leave NAFTA, join the EU. However, My point was that if we wanted to form a Union of hte America's, NAFTA is better than having nothing.

However, in the best interest of Canada, joining the EU will suit us better than joining wiht the America's as long as the United States is there. By joining the EU, we will be on a more level playing field than joining hte US (not to say that it is a perfect level playing field with EU, but better than with US) We can adopt a stronger euro dollar, gain access to a larger Euro market, and even become the European\USA gateway between the two powers since we are close to the US. Its win win for Canada because we are adopting a more fair union. It is win win for the Euro, because they gain easier access to US via Canada. And win win for US because they can easier access to the Euro market.

   

I don't know that we can deal with the EU either, Matrix. They would most likely covet our resources, but transport makes things expensive .

The thing is we keep swinging deals and backing down to make the US and Europe happy. We never seem to play hardball. Fuck that...I learned how to sharpen my my spikes back in Little League. You slide in with your spikes up and aimed at the crotch; if you're on defense you tag heavy...right on the lungs; if the catcher has the ball you put your head down and your elbows up and hit him as hard as you can; if a hitter leans into a pitch you toss the next one at his face...he'll back up.

I won't play sports like that anymore. I learned a lot from Little League, including how the world sucks. Politics is a grown-up game and I never feel bad when I file my spikes ar knock some poor bastard over

   

You know, Canada did not have to sign NAFTA, Canada is its own country. I for one do not support NAFTA (If anyone cares)
Kurt

   

Im with you on that one

   

The Canadian government is based on a lot of polite fiction and outright myths, most of which have been repeated by Trackratte.

Myth one- the Queen is Canadian

Reality- the Queen is most certainly not Canadain. The government can give her all the titles they want, but the fact remains she is a foreigner, who lives in a foreign country. She visits us occasionally, maybe once every five years or so, just like the tourist she is. She has not even spent enough time in this country to qualify for legal citizenship.

Look at her official website. There is barely even a mention of Canada on it, only as a footnote, as part of the laundry list about how she is "also Queen of many Commonwealth nations."

The Monarchy is a British institution. We Canadians have had no role in shaping it, nor do we have any power in changing it to reflect our values. For example, Catholics are not allowed to become monarch under the British laws governing the monarchy. Catholics are the biggest religous group in Canada. How is forbidding our nation's head of state from being part of our nation's biggest religon even remotely consistant with "Canadian values"?

Some will say having a foreign Queen is actually good for the country, because it keeps her independent from our political process. Well if being "independent of our political process" is the only qualification, why don't we make the Emperor of Japan our head of state? I am sure he is very far removed from the affairs of Canada. Or how about the President of Peru? I am sure he would be an excellent neutral and non-biased official to personify our nation.

Myth two- Swearing allegiance to the Queen is better than swearing allegiance to the country.

This one is so illogical it is barely worth debunking. Citizens of Canada should be loyal to Canada. Canada is the country we live in, Canada is the nation whose government we live under, Canada is the country whose laws we must obey. The Queen plays such a tiny role in Canada, it makes no sense at all to swear allegiance to her. She does not represent all Canadians, as many do not like having her as our head of state (Catholics, Natives, and Quebecois, among others) nor does her name represent anything that the word "Canada" could not do just as well.

She may be our head of state and thus the head of our government, but that is not sufficient to demand sworn allegiance. Think of it this way- George Bush is America's Head of State. Should all Americans be forced to swear allegiance to George Bush, since he is the head of the government and the personification of the state?

Myth three- The Queen and the Governor General are the safeguard of our democratic institutions.

As far as her political role goes, it's joke. The Queen is simply a woman who will once in a while take a trip to Canada to cut the ribbon at the new Wal-Mart. Over the years all of her duties have been delegated to the governor general, who has in turn delegated them to the Prime Minister. Hell, when she was here last September, she didn't even read the throne speech! If the Queen was ever to actually use any of her powers, there would be a huge uproar in Canada, and rightly so, because that would mean an English political figure was undermining our soverignity.

