U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-21-2016, 06:00 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,482,126 times
Reputation: 4657

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
IDK about Canada, but in the US it's a really easy test. My Russian relatives way back in the day passed it with very minimal English. Also, the gov't publishes a study guide with all the questions. It's hard to miss. "Who was the first President of the USA"? Duh. I must admit, though; if I had to pass Canada's test, I couldn't do it without studying Canuck history. A lot of people from abroad: Anglophone Africa, for ex., already learn US and Brit history in school, so for them, the American exam is a piece of cake.
I suspect that most Canadians would flunk the citizenship exam.

 
Old 12-21-2016, 06:01 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,482,126 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
What is frustrating though is inter-provincial boundaries on wine. Here in BC we make some incredible wine, as they do in Ontario, but they don't see much of it in Ontario, and we don't see much Ontario wine here in BC.
Does the price of transporting across the country interfere with competitiveness?
 
Old 12-21-2016, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,160 posts, read 1,748,542 times
Reputation: 2617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
What is frustrating though is inter-provincial boundaries on wine. Here in BC we make some incredible wine, as they do in Ontario, but they don't see much of it in Ontario, and we don't see much Ontario wine here in BC.
I seem to recall that an obscure piece of federal legislation (the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3) was changed a while back to make it easier to ship wine between provinces.

And of course, there was the Comeau decision from New Brunswick (R v Comeau, 2016 NBPC 3 (CanLII)), which challenged provincial barriers on importing alcohol into a province, on constitutional grounds. In short, the decision stated that no province can impose barriers on bringing alcohol into the province.

So you may see more Ontario wine soon, Nat.
 
Old 12-21-2016, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,160 posts, read 1,748,542 times
Reputation: 2617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke View Post
Does the price of transporting across the country interfere with competitiveness?
It would have an effect, but not a large one. Certainly, other goods are shipped across the country every day; and while cost will always be a factor, goods continue to move.

No, as I inferred above, the problem with shipping alcohol between provinces has been more because of the laws that the provinces have put in place against it, than anything else.
 
Old 12-21-2016, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,128,404 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
What is frustrating though is inter-provincial boundaries on wine. Here in BC we make some incredible wine, as they do in Ontario, but they don't see much of it in Ontario, and we don't see much Ontario wine here in BC.
Yeah its kind of strange. You can get Ontario wines at the LCBO or international/'domestic' blends but no B.C wine section. You have the California section, the Italy, Chile, France, Australian etc but not B.C in the LCBO. It boggles the mind though what Chevy said about laws makes sense.. You can however get quite a bit of B.C craft beers at the LCBO!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
It would have an effect, but not a large one. Certainly, other goods are shipped across the country every day; and while cost will always be a factor, goods continue to move.

No, as I inferred above, the problem with shipping alcohol between provinces has been more because of the laws that the provinces have put in place against it, than anything else.
This makes sense. I mean its generally cheaper to buy many brands of Italian or Chilean wines here in Ontario vs most of the Ontario one's.
 
Old 12-21-2016, 09:58 PM
 
625 posts, read 1,187,513 times
Reputation: 569
First off, this is one of those "pipe dream" conversations, but interesting at that. The constitutional bars to the U.S. leaving are too high; even with Trump's "let's make a deal", the U.S. strategic interests in California are too big. I would not be surprised in CA votes for Calexit, and who knows - a sincere negotiation process about making CA part of a weaker union like the EU (which seems to be the goal) may move forward, but I doubt it. Canada is also unlikely to add states as Provinces.

I first heard this idea from a Canadian-born neighbour who was all for California joining Canada. Many Canadians love California (while others go to Palm Springs in the winter and that's it). Indeed, LA has the largest number of Canadians in any U.S. city and oddly was was the fourth most populous city in terms of Canadians in 1980. Obviously, some Canadians would balk at having 40 million people join our country, at the openness to low-skill immigrants, opposition to fossil fuels, and etc. in California, but other Canadians I've talked to love this openness, the multi-culturalism, embrace of non-official languages, and California's status as an environmental leader. Aside from weather, California would add more expensive, multi-cultural cities ... hmmm

One reason for Calexit is to stop sending large sums of tax dollars to the federal government, when these could be used at home for things like universal health care. So would California want to send this money to Ottawa instead?

