In actual practise, are smaller countries more managable on a human and humane level. The drive for power and control is what makes huge countries attractive.Examples might be Lichtenstein or Denmark or Sweden.

Of course, small countries have to have lots of good friends to protect them from big ruthless countries. That is why Canadians are so nice. We are loved around the world and have lots of land so the Americans don't realize there are more people in one of their mega cities than smeared all across Canada. But we have a status and respect on the world stage as big as our land mass rather than based on our actual numbers.

Yes, I know we've done lots of immoral things and all that aside, that is our reputation in the world.I would like to discuss new models that are neither communist nor capitalist but truly socialist. Models on a human scale where real accountability would be possible. I think that is what Quebec is really looking for.

Smaller places with real local control and accountability with a larger body as a "setter of standards with the ability to enforce a level at which no citizen of the smaller entitity would be allowed to fall below" would be much more desirable.

With the recent Toronto election, that may be coming to center stage. But not without some inherent dangers too.

If the federal government had responsibility for setting of agreed to minimum standards; minimum wage, healthcare standards, pension benefit perhaps over the distribution of revenue, government "might" work more effectively at a municipally elevated level. There would have to be a control mechanism here. Theorists please help me out here.

With our current 3 levels of gov't, each of the levels can blame the other when the people complain. All three level need to be funded. There are too many areas where there is overlap of responsibility and time and money wasted argueing over whose jurisdiction it is anyway.