turningrite

As montgomery has already identified his (I'm assuming gender here) bias, he apparently believes that his positions are unassailable, at least in his own mind. He's a committed Lib, through and through, no matter the realities of public opinion nor the existence of objective evidence refuting the logic or benefits of Lib policies.

Let's be honest here. The overarching tactic employed by both of Canada's major political parties when in government has been to identify and buy off voting blocs. Anybody who believes otherwise doesn't understand Canadian politics. And the concept of "socially responsible" government is simply a smoke screen. Governments have a primary obligation to be responsible to all voters and particularly to taxpayers. In practice, the application of the concept of social responsibility has too often resulted in governments picking (their preferred) winners to the detriment of the legitimate interests of others. In reality, it's no way to run a successful country. Governments cannot and should not guarantee equality of outcomes. Just a hint here: Governments in general have a bad track record where social engineering schemes are concerned.

1.) Well, you've been on this site for all of about five minutes, metaphorically speaking, and yet have pigeonholed my views and presumably those of others who don't blindly support your party and its leader. You, by the way, suggested I look at the other nine countries on the top-ten happiness list to look for other examples of good governance. I chose Australia, because of its may similarities (excluding climate) to Canada in comparison to the rest. Now though, you're trashing Australia for its relatively tougher approach to immigration. It seems you're trying to have it both ways. 2.) Logically, immigration policy must always be grounded in economic realities in order to benefit a receiving country. To do otherwise is to undermine living standards and the viability of public programs. Mr. Trudeau might believe that budgets balance themselves and that his immigration program is unquestionably beneficial to Canada. I think most prudent and intelligent voters interpret his certainty on such matters to be pure political malarkey. 3.) I don't hate Trudeau. I just don't have much respect for him and his "progressive" coterie and I believe his government's record has been, at best, mediocre. I evaluate political parties and leaders on the depth and breadth of their policy expertise as well as their openness to both public input and criticism. As today's Star editorial ('Voters deserve the best choice) noted - and the Star has a reputation for solidly supporting Trudeau's agenda - to be taken seriously the Libs have to avoid demonizing their critics as the election approaches.

My position is that immigration, like any other government policy, needs to be subjected to constant scrutiny and open to adjustment. Immigration in Canada is overly politicized and the promotion of its benefits is too often mainly grounded in "progressive" assumptions and ideology. Objective analysis suggests that large-scale immigration in post-industrial economies does not provide the benefits its proponents often argue to apply. The British economist and Oxford professor, Sir Paul Collier, has concluded that large-scale immigration only marginally increases per capita economic output and in so doing actually increases economic inequality. Australia, which has subjected its large-scale immigration program to scrutiny, concluded that immigration isn't a practical solution to the so-called "demographic deficit" (one of the hobby-horses of the immigration lobby) and that certain aspects of immigration policy, particularly family reunification, actually do impose an economic burden on taxpayers. Australia's study recommended paying much more attention to the economic viability of immigrants, including by matching eligibility to real economic and labour market requirements and prioritizing English-language skills. There is a good way to operate immigration programs and in many aspects it appears Canada's system doesn't reflect best practices. Generally speaking, any policy or program spared from objective observation and scrutiny will eventually generate negative outcomes.

1.) Wow! JT is down to 35% in the polls. Even his media friends are advising him to be less, well, fluffy in the run-up to the 2019 federal election. A Toronto Star editorial today warned that he should stop preening. Hey, when your friends tell you that, what can your enemies say that's more devastating? What are his accomplishments, by the way? There are pretty slim pickings, if you ask me. JT's a lightweight and more people figure this out as each day passes. 2.) Apparently, you don't understand the term. 3.) The rankings mean nothing. That's my point. Another survey recently indicated that the most unhappy places in Canada, the Toronto and Vancouver regions, which have the highest levels of immigration, are the unhappiest in Canada. The happiest regions are Atlantic Canada and Quebec, which have comparatively low levels of immigration. What do you make of that. 4.) Pure conjecture. 5.) You're veering into another 'ad hominem critique', so I won't respond further. See #2.

One point a lot of migration advocates don't seem to acknowledge is that illegal/irregular migration is in many cases intertwined with human trafficking, which is considered a form of exploitation. Thus, I place little value on the opinions expressed by those who think uncontrolled migration is an unmitigated good. Do they understand or consider the implications of their position?