Many of the impediments that have been raised, are not big impediments IMO. I'm not sure if the Canadian constitution mandates a parliamentary system at the Provincial level, but with the dysfunction affecting the U.S., many states might be open to this. Maine just voted in preferential voting, while we still debate. And Nebraska has had a unicameral legislature since the progressive era. I personally think the parliamentary system has advantages only if we change how we elect it - otherwise minorities electing a majority government in the U.S. could be scary. The Queen may be another question - but keep in mind 40% of Canadians and about three-quarters of Quebecers are not fond. Given Trump as head of state, folks may reconsider a monarch.

The idea is appealing - I was personally thinking OR and WA to start with. I also like the idea of adding Michigan - an area that some historians think should've been Canadian. Detroit is full of empty houses, and we have cities full of unaffordable homes. And Michigan would make us a great lakes power, and provides a beautiful hilly agricultural hinterland to complement southern Ontario. I'd also like to see us address the legacies of colonialism and the "great migration" of African-Americans north - something we avoided in part through immigration policy. It may test our smugness! With sensible gun control, things may calm down in Detroit. Then, lets look at Hawaii if Native Hawaiian are amenable.

But lets get real - it won't happen. Even though the blue states would largely support gun control, parental leave, and universal health care and would be good additions.

The idea that is most appealing here is that if some of the states formed their own country, one compatible with our universal health care and gun control, we'd negotiate an EU-style area with free movement.

But that won't happen either ...?

I'd also be worried about what happens in the rest of the U.S. - they'd be bonkers when it comes to minority rights and possibly militarism. Or, they'd have to figure it our on their own without "the coastal elites" to blame?
 
Old 12-21-2016, 11:10 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,069,563 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by docwatson View Post
First off, this is one of those "pipe dream" conversations, but interesting at that. The constitutional bars to the U.S. leaving are too high; even with Trump's "let's make a deal", the U.S. strategic interests in California are too big. I would not be surprised in CA votes for Calexit, and who knows - a sincere negotiation process about making CA part of a weaker union like the EU (which seems to be the goal) may move forward, but I doubt it. Canada is also unlikely to add states as Provinces.

I first heard this idea from a Canadian-born neighbour who was all for California joining Canada. Many Canadians love California (while others go to Palm Springs in the winter and that's it). Indeed, LA has the largest number of Canadians in any U.S. city and oddly was was the fourth most populous city in terms of Canadians in 1980. Obviously, some Canadians would balk at having 40 million people join our country, at the openness to low-skill immigrants, opposition to fossil fuels, and etc. in California, but other Canadians I've talked to love this openness, the multi-culturalism, embrace of non-official languages, and California's status as an environmental leader. Aside from weather, California would add more expensive, multi-cultural cities ... hmmm

One reason for Calexit is to stop sending large sums of tax dollars to the federal government, when these could be used at home for things like universal health care. So would California want to send this money to Ottawa instead?

Many of the impediments that have been raised, are not big impediments IMO. I'm not sure if the Canadian constitution mandates a parliamentary system at the Provincial level, but with the dysfunction affecting the U.S., many states might be open to this. Maine just voted in preferential voting, while we still debate. And Nebraska has had a unicameral legislature since the progressive era. I personally think the parliamentary system has advantages only if we change how we elect it - otherwise minorities electing a majority government in the U.S. could be scary. The Queen may be another question - but keep in mind 40% of Canadians and about three-quarters of Quebecers are not fond. Given Trump as head of state, folks may reconsider a monarch.

The idea is appealing - I was personally thinking OR and WA to start with. I also like the idea of adding Michigan - an area that some historians think should've been Canadian. Detroit is full of empty houses, and we have cities full of unaffordable homes. And Michigan would make us a great lakes power, and provides a beautiful hilly agricultural hinterland to complement southern Ontario. I'd also like to see us address the legacies of colonialism and the "great migration" of African-Americans north - something we avoided in part through immigration policy. It may test our smugness! With sensible gun control, things may calm down in Detroit. Then, lets look at Hawaii if Native Hawaiian are amenable.

But lets get real - it won't happen. Even though the blue states would largely support gun control, parental leave, and universal health care and would be good additions.

The idea that is most appealing here is that if some of the states formed their own country, one compatible with our universal health care and gun control, we'd negotiate an EU-style area with free movement.

But that won't happen either ...?

I'd also be worried about what happens in the rest of the U.S. - they'd be bonkers when it comes to minority rights and possibly militarism. Or, they'd have to figure it our on their own without "the coastal elites" to blame?

