This explains very clearly why I want to go home..

[Bangkokcanuck]

Since most governments don't or won't know when “enough is enough”, it is up to Canadians to tell government when to back off. If we bury our heads in the sand and think that Canada is as perfect as it can be, that attitude will lead inexorably to a Canada that is much less perfect than it could have been.

Truer words have never been spoken... or written in this case. I can't agree with you more about the empire building as I stated previously. A great example of that was watching the recent Toronto election where Rob Ford won such a landslide majority and still it took two hours for that council to vote down taking their pay increase this year as the left leaning council members held it up.. there is something so wrong about people getting into gov't to line their own pockets vs. serving the public at large. I do see some small changes happening but there is a long way to go. I do love Canada even with all it's warts right now, but there is no harm in hoping for it to get better with age like a fine wine.. I know the country (read people) have it in them...

Thanks for the insightful comments Toby very welcomed indeed. As long as we keep talking about it and questioning the things we just "know" are wrong and NOT in the best interest of the country the better chance we have in the long wrong of making things better for all Canadians, new and old.

 

[AllisonVSC]

There may well be two basic reactions to the metaphor of the frog in the pot.

One will be to thank the observer for alerting us to a danger we did not necessarily see, giving us a chance to do something about it. The other will be to react defensively, and buy a bumper sticker that says “My country; love it or leave it”

Let's try to be one of the former.

It is true: governments must control citizens to a degree, in order to regulate society. But there is a limit beyond which governments simply become intrusive, nosy do-gooders. As Pierre Trudeau famously said, “Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” The Canadian government had – prior to that point – been trying to regulate sexual mores.

Since most governments don't or won't know when “enough is enough”, it is up to Canadians to tell government when to back off. If we bury our heads in the sand and think that Canada is as perfect as it can be, that attitude will lead inexorably to a Canada that is much less perfect than it could have been.

Thanks for the defense of my comment, Toby. I certainly meant no offense to anyone, patiently_waiting, and it's definitely not an attitude. It's an opinion based on observation and expressed in metaphor.

I see the growing government bureaucracy here as a problem which most Canadians are seemingly unaware or at least unconcerned. When governmental expenditures as a ratio of GDP are inching towards 50% (it was 48.2% in 2008) I hear warning bells. At what point will Canada's citizenry decide that government is too big and too intrusive? when it uses 70% of our economic productivity, when it controls 90% what we think, do and listen to? I think these are questions worth asking and conversations worth having. Thanks to Toby and Bangkok_canuk for participating in a way that is conducive to continued discourse.

 

[toby]

I'd say you contributed to the discussion too, Allison.

The majority of participants in this post appear to be so anxious to come to Canada that they think it is a paradise, and they ignore (or don't respond to ) any criticism by veterans (e.g. former long-time residents like me). That is understandable; it happens to any person who makes the great effort to move to a new country.

But after the honeymoon is over, then all of you, please take a look around you and make constructive efforts to curb the growth of intrusive government. How? Well, some volunteer for, or at least vote for, political parties that vow to restrain government growth, and keep spending under control. Others write carefully-researched letters to their local Member of Parliament, and provincial MP too. Still others send letters to the editor. And, there are organizations devoted to watching government spending, and exposing bad practices to the media. Look for them and give them a hand -- in money or in time.

This may not sound like much in miniature, but if we all do it, the politicos will take notice.

It's our part to keep Canada strong.

There, end of speech!!

 

[doctorkb]

Toby, as a Canadian, I'd like to offer some further ideas.

While I don't disagree that we have a "big" government, nor that it is "overpaid", I think you'd find that we are far less "nanny-state" than you think.

Canada was (unfortunately, in my view, but that's a different topic) one of the first to open the doors to homosexual marriage.

While the gun control laws are stricter, there is also an ability to be licensed for these firearms (legally) or turn them in without repercussion.

I, personally, wish they'd be stricter when it comes to smoking laws -- outlaw the junk altogether! But wait, that would cut into the government's bottom line.

Having spent 3 years in Hawaii, I can tell you that the US is MUCH, MUCH closer to being a "nanny-state" than Canada. At least here, you only have to worry about one level of government enacting a law (the Canadian Constitution affords the provincial and federal governments different, mutually exclusive, jurisdictions).

Now, if we could just eliminate the US-like lobbyist groups from the political scene here, we'd be on the right track -- where our politicians could AND WOULD do what's right for their constituents, rather than us having to lobby as well.

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

I'd say you contributed to the discussion too, Allison.

Agreed.

