CKA Forums
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

Seperation......It's Not Just For Quebecers Anymore
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/alberta-f31/seperation-it-s-not-just-for-quebecers-anymore-t11223-60.html
Page 5 of 5

Author:  mtbr [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:18 am ]
Post subject: 

NWCanuck NWCanuck:
there really is no way to go back in time and change it, much less "pay it off".

PEI has as reps in the House of Commons not because of their size but because they are part of Canada. As a parallel I would point to the USA that has an entire group of representatives (go ahead, look it up) that are based upon having two reps per state, regardless of population density. Hence the two levels of their government. Ours is just more efficient and rowdy.

...



What the hell was the point you were trying to make with this statement. Were you just rambling from your nicotine overdose.

Author:  NWCanuck [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nah, strictly caffiene paired with trying to post a work. The point is that while the House of Commons is painted as a "strictly" represenation - by-population setup it obviously isn't so and can't be. For any province that small to be convinced that they are part of a country they have to have representation of some sort. Giving PEI, Nunavut or the NWT/Yukon a slightly disproportionate amount of seats does nothing but make them feel a little more part of the whole thing and gives them a little more pull in problems that would othewise go completely unnoticed. Well, that said they probably do anyways but at least they have someone else to bitch at. So as a parallel I chose the US Senate/House of Representative split; they're next door so it seemed convenient. One house is elected on the basis of population density and the other is elected on the basis of having two representatives per state. This helps prevent the low population density states from being completely ignored by the ones with more people. Tie that in with the disproportionate representation seen in some cases in Canada (and around the world) and you have my somewhat understated point. It doesn't change the vote on any particular thing, but it removes any possible complaint that they could have about representation. Consider it a trade-off.

The US system is somewhat less confrontational than ours as we simply square off against one another in a room and go at it - every one party is accountable to the other parties and can be hassled over just about anything government related. You'll never see the US President in a scrum with the Senate/House of Reps because it just isn't organized that way.

Author:  VicVega [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

While Canuck raises a very good point and one that I am in favor of, there is another thing to be considered when it comes to "Equal Representation" in our government.

This is the issue of the popular vote. Both here and in the USA the idea of the popular vote has fallen by the way side unfortunately. Jean Chretien's third majority government came at the expense of them losing the national popular vote. In the US a majority of presidents are elected without a majority of the votes cast for them. The very idea of one person, one vote, meaning anything in this country is ridiculous. I live in Calgary, my vote does not matter. The same "Questionably Corrupt" MP manages to hold his seat time and time again. I still go and vote, don't get me wrong, but I am fully aware, as my wife is, that our votes don't mean anything in this province which goes blue over and over and over again. While I like the idea of an elected senate, I know full well that the party line will be towed over and over again in this province, again casting thousands of votes to the wayside. I personally would like to see an upper house 3 senators from each province, and a reserve of 10 based on percentage of the national popular vote. While it would make for an interesting race in places such as Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia, the rest of the country would see the same typical languish that we expect to see in our current system. Under this idea, each province would get their fair shake, and provincial senators would still out number the popular vote senators. But the remaining 10 would be selected from party list, based on the percentage of the overall popular vote of both halves of the election. So if the Conservatives got 30% of the popular vote, then they get 3 extra in the upper house. This I believe would be a fair compromise for lefties in the West, and rightists in places such as Toronto or the island of Montreal, where currently if you vote against the trend, tough crap.

Any thoughts?

Author:  damngrumpy [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:20 am ]
Post subject: 

Albertans forget all to quick, prior to 1947 when they struck oil, these prairie folk were living among the golphers while other Canadians paid the bills. The province of Alberta would benefit from their friendship, or their fanny kissing of the United States.
Alberta separation, I am not surprised, they are the only people who don't seem to fit in with the rest of the country. Quesbec you can at least share insults with the Albertans don't have enough of a sense of humor.

Author:  VicVega [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:42 am ]
Post subject: 

That's a little harsh considering it is US that is fueling the economic boom seen in this country, and supplying skilled and unskilled labour with jobs they couldn't find at home. As it stands, this morning it was released that Calgary was voted the most deseriable city to live in in Canada, and third overall in North America.

It is starting to really irk me that laced through out this thread is references to pre 1947, and how we were some drain on the Country's resources. Let me assure you a lot has changed in 60 years, and the major reason we tanked the last time was the NEP!!!! It is comments such as Albertans not fitting in with the rest of the country is exactly the kind of divisive statement that is fueling this debate.

So on behalf of all Albertans I would like to appologize for not fitting in with what your ideals of what Canada is:

Im sorry that we have a BOOMING economy.
Im sorry that we are supplying the rest of the country with jobs.
Im sorry that billions leave this province every year in the form of transfer payments to support provinces that cant support themselves.
Im sorry that there are some that feel that Alberta would be better off with out the rest of Canada.
Im sorry that there are some that feel that Canada would be better off with out Alberta.
Im sorry that when this boom ends that we will have to go back to the rest of Canada and ask for transfer payments to come back this way.
Im sorry that for a moment some in Canada and this province forgot that we are all in this together, and choose to make statements pertaining to the 40's and the 80's instead of statements of unity and focusing on the presant.

It is statements like the one from damngrumpy on both ends of the spectrum that makes me truely sad and worried for our future as a country.

Author:  mtbr [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:45 am ]
Post subject: 

damngrumpy damngrumpy:
Albertans forget all to quick, prior to 1947 when they struck oil, these prairie folk were living among the golphers while other Canadians paid the bills. The province of Alberta would benefit from their friendship, or their fanny kissing of the United States.
Alberta separation, I am not surprised, they are the only people who don't seem to fit in with the rest of the country. Quesbec you can at least share insults with the Albertans don't have enough of a sense of humor.


in 1947 there was only 800 000 people in Alberta "to be looked after by Canada" :lol:

We have paid it back in multiples since the 70's.


I tell you what when we Separate you won't even have to pay us back :lol: :lol:


Albertans don't fit in with the rest of the country?????(because we like to work!)

Where do you think the 60 or 70 thousand people who migrate here each year come from?????

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©