cannuck

Quebec is a very expensive luxury to Canada, but since it contains 8 million Canadians, one we pretty much have to pay to play with. Personally, I am properly pissed that French in my school years was barely taught, and I barely learned any. If we are going to be bi-lingual, IMHO we should BE bi-lingual and literally EVERYTHING should be done in both languages. Our children did French immersion, and speak fluent Parisian French. I was on board from day one for them to do so, but my wife (teacher) pointed out that one of best reasons to do so is that those who speak second (or more) languages and are advanced in music do extremely well with math and science. What has been mentioned is that unless they go out of their way, they simply don't get enough opportunity to speak French, and it hurts their proficiency. Little kid is fluent in 4 and conversant in 4 more, and is the "expert" in trying to maintain proficiency - that she supplements with a lot of international travel and work. That would be far easier if there was a lot more French in English Canada. Language has been a very useful developmental tool in our children's academic and professional life, and one they are passing on to our grandchildren. So for that, I say: "Vive la Quebec!"

Fascinating to see how this discussion is playing out. Questioning what IS "conservatism" and what is our true form of government is valid and worthwhile to pursue. My own humble opinion on the matters are that: Canada is a declared structural constitutional monarchy, but in reality functions as a democracy - for the most part. The Charter was drafted by some extremely radical leftists, and I believe the notwithstanding clause was the hand of Alan Blakeney seen in his prodigy Roy Romanow. Jean Chretien could not be said to be from anywhere near the right side (but will grant him some middle ground) of the spectrum, and the bloody lot of them were lawyers - a potential conflict of interest when it comes to who has precedent in final decisions - but even this wonky co-alition of the left was able to clearly see the threat of the judiciary running out of control vis-a-vis public interest. Queen Mandy: While I can agree for the most part with much of what you write, you have stepped a mile over the line when it comes to the judiciary and its "impartial" status of being non-partisan. I can tell you from having sat in the "back rooms" that almost EVERY appointment contains a considerable element of the partisan contribution to be left behind by each appointment. It was so bad that even Romanow (who was master of flagrantly abusing power and privilege) saw fit to protect us from it.

Right. All kids lie. Everything they say is not true. (BTW: that "kid" is a surgical resident - yeah can't trust them, can we?) She was there, you were not, but YOU know exactly what happened. Yeah, sub-Saharan African governments alway report the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You feeble efforts to deflect are pathetic.

My black friends (all American, and totally isolated from RSA today except for what they get in the media) claim that such claims of white rape and slaughter are being posted by white supremacist groups. My buddy's brother - a retired policeman living in Empangeni - points out to me that while there seem to be a fair number of white farmers being attacked and murdered, the official government record shows that it is simply not happening - and it is. Well, now that I was confused, I decided to ask a South African friend who recently emigrated to the UK. I had never discussed this with her before, but when I asked, her tone of voice changed dramatically and she told me of the three violent invasions of their family farm (by blacks) that in the last murdered her Mother's boyfriend and attempted to attack and kidnap her (other family members intervened). The police did nothing, crimes didn't happen. They decided it was time to go (two years ago) and to this time, 6 of her family and 7 more of her close friends are dead from many of these farm attacks that didn't happen. Now, 19 a year, and she alone can personally account for 14 of them? You REALLY think 19 is in any way representative and accurate>??????

Don't eliminate bilingualism, eliminate government employment.

Absolutely ANYTHING is possible with these people.

I don't know - 2020 or 2030, somewhere back then.

I agree with you on both points, but if homo sapiens want to continue to be the dominant species, they need to use what they ASSUME to have (superior intelligence) to limit our population to a sustainable size - and it is one hell of the lot less than 8 or 10 billion. I can accept that we will kill ourselves off in this manner, since I have come to understand that given one unit of intellect, the existence of 1 million people with one unit each does not result in 1,000,000 x the collective intelligence, but 1/1,000,000 th.

