The Next Canadian Government

[Edward Campbell]

Does this include novel government mandated vaccines?

It certainly does. You, as a sovereign individual, living in a free and democratic society, have an absolute right to refuse any vaccine ... of course your employer or an airline or a merchant has a right to refuse to allow you to continue at your job or take a flight or even enter their shop if they are convinced that the vaccine is necessary for the health and welfare of their other other employees or patrons.

 

[QV]

It wouldn't be living free when those folks are no longer tolerated to be a part of civil society. It would be discrimination.

 

[Remius]

It wouldn't be living free when those folks are no longer tolerated to be a part of civil society. It would be discrimination.

Isn’t great though to have those choices? Choices have consequences. Civil society requires the following of rules. Can’t have it both ways but the choice is always there to do one or the other.

 

[QV]

Isn’t great though to have those choices? Choices have consequences. Civil society requires the following of rules. Can’t have it both ways but the choice is always there to do one or the other.

Your statement is useless without a dissection of what is right and wrong. A rule can be very wrong. But I'll bow out of this discussion as it derails this thread.

 

[lenaitch]

What's the connection supposed to be between social meddling and public welfare?

It's not so much a connection as a dividing line, and where that line falls varies with each individual. With a representative form of governance, we delegate the locating of that line to those whom we elect.

Isn’t great though to have those choices? Choices have consequences. Civil society requires the following of rules. Can’t have it both ways but the choice is always there to do one or the other.

This. Nobody said we have to get a vaccine (for Covid, or measles, or polio or any number of infectious diseases), just we can't do public stuff without. Don't want your kid to get 'the shots', you are free to home school.

Your statement is useless without a dissection of what is right and wrong. A rule can be very wrong. But I'll bow out of this discussion as it derails this thread.

But in a civil society, we don't get to individually or temporally decide that. Your right might be my wrong; who gets to arbitrate that, particularly when your right collides with my wrong? Do we go back to duels? That's why we have governments and courts.

 

[dimsum]

It wouldn't be living free when those folks are no longer tolerated to be a part of civil society. It would be discrimination.

And it’s up to the business (in his examples) to decide what they want.

Hell, even in “2A freedom” USA, people can’t just carry whenever they want. A business can restrict firearms within its premises, even in an open carry state. Is that discrimination because the 2A folks can’t open carry in a business that doesn’t allow it?

I’ll go one step further. If a business does something that is against the majority of the people’s wishes (my example was the bakery in the US who wouldn’t bake a cake for an LGBT something or other), that’s their call. But, then they don’t get to call discrimination if they lose business, gets bad press, etc because of it.

 

[MrWhyt]

particularly when your right collides with my wrong? Do we go back to duels? That's why we have governments and courts.

your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Fully agree, but I am more dogmatic about equal senators for each province. Either the provinces are equal or they are not. Territories could have less senators than provinces. If they did this, I would favour making the Commons truly representative, with no more special deals for certain places, making them over represented in Parliament, with a minimum of one MP per province/territory. Sorry, PEI, Quebec and rural ridings.

If I get what you're saying, you want the province that holds half of Canada's population to have the same amount of Senators as say, PEI? Or should the amount of Senators be based on said population?

 

[YZT580]

And it’s up to the business (in his examples) to decide what they want.

Hell, even in “2A freedom” USA, people can’t just carry whenever they want. A business can restrict firearms within its premises, even in an open carry state. Is that discrimination because the 2A folks can’t open carry in a business that doesn’t allow it?

I’ll go one step further. If a business does something that is against the majority of the people’s wishes (my example was the bakery in the US who wouldn’t bake a cake for an LGBT something or other), that’s their call. But, then they don’t get to call discrimination if they lose business, gets bad press, etc because of it.

it wasn't the bad press or loss of business, it was the law suit telling them they must sell to a gay couple.

 

[RangerRay]

If I get what you're saying, you want the province that holds half of Canada's population to have the same amount of Senators as say, PEI?

Absolutely. Just like in the US Senate where Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, PEI should get the same number of senators as Ontario. To offset that, the number of MPs in PEI should be reduced to 1 and Ontario should receive the number of MPs commiserate with their population. I think Ontario is currently under represented in the House of Commons. In my model, the Senate would represent the Provinces and Territories (representation by jurisdiction) and the House of Commons would represent the people (representation by population).

 

[SupersonicMax]

Absolutely. Just like in the US Senate where Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, PEI should get the same number of senators as Ontario. To offset that, the number of MPs in PEI should be reduced to 1 and Ontario should receive the number of MPs commiserate with their population. I think Ontario is currently under represented in the House of Commons. In my model, the Senate would represent the Provinces and Territories (representation by jurisdiction) and the House of Commons would represent the people (representation by population).

