Leaderboard

No other nation than the Irish hear this argument more often than the Irish. There has been mass-immigration into Ireland for the last 10-15 years. Anyone who questions it is reminded how millions and millions of Irish themselves have emigrated to North-America, Australia and especially Britain so those who are against immigration to Ireland should really be ashamed of themselves. They always forget the crucial difference that the in the mid 1800's there was no social security. You either worked or you starved. A stark contrast to present-day immigration to Western-Europe where the welfare-system is stretched to the limit because of immigration. However, Friedman will be proved right; you can either have open borders or you can have a generous welfare-state but you just can't have both. Take your pick.

I think there's lots of evidence that social conservatives still exert strong influence within the CPC. The abortion motion at the Halifax convention, which sought to reopen the debate in Canada, was only narrowly defeated. See link to CBC article below. Also, as the CBC article notes: "The social conservative wing of the party holds a lot of sway; Andrew Scheer, who has identified with this branch in the past, likely wouldn't be leader without them, and they represent a not-insignificant number of the party's total membership." As an economic conservative (or neoliberal, as it were) but mainly social liberal, at least on so-called "morality" issues, the current iteration the CPC doesn't have a lot to offer voters like me. I'd rather have an unabashedly economically conservative party in power that challenges monopolies and oligopolies, eschews corporate subsidies and unfunded individual entitlements and permits rational analysis and open debate on matters like immigration and open-ended multiculturalism. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-conservative-policy-convention-1.4798918

There was an interview with one of the former (US) trade negotiators under Bush on TV the other day. He said that nations normally deal with each other under the veneer of equality. That is, even though one is much more powerful than the other, there's a pretense of equality as they discuss issues and negotiate resolutions. Just because one country is much larger or more powerful it doesn't tend to bully the other mercilessly. This tends to hold true even for dictatorships, usually. But Trump doesn't believe in any of that because he has no idea how international relations work nor cares. He just sees the US is the big and powerful one and has no hesitation in bullying others, sneering at them, insulting them, and forcing them to give way to him. The problem with this sort of attitude is that even if you get your way in something it produces a lasting bitterness and dislike, and whatever the opposite of loyalty is. A country which acts like this has no friends (much like Trump), and those who might otherwise be its allies move away and join other alliances against them. All around the world, the US is losing friends and influence while China and Russia are eagerly moving forward to take its place. China is doing its best to wrap up as much of Africa and its resources as it can and is heavily involved in South American for the same reason. Russia is increasing its influence in Europe by a combination of bribery and persuasion (want some cheap gas anyone?). But Trump never thinks past today. In business, he mercilessly bullied suppliers, withholding payment, demanding they accept smaller amounts than in the contract he signed. He screwed over his business partners and welched on loans. He didn't care. He sat there in smug arrogance thinking how tough he was being. Except eventually he wasn't able to buy anything without paying cash up front. Other companies had lines of credit. Not his. Other companies could get financing. Not his. He had to go to third world and Russian oligarchs. At 71 he has no friends, is alone, mocked and ridiculed by everyone he ever sought the approval of. And that's what's in store for the US under Trump. You call up your African suppliers and they say "Sorry, those are going to China now." You rant and rage and threaten and they laugh at you and tell you to talk to China and then hang up on you. Your exports to Asia dwindle because China has the market locked up. You try to exercise influence and find you have none. Bullying people seems to make him and a certain segment of Americans (like you and Bush Cheney) feel good about themselves. But there'll be a heavy price to pay if it continues.

Oh please! Save me the ethics lesson in a business transaction. Money goes to the best deal regardless of sentiment. China is currying up favor in a bid to access more markets not "friendship". Russia's future depends on its European neighbors and vice versa. They're always seeking closer ties despite US objection. Canada is just the same. They're only as loyal as their wallet can allow. Let America pay for global security, let america give us unfettered access to world's best market, raise Europe and china out of poverty, lets keep taking advantage of America's good will. America is done giving, its time the rest of the world pitch in. Trump woke America up to this none-sense previous leaders avoided.

Of course, this is the way immigration once worked in this country. Countless hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of immigrants who arrived in past generations moved on, either going back home or to another country, if things didn't work out in Canada. That's how my maternal grandfather's mainly Irish ancestors ended up in the U.S., when after figuring out that their economic options were limited in Canada fairly quickly moved south. There were few if any economic incentives available prior to the emergence of the welfare state to tie them to Canada. And this was particularly the case for urban immigrant laborers. Even as recently as the 1950 and 60s European immigrants who couldn't quickly adapt often left. The notion that there's a collective responsibility to ease the integration of immigrants into Canadian society is in my opinion a fairly recent development.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with immigration. No performance or outcome criteria or assessment. And even where one is made no one will alter immigration because of it. Ie, when the Immigration Department did a study 2 years ago to see where they most economically successful and least economically successful immigrants came from that information made no difference in the selection process. In fact, the very idea we would give preference to people from the most successful areas as opposed to those from the least generally gets howls of outrage and accusations of racism.

I thinking you're deluding yourself here. I sometimes wonder whether the objective of the "progressive" left is to find a crisis that doesn't really exist and in the absence of being able to find such a thing at least agitate for one? How many Canadians have ever joined a supposedly hate-related organization or attended a rally held by such a group? The percentage, no doubt, is minuscule. Many Canadians on the other hand are reasonably concerned about high immigration levels for reasons no more nefarious than asserting their concrete and legitimate interests, including concerns about rising taxation funded costs, escalating housing costs and the increasing strain being exerted on limited public services like health care. Expressing none of these concerns in any reasonable scenario amounts to "racism," a term that's become so overused as to have become debased by those who use it to promote personal and/or political agendas.

I think they need to understand the distinction between immigration and social assistance. I'm all for open borders, but not for open wallets. As Milton Friedman put it, you can't have open borders and an overly-generous welfare state at the same time. It has to be one or the other. Hong Kong and Singapore appear to have understood this. In many respects, they are more welcoming of immigrants than Canada is on a per-capita basis; but the reason immigrants integrate so much better there is because immigrants to those countries don't enjoy as easy access to social assistance. In fact, the reason Canada is less welcoming of immigrants than Hong Kong and Singapore are is precisely because our welfare system makes it unsustainable. Proponents of open borders need to understand that they have to choose, it has to be one or the other, and that they can't have it both ways. In fact, aside from racial laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act, Canad, the US, and many other states had far more open borders up until WWI than they do today. So why not now? simple: they didn't have the welfare state we have now either. History, Hong, Kong, and Singapore bear Milton Friedman's claims out again and again. Perhaps we need a national conversation on this: do we want to be more open-bordered like Hong Kong (in which case we will need to curb our welfare state to basic bread-and-butter issues) or do we want to maintain our overly-generous welfare state (in which case we will need to close our borders at least somewhat). That's not racist, that's just economic reality.

I think evidence increasingly supports this contention. Modern welfare state societies were largely built on the "social contract" model whereby one's entitlements were mainly based on and sustained by contributions one made into the system during one's working years. More recent large-scale migration policies accompanied by fairly open access to public benefits, at least in Canada and parts of Western Europe, has undermined the sustainability of this model, transforming it into a subsidy class system of layered and often permanent entitlements enjoyed by those who've in many cases contributed little or nothing to the system. And the consequences for those who have paid taxes to support the system are increasingly dire. Here in Ontario, the health care system has become a disaster of almost epic proportions where access to care is rationed. The Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman noted that the social welfare state is incompatible with open immigration. At least in the U.S., where access to publicly funded benefits is constricted by eligibility criteria favoring legal status, length of residency and financial contributions, the most recent generation of immigrants are net contributors to the tax base. The situation in other Western jurisdictions, like Canada, which afford almost instant access to publicly funded benefits for newcomers, provides substantial proof of the validity of Friedman's assertion.

What you're describing is essentially a conditional entry system. Personally, I don't think this is a bad idea but it's not likely to fly among proponents of immigration who oppose the notion of applying any kind of performance or outcome criteria to the assessment of immigrants or immigration.

Australia's examination of its immigration program concluded that the demographic argument often used to justify large-scale immigration is flawed. Its study concluded that to sustain any demographic gains large scale immigration has to be perpetually maintained as the boost is generally only applicable to the most recent generation or two of immigrants after which there is reversion to the mean in terms of demographic profile, fertility rates, etc. Observers have noted that the conclusion suggests that the demographic argument is therefore largely a ponzi scheme that can only be sustained by new entrants. As for emigrants returning to Canada, I think you are overly optimistic. For many immigrants, particularly from the developing world, getting into Canada is seen as a "stepping stone" to getting into the U.S., particularly for their offspring who after attaining education in this country have easier access to the U.S. than they would have had from the developing world. Thus, any demographic benefit is lost to Canada and sponsored family members who arrive in this country are in general far less likely to be economically productive than those who leave. Finally, population growth in and of itself doesn't raise living standards. It's essentially a zero sum game as there's little evidence that it boosts average wages. In fact, it contributes to greater competition for jobs and housing thus driving down wages and raising living costs. The British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted that any economic benefit for developed economies attributable to large scale migration is marginal and is unevenly distributed, with the rich benefiting and the poor, including poor immigrants, losing out. In other words, large scale migration exacerbates poverty and income inequality. Anybody living in a city or urban region heavily impacted by large scale migration, like the GTA, would notice these impacts.

Cooper is one fake and phony liberal media actor and activist hack that I would not touch, as they say, with a fifty foot pole. That guy has this liberal disease going around and there is no way that I would want to catch that liberal plague. Steer clear of that guy. LOL.

Mr. Argus. Just trying to show respect for the old fella. LOL.

All politicians put on a great show that they care and want to do something to drain the swamp. But in the end nothing ever gets done. All we just get is less freedom, more taxes and more government. Our politicians are nothing more than puppets on a string to the masters that really run this country. I have not heard of one politician who goes outside the party line and survives. And if they do, kaboom, they are out of here. When Harper was a member of the National Citizens coalition which I payed plenty of money and dues into and who preached about more freedom, less government and less taxes, and when he became the PM of Canada he gave me just the opposite, more taxes, more government, and less freedom. They are pretty much all alike. They learn very quickly as to who is the real boss running Canada and it ain't them, pardner. I am pretty sure that George Hees got that money back in someway for the beer that he bought you compliments of the taxpayer. If they have quit politics and have come out broke well they did not suck up to the right people or knew how to play the game to end up becoming rich when they leave politics. I heard that Chretien did quite well after he left politics. At least they all get nice benefits and pensions after they leave politics. They do a lot better than most Canadians ever do all their life in trying to save money for their pensions. You know what your problem is? You have to much faith in a crooked system and of politicians who do not have your interest at heart because if they did Canada and Canadians would not be in the position and situation that they find themselves into today. I see nothing but contempt from just about all politicians. Anyone who has a good career and has a job that pays well and quits to become a politician is just plain stupid to want to get involved in politics. The salary and benefits may appear is the reason why they got involved in politics. Did they not check to see as to whether it would be beneficial to their wallets being filled for them to become a politician? Did they think that they could become a politician and maybe have a chance to get rich at taxpayer's expense? Who knows. I am involved in politics and I listen and every day I watch as to what these politicians do and I am not very happy with what they are doing to this country or to my tax dollars. I have an open mind which is something I cannot say for some members here. Just saying.

One only has to go watch the lineups of vehicles at all of the Washington state borders to see that even despite the low Canadian peso Canadians still love to go to America for their shopping and vacations. I go to Blaine, Wash. for my gas, along with hundreds more Canadians, every two weeks as I do save quite a lot of pesos. The federal and provincial governments are so stupid here where they would rather force Canadians to pay higher prices for their gas instead of lowering their high taxes on gas and keep Canadians at home. Even with the exchange the gas still comes out somewhat still cheaper. It is the governments that cause most Canadians to run to America to do their shopping as they just do not seem to get it that by lowering the price of taxes on everything will allow Canadians to be able to buy at home instead. Get rid of the GST would be a great start that is if they can learn to stop spending tax dollars so foolishly. They appear to be totally clueless has to how capitalism works. They all think socialism is the way too go. It is for sure that the winter weather has a lot to do with it. Lucky you. But there are plenty of other countries to go visit in the winter time like Mexico or the Caribbean. Canadians do have a choice here but the problem is that Canadians pretty much have to pay their money in American dollars. Shit, Canadians can never win. I can always thank our dear liberal/ socialist leaders for that. Chuckle-chuckle.

There is nothing to misunderstand here. Everything in Canada is "fixed" by and for the politicians. Politicians can do what they want to do. If politicians want something changed then they just do it. Canadians will just shrug their shoulders anyway and say O well what can you do. It's no wonder politicians can so easily make fools out of Canadians because it is so easy to do. They know that they the sheeple will not say anything, and if by chance a few do, well they will just wait it out, and ignore them until they eventually give up and go away. The politicians have it all sown up as to how to treat the taxpayer's with total contempt. Canadians worry more about what Trump says and does here than worry about what is going on in their own country, and Trump is not even their president. Go and try to figure that one out. I cannot. But ya, let's bring on an election now, and let us see if we can get rid of this prime mistake of ours. Works for me.

The Russians tried but failed as the Shah resisted them and kicked them out in 1946 but from 1941 to 1953 Iran was a democracy but after the British inspired coup by CIA political democracy died in Iran but still there was absolute social democracy. In their social lives Iran nation lived like western culture including having bars, alcohol, social freedom and absolute choice in what to wear and what to do in their private lives unlike regional countries where social freedoms were curbed. Once the mullahs stole the power in 1979 coup then all kinds of freedom died in Iran, Even freedom in your bedroom and what you wear, drink or eat or who to socialized and political freedom was curbed in a brutal manner. Time for this brutal regime to go and since US is responsible for the political dictatorship by their 1953 coup then it is the responsibility of the US government now to help Iran nation to kick this murderous islamic regime out and restore democracy in their homeland. Many believe that the current leaders of Iran are Russian agents and there may be some truth to that as they are giving away Iran's land and sea and resources to Russians so if true then Russians are back in Iran.

Better check under your bed tonight. There may be a racist under there. White racists are everywhere in Canada. Shocking.

Trudeau's plans for Canada included killing the energy sector, massive deficit spending, giving Billion$ away to foreign countries, and bringing in massive amounts of immigrants at a cost of billion$ more to the provinces. If I ran my family finances the way that he runs this country I'd be on the street.

Totally. But, two things spring to mind: 1) that's priority #16, because putting an end to the various facets of Trudeau's strategy to de-Canadianize and bankrupt this country occupy the top 15 priorities and 2) it seems like pressure from Donald Trump will do more for this country than our own government. I was going to end that sentence with "on that front" but I just realized that the sentence is more accurate without it.

I watch Power and politics all the time - call me a masochist. Saw the program. It's not about the small numbers of these occurrences - it's about Canada standing on principles that make sense to Canadians. Perhaps a "small" thing - but how many insignificants make a significant? If you can't do what's right with the small things - how do you get the big things right? It ALL has to make sense - from top to bottom. Like I said - it makes you want to pull your hair out.