Second-class Canadian

You're confusing open trade with open labour. Though not mutually incompatible, they are still unrelated.

That's why we should maximally shrink government. Listen to the rhetoric from all parties. It's about helping the middle class, to raise our taxes to spend them on separate schools, French and English language services in Iqaluit, Heritage Canada, and the CBC.If you just cut all of that, paid off the debt, and then lowered my taxes, my charity would go to much needier people than the middle class.

You're confusing threads. First off, I've dropped that other conversation, resigned to the fact that we will just have to live apart until marriage. To some extent that was a ranting thread. I don't know why you're bringing it up in a free trade thread. Secondly, I don't see how trade policy relates to immigration policy. A state can be pro-trade yet anti-immigration, or it can be protectionist yet pro-immigration. I just happen to be very pro-free-trade and have been for years before we'd met, and seeing the NDP up in the polls, I'm therefore thinking of how free trade can be better secured in a free-market economy? Do you have a problem with ensuring an open market?

It would be just as easy for the Canadian Government to withdraw from such agreements as it is for the government to sign them. A majority NDP government could undo decades of progress on the free trade front within one mandate.

Scandinavian social-democracy is fundamentally different from the NDP's vision. I'll take Sweden as an example: They are very pro-free-trade and pro-privatization, preferring public-private partnerships over nationalization. They have a two-tiered heath care system, a national school voucher program, right-to-work laws, and no official minimum wage. These are all policies the NDP associates not with Scandinavian social-democracy, but with the US republican party and out-of-control capitalism. I'm not disputing that Sweden is social democratic, just that the NDP's brand of labour socialism is fundamentally different and so incomparable with the Scandinavian model.

Hong Kong's economic policy is still more open than Canada's... and that's with a majority Conservative Government in power.

But in the mean time, until that happens...

Why the repeated quotes? Must have been a glitch.

I'very rarely met such Canadians. When I have it's usually been in online forums.

Baffin Island SAR would be another one worth considering.

Should Canada establish constitutionally entrenched Special Administrative Regions (SARs) similar in concept to Hong Kong SAR, that would essentially be guaranteed free-trade regions? Some SARs that I envision could include Montreal Island SAR, Vancouver Island SAR, and Nova Scotia Island SAR. This would help to protect (at least to a degree) Canadian businesses from the whims of protectionist governments from election to election. Your thoughts on this?

The following is intended as half satirical, but I figured it could help to open up serious conversation pertaining to race relations in Canada. Does Canada need separate Anglo-Protestant and Franco-Catholic townships outside our cities? Given how some Canadians can't handle living with different people, I was wondering about the idea of the Government establishing townships to leave the rest of us alone. Only those who identify as Canadians of British and French origin who speak either English or French and who profess the Protestant or Catholic Faith would be allowed to visit or reside, while the rest of us (which would include people like myself) could live outside these townships; and only English Protestant or French Catholic separate schools would be allowed within the townships. This way, the people living in the townships couldn't be bothered by the liberal laws outside the townships, while those of us living outside the townships could enjoy a more open and integrated community.

What door might that be? The money-saving door?