It is flat out fiction to believe the Queen appoints the governor general. She simply signs the papers approving whoever the Prime Minister appoints, usually a party hack of some sort. The only time governor generals ever intervened in Canadian politics were back in the days when they were British captains appointed by the British government. Now that the governors are all Canadian, appointed by the PM, they will never in a million years exercise their authority.

Myth four- Canada's parliament is very democratic. The Prime Minister is held to account by the MPs and and a "non confidence vote" is always lurking just around the corner.

This is what we are taught in school, but it is total bunk. No Majority Government will ever be brought down by a non-confidence vote, especially not a Liberal Majority Government, because in our government, all MPs are mindless, spineless party drones. They ALWAYS vote strictly along party lines, and have absolutely zero will of their own. They have no connection to their constitutients, and as one editorialist famously put it "They represent Ottawa to their ridings, rather than their ridings to Ottawa."

Of course, this is not entirely their fault. The very existance of the concept of non-confidence votes is to blame for this sad state of affairs. The Prime Ministers are so eager to supress any "loose cannon" dissent they will often frame every single piece of legislation as a "vote of confidence." Thus, MPs are essientially threatened into voting for the bill, rather than be seen as disloyal, and trying to bring down the government.

Even Paul Martin mentioned this in a recent debate. They were asking him about the new Indian Act, and he said that even though he strongly disliked it, he would have no choice but to vote for it, as if he did not he would be undermining the confidence of the government.

Myth five- Canada's cabinet is better than America's because our cabinet is made up of elected MPs, while America's is not.

I hear this one a lot, and it's extremely illogical. In Canada, the only qualification needed to handle complicated jobs like Minister of Defense or Attorney General is to be a member of the ruling party. In America, the President and Congress simply choose the person who is best for the job.

Thus, while we in Canada have Bill Graham, a man who has never served in the army and has barely any experience as a diplomat or ambassador, as our foreign minister, in the United States they have Colin Powell, a decorated military veteran who has served in foreign affairs for practically his whole adult life. Colin Powell is not a member of Congress, nor is he even a die-hard Republican. He was chosen because he was the best man for the job.

* * *

Canadians are eager to defend their country, and I understand this. However, their arguments are frequently illogical, and cannot withstand close scrutiny.

America's government is better than Canada's in every single way, and I can easily debunk any claims to the contrary.

   

So what is your point ,? Beside wanting to stir up the shit here????

   

First of all, IRONMIKE, I too disagree with the NAFTA agreement the way it is, however with some adjustments that make hte agreement more fair for all parties, it will work (Mexico, US, Canada)... and also, they have to find someway to make it a more level playing field for corporations of all three countries. That way, the large market if the United States wont give them an advantage over us, and doesnt allow them to bully smaller market nations.

As for you JJ, I have to admit, I see the Queen as a foreigner as well and I dont like the fact that she is our head of state. We should have a democratically elected Govorner General not affiliated with any poltical parties to represent Canada. The PM should not have any say in choosing or nominating candidates since the Governor General is neutral. The Governor general should also play a bigger role. Perhaps making her the Speaker of the house as well for more order.

I also believe in swearing alligence to the Dominion of Canada and not "her majestry the queen" because thats like swearing alligence to England. The George W. Bush example is perfect since he is the head of state, but not the state itself. By swearing alliegence to the queen, we are pretty much saying the Queen is the state.

However, despite the flaws, the US government is not at all as perfect as you believe either. For example, the Party with the most votes should win an election, in Canada's case it is impossible to have 50%+1 unless we are under the French system considering the choice we have compared to the small choice Americans have. This single flaw in itself is a flaw bad enough to be equivlent to us having the Queen as head of state. It takes away from democracy and it just (for lack of a better word) Stupid.

So instead of rallying to joining the US, why not change what we already have. Unless NAFTA is relooked at to create a more level playing field for the three states involved, I see joining the EU as a better bet. The EU may want our resources, but each nation in the EU does not have even close to teh market advantage the US has over us. Unless they band together against us, they wont be able to put as much political pressure the US puts on us. However, it is easier for europe since they have a gateway to the US market and the US has a gateway to the European market through us.

   

I accept the fact that Canada joining the US is not the most likely thing in the world to happen. Though I will always support this goal, my bigger passion is trying to encourage Canada's government to reform so it is more like America's, and thus better.