It is a pipe dream indeed....Calexit is just very silly hot air, the same as when Texas did threat to secede during the Clinton years and the Obama years...doesn't Alberta also threat to leave Canada periodically??

Finally, independent California is not assured that it would maintain its economic weight without being part of the United States, the dollar system not to mention all the federal funds R&D spending (and the good jobs that come with it)

A lot of "wealth" created in California recently has been courtesy of the Federal Reserve and its 0% interest rate policy where companies that do not make any money or very little suddenly were valued billion of dollars...and let's not forget the huge source of funding for the VC firms, pension funds all over the country.

Finally, some Californians (meaning some people in LA and San Francisco, California is not as deep blue as many think) may want to secede from the US but that does not necessarily mean they may want to join Canada....

Last edited by saturno_v; 12-21-2016 at 11:20 PM..
 
Old 12-21-2016, 11:17 PM
 
625 posts, read 1,187,513 times
Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
It is a pipe dream indeed....Calexit is just very silly hot air, the same as when Texas did threat to secede during the Clinton years and the Obama years...doesn't Alberta also threat to leave Canada periodically??

Finally, independent California is not assured that it would maintain its economic weight without being part of the United States, the dollar system not to mention all the federal funds R&D spending (and the good jobs that come with it)

A lot of "wealth" created in California recently has been courtesy of the Federal Reserve and its 0% interest rate policy where companies that do not make any money or very little suddenly were valued billion of dollars...and let's not forget the huge source of funding for the VC firms, pension funds all over the country.

Finally, some Californians (meaning some people in LA and San Francisco, California is not a deep blue as many think) may want to secede from the US but that does not necessarily mean they may want to join Canada....
Largely true ... but I would not be surprised if a majority do vote for it as it appears it will be on the ballot ... whether they believe it to be real or not. I saw that already about 40% supported the notion - similar to one-time support in Alberta btw.

The Calexit folks claim they want to use the U.S. dollar and have free movement of people. This sounds similar to the relationship with Canadian that Quebec wanted - and Canada didn't want to grant.

I agree many of these tech companies are another dot.com bubble, or another way of imposing low-wage captitalism (see Uber). And this industry doesn't result in a middle class keeping up with cost of living. But California does have high-end manufacturing. Of course federal R&D and military have to do with it.
 
Old 12-21-2016, 11:24 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,069,563 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by docwatson View Post
Largely true ... but I would not be surprised if a majority do vote for it as it appears it will be on the ballot ... whether they believe it to be real or not. I saw that already about 40% supported the notion - similar to one-time support in Alberta btw.

The Calexit folks claim they want to use the U.S. dollar and have free movement of people. This sounds similar to the relationship with Canadian that Quebec wanted - and Canada didn't want to grant.

I agree many of these tech companies are another dot.com bubble, or another way of imposing low-wage captitalism (see Uber). And this industry doesn't result in a middle class keeping up with cost of living. But California does have high-end manufacturing. Of course federal R&D and military have to do with it.

I suspect that even if Calexit reaches a somewhat semi serious stage it would require, even in California, well over 50% of the vote.....fair to say 2/3 which, I feel sure to say, it will never happen.

Independent with the US dollar and US passport?? It did not fly in Canada, even less chances in Washington.....they may use the US dollar as currency (a la El Salvador, Panama or Ecuador) but they will lose any control on its issuance and monetary policy.....how that would work with the high tech pumpers in Silicon Valley?? Not that well I suspect...

Many heads of industry in California lean Republican anyway...some may publicly support democrat initiatives but when the chips fall they know that they have it good because of being part of the US, not despite of it.
 
Old 12-22-2016, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,160 posts, read 1,748,542 times
Reputation: 2617
Quote:
Originally Posted by docwatson View Post
The Queen may be another question - but keep in mind 40% of Canadians and about three-quarters of Quebecers are not fond. Given Trump as head of state, folks may reconsider a monarch.
I'm not so sure about that. Given that the Queen has very carefully circumscribed powers constitutionally (i.e. she can only use her extraordinary reserve powers on her own initiative in extreme situations, none of which have come to pass in 150 years of Canadian history), I doubt that Canadians would prefer an elected head of state who threatens religious groups (Muslims), who threatens other countries (Mexico, and a wall), and who threatens women ("Grab them by the _____.").

QEII is doing a good job, by my estimation: unelected sure, but not prone to doing anything outside her powers, or indeed, doing anything unconstitutional by Canadian standards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top