The majority of participants in this post appear to be so anxious to come to Canada that they think it is a paradise, and they ignore (or don't respond to ) any criticism by veterans (e.g. former long-time residents like me). That is understandable; it happens to any person who makes the great effort to move to a new country.

You are right of course, but we do have to keep in mind that for a good many of the people that are planning to move to or hoping to move to Canada it is in fact a paradise compared to where they are leaving. Whether due to War or Political oppression or due to any number of reasons Canada as is really is the end of the rainbow for them. Hopefully once they are there they will realize that Canada like any place else in the world has its own unique problems and they will also realize that constructive criticism can only help.

How? Well, some volunteer for, or at least vote for, political parties that vow to restrain government growth, and keep spending under control. Others write carefully-researched letters to their local Member of Parliament, and provincial MP too. Still others send letters to the editor. And, there are organizations devoted to watching government spending, and exposing bad practices to the media. Look for them and give them a hand -- in money or in time.

This may not sound like much in miniature, but if we all do it, the politicos will take notice.

It's our part to keep Canada strong.

All great ideas and I am hopeful that our new Canadians will do what they can to keep it a great country the one they so wanted to go to and understand that if EVERYBODY is sitting around thinking someone else is going to fix something its never going to be fixed.

There, end of speech!!

I don't about speech, maybe a rant would be more accurate I for one liked it, keep em coming

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

While I don't disagree that we have a "big" government, nor that it is "overpaid", I think you'd find that we are far less "nanny-state" than you think.

I too hear this from many of my American friends and I am surprised to hear that about the land of the free. But some of stories I have been told would lead me to believe they are quite accurate in their assessment.

Canada was (unfortunately, in my view, but that's a different topic) one of the first to open the doors to homosexual marriage.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm looks like the start of an awesome thread there... we must get you to expand...

Now, if we could just eliminate the US-like lobbyist groups from the political scene here, we'd be on the right track -- where our politicians could AND WOULD do what's right for their constituents, rather than us having to lobby as well.

Oh don't get me started..it is amazing that the vast majority of Politicians don't seem to get they work for US, the people. I could just go on and on forever on that one, but I think I will too leave that for another time and place

 

[doctorkb]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm looks like the start of an awesome thread there... we must get you to expand...

Gladly.

My primary issue is *not* that I disagree with this particular moral choice. We also won't be discussing that as this is not the forum.

My issue with the government's endorsement of homosexual marriage is thus. It was NOT the will of the people.

Paul Martin's Liberals believed that "the Canadian population didn't know what was good for them" and, instead of putting it to referendum at the upcoming election, they chose to force it through Parliament at the 11th hour, despite all polls at the time indicating that approximately 55% of the population was OPPOSED to it, about 30% FOR it and the remaining 15% uncaring or undecided.

Ultimately, the homosexual community already had all the benefits of marriage, without forcing those who have a moral objection against it to deal with it... now it's forced down the throats of everyone.

We still have Marriage Commissioners resigning or being fired for sticking to their moral standards and refusing to marry homosexual couples.

Overall, it was a law that did not protect a minority, but forced the majority to grow further dislike towards that minority. Who benefits from that?

 

[Bangkokcanuck]

Gladly.

My primary issue is *not* that I disagree with this particular moral choice. We also won't be discussing that as this is not the forum.

My issue with the government's endorsement of homosexual marriage is thus. It was NOT the will of the people.

Paul Martin's Liberals believed that "the Canadian population didn't know what was good for them" and, instead of putting it to referendum at the upcoming election, they chose to force it through Parliament at the 11th hour, despite all polls at the time indicating that approximately 55% of the population was OPPOSED to it, about 30% FOR it and the remaining 15% uncaring or undecided.

Ultimately, the homosexual community already had all the benefits of marriage, without forcing those who have a moral objection against it to deal with it... now it's forced down the throats of everyone.

We still have Marriage Commissioners resigning or being fired for sticking to their moral standards and refusing to marry homosexual couples.

Overall, it was a law that did not protect a minority, but forced the majority to grow further dislike towards that minority. Who benefits from that?

thanks for that I must admit I had no idea of the above details and assuming you have all those facts and numbers correct I completely agree with you it does seem like an odd thing to do, but also sounds very much like vote buying if you will for lack of a better term.

You've given me something to do some research on now as I am one of those people that really have no opinion on the issue mostly just due to not being educated on the issues surrounding it. I do fully understand how it upsets some people and how others are upset without the right to marry being granted.

Time to start Googling it seems. Thanks for the info very enlightening.

 

[j2m]

Love that video! makes me proud to be a new PR!!!