|
Baloogan posted:If I listed all of Her Majesty's titles I'd still be typing up the post. That is Her Majesty's title in Canada in Her Majesty's capacity as Queen of Canada. So even when we're talking about her title in Canada, the United Kingdom is still listed first? That's kind of lame.
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/05/whats-the-deal-with-the-senate-anyway-join-us-thurs-7-pm-et.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=feedlyquote:Marjory LeBreton has stated that if the Senate cannot be fixed "once and for all," then it cannot survive -- bold words coming from the leader of that very institution.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:Long may she reign. Her and God-King Harper of the Immortal Canadian Empire will usher in a new Conservative Utopia and a beacon of Paradise on this blasted and damned planet. Long they WILL reign. CLAM DOWN posted:They actually look like white Hutts. Rob Ford and Duffy going at it in a sumo match in front of Parliament Hill would be quite the sight.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Captain Geech posted:So even when we're talking about her title in Canada, the United Kingdom is still listed first? That's kind of lame.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:Mulcair looks awesome in the hat. He should wear it everyday in QP. Only if he fills it out with the Clint Eastwood squint and thousand yard stare. He looks like a spaghetti western villain in that hat as it is, he may as well go for gold.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
http://rabble.ca/news/2013/05/introducing-unifor-new-union-opens-its-doors-to-rebuild-labour-movements-power What do you guys think? Is Unifor a good idea, bad idea, neutral?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Greatest use of a photo.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
ZeeBoi posted:Greatest use of a photo. Remember the good old days when the chances of Quebec separation were high which meant it was likely the eastern provinces could be ceded to the Americans?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Remember the good old days when the chances of Quebec separation were high which meant it was likely the eastern provinces could be ceded to the Americans? I would cede Alberta to the Americans in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I would cede Alberta to the Americans in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Remember the good old days when the chances of Quebec separation were high which meant it was likely the eastern provinces could be ceded to the Americans? La République Du Québec welcomes our eastern friends into the bosom of our united Not-Canada alliance. Serioustalk: Do people still get off on the Queen and monarchy? I find it kind of ridiculous and vaguely offensive that she's still got a spot in our political system (even if only nominally).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I would cede Alberta to the Americans in a heartbeat. I say we trade Alberta for Minnesota and Vermont.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Oh Duffy. Thanks for being you.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I would cede Alberta to the Americans in a heartbeat. Canada goes broke. Seriously though, you could say that about most major primary resource provinces in pretty much any country so no exception to any rules there. Ceciltron posted:
It's late so I won't dive into the argument completely as to why and whatever but the short answer is yes. The monarchy is a huge thing to a bunch of Canadians who identify as 'monarchists'. They are a pretty powerful movement in terms of political power but realize there position is tenuous at best and downright stupid at worst in most cases. That being said they are usually a key pickup for the Conservative side. Though largely I think that the type of people who self identify as monarchists are pro-con anyway. \/\/ yea lets give it to the Americans, that's a good idea. Alberta only effects Canada as long as voters are apathetic, dumb, and unwilling to put the time and effort into winning elections. People have the power to change things if they get off their rear end during elections and work like dogs. I swear when I was in university it was a dime a dozen people who wanted NDP governments but come election time they were chilling at home while I was CPC door knocking. It always pissed me off because I legitimately agree with some of their viewpoints but if you want to change things you can't just toss out lengthy diatribes you need to do something's about it and galvanize the voters. Also free from what - please say the Dutch disease so I can laugh a but before I head to bed. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 05:03 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Canada goes broke. And becomes free.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Free from fire-saleing our natural resources and pretending that's a long term solution to economic problems?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Free from fire-saleing our natural resources and pretending that's a long term solution to economic problems? Oh well that is an argument about the CPC and their goals for the area get The New Democratic Party Government elected and let's see if that happens your argument isn't about Alberta it's about the current government. Unless of course you're trying to argue that having natural resources in a country is by definition a bad thing and that we should send it to the United States because they have a better track record of dealing with them.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:http://rabble.ca/news/2013/05/introducing-unifor-new-union-opens-its-doors-to-rebuild-labour-movements-power Great idea terrible loving branding.