franco are quite similar to anglos. But most people outside of quebec do not think about quebec unless it comes to the 2nd langauge

to be honest prior to the quebec appeasement most of anglo canada was perfectly fine with quebec

but francos were not happy b.c they felt they were being 'replaced'
its the problem of a pendulum: its was too far to the anglos, now it is too far to the francos
I think the best solution would likely be more republicanism (provincial control over their own matters)
All provinces are basically in for more republicanism until they cant control other provinces

I'm of the mind remove equalization payments (or at very least scale back drastically) and improve provincial sovereignty

Canada is a confederation it’s already supposed to be provinces making more of their own decisions

my point exactly, we have moved towards appeasement for Quebec (in that to hold political office you generally need bilingualism especially in federal, considering that we have translators)

Like the bloc argument is somewhat sympathetic to me, let quebec do as they want. But then they follow that up with, quebec will also get to control what other provinces do and pay us money (equalization payments)

Max is the only politician I’ve seen say “that’s a provincial government jurisdiction” re climate, education etc...

thats the problem these morons are trying to increase centralization while blocking creative destruction (anyone else read why nations fail yet?)

Someone explain to me why Canada doesn't just separate into anglo and frenchie states and name them East and West Canada? Or just break up by province? There are forces that seem to want it.

I mean Quebec being it’s own country could solve the language divide, but i’m not sure other Canadian provinces and even the anglos in Quebec could agree with it

~~And yes i’m not 100% informed on North American/Canadian politics, so i’m not so sure about any solutions~~

There are a few main issues, with a true Quebec separation for the rest of Canada. The first is the loss of control of the Saint Lawrence, one of the major waterways into the more central portions of Canada. Second is that much of northern Quebec houses power generation facilities like solar farms, hydroelectric dams, and wind turbine fields, almost all of which were payed for and installed by the Canadian government, in order to separate they would be required to hand over a sizable chunk of land to Canada that is supposed to be Quebec, or they would have to pay several times their annual GDP to buy the infrastructure and generating facilities outright. The last issue is that aside from perhaps New Brunswick, most of the maritime provinces are Anglo and would not want to separate from Canada. But this would mean that the 3 or 4 maritime provinces that wanted to remain in Canada would have no land connection to the main body of the country and would have to travel through Quebec or the US in order to get to the capital/90% of the rest of the countries land mass.

@Goddess Tyche The only part of Canada that wants has ever seriously had a secessionist movement is Quebec and most Quebecers don't want to leave Canada. We have already had two referendums on that topic and both times Quebec voted against leaving, its just a loud minority. And it was always a pipe dream anyways because Quebec relies on the rest of Canada.

Quebec needs to get over itself

lol they're french what do you expect

So, annex Canada when?

Please do, we need an actual constitution. our charter of rights and freedoms is fundamentally broken and like 40 years old at best.

No you don't

You have common law

Which is better than a written constitution

Except the worst excesses of our system is cause by the lack of hard constraints against government power. The common law wont save you once enough warped precedent is introduced into the system.

Its something I really disagree with Sargon on. you need something akin to a constitution. A hard back stop that cannot be overcome without the overwhelming will of the people. otherwise a few activists who call themselves judges can irreparably harm your legal system given enough time. Canada is a perfect roadmap to how the British system can fail given enough people who are willing to throw aside the rule of law for personal or political gain.

Everyone has common law... At least in the English legal model

Including that silly near 250 yo republic with an actual constitution.

Warped common law is a big factor in the mess the UK is finding it's way into, I think.

And I agree, Common Law is not a check against power and corruption.

My point was common law is no substitute for or equivalent to a written constitution. Common law is something utterly unrelated. It's like saying you don't need arms because you have legs.

And Canada does have a constitution,

We have something like it, but it is not only not the same it is broken in its fundaments.

It's literally called the Constitution Act.

the name of the thing is not the thing itself

else the Democratic republic of Korea would be a very different place.

I don't think the problem is necessarily in the constitution of Canada per sey, but the implementation of the branches of government is not ideal.

Executive and Legislative branches in Canada are the same house, and their power is almost entirely held in the PMO now.

Maybe this is what you are referring to

how the US has clear separations of power between the 3 branches, and they all check and balance each other.

Doesn't help that our Judiciary is also appointed by the house/pmo etc..

I do quite like the fair representation of only 2 senators per state in the US. not a proportional rep based on population.

actually no. The separation of powers is very important. But in the United states their constitution acts as a limit on governmental power, We have no such restriction. The closest we get is the charter of rights and freedoms. and our Constitution act, only outlines who, how and what our governmental system is and the powers in it. there is no "you cannot ever" in it. only "you must, you can".

Also that senators are elected.. whereas ours are appointed, for life.

Ahh, yes I see your point. That is true.