Leaderboard

Losing an eyebrow during a speech is about all I can take from this idiot.

Honestly Canada just need stronger leadership. Trudeau is definitely not it. Maybe somebody who isn't a politician and trying to get re-elected? Somebody who'd put Canada first? Who'd willing to do the right thing regardless of the immediate criticism? Wait that sounds familiar...

I think this quote is particularly apt. Public opinion/support is crucial to maintaining the legitimacy of any important public policy, immigration included. I'm not sure why self-styled "progressives" (or liberals, as they're often described in the U.S., where the term often has a different connotation than here in Canada) believe that immigration should be treated any differently. I suspect many of these people simply don't understand history, including the struggles of ordinary people to put in place and maintain public social security programs, like pensions and health care, to enhance and sustain their own stability. Most people are generally willing to pay relatively high taxes to support this system provided they have some assurance it will benefit them when they need it to. It's the foundation of the modern "social contract" that emerged in one form or another in all Western countries in the 20th century. Over the past few decades the social security systems in many Western countries have been diminished and many feel public resources have been redirected to serve other purposes, including the maintenance of permanent subsidy classes. Prominent economists, including Sir Paul Collier and the late Milton Friedman, among others, have noted that open or large-scale immigration undermines social solidarity and erodes the viability of welfare or social security policies. Maintaining strong borders is crucial to sustaining both wages and social supports. Friedman preferred open borders and was willing to sacrifice the welfare system. But, as he noted, a dual policy of open borders and maintaining strong social supports is irrational and unsustainable. Our political and economic elites scoff at these concerns because they're not greatly impacted by them. But ordinary voters aren't as cavalier. And they have a right to their say as long as our countries continue to function as democracies. Contrary to the prevailing liberal/progressive view, for most voters this is not about racism. It's about maintaining the decent working conditions and social safety nets many have worked long and hard to sustain. Voters will support politicians who reflect and/or share their concerns. It's common sense.

I disagree. The question is that if we are to recruit young Canadians into the military and send them off to dangerous war zones in pursuit of government foreign policy objectives, whatever those might be, are we honour bound to provide them with the best equipment that is available to safeguard their lives and safety? My answer is that yes, we are. Which at a very minimum means sufficient modern, functioning armored vehicles to move them about as safe as possible. And enough of them so that the military here in Canada, not to mention the reserves, don't have to use school buses to move about.

My understanding is that 99% of trade between the US and Canada is already free of tariffs. Trump's offer was not serious, and he has no power to bring about the end of US tariffs on protected products and goods anyway. High tariffs are jealously guarded by congress, especially on particular US agricultural products. Also jealously protected by congress are the enormous agricultural subsidies which provide you with milk lakes and butter mountains you are desperately trying to offload. By the way, that famous press conference during which Trudeau 'talked behind your back' was, uh, a press conference. I don't think you talk behind someone's back by giving a press conference. Further, he did not say one new thing at that conference that he had no previously said numerous times before in public.

Very much so, and ignoring the context. Also ignoring that if the Liberals had been in power there also would have been a deficit.

What's wrong with protecting and promoting us interest? Its no big secret. Its even on the state department website. "Our mission is to engage U.S. government resources to assist and advocate for U.S. business interests abroad, strengthen intellectual property enforcement, promote a vibrant ecosystem for entrepreneurship and innovation, and ensure U.S. private sector concerns are integrated into our foreign and economic policy." https://www.state.gov/e/eb/cba/ Just about every country does this...you think Russia and China are any better? If anything they're even worse than us. They don't have respect for human rights. If you want to have a ethics discussion about promoting self interest then start a post.

This really turns the tables, as usually there is no shortage of Canadian opinions about who should be leading in the U.S., who voters should support, who should be "impeached", etc., etc. Polled Canadians even express which American candidates they would vote for if they were permitted to do so in U.S. elections. Americans usually ignore Canadian politics....too boring. Doug Ford is a good start....turfing 15 years of Liberal mismanagement and failed policies.

I think it is time for the Anybody but Justin campaign …..smash the red vote across the nation....

Considering Germany , Holland, other euro nations were selling LEO IIA4 for pennys on the dollar, practically giving them away, I mean Canada did purchase 85 of those tanks for a song....and that leaves us wondering why we can not sell our tanks which are some 5 models behind those.....even the Taliban had better tanks....

Trump is right - NATO countries are not paying what they agreed. Canada agreed to give up the development of military weapons (Avro Arrow) and never develop nuclear weapons as part of an agreement with the U.S. when we joined NORAD. The U.S. does not want nuclear weapons on its doorstep, even from a friendly country. Our so-called "military" buys American made junk and exists basically as an expeditionary force to send off on "peacekeeping" missions around the world in concert with whatever the U.S. tells us to do. Except for Vietnam, we cleverly avoided that mess. And the disaster in Iraq. The reason the U.S. spends more on military that the top 26 countries combined, 25 of whom are Allies, is due to an out-of-control Military Industrial Complex that controls congress and gets whatever it wants, and an irrational fear of Russia (as evidenced by the Muh-Russia election interference baloney). Sorry General Patton, you missed your chance to fight Russia at the end of WW2. Now they got nukes so any fightin' will have to be in proxy wars in tinpot dictatorships opposing the dreaded "commie insurgence". You could easily pay for basic socialized health care for all citizens if you just cut down that wild military spending a tad. Otherwise, yes I agree, and see no reason for the U.S. to have military bases spread out all over the world. They're useless and expensive to maintain.

Trudeau is annoyed because his pants are too tight. All the more to show off his socks. Either that or he's about to fart.

I am just going to say you are talking out your ass. Corruption is worldwide, and it's not just a problem in 'white' nations. Whatever white nations mean.

Most people don't object to genuine refugees and regular legal immigration. This is an insult and affront to all people who come here legally going through the normal process.

As a retiree myself, who's not eligible to obtain these benefits when I turn 65 in the very near future and lose my already limited work benefits, I understand this sentiment. I believe that when he limited refugee health coverage, Harper noted that those covered by the program shouldn't have better taxpayer-funded benefits than are available to most seniors in this country. It's a matter of fairness, after all.