You can’t really compare the US government structure with ours… Two entirely different systems.

 

[Furniture]

Absolutely. Just like in the US Senate where Wyoming gets the same number of senators as California, PEI should get the same number of senators as Ontario. To offset that, the number of MPs in PEI should be reduced to 1 and Ontario should receive the number of MPs commiserate with their population. I think Ontario is currently under represented in the House of Commons. In my model, the Senate would represent the Provinces and Territories (representation by jurisdiction) and the House of Commons would represent the people (representation by population).

And when the Senate shuts down a bill supported by the house, how long will it be before the same cry of "unfair" starts up again, because the bumpkins are ruining things for the majority?

Realistically, what you are proposing would give rural areas far more power than they hold now. Imagine AB, SK, NU, NT, PE, NL, NS, and NB deciding that they don't like a bill designed to support a Quebec industry. Under our current system it's "too bad, we have the seats", in your proposed system they could shut it down.

Do you think that would actually fly with the majority of the population just because now we have two elected houses?

 

[YZT580]

And when the Senate shuts down a bill supported by the house, how long will it be before the same cry of "unfair" starts up again, because the bumpkins are ruining things for the majority?

Realistically, what you are proposing would give rural areas far more power than they hold now. Imagine AB, SK, NU, NT, PE, NL, NS, and NB deciding that they don't like a bill designed to support a Quebec industry. Under our current system it's "too bad, we have the seats", in your proposed system they could shut it down.

Do you think that would actually fly with the majority of the population just because now we have two elected houses?

there is always the "you scratch my back" process to go through. It might be that SK will veto a bill geared towards the east but under the proposal, they could just as easily be shut down on a bill designed to facilitate the movement of SK oil to the east coast (as a for instance). There is a lot of merit in the proposal imho.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Until some disaster or whatever strikes, and then it’s “the govt doesn’t care about us”.


I thought there was a small kerfuffle about that in the US…something about tea…

But Government(s) really doesn't care about Rural Canada. It doesn't matter if it's Provincial or Federal either.

Having lived in what could be construed as "Rural" Canada for the vast majority of my life, what I've noted is that the Government wants to receive all the benefits and royalties from the resource extraction that takes place but doesn't actually invest in those areas.

I don't even think the issue is a Rural vs Urban one necessarily. I think a more important stat is that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 160km of the United States and our economy flows North/South vice East-West.

All development goes in to facilitating this relationship, as such, the infrastructure in much of the Country is basically non-existent and hasn't been invested in. Most of our infrastructure is legacy infrastructure that was built 60 years ago and almost no money has been put in to further developing or maintaining it.

I don't see that really changing tbh, the territory that was called Ruperts Land has, outside of Québec ( who does actually invest and exploit their natural resources) has been left to its own. In Ontario anyways, the development of the North has largely been left to the mining companies and corporate interests. They don't invest in the communities up here though, they simply build camps and tear them down when they are done.

 

[Furniture]

there is always the "you scratch my back" process to go through. It might be that SK will veto a bill geared towards the east but under the proposal, they could just as easily be shut down on a bill designed to facilitate the movement of SK oil to the east coast (as a for instance). There is a lot of merit in the proposal imho.

So Quebec is going to give up their fight against that?

Wouldn't that be the rural areas forcing the urban populations to accept something they don't want? Meaning the rural areas would hold more power than they do now with less than 100% perfect voter to MP ratios... I thought the whole problem was rural areas having too much voting power, how is giving them more a better solution for the majority?

 

[RangerRay]

You can’t really compare the US government structure with ours… Two entirely different systems.

The Australian parliament is much closer to ours and from what I can tell, each state, regardless of population, gets 12 senators.

 

[RangerRay]

And when the Senate shuts down a bill supported by the house, how long will it be before the same cry of "unfair" starts up again, because the bumpkins are ruining things for the majority?

Realistically, what you are proposing would give rural areas far more power than they hold now. Imagine AB, SK, NU, NT, PE, NL, NS, and NB deciding that they don't like a bill designed to support a Quebec industry. Under our current system it's "too bad, we have the seats", in your proposed system they could shut it down.

Do you think that would actually fly with the majority of the population just because now we have two elected houses?

The rules about how much the senate can block House bills would have to be worked out by people with pointier heads than I. Personally, I have no problem with it. If the House wants a bill to pass the Senate, it should come up with something that would pass muster with those smaller provinces. I contend that if we had properly equal Senate, we wouldn’t have had so much craptacular pieces of legislation passed through Parliament.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The whole point of a bicameral legislature is to require agreement across two different representative groupings. For us these would be "by population" and "by region (province)". If a chamber hasn't the power to defeat a bill, there isn't much point to it. I suppose we could limit the kinds of bills a Senate could refuse to pass, but then we'd see all kinds of games played in the House to exclude legislation from Senate consideration.

