• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Decline of the Liberal Party- Swerved Into a Confederation Topic

These three articles might be of interest:


My, personal, view is that Canada never was and never can be a nation. A stake was driven through that notion in 1774.

Canada is a geographic\cal expression ... little else, in my opinion.

So often in the last century and a half we have seen that 'crises' large and small can pull the country apart and nothing much - not e.g. Expo '67 in Montreal or the Montreal Olympics ever seemed to pull it together. The two conscription crises left political scars from which Canada never has and, in my opinion, never can recover.

Can Canada continue as a viable state? <shrug> Who knows? Maybe more importantly, who cares?
 
I'm probably wrong, but it sounds like that was a great time to start to establish the Laurentien Elitists. Secret plots to ensure that England would never dominate the French and continued on after Confederation. All with the goal of dominating the country politically and financially.

I've often thought that if we could cut out Quebec and float them out to the Atlantic Ocean, we'd be much better off.
 
Edward Campbell said:
These three articles might be of interest:


My, personal, view is that Canada never was and never can be a nation. A stake was driven through that notion in 1774.

Canada is a geographic\cal expression ... little else, in my opinion.

So often in the last century and a half we have seen that 'crises' large and small can pull the country apart and nothing much - not e.g. Expo '67 in Montreal or the Montreal Olympics ever seemed to pull it together. The two conscription crises left political scars from which Canada never has and, in my opinion, never can recover.

Can Canada continue as a viable state? <shrug> Who knows? Maybe more importantly, who cares?
Click to expand...

Any country that can produce such a character is worth keeping, IMHO ;)

[Sir John A. Macdonald was well known for his wit and also for his love of drink. He is known to have been drunk for many of his debates in Parliament. Here is a story from an election debate in which Macdonald was so drunk he began vomiting while on stage. His opponent quickly pointed this out.]

The opposing candidate said: “Is this the man you want running your country? A drunk!” Collecting himself, Macdonald replied “I get sick … not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent.”

10 Favourite Quotes of Sir John A. Macdonald | By George Journal

www.bygeorgejournal.ca www.bygeorgejournal.ca
 
Unfortunately, MAID in Canada is not solely the choice of sound minds. It can be used as an exit point for people in mental or emotional distress.
 
Navy_Pete said:
Even locally you run into urban/rural divide, especially in the big cities that cover huge regions.
Click to expand...

In a big city, local ratepayers associations "Reflecting the interests of the community" have influence.

In particular, that only single detached houses are permitted.

Couldn't serve alcohol - not even a glass of wine or bottle of beer with your dinner in a restaurant - until after 2000. That was a local thing. Except at the Legion.

Our street doesn't have a sidewalk.

If the city wants to install a sidewalk, it must go through the local councillor for the area. He or she must complete a consult of the neighbourhood about who supports a sidewalk and who doesn't.

Our ratepayers association says (n) .

Tradition unimpeded by progress. :)
 
Fishbone Jones said:
I'm probably wrong, but it sounds like that was a great time to start to establish the Laurentien Elitists. Secret plots to ensure that England would never dominate the French and continued on after Confederation. All with the goal of dominating the country politically and financially.

I've often thought that if we could cut out Quebec and float them out to the Atlantic Ocean, we'd be much better off.
Click to expand...
1774 was an attempt to do on the cheap what probably, otherwise, would require considerable (expensive) force to accomplish: pacify the French population of Canada. In 1763 the plan had been to assimilate 'les habitants' ... but assimilate into what? There was no large, dominant English society in the region - there was in Southern New York, but not up near the St Lawrence Vally. After a decade it was obvious that the 'elites' in 'Canada' - essentially a few priests, a few school teachers and a few merchants and traders - were more or less united in wanting too retain two things: the French language and the supremacy of the Roman church through which they could keep their own control of the colony. 1774 simply recognized that there was no cheap way to prevent that.

There was an expensive way: expand the Highland Clearances, which the Duke of Argyll had begun after1745, and move a mix of Scots crofters and tack-men and soldiers into 'Canada,' taking, by force, land away from the French-Canadians and the aboriginals and giving it to the Scots and then enforcing those acts with a few regiments of Scottish troops. I suggest, with about 99% certainty, that would have worked. But it woulds have cost money and Lord North and Pitt the Younger were both focused on establishing British financial security, not on 'wasting' money on an unproductive colony.
 
Edward Campbell said:
Canada is a geographic\cal expression ... little else, in my opinion.
....
Can Canada continue as a viable state? <shrug> Who knows? Maybe more importantly, who cares?
Click to expand...

Canada is not a nation state. We don't define our nationhood by shared ethnic background, religion, or language. I guess this evolved from that 18th century decision you pointed at where the British would "live and let live" with the French-speaking Canadiens. It started a trend or an ideal that has crept forward, unequally and in fits and starts, to the modern day.

I'd argue that being Canadian means sharing a geographic area with people committed to a shared set of values and ideals. I think these values are broadly defined by concepts such as to live and let live, ensure political equality and rule of law, associate with whomever you choose, seek out a livelihood and prosperity, etc. Do we live up to these values as individuals or as a country? Not all the time, but they do act as a lodestone, and should define what slapping on a Maple Leaf flag to a uniform or backpack means.

I think this is important moving forward, where nation states feel pressure in increasingly globalized world. Canada is better able to absorb, say, 100,000 Syrians as new Canadians when compared to somewhere like Sweden or Czechia, where a different language and religion is contrary to the idea of being from that nation state. Not being a nation state will make us more competitive as the world gets smaller and smaller.