people in government (yes even total morons who sit in Ottawa today) are dealing with petroleum resources and international trade because these are reality, not the ravings of those from the newly encouraged world of recreational pot. Yes, there IS a real world of EV, solar and wind out there, but it is TINY in comparison with our actual energy needs and wants, and those needs and wants have to be met TODAY, not in some airey-fairey dreamland of what MIGHT come to pass. Petro hydrocarbons ARE a finite resource with a limited future, but that future will arrive only when emerging technologies get away from needing huge subsidies to make them viable. MARKET forces will bring what is need, when it is needed - and for HCs, that is not in the very near future. Same with trade. Yes, we have buggered up our economy with policies and beliefs of the past, but it is a very large ship that will not be steering in the right direction until we as the electorate begin to understand what it is that creates wealth and how it needs to be used. Our sidetrack into the world of speculative finance as a part of the credible economy (i.e. Casino Capitalism) has ensured we need a major crash such as '29 to once more pull our collective head out our ass and realize that speculation CREATES NO WEALTH. But, in the meantime, we need to live and work and trade in the world that is all around us. To feed the troll: outside of subsidized, distorted numbers for wind and solar we see in the media, I have seen some really nice technology that can produce solar power in distressed areas in significant quantities (in this case, factory roof installations in India - that are besieged with power interruptions off grid. BUT: even using the highest level of tech from one of the world's largest high tech firms, storage means that it only works for the small portion of the day where there is sufficient sun shining. The changes in battery technology that are GREAT in terms of things such as power tools and cell phones are simply no in the range of what is required for off grid commercial energy use. When that storage technical revolution comes, THEN we can start thinking about solar and wind as legitimate parts of the actual grid. What really disappoints me, is that we can have endless raving, discussion, debate, arguements, etc. on this topic, and seldom if ever does the REAL issue get discussed: We use (read WASTE) far too much energy in the way we build our infrastructure and live our lives. Part #2: we do zilch to address the largest of all problems: population control. Essentially, we are 8 Bn people all trying to live the life of unrestricted waste of the billion who live on easy street, and trying very hard to be 10 or 20 Bn doing so. Get back to a sustainable one or two billion, and THEN one can have some intelligent discussion as to how the future can work.

Finland also has conscription - so you have no choice (except jail time) other than to serve. You DO have a choice to do so in an armed service (the 900,000) or unarmed in support. But, one way or another, every adult male will give the state one year of their lives. Sweden has also a compulsory service deal, and in their case you are technically a reservist for life, subject to recall at any time. Now, I personally don't have any great problem with that. Instead of raising another generation who feel they are entitled to a free ride for life, giving every young adult a year of training and discipline is more likely to produce a generation of people who have some useful skills and some clear understanding of their responsibilities to their nation and fellow citizens is not a bad thing. What I seem to recall from my past is that when the US had conscription, there was a workforce of civilians who ALL had some basic skills at least an idea of how things can be organized and accomplished. IMHO, it was as important to the veracity of the economy as other fundamentals such as the Interstate system (also with a definite military component). If I could be dictator for a term, we would have conscription much like Finland - with things such as fire, police, EMT, CO service counting towards one's required time. Doing so would give disparate groups - such as aboriginals - a hell of a lot better start on adult life than what the current situation of dependence does.

Dianna, Kate...sorry, can't think of much else. While they DID leave us a system of some kind of government, it probably aborted any attempts by a possible set of founding fathers to define our future with the kind of foresight and good judgement that the Yanks had when they dumped Britain on its ass.

Were we stupid enough to allow the US bank/finance world free access to Canadians, we would have been cleaned out by the hundreds of billions in the mortgage scam business. Damn good thing we are protecting our banking from reckless, unregulated orgy of greed. Your banks can't play by the rules. Come talk to us when you can. What was challenged in Quebec was delivery of service by private providers - not universal sick care. ANYONE can buy supplementary insurance, as sick care universal coverage is for necessary medical only, not electives, dental, vision, etc. I have Blue Cross, as do most people I work with - as we travel extensively in the US and around the world. It IS all bare faced protectionism as we suffer from sharing a marketplace with a giant that has even greater levels of trade distorting protectionism in tariffs, subsidies and non-trade barriers. And, one that does not follow the rules.

BTW: on the issue of dairy supply management not being a "subsidy": well, it is, as it mandates that the buyer pay a price set by the agencies to guarantee support for the farm gate price of dairy, poultry and eggs. I BELIEVE that there is a direct subsidy mechanism, as when there is overproduction, it usually ends up being bought by the government sponsored agencies or departments and dumped on international markets at a substantial loss. BTW: the dairy tarrifs into Canada are there because the US subsidizes dairy farmers who in turn could dump their subsidized product into our market - just as they screw up the Mexican corn markets with subsidized US feed.