With all due respect, I think your comment is fallacious on a number of points (though feel free to correct me if I misread you and I apologize in advance should that be the case):1. You seem to be confusing threads and topics. Never in this thread did I propose adopting any additional official language. 2. Since we're already confusing threads, I'll mention that even in the one in which I did propose adopting Chinese as an official language, I did not mean it seriously but rather to make a point. You seemed to be suggesting (or at least as I'd read it) that we should be prohibited from using any language other than an official one of state in private matters, so I countered according to that rationale that we might want to officialize it then. Just to be clear on where I really stand, I believe that two official languages are too many due to translation costs and that we ought to have only one, maybe English. 3. I get the impression that you might be confusing official and unofficial, a language of state and a private language (though it might just be that we understand the terms differently). When I think of an official language of state, I think of an official language of government administration and not the language used in private business or conversations between friends and family. To my mind at least, for the law to allow a person to converse in the language of his choice in private conversation or a private business to package and label a product in the language of its choice does not make that language an official language of state but merely a private language, so I do not see how advocating for more freedom in any private language somehow equates with proposing the adoption of another official language. Additionally, I believe that making a clear distinction between official and unofficial is the only way we Franco-Ontarians could possibly accept the de-officialization of our language from the Constitution. In other words, should French ever no longer be an official language of state, then we would insist on the official language being limited to government administration and universal compulsory second-language education, with any other education, media, or other funding maybe just being given in the form of a voucher to be used in the language of our choice and letting our businesses package and label products in the language of our choice too. As long as we fail to differentiate between official and unofficial (and so impose the official language of state onto private matters), then not only will we defend an official status for French but for other languages too. So essentially I'm for one official language of state or government administration with significant freedom for any unofficial language in unofficial contexts or private matters. I believe in making a clear distinction between matters of state and private matters. It's no surprise that the Conservative Party of Quebec proposed a school voucher programme for the province: it understood that if it's not going to support strengthening the official status of French, then it must focus on weakening the official status of English and strengthen unofficial language rights. I'd actually emailed it to learn of the details of its position, and beyond requiring French as at least a second language in all schools and provincial testing in French, it proposed letting schools adopt the language of instruction of their choice (which could be a sign language, the local indigenous language, English, or any other unofficial language) according to market demand, and that French would be the official language of the administration of the state but that businesses in Quebec could operate in any unofficial language of their choice. 4. The reason I'd proposed that private businesses be free to package and label in the language of their choice is for purely economic reasons. Right now only companies that package and label in English and French can sell their product on Canadian store shelves, giving them if not a monopoly, then at least significant protection against competition, thus allowing them to maintain inflated prices and lower quality. Now supposing that the language requirements were removed, suddenly a shop in BC might decide to import some US products that are packaged and labelled only in English, a shop in Quebec might decide to import products from France that are packaged and labelled only in French, etc. With the sudden increase of choice on the market, companies would feel greater pressure to raise quality, lower prices, or specialize. Even monolingual English speakers would benefit from this due to the fact that English companies would suddenly have to work harder to maintain the loyalty of their non-native English-speaking consumers (which they could no longer take for granted) who could just as easily turn to products that are packaged and labelled in any language they know. This would also reduce overhead translation costs in the packaging and labelling industry, savings that could be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices, savings that we could then dispense with as we see fit, which could include contributing to the revitalization of indigenous languages. If the government won't accept responsibility for its past actions, then it should at least have the decency to step aside and let those who want to help do so.

But why does an English speaker need French labels? Why does a French speaker need English labels? What if a Chinese speaker decides to specialize in Chinese products and his clientele is predominantly Chinese speaking? Can a person not refuse to buy a product he can't read? Why withhold others from it?

As mentioned above: no more separate school system and official bilingualism, no more media funding and Heritage Canada. No more language requirements on packaging and labelling so as to increase product choice.

We're not looking to "shack up". On the one hand, all our problems should be fixed within the next year once we are married. However, it would be nice to meet her parents first and determine the details of a trans-Pacific marriage rather than rush into it for the papers. In the meantime though, if she had the ability to work and do business as of now, that could give us a head start. Or even if I could sponsor her in the meantime, but I can't do that either. Anyway, that's it. We work with the laws dealt us and that's that. Since she would prefer getting married in Hong Kong though, we've considered maybe arranging a pre-marriage ceremony in Canada for my dad who would legally not be allowed to attend due to a past military security status, though since her family could come to Canada, she also considered simply explaining my dad's situation to her family and have it in Canada.

So what's your view on maximally small government, no more hand outs for anyone?

Okay, prohibition might be excessive, but how would requiring educational advertizing to accompany it prevent them from advertizing? Wouldn't that be like educational advertizing on cigarette cartons?

Where is Craigslist based? The US? So if Canada negotiated an agreement with the US to require all Web pages advertising sexual services to present applicable educational advertising, I can imagine the US government (especially given American conservative values) agreeing to this. So unless Craigslist wanted to be fined on a daily basis until bankrupt, it would comply. Is that not how laws usually work?