We have a cosplay of a Senate and no obviously practical path to fixing the shortcomings. As a result too much political power is concentrated in too few hands, many of which are unelected. There are advantages and disadvantages to that concentration, but ultimately I expect it to be ruinous because the easiest thing for governments to do is authorize spending and borrowing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

But Government(s) really doesn't care about Rural Canada. It doesn't matter if it's Provincial or Federal either.

Having lived in what could be construed as "Rural" Canada for the vast majority of my life, what I've noted is that the Government wants to receive all the benefits and royalties from the resource extraction that takes place but doesn't actually invest in those areas.

I don't even think the issue is a Rural vs Urban one necessarily. I think a more important stat is that 90% of the Canadian population lives within 160km of the United States and our economy flows North/South vice East-West.

All development goes in to facilitating this relationship, as such, the infrastructure in much of the Country is basically non-existent and hasn't been invested in. Most of our infrastructure is legacy infrastructure that was built 60 years ago and almost no money has been put in to further developing or maintaining it.

I don't see that really changing tbh, the territory that was called Ruperts Land has, outside of Québec ( who does actually invest and exploit their natural resources) has been left to its own. In Ontario anyways, the development of the North has largely been left to the mining companies and corporate interests. They don't invest in the communities up here though, they simply build camps and tear them down when they are done.

I'm shocked, shocked, that you think the government doesn't care. They even have a 'strategy' for rural Canada

Rural opportunity, national prosperity: An Economic Development Strategy for rural Canada​

We heard from residents and rural leaders, who spoke of skills shortages, the pressures of global competition, and the impacts on a community's health and sustainability from insufficient and unaffordable housing.

Parents spoke of their children moving away to be closer to higher education and reliable high-speed Internet. They also spoke of their own parents moving away in search of more affordable residential communities with reliable health care services.

Almost 20 percent of our population lives in rural, remote, Indigenous, coastal, or northern communities, and these communities contribute about 30 percent of Canada's economic output. For these communities, diverse geographies and climates present unique challenges, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

That is why this Strategy was developed with ideas from rural Canadians across the country. It is not a top-down solution, but a roadmap for growth based on rural input, which complements our government's ongoing support for growing the middle class, advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and supporting diversity across the country.

We will make progress by working together in partnership – with rural leaders, Indigenous organizations, official language minority communities, municipalities, provinces, and territories. This is how we make a difference for rural Canada: by combining our efforts and focusing on what matters.

Rural opportunity, national prosperity: An Economic Development Strategy for rural Canada

PDF Version

ised-isde.canada.ca

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I'm shocked, shocked, that you think the government doesn't care. They even have a 'strategy' for rural Canada

Rural opportunity, national prosperity: An Economic Development Strategy for rural Canada​

We heard from residents and rural leaders, who spoke of skills shortages, the pressures of global competition, and the impacts on a community's health and sustainability from insufficient and unaffordable housing.

Parents spoke of their children moving away to be closer to higher education and reliable high-speed Internet. They also spoke of their own parents moving away in search of more affordable residential communities with reliable health care services.

Almost 20 percent of our population lives in rural, remote, Indigenous, coastal, or northern communities, and these communities contribute about 30 percent of Canada's economic output. For these communities, diverse geographies and climates present unique challenges, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

That is why this Strategy was developed with ideas from rural Canadians across the country. It is not a top-down solution, but a roadmap for growth based on rural input, which complements our government's ongoing support for growing the middle class, advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and supporting diversity across the country.

We will make progress by working together in partnership – with rural leaders, Indigenous organizations, official language minority communities, municipalities, provinces, and territories. This is how we make a difference for rural Canada: by combining our efforts and focusing on what matters.

Rural opportunity, national prosperity: An Economic Development Strategy for rural Canada

PDF Version

ised-isde.canada.ca

Wait!!!

20% of the population generates 30% of our Country's economic output!? And I bet they don't get a 30% return on their tax dollars though . I thought I read up-thread that this was impossible? Say it isn't so!!

I'm cool if the people down South just leave what goes on up here to their imagination. The South-East Asians don't seem to have a problem with moving up here. 90% of the truckers in the North running the transcontinental route are from South-East Asia. The vast majority of people I'm hiring now are South-East Asians. I like them, they work hard and have a good character.

They are going to be the ones that profit from our immense natural resource wealth.