And, as a result we have a healthy banking system - not one that raped the US taxpayer for TRILLION$$ in reward for their treachery. Only a complete fool would allow US banks into their economy (awww SHIT, we HAVE a complete fool for a PM now). Universal sick care insurance is a government supplied social service, NOT a competitive business in Canada. In that way, we can get better medical outcomes at half of the price. I believe there are no barriers to US firms providing supplemental sick care benefits in the competitive insurance market, but I am not sure about that. Yes, better because we will actually follow the rules that we have either published and imposed, or agreed to bi-laterally or multi-laterally. Again: reference the softwood lumber fiasco(s) and outcome of arbitration.

Banking is done very differently here from the US. We don't give them control and ownership of our central bank, nor does ANY other sovereign nation. We are protecting ourselves from unbridled greed and avorice at its worst. It's another "play by the rules" issue. If you know any Basel II and III compliance consultants from the risk management side of banking, they could write books about how reckless and uncontrolled US banking is. It is the one thing that will take down the country (yours, and then sadly ours as well). Health (actually sick care) insurance is another. The US is unable to tell the difference between business and social services (such as universal sick care insurance), leaving Canada with a split system somewhere between the rest of the old G7 and our whackey buds to the South. We certainly need to protect the small portion of it we DO do right. The others I will give you, and support you on to the bitter end. BUT: we do so strictly under the rules. You should try it some time.

Just as has every other Imperial power, the US will consume itself. This time, the end will come from empowering banks/finance to own the economy and run it as a Casino Capitalist system instead of respecting the fundamentals of capitalism that built the place. But, you are right about one thing: if we continue to mimick our good friends on the other side of the 49th, you WILL take us down with you. Time for Johnny Canuck (not Cannuck I will point out) to grow a pair and start taking care of business. You are also correct in slandering our military - as under Trudeau senior, it was converted from a first class military machine into an element of social policy. If we keep on electing Liberals, and worse yet Trudeaus, it will never recover. However: even our greatly diminished forces can go to a place such as Afganistan and conduct themselves with the utmost in integrity and ability - moreso than any other country that was there. And we were there to help our best/closest ally - YOU. Our forces biggest fear was not the Taliban, it was friendly fire (from guess where?). As far as China colonising Canada - how is that any different from what the US has done?

I would definitely say that the US is more protective than Canada, since to have same impact, one must realize 1/10 measure of US protection = one full measure of Canadian. Any country that pays direct ag subsidies of about 3/4 the total Canadian Gross Domestic ag productiion is playing it dirty and dumb. As long as there are more than 1,000 people living INSIDE of the Beltway who receive direct ag subsidy cheques greater than $1mm (that EACH !!) that is one issue that will not be dealt with. The veracity of clause 19 is that EVERY time the ultra-protectionist forces within the US try to slap duties on Canadian softwood, when it goes for arbitration, they are proven to be wrong in every way. What is VERY different between Canada and the US in trade (and so many other things) is that we actually play by the rules. Remember BSE ("Mad Cow" disease)?? CFIA actually looked for it, found it, documented and announced it - costing us some extremely valuable beef export customers. The reason it did not surface in the USA (our problem CAME from US sourced feed) was because nobody was looking for it, and when it popped up it was conveniently ignored. That is bare faced protectionism at its best - and we simply don't do that.

many successive US governments have left the US market open to be raped and pillaged by Europe, Asia and CANADA for decades. It can't survive on an economy predicated on consuming and speculative trading/investment, it has to go back to work. It won't be able to do that until it stems the flow of garbage into the consumer AND industrial world that now comes from Asia in particular. Canada has the weakest administration it may every have suffered at the helm, so we can expect to have our collective ass handed to us by the Yanks. We will survive, and if we are smart (since if you look at what we elected as a government and its leaders - we clearly are not) we will get on with business and develop some more trading partners to plunder our resources, since we - as an economy integrated with the US - don't produce much of anything except cars and car parts for the Americans. It is high time we open our eyes and put OUR own house in order. Kudos to Trump for looking after his.

This IS the #1 problem in the world, but it is so seldom discussed as it requires some serious re-thinking about how "we" run the world. Without an effective world government, it is left to the hopelessly ineffective UN to speak for the lot of us, and that doesn't seem to be likely. Solve the governance thing first, THEN we can lick the population bomb.

quantity far too high, quality far too low.

this is exactly how the NDP got elected in Alberta. Splitting the right vote is a HUGE mistake.