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Canada goes broke. Our economy was just fine, and way, way more robust before the tar sands became profitable. We're now hugely dependent on natural resource exports rather than industry, and it's also affected our politics in such a way that our government focuses so much on promoting it that the rest of our economy suffers, other industries shrivel off the vine, and we have no innovative industries because our corporate class is all focused on extracting as much as possible rather than finding new ways to use limited resources. I honestly hope the price of oil crashes so much that the tar sands are no longer viable. It would cause a shock to the Canadian economy but we would recover and be better off in the long run. The longer we spend being completely dependent on Albertan oil to fuel the nation's economy, the worse state the country is going to be in when that well runs dry. Oh, and heaven forbid we save some of that money to reinvest in the future the way Norway did. That would be ~*socialism*~.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
But that is exactly it there are examples of natural resources money in the field of oil being used effectively Norway being one of those examples. Regardless any talk of giving Alberta to the US is hilarious so I suppose serious talk wasn't a very good idea. That being said let's also give them our freshwater lakes. Darn I need to go to sleep now  As an aside I did enjoy the talk honestly I do find it interesting when I have a chance to talk to people whose economic theories and ideas are way different than mine.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Serioustalk: Do people still get off on the Queen and monarchy? I find it kind of ridiculous and vaguely offensive that she's still got a spot in our political system (even if only nominally). Yes. I know many people who are very pro-Queen at the very least, though I couldn't say for sure whether that extends to politics. I might be among them; I honestly don't really know. Personally, I think getting rid of the monarchy is a bad idea. As far as I know, neither she nor the GG ever actively intervene in our politics (which is not the case in the UK I guess), it doesn't really cost us much to keep her on, it's a good reminder of our history and commonality with other commonwealth realms, and replacing the monarchy with anything else would be a ton of work and political jockeying I don't want to have to bother myself about. Team THEOLOGY posted:But that is exactly it there are examples of natural resources money in the field of oil being used effectively Norway being one of those examples. You'll notice Norway hasn't completely poo poo the bed on raising revenue from those oil companies either. I'm an Albertan who isn't employed by the oil sector, and I'm pissed off that I don't really benefit from the industry at all even though they help our province be the dysfunctional crapshoot it is.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:50
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
vyelkin posted:Our economy was just fine, and way, way more robust before the tar sands became profitable. We're now hugely dependent on natural resource exports rather than industry, and it's also affected our politics in such a way that our government focuses so much on promoting it that the rest of our economy suffers, other industries shrivel off the vine, and we have no innovative industries because our corporate class is all focused on extracting as much as possible rather than finding new ways to use limited resources. Hey two-speed economy Commonwealth buddies   
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:54
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:But that is exactly it there are examples of natural resources money in the field of oil being used effectively Norway being one of those examples. And on the topic of storing money for a rainy day, Canada has no national fund for the eventual and inevitable failure of the resources extraction industry. Alberta does, the Heritage Fund. Founded in 1976, it is worth $16bn today. Norway also has one, founded in 1990. It is worth $700bn. Now as a Canadian and native Albertan, all I see is our environment being destroyed for little actual long-term benefit, and quite a bit of long-term loss as our secondary sector becomes a hollow shell of its former self as employment in Ontario and Quebec, where a huge number of Canadians live (but no one out west wants to admit it, apparently), becomes ever more tenuous and lower-paying. Edit: and contrary to what a lot of my old friends think, everyone moving to Fort Mac is not a real solution, and anyone who thinks so smokes more crack than Rob Ford. lonelywurm fucked around with this message at 06:01 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:But that is exactly it there are examples of natural resources money in the field of oil being used effectively Norway being one of those examples. I think the point here is that it is entirely possible to manage natural resources in such a way that the revenue from those resources is used to promote other industries - incentives for R&D, diversification, etc. The problem is that not only does the current government not support this in any way shape or form, the oil & gas lobby is so powerful that they've basically created the feeling throughout the country that hampering the oil sands will kill Canada's economy. This means that it's essentially political suicide to promote raising revenue for the government through the oil companies, at both the provincial and federal level. I'm honestly not sure I see a way to raise revenue from the oil companies at this point, so a crash in the price of oil is likely the only way to stop being dependent on it. It would definitely be painful (the company I work for manufactures systems that wind up on remote camps, among other things...), and I'd love if there were another way, but I just don't see it. And, I feel that the resulting lack of diversification in our economy will eventually lead to much larger problems when the oil runs out, or the price of oil crashes, say, 10 years from now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Although I personally find the fascination with royalty incredibly annoying*, I think it's actually a good thing to have a monarch, or at least a head of state different from the head of government. We can bad-mouth the PM all we want without getting tangled up in something like the reverence Americans have for the office of President. * Prepare for all coverage of scandals to be forever washed away by  ROYAL BABY