A lot of Canadians seem to think if they admit America even has ONE good idea, they are being total "Sell outs" to the USA.

I'm not naive enough to believe America's government is perfect, but it sure is miles ahead of anything we have here.

I also very strongly believe that Canada's future is not in obssessing over trying to be "distinct" from America, with stupid beer commericals and so forth. I believe Canadians have to start seeing them as part of a larger "North America" and realize that we have more in common with the United States and its people than any other peoples in the whole world.

   

Well, I dont necessarily want to be more like the US.

However, Canadians have to be less stubborn (including myself) and adopt the POSITIVES of the AMerican system. However, I like the constituency break up in Canada, I like the choice we have in parties.. I just dont like having a foreign head of state, and the senete can change or not, doesnt really matter to me. Keep in mind, the US may have a elected Senete, but if Canada adopts to have an Elected Governor General as our head of state that is neutral and given more powor, then there is no need for an elected Senete

However, I if we do elect senetors, I wouldnt mind that either.

You have to admit J.J. In terms of who wins an election, like in Canada, the party with the most votes should win, that is a flaw that needs to be fixed in the US and something we should definetly not adopt here in Canada.

   

I'm aware that this will probably be deleted by your strangely fearful mods, but I'm posting anyway. If JJ has to post it again for me, fine.

This stuff about Canada becoming the 51st state... you're not serious, are you? I mean is that just an expression you use to mean Canada joining the US as something less powerful? If so, PLEASE STOP. That isn't how it would ever be.

If Canada joined the US, each province and territory would be a state. We'd have 63 states. Each of these new 13 states would get to retain most of its own governors and would also get to send new delegates to Washington DC to represent.

The "culture" Canada has right now would most likely be retained to the fullest. Other Americans simply know who Texans are because apparently, we're so radically different. Heck if I know... but it's just an example. Really though, states have a lot of control over their own affairs. At the same time, they get the benefit of being part of the United States, which is a rather promising federal institution.

Does that help put things into a better perspective? Even though you hate it?

   

When you rubut me, try rubutting statements that i have actually said, instead of ones that are yours.

I never said the Queen was Canadian
never said that either

The Queen is the Queen of Canada, not canadian. Canada was not founded a country, it was a province of britain basically. Like quebec is to canada. We were then a Dominion, and later a country through a slow process of talks and negotiations. You cannot say that anything British is foreign. Canada has not even had control of its own foreign policy for a century yet. It was decided by the british gov. We have only recently begun to pull away from the British System, and our gov. is still a model of the British gov. system. Canada has ALWAYS had a queen. How is she foreign? Yes, she lives in England, so did the majority of the people who came here and made this country. If the queen of canada/OUR head of state is foreign, then so is everyone who holds canadian citizenship who has not been born here. Swearing allegiance is not forced unless you are becoming a citizen of canada, or joining the military. The queen represents the order of canada, ie. its government. as our head of state, swearing allegiance to the queen is swearing allegiance to our government for she is head of it. When you swear allegiacne to the gov. it is to obey the gov. and its rep. forces (such as RCMP, CF, Ministries)


thats the point, the governor general IS the queen and is appointed by the queen, usually by the recommendation of the PM.

and yes, they do always vote along party lines. the people/party that you vote for is what you get, no changing their personal philosophies half way through there term and doing stuff that the people didnt vote for...or more so anyways.
Why is it so important to be a highly decorated army buff to be a diplomat?
And in regard to logic...next time use things that i actually said to rebut. Also, i would like to end the banter against the queen or the topic of the queen entirely, as we are obviosly set in our believes and loyalties, and it is too easy to get personal.
thanks.

   

I think are MP's should be allowed to vote how they feel is best on an issue. I mean if they just follow the party line what's the point of them even being there? I know that's oversimplifing things. Also if we had a Senate along the American lines( equal rep) then all regions of Canada would have equal weight over issues that affect them and the country.

   

however, if it is by region, then my vote (in BC) would be worth more than Bob in Ontario due to the pop. difference. Each person deserves the same amount of say in canada. Everyone pays taxes, and they are all part of canada. So why should one person's vote be worth more than the next guy's?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next