I dithered over responding to this (see - I msut be a Liberal!), but finally decided to weigh in.
I think the greatest threat to the confederation is the issue of Quebec. At some point I think the people will vote to strike off on their own. Whether Quebec can survive on its own is a different matter entirely. If Quebec leaves then perhaps other Provinces [Alberta and BC] might follow suit.
well, we have made through the last 40 years, and i imagine we will continue to do so.
The problem I see [from the outside looking in] is that the more populous eastern Canada has a different agenda than does western Canada.
That is the nature of a federation. The Midwest has a different agenda from the Eastern Seabord - and from California. The Red states have a different agenda from the Blue states. Homogeneity is both unlikely and unhealthy, to say nothing of boring...
The loss of Quebec voters would hurt the Liberal Party and might level the political playing field in the rest of Canada which I think be a good thing.
Quebec voters are also Canadian voters. I guess if we could eliminate all the liberal voters, we would have a "level playing field" - one level enough that even Harper could win.
Those of US in the red states see Canada as our own future if the Democrats had their way. The erosion of religion and traditional values in Canada has been very steady.
Another way of saying that of course is that the growth and evolution of the state and its values has been steady...
Canada is a much different place than it used to be.
S'okay by me.
Canada and the US used to share these traditional values, but we dont anymore.
You say that like it is a bad thing. We are two different socities, on very different tracks. Divergence started a long time ago - and we are only slightly tangential to each other. The farther down the track, the greater the divergence.
Gay marriage and the legalization of drugs are two issues we have had in common but our two countries are on opposite sides of the issues. Our liberals support it and our conservatives dont. So far the traditional values wins out.
It is okay to be on opposite sides - we are two soverign nations.
American's dont view Canada as an extension of the US.
The charm of Canada to me is its British flavor, as befitting her membership in the Commonwealth. Canada was the colony that remained loyal to Britain.
A view not widely held in Calgary, Dartmouth, or Rimouski...we are, as the saying goes, a mosaic of views, perspectives, and histories
But I find Canada's increasing hostility to US foreign policy [defense driven] a major problem.
A problem for whom?
Canada's major issues are economic [softwood and beef to name a couple].
And the vain hope that the rules of NAFTA will be abided by.
Canada obstructs US foreign/defense policy which isnt good for the relationship
Obstructs, or disagrees with? I don't see any volition here, except perhaps in response to the above mentioned "economic troubles".
But Canada's embrace of Euro style socialism is hindering Canada's own economic future. Social programs are preventing Canada from providing for its own defense.
Canada is a democracy - one of several (ok, 2 1/2) in North America. It is not "social programs" that is preventing Canada from providing for its own defence - it is the democratic will of the people that is doing that.
Canada used to be a major military power and now its not.
Beg to differ. We have only been a "major military power" twice: during (and decidedly not after) WW I and WW II.
Britain used to be a superpower and now its not.
Why do you think that is ? Socialism.
That is a little simplistic, as analysis goes, don't you think?
Once the NHS was created in Britian taxes went up and healthcare funding began to preclude military spending. Year by year the cost went up. Year by year the military declined. Both Canada and the UK have decided that it is more important to have national healthcare than to have infantry battalions, warships and combat aircraft.
I don't see it as so completely either / or, but I understand your argument.
The reason is that the world is "safer" we have no enemies. Pretty soon the reduced military capability constrains foreign policy - essentially its a risk averse policy. Dont do anything that might make another country mad. Play it safe. Finally this policy forces the country to oppose the policies of its ally. The enemy of my friend is my friend policy.
Or perhaps it truly is as a result of a more altruisitic and less pragmatic worldview? The ascendance of liberalism over realism?
I would like to see Canada turn back the clock to a time when she had traditional values that made it possible for Canada to stand tall in the world without regard to what other countries felt.
I am not a fan of "traditional values" nor do i believe that it was those
values that allowed us to "stand tall".
To a time when Canada did something because it was right and not because it was popular.
Popular - you mean like in accordance with the wishes of the people?
To a time when Canada was a world leader.
That job is already taken