1.) You know nothing about me so you're engaging in rather mindless personal attacks. 2.) "Happiness" rankings are highly subjective. Further, they tend to benefit smaller, developed countries that in general, with the exception of Canada and Australia, that have generally featured homogeneous populations. Perhaps you should consider that according to a 2017 Gallup study the U.S. overwhelmingly remains the preferred destination for those who, mainly in the developing world, would like to emigrate from their own countries. 3.) Nine examples of good government? Well, Australia, a post-colonial country with a relatively small but diverse population that's highly dependent, as are we, on resource industries, does offer a good point of comparison. Its governance has been more conservative than ours and in terms of GDP and living standards it has zoomed ahead of Canada. Its public debt level is much lower than Canada's and It has examined its large-scale immigration program, largely modeled on Canada's, and found it flawed. Its current approach to immigration is tougher and more selective than is ours. And Australia still seems a pretty happy and stable place, which the logic you express in your posts suggests shouldn't be the case. So, yes, let's compare ourselves to Australia. A warning, though: You might like the conclusions. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/these-are-the-countries-migrants-want-to-move-to/

Again, 'argumentum ad hominem'... Again, you lose.

1.) Bigotted (sic)? 'Argumentum ad hominem' (See online definition below.) You lose. 2.) I'm not a CPC member, nor am I a CPC voter. Actually, you know nothing about me, so please keep your assumptions to yourself. Clearly, you're a staunch LPC supporter, whether or not evidence and/or logic sustains your preference for its policies. Argumentum ad hominem: a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I suspect you don't really know what you're talking about. Canada remains near the bottom of OECD rankings in terms of social program expenditures as a percentage of GDP, spending much less per capita than many European counterparts, in particular.

Perhaps you might try doing some online research before rendering sweeping generalizations. Scandinavian countries, and particularly Sweden and Denmark, face significant challenges relating to migration, not the least of which is the sustainability of the long-standing societal consensus in both countries on the efficacy of the welfare state itself. None of this is really a shock. The late Nobel-winning American economist, Milton Friedman, famously noted that the welfare state cannot practically co-exist with an open migration policy. And your comments on the situation in the U.S. are wildly alarmist. While a strong although likely minority cohort of Americans fall into the camp of what has traditionally labelled "nativism," America continues to absorb hundreds of thousands of newcomers each year. Nativism's pull long preceded Trump's ascendancy and has largely been grounded in economic insecurity more than it has cultural exclusion and historically it's been promoted by what we now consider "progressive" institutions in society, particularly labour unions. Trump has certainly capitalized on certain aspects of American insecurity to assuage his political base but it's helpful to remember that America is perhaps the only major Western country to share a significant land border with a developing economy. Wealthy Australia, due to its isolation and proximity to the world's most populous continent, takes an equally hard line on immigration. If you understood economic history, perhaps you'd realize that prosperity was largely built and sustained in the democratic West within the context of secure national boundaries. There is little evidence to broadly suggest that it can be maintained otherwise.

What I find particularly problematic about the "progressive" diversity mindset is that it's grounded in an assumption that Canadian society is somehow intractably intolerant. Self-styled progressives seem to want to have it every which way. We're meant to be open and welcoming on the one hand, while at the same time being cast as parochial and xenophobic. A 2015 study declared Canada to be the most tolerant country on earth (link to article below) and I believe that another international study found Canada to be the 4th most tolerant country and yet we're told by progressives that this country is a hopeless cesspool of racism and intolerance that can only be cured by social engineering schemes in combination with curtailing free speech. (Interestingly, some of the countries from which Canada now receives most of its immigrants are considered to be among the most intolerant - but that's another issue.) I doubt that any reasonable person would argue that there's no racism or intolerance in Canada. And yet any little incident, even if it turns out to be a hoax like last year's supposed hijab attack against a schoolgirl in Toronto, is presented as an example of a society with a dark underbelly. Personally, I think we've all been had on a lot of this moralizing nonsense. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-named-most-tolerant-country-in-the-world-1.2640276

1.) Trudeau's government now looks weak for being pushed into a trade deal with the Americans that didn't even achieve the elimination of steel and aluminum tariffs. And even the auto workers' union noted after the announcement of the GM plant closure in Oshawa that the USMCA may not even have achieved the minimal degree of progress the union had at first assumed it had. So, if Canada is to diversity its trade, what other partners are on offer that won't be as difficult to deal with as America? The China card has pretty much blown up in Trudeau's face, as if China, with its mercantilist economic strategy, was ever a good fit with a "free trade" agenda in the first place. Economically speaking, Canada is a minnow swimming in a big sea. It has to skