Centerpiece

You're being slippery here - that's not really what he said. It would be better if you could actually provide the statement from your source. All I could find is this very rational, pragmatic reference - which is not an admission of being offensive - it's an example of the growing intolerance of this "University public" that you speak of.

Sorry I missed it - it was actually based on the same study which I came across some time ago. Glad I read through it though - it actually details some of the "diversity statements" that are embedded in the hiring process - which in themselves are inflammatory.

Here's a good study that identifies the depth of the issue - admittedly, it's a US study but the details clearly parallel what's been going on in Canadian academia. Could you now acknowledge that an issue exists?

That article in the NYT would just as correctly apply to our own "Prime Minister" and would be just as inappropriate if it was an anonymous source. Whoever the weasel is, they should have resigned and told their story. I'm sure there are any number of PMO people who make heroic efforts to keep him from sticking his foot in his mouth - with questionable results. I mean really - don't you think there are several Liberal insiders who mumble "the guy's an idiot". Remember John McKay during the campaign - the "Bozo eruption"? Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FK3e0z8Ym8 Even Marc Garneau had plenty to say about Trudeau: Link: https://mackaycartoons.net/tag/marc-garneau/

Libertarian. Probably a good name for the Party.......a lot of unconnected voters might very well think it was a cool, new Liberal Party. Perhaps those young first-time Liberals who were suckered last time might jump on board. Seems to be a lot of.....well, not the deepest thinkers out there.

Where was the MSM on this CBC report - even the CBC tried to downplay their own reporter by focusing on Trump's tweets after the G7. Trudeau personally snatched a defeat from the jaws of victory. Not only did he stab Trump in the back - he missed an opportunity to wish him well on his trip to Singapore to try to negotiate a deal with the North Koreans to de-nuclearize. He's so incompetent he's dangerous - as he keeps showing. Canadians - wake up! .Link: https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/06/12/diplomacy-trump-style-understanding-narcissism/#.W4syoOhKiyI

Classic good guy/bad guy negotiation. Trump's the bad guy - his team led by Lighthizer are the good guys. The team is negotiating in good faith but can always play the Trump card if necessary. I doubt they have actually done that yet - but Trump's belligerence creates a background drone that speaks to "I can't take that back to the President". It's really mostly about Dairy because that's just about the only thing that Trump has been going on about. Is that really too much to ask? Substantially increase the quotas and reduce the incremental tariff and the rest of the dominos will fall in place.

I'll be really upset if Gender Equality is not spelled out in the agreement. If it's not there, Trudeau has lost my vote.

Just a reminder of how well "respected" Trudeau is around the world. He was the host of the G7 conference. One would think everyone knew who he was and would be anxious to engage with him - the likeable character that he is - according to the MSM. Watch this video - it's painful - but telling. Nobody wants to talk to poor Justin: Link:

With Trudeau at the rudderless helm, we have become a nation of virtue signalling hypocrites, ashamed of our history, ruining our future and lacking any respect on the world stage. With Harper, we didn't try to be something we were not......but he still told Putin to get out of the Ukraine - to his face. And he gave China the cold shoulder for 4 or 5 years (to the shrill cries of his critics) to show them he walked the talk on Human Rights - before carefully starting to engage them on trade. He called Iran out for their sponsorship of terror. He was respected by world leaders - especially Angela Merkel. He treated the UN as the useless, unelected busybodies they are. The only elements that didn't like him were the UN (of course) and the eco-nut lobby......say no more. I want my Canada back!

That's all just reefer madness.......

In spite of Conservatives replying overwhelmingly to a Globe & Mail Survey - saying that they would not join a Bernier-led party - G&M says that "the survey left some question marks". What questions could possibly remain? A teeny bit of biased muck raking....just maybe?

Sort of like how Trudeau sabotaged the TPP........ Link: https://www.smh.com.au/world/canadas-pm-justin-trudeau-sabotages-transpacific-partnership-shocking-leaders-20171110-gzj866.html

That Star article is as usual, shilling for the Liberals - giving Trudeau cover if our gong show government walks away. The MSM has been loathe to admit the incredible mess Trudeau has made of international relations, including trade.

Like I said - we can pick and choose and we should.......all on a "needs basis". If it's skills, lets be smart in defining what those skills are - real skills - not nannies. If it's propping up an aging country, lets focus on young, educated families. It's so frustrating to have the immigration industry, lawyers and leftist media and academics oppose every attempt to rationalize the system - calling it discriminatory, racist, unfair, un-Canadian, mean-spirited, blah, blah, blah.

Yes. It was ludicrous in the first place - and it's ludicrous to keep doing it. If the parents want the baby to be Canadian, they can immigrate to Canada and apply for citizenship for themselves and their child.

Perfect summary. Thank you.

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.

Argus - you're talking like a business person - problem definition, goals and objectives, analysis, development, project management. implementation......and if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.......all that stuff. There's nothing like a wooly-headed, hand wringing issue with no goalposts for a government to woo voters - or try to prevent losing them. I have absolutely no idea how to "force" government to do things properly - their pace and transparency is directly related to the polls - and of course the media and opposition parties can so easily put a negative spin on just about anything. As an example - and you know quite well - the "best available" will be spun as discrimination, if not racism. It's enough to make you want to pull your hair out.

2016 deaths in Canada: 268,932. 2016 births in Canada: 383,102. Net increase with no immigration: 114,170 Given the above - and Canada's aging demographics, that net increase will get smaller if we had no immigration - and the expense of an aging population will go up along with fewer working people to drive the economy. Even if Father Time eased up and we magically maintained the same net increase, it would take 10 years to add one million to our current population of 36 million. So it seems clear that we require "needs based" immigration. We could argue about the number but I'm OK with a figure around 300,000, give or take. Where I have a problem is the selection process. We can pick and choose and we should. Here's the current criteria for immigration: Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/notices/supplementary-immigration-levels-2018.html

So early that one wonders what the motivation might be. No party to "vote" for? No problem. Look into Abacus Data and Bruce Anderson and you will find a pretty tight thread to Summa Strategies and Earnscliffe Strategies - both conveniently tied to the Liberal Party. The poll is so hypothetical and speculative as to be meaningless.

I found this article to be a good synopsis of Canada's immigration and why the Asylum mess is causing Canadians to lose patience. Here's a few snippets - it's a nicely written non-partisan article that is worth reading in its entirety:

I have nothing to support it's effectiveness - or lack thereof. My point is that from an operational/control point of view - basic immigration works reasonably well. Any perceived problems (or benefits) with immigration are as a result of political choices. The border Asylum process is a different kettle of fish and is just a disaster.

Doesn't seem like it - looks like we might have a new normal.Trudeau made his infamous Tweet in January, 2017. Prior to 2017, there are no similar figures for "RCMP interventions", indicating the issue was not a major one. Note that these statistics provide separate numbers for port-of-entry claims. 2017: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims-2017.html 2018: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims.html