I also think language will matter less and less in terms of being Canadian. 10-20 years from now, three Canadians will be able to have a conversation in Cree, Punjabi, and French and all be understood because they'll have smartphones with earbuds that do instantaneous translation of the spoken word. Who cares what language someone else speaks if we can all be understood?

As for the cries to change Parliament and our Constitution (and your question as to whether Canada can continue as a viable state) - to what end? We have a system that has given us 155 years of continuous peace, order, and good (enough) governance. We get up, and the power works, our kids go to school, and we can go to work without worrying about getting blown up en route. We can practice our faith while someone else practices theirs down the road, and we don't firebomb each other for doing so. In terms of political rights and civil liberties, we are amongst the freest in the world. According to the OECD, our average disposable income, level of employment, level of higher education, and life expectancy are all above the average of OECD countries, and quite high in general. Our country brings in hundreds of thousands of newcomers a year, and the fact that 401,000 humans decided last year alone that here was a better place for their children than wherever they came from tells us we are doing something right.

Again, there are glaring inconsistencies in the narrative; a trip to a small Reserve will reveal this, but these are exceptions that we must fix, and not indictment of an ineffective system that needs to be overhauled or torn down. Do we need to change the carpet and update the drapes? Probably, but the foundations are solid. It's a good house.
 
Edward Campbell said:
... My, personal, view is that Canada never was and never can be a nation. A stake was driven through that notion in 1774.

Canada is a geographic\cal expression ... little else, in my opinion ...
Click to expand...
Careful, there - some would say you're agreeing with those saying Canada has no "core identity" ;)
Infanteer said:
... Not being a nation state with cast-in-concrete features used just to shut people out as "those people" will make us more competitive as the world gets smaller and smaller ...
Click to expand...
Finessing some of your already-great summary, Infanteer - thanks for the detail.

And great discussion from all posters, BTW.
 
Halifax Tar said:
We will see what happens with cannabis. Also I am all for higher sin taxes, and we should do the same with sex work. Open it up, regulate it and tax the crap out of it.

As for MAID, like it or not, it is what some people want. As long as it stays the sound mind choice of the patient I am happy. Who am I to tell someone no you aren't allowed to die yet ? Your body your choice, right ?
Click to expand...
Exactly. If they want it badly enough, they'll do it themselves. Nobody is going to make that decision for them before they are ready. I also wonder what these deaths will be classed as. Technically, it is suicide. However that is a term that would be to harsh when the numbers come in. So what do they class it as? Assisted death I suppose, but that would just be more government bafflegab and bullshit. It's still suicide. Just with help.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
You have to remove the power of the PM to solely decide, on their own, who will be a SC judge or senator.
Click to expand...
I was thinking a bit further on this. What I would like to see for these positions is the same type of Congressional hearings for those positions as the States. With input from every elected politician on the committee. Then have the committee vote the position to the candidate. It is the only way to expose the candidates ties, lies and malfeasance before we give them one of the highest jobs in the land that will affect the majority of the population.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
I was thinking a bit further on this. What I would like to see for these positions is the same type of Congressional hearings for those positions as the States. With input from every elected politician on the committee. Then have the committee vote the position to the candidate. It is the only way to expose the candidates ties, lies and malfeasance before we give them one of the highest jobs in the land that will affect the majority of the population.
Click to expand...
You mean like how well it works down here?
 
The solution is simple - Hockey. We need a Team Canada representative of every gender (how many?), region and official languages.

They may win nothing - but it will be diverse and inclusive!!
 
KevinB said:
You mean like how well it works down here?
Click to expand...
Not exactly Kev. We'd inevitably rip the system down there apart and make it 'Canadian.' However, instead of His Nibs deciding what friend to give the job to, all Canadians can see who the person is, where their loyalties lay and decisions they have made in the past. These people are making laws that bind us. Every Canadian should be intimately informed on who this is that is putting these laws in place that affect us. Not just a press release from the PMO congratulating someone most of us have never heard about.
 
One problem with introducing partisan politics into choosing judges is that it's all well and good when you agree with the politicians putting them into place. I suspect there might be calls for changes if a government one doesn't like gets its turn to pack the bench.

There has to be a more arms-length system for picking judges, but be careful what you wish for re: parliamentary committee interrogations of would-be jurists.
 
My proposal would be a restructured Senate, with each province guaranteed six seats, each territory three, and forty more divided by population (always rounding up - so more like 53 additional seats). Senators would be elected in provincial elections - based on popular vote of the provincial parties, with half at risk every provincial election.

Puts provincial representation in Parliament, plus gives some security of tenure for a longer term perspective. Plus encourages provincial participation in elections - even if your riding is guaranteed to elect a party you disagree with, your vote is counted to determine your Senate representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RangerRay
    • Like
    • Insightful
2024 BC Election
22 23 24
Replies
472
Views
44K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Edward Campbell
    • Like
    • Insightful
The Next Canadian Government
18 19 20
Replies
394
Views
23K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Kirkhill
    • Like
    • Insightful
Chretien as Defender of Parliamentary Supremacy and the Notwithstanding Clause.
Replies
5
Views
682
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
daftandbarmy
Jonathan Pedneault resigns from Green Party, leaving Elizabeth May as sole leader
Replies
11
Views
1K
Loachman
L
Halifax Tar
PEI Provincial Election '23
Replies
6
Views
5K
Furniture
Furniture
Back
Top