Canada is more capitalist than the United States (health care, Obama, illegal immigration)
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.
After the Quebec referendum, meetings on repatriating the constitution resumed. However, while negotiations for a new Canadian constitution progressed, the separatist Quebec leader placed special conditions on signing his name to a constitutional agreement. Levesque demanded an outright transfer of powers to Quebec in a number of areas, essentially partitioning (transferring) entire federal powers in section 91 of the BNA Act to section 92. The personal animosity (meaning bitterness) between Trudeau and Levesque was intense. The two Quebecers viewed federalism in entirely different ways.
True, and this is why Quebec ended up not signing the Constitution and has still not signed it to this day.
Note also that the rights override (generally known as the Notwithstanding Clause) was not put there at the request of Quebec, but at the request of a few premiers of other provinces.
And now Quebec can further regulate who's allowed to emigrate to Quebec (except, of course, the loophole that people can move to Ontario and move to Quebec later on)
"
Or move to Quebec and then to Ontario later on.
Immigration via the Quebec process is not necessarily more restrictive than immigrating to other parts of Canada.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: ... (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communicationDue to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)This section is double-edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.
there are alot of loopholes and holes in our Charter of basic human rights which with freespeech limited I guess we are not a free and democratic society in the real sense but yet we still are
It does make sense to have such limits and I guess in the US you have them, too, the sanctions just work differently when you say inadequate things. You get sued much more easily, you get caught in the web of political correctness, etc., which can easily cost you your job. There is no point in absolute freedom of speech, thus there is none anywhere on the planet. You can say anything in Iran as well, if you are willing to put up with the consequences. Every society conditions its members one way or another.
Because they lack backbone when it comes to international affairs and they know the U.S. will protect them?
Indeed, they lack the whole exaggerated military complex the US has. That saves them a lot of money, and a lot of trouble too as they don't stick their noses in other nations' affairs and thus have far fewer [perceived] enemies if any. They usually just mind their own business like Switzerland does.
What's Canada's population? Roughly 1/10th of ours? That alone probably makes their form of capitalism far easier to maintain than the hopeless mess festering in the US. If the fall/winter time wasn't so damned cold, I'd move up there lickety split.
The southern coastal regions are pretty mild, but the Western one (Vancouver etc.) is already quite crowded. The East coast, i.e. north of Maine, is also surprisingly mild, and not so crowded, yet.
Indeed, they lack the whole exaggerated military complex the US has. That saves them a lot of money, and a lot of trouble too as they don't stick their noses in other nations' affairs and thus have far fewer [perceived] enemies if any. They usually just mind their own business like Switzerland does.
We are part of NORAD and do joint Canada/American intercpt mission to protect north america right now russia is screwing around up north by fly it's cold war era bear bombers over alaska and northren Canadian airspace we are in a huge battle for the arctic between Russia and alllied Canada/US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RzlejIbqg
canada and US are building up joint military bases and have joint traning going on to stop russia most aggresive advance since the cold war. the arctic has 25% of the worlds natural gas and oil reserves up there just the Ice pack makes it hard to get at.
We are part of NORAD and do joint Canada/American intercpt mission to protect north america right now russia is screwing around up north by fly it's cold war era bear bombers over alaska and northren Canadian airspace we are in a huge battle for the arctic between Russia and alllied Canada/US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9RzlejIbqg
canada and US are building up joint military bases and have joint traning going on to stop russia most aggresive advance since the cold war. the arctic has 25% of the worlds natural gas and oil reserves up there just the Ice pack makes it hard to get at.
That is a difficult subject. But most of the suspected resources are located within the uncontested exclusive zones of the individual neighboring countries anyway. There is not much left to distribute...
Surely nobody expects Canada to accept violations of its legally recognized territory.
I personally think the remaining resources shouldn't belong to any of those countries as they already have more than enough. Russia for instance, but also Canada are ridiculously large for their small populations.
Canada has a perception among many in the U.S. as being a socialist country. However, Canada actually has a freer economy than the United States, and it is rated as one of the freest economies in the world:
Yet, they still manage to provide universal healthcare and unlimited unemployment to their citizens, and have a balanced national budget. Why is that? Why do you think that is?
My opinion is that it's all based on one thing: Canada has strict limits on campaign contributions. Lobbying is almost nonexistent. Their politicians are not bought and paid for like ours here in the States.
The elements of uhc and unlimited unemployment are what has Americans labeling it as a socialist country. Of course., some Americans need to take that leap of understanding that "socialist" is not an evil word and in fact is often indicative of societies that are quite normal and functioning in a very healthy way.
It is mind boggling to me that Americans are not reading more about the UHC situation in Canada. The little news you hear is about the random canadian who came to the us for some special procedure. You rarely hear about the fact that all Canadians are actually covered and their preventive medicine and screening system puts the US TO SHAME. Is America's ego still so big and vulnerable that we cannot look to other countries to learn?
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.
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.