It's all about the Golden Rule = follow the gold. Politics is all about the access to control of the money.

I am about as far away from a "socialist" as you will find, but what I CAN claim is enough maturity to look at the facts and park the partisan rhetoric. EVERY one of the former G7 except the USA has some sort of public sick care with more-or-less universal insurance. They all cost less than the US system and most have better outcomes. The first concern is the insurance side: Universal coverage is something that needs to be there. In the US, I think the numbers are close to 60% are covered by some kind of government paid or provided medical insurance through Medicare, Medicaid, GI or VA benefits, Federal, state or municipal employment - so there is a precedent for state sponsored sick care. What has been shown time and time again is that insurance companies don't seem to be very good at providing fair administration. Universal coverage does not HAVE to mean government being the insurer, but one way or another, government needs to control the provision of fundamental sick care coverage either as a provider or as an iron-fisted regulator and advocate. The other facet is service delivery. Where we screw up horribly in Canada is by letting government have a monopoly on service delivery. In most countries, state and private service delivery co-exist happily with funding provided by whatever system of universal insurance (at least for basic or necessary service). What needs to be considered is what is the engine of the economy? It is not, as most would think, big business, it is small business. Main Street is the source of almost all entry into the world of business and where most wealth is created. Small business is the wellspring of a healthy capitalist economy. In the US, small business can not afford decent sick care. I have met many, many people who have come to middle/late life as small scale employers and do not have workable coverage themselves. When a medical problem surfaces, they end up either bankrupt or dead, or both. One of the companies I have in the US we keep open because our lead hand's wife has a bizarre medical problem and if we were to close down (we should have done so several years ago) she would not be re-insurable (and we doubt the state provided alternative would keep her alive). We have a fairly good medical benefit package because we gave the staff a choice many years ago to select either more money into the pay packets or a very expensive medical insurance plan - as it once again was needed to cover a serious problem that one employee had. Time and again, I hear of people who can't really do a startup because of the benefit costs as a small user. North of the 49th, it is simply not something we even THINK about when opening a new business. Even our somewhat broken system works far better than any but a gold plated plan in the US and is never an impediment to doing business. The real problem with having a total free market in sick care is that it does not always produce the desired results of competition lowering prices. It tends to be dominated by those who would take as much advantage as possible to profit from their involvement. Those factors are SO BIG in the US that it colours the way service is delivered. Big Pharma is famous for this - to the extent that their influence results in massive use of drugs that are ineffective, symptom related only, or staggeringly overpriced (orphans being scooped up going from pennies a dose to thousands of dollars - well documented). Big Med is not much better. Yes, there are some EXTREMELY good facilities available in the US, but they are only available to the tiny fraction of the population that has a gold plated insurance plan or pockets full of liquidity. Finally the third REALLY BIG elephant in the corner of the room - the LLL - the Legal Liability Lottery. Not only does that free market for lawyers extract massive cost from the sick care system, it determines how medicine is practiced. Instead of diagnosing and treating, a massive amount of prophylactic services are DEMANDED to keep practitioners and their host companies appearing to have done all that is "necessary" not to diagnose and treat, but to avoid lawsuits. You will notice that I very clearly NEVER call most of what medical insurance does "health" care - as it is not. The old saw "you get what you pay for" is spot on. We pay for illness and injury, so the whole system is designed to do things that providers get paid for. HEALTH care is the extreme opposite - as providing such is done at direct cost to the sick care "business". So, we have precious little actual "health care" at all. Almost zero chance of that changing significantly in a free market of sick care as the US model shows. The bottom line is that sick care SHOULD be a social service, NOT a business.

Actually, I was delighted that our children chose to do ALL of the post secondary education (24 years between 2 kids) in Canada. The discipline in post-graduate schools tends to be far more oriented on sound academics and fundamental science rather than sponsored research with an agenda - and worse than that - wasting resources on stick and ball bullshit. Looking back: it was probably 1/4 of the cost of doing the same degrees in the US - and they managed to do so strictly on their academic merit - not some sports related nonsense that produces PhDs in basket weaving (or of course PhDs in corporate frames of reference). If the OP's son is of post-grad caliber, these are things worth considering - ESPECIALLY for a foreign student.