Citizenship is a lesser concern, but residing in Canada before marriage would be nice.

For the same reason cigarette companies agree to it. Because it would be the law wherever Craigslist is based.

We should consider cutting Heritage Canada and CIDA too.

Possibly the best option is to shrink government maximally. Eliminate the separate school system and official bilingualism from the Constitution, cut media funding, Heritage Canada, and CIDA, and eliminate the language requirements from packaging and labelling. Consequently, we could pay the debt faster and enjoy lower-priced products. The sooner the debt is paid off, the sooner we could enjoy tax reductions. And the sooner we enjoy tax reductions, the sooner we could further increase our charitable contributions. I already give regularly to my local Native Friendship Centre through automatic bank withdrawals even though I am not indigenous myself. But if the government insists on not helping indigenous cultures, then it should also cut help to English and French. Fair is fair, or do you need a hand out?

I hope for an independent conservative candidate in my riding. For all of my differences with the Conservative Party, I still lean somewhat towards liberal-conservative ideas. We need a candidate who will promote not only free trade, but also common labour agreements, allowing Canadians to freely access foreign labour and business markets and vice versa. We also need a candidate who will distance himself from ethnic politics. This could mean supporting eliminating the separate school system and English and French language provisions from the Constitution. The English in Quebec can learn French or hire their own translators or find a French-speaking friend or family-member on their own, and the same for French-speakers outside of Quebec. The savings could be redirected towards government debt. Media funding needs to be more responsive to personal preferences. Cut all funding to the CBC and redirect that funding towards the Federal debt or, if we must insist on Federal media funding, then let's at least give more media choice by eliminating Canadian content requirements and by giving media vouchers towards subscription to any media in any language, including a sign language, the local indigenous language, or any other unofficial language. The CBC/SRC could freely compete for these vouchers on an equal footing with Deaf, indigenous, and other media. Given that universal compulsory public education on reserves and military bases at home and abroad are a Federal responsibility, should all of the indigenous peoples and at least two provinces agree, create a national curriculum, educational standard, and testing system to be applied on all reserves and military bases, and to be adopted by the participating provinces. This would reduce the number of curricula, educational standards, and testing systems in Canada by at least one (and maybe more if more than two provinces participate), thus reducing redundancies and so saving provincial taxpayers more money than it would cost the Federal Government. Given that it's the same taxpayers provincially and Federally, I'm sure they'd be happy to accept a Federal tax increase (assuming such is even required if the English and French language provisions of the Constitution are removed), in exchange for an at least equal tax reduction privincially. This would also help to standardize public education between participating provinces and so promote greater parental mobility within Canada especially among indigenous peoples and military personnel. We could also give school vouchers to parents residing on military bases and reserves (in consultation with the indigenous peoples of course) which they could use to register their children in a local provincial public or private school or a national public school on base or reserve according to market demand. To increase market competition within Canada, we could also abrogate all language requirements from the Packaging and Labelling Act. This would mean that bilingual English and French packaging and labelling would no longer be required, thus allowing a wider range of foreign products into the Canadian consumer market to promote more competition. Recognizing that our workforce is more internationally mobile than ever before in our recorded history, the Federal Government should negotiate common educational standards for various trades and professions with ministries of education at home and abroad. On the social front, we need to combat the sex trade and addictions. If possible, require internet providers to block pornographic websites, requiring anyone who wants access to them to contact the provider to opt in. Also, recognizing that prohibiting websites in Canada from advertizing sexual services is completely useless in the absence of international agreements, negotiate agreements with other countries to block such sites or at least regulate them by requiring educational advertising on pages that advertise such services. The educational advertising could include available government funding for trades and professional education, literacy education, crisis and addiction helplines, psychological services, sex addiction therapy, 12-step groups, etc. These are just some of the subjects that an independent liberal-conservative MP could present to Parliament free from the constraints of the CPC.