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
I worked with a dude a couple years back who was adamant that our system of government requires a monarch to function, that the power of State cannot be embodied in anyone else no matter what, GOTTA BE A MONARCH. It was the most bizarre conversation. He would acknowledge that having the Head of State be officially someone in another country who never interfers was simply tradition and that the GG was effectively the real power, but he just wouldn't acknowledge that meant we just don't need Lizzie at all  That being said, I enjoy having the Windsors around. I like the tradition and the link to the past. We're a nation built off immigration, and since my background is mostly British I find it comforting that they're there. But I totally understand why the Quebecois and many others do not feel the same way.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I worked with a dude a couple years back who was adamant that our system of government requires a monarch to function, that the power of State cannot be embodied in anyone else no matter what, GOTTA BE A MONARCH. Our form of government requires a monarch to function because our form/system of government is a constitutional monarchy. Its a tautology.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Oh well that is an argument about the CPC and their goals for the area; get The New Democratic Party Government elected and let's see if that happens. Your argument isn't about Alberta it's about the current government. I've inserted some punctuation to help me make sense of that first sentence, if it's incorrect feel free to let me know. Perhaps the NDP would follow the CPC's lead, but perhaps not. The CPC will definitely continue to give away our natural resources, so I'd still prefer a potential change. Yes my argument concerns the way the government is handling the resources in Alberta (which is also provincially Conservative so...) quote:Unless of course you're trying to argue that having natural resources in a country is by definition a bad thing and that we should send it to the United States because they have a better track record of dealing with them. Hardly. That's where the 'fire-saleing' part comes in. There are alternatives to this that still involve having resources, yes?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Regardless any talk of giving Alberta to the US is hilarious so I suppose serious talk wasn't a very good idea. That being said let's also give them our freshwater lakes.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:Oh well that is an argument about the CPC and their goals for the area get The New Democratic Party Government elected and let's see if that happens your argument isn't about Alberta it's about the current government. Unless of course you're trying to argue that having natural resources in a country is by definition a bad thing and that we should send it to the United States because they have a better track record of dealing with them. I think I can explain this argument a bit better although I don't entirely agree with the argument either. (Provincial/federal seperation of powers people! It is a thing in this country). There's a sense that the CPC has imported Albertan politics into federal politics, specifically, several strains of Prarie conservative populism that within their regional context make sense, but to the technocratic, and let's be frank, liberal sensibilities of Ottawa (Ontario and Quebec) it's pretty alienating. Canada's a regional country, and these sentiments aren't exactly new or fresh, but I think that's how people see the connection between Alberta and the federal government. It's unfair in a broad sense, but you do see strains of it emerge in a few places. Largely in the treatment of environmental groups and regulations, and how we imagine ourselves and treat others with our immigration/foreign policy. Shouldn't we understand and monitor what we're doing to our environment as we extract our natural resources? What kind of Canadian history are we presenting immigrants? Who is going to listen to us if we divest ourselves from any kind of multilateral institution? But it also seeps into a general disinterest, or straight up disdain, for long-standing federal technocratic institutions that aren't seen as important enough to the public that any significant part of the population is going to be upset if they're defunded and dismantled. It's that belief in targeted fiscal austerity brings in voters -- and it does -- but it often seems that that 'fiscal responsibility' comes at a long-term cost. How much money did we save cutting back StatsCan? How much money will it cost the next government to regain the information lost in the 2011 census? Will it be hiring out to private contractors? How good will that data be? How reliable? How private? Another great example is Library Archives Canada. The now resigned head of the LAC talked about modernization and digitzation but cut costs. Well guess what, digitization costs money up front. You save costs in the long-run, but you need to put the money down to pay for the incredibly intensive work of digitization and archiving collections, creating databases and hiring specialists to manage those digital collections. You don't cut staff, phase out archival specialists, and cut back the LAC's mandate. I mean we no longer have a copyright library in this country because of these cuts. That is absolutely crazy. Short-term savings, but ultiamtely long-term costs. That's the pattern that I see stemming from our attempt an economy largely based around resource extraction. It's not like the rest of the country hasn't benefitted from it either, to be fair. Toronto's financial sector has happily re-oriented itself around our new national cause. Alberta has saved some money but I think they could do better. And people on the outside looking in see the Albertan pattern replicated in their own province and start to get worried. What economic groundwork will we lay down for the next generation when we begin to exhaust our resources? What institutions will the next generation have to govern themselves? And increasingly for me, what is Canadian agriculture going to look like in the next 100 years? Well that's the impression I get, anyway. It's not entirely fair to Albertans or to some people who support the CPC. Again I don't think this is entirely on Alberta or Albertan influence or whatever -- after all Ontario is kind of complicit in the CPC's success -- but that's my take on it for tonight. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 09:13 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Our form of government requires a monarch to function because our form/system of government is a constitutional monarchy. Its a tautology. Oh, I get that. But if we rewrote the constitution to not require the monarch? This is where it was sticky, because he would reply about the Divine Power of God or whatever. This guy was hyperconservative and got really excited for Dominion Day, for instance. He also got super-excited for Budget Day, but I think that has less to do with being a Tory than with being a dullard who had absolutely no life. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:This guy was hyperconservative and got really excited for Dominion Day, for instance. Huh? Isn't this just Canada Day?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:http://rabble.ca/news/2013/05/introducing-unifor-new-union-opens-its-doors-to-rebuild-labour-movements-power Doesn't beat Special K  Paper Mac posted:Huh? Isn't this just Canada Day? Some people aspire to return to the good old days when Canada was the less-inclusive society than it is today. They pine for the Red Ensign and sing Maple Leaf Forever. I was raised in a pretty British/Scottish Canadian context so I'm familiar with this sentiment. It's not to the point of BNP or real 'nationalism' by any means, moreso nostalgic (and driven by what a kick-rear end tune Maple Leaf Forever has).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:Serioustalk: Do people still get off on the Queen and monarchy? I find it kind of ridiculous and vaguely offensive that she's still got a spot in our political system (even if only nominally). Yes, loads of people still get off on the whole thing. I find it totally vulgar that our head-of-state is a hereditary monarch half-a-world away, but somehow this fact isn't that troubling to many Canadians. I can understand having a 'presidential' figure who's apolitical, but using the British monarch for this purpose seems completely asinine to me.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Yes, loads of people still get off on the whole thing. I find it totally vulgar that our head-of-state is a hereditary monarch half-a-world away, but somehow this fact isn't that troubling to many Canadians. I can understand having a 'presidential' figure who's apolitical, but using the British monarch for this purpose seems completely asinine to me. Personally, in an ideal world I would want to see the monarchy abolished and replaced by an elected figure. But, there are many more problems with our political system, and Canadian society in general, that I feel are more urgent to solve. It just seems to me like the effort and time expended to eliminate a symbolic position like that would be better spent elsewhere. If it were part of a total rehashing of the system, including the Senate and FPTP, then I would be behind it 100% Question, since I haven't taken a Canadian Politics course in a while and I'm not sure where to look this up, but would it be possible to make the Senate elected without a constitutional change? I've heard some yeses and nos to this answer, but I've never heard a definitive argument for or against the idea.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
I self-identify as a progressive and liberal kind of person, and I am 100% behind keeping the monarchy. There was absolutely no irony behind my last post.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:
The Supreme Court is meditating on this very question now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:Personally, in an ideal world I would want to see the monarchy abolished and replaced by an elected figure. But, there are many more problems with our political system, and Canadian society in general, that I feel are more urgent to solve. It just seems to me like the effort and time expended to eliminate a symbolic position like that would be better spent elsewhere. If it were part of a total rehashing of the system, including the Senate and FPTP, then I would be behind it 100% I feel essentially the same way. There's more pressing things we should really be trying to accomplish, and it's not like we're paying out millions of dollars to fund the lifestyle of the royal family like the UK is. It would be so complicated to change, I think, that doing it without other more sweeping reforms would be a total waste of time and effort for next to no gains.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
I would prefer the monarchy to go, however I don't mind Elizabeth as she (perhaps ironically) knows her place. As long as she quietly continues to sign whatever parliament puts in front of her, she is just as good as any other figurehead head of state. I expect that attitude to change when Charles is king.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
Yeah, what happens when she pops her clogs? Are we going to put Charles on our money and everything? That'll be weird.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 14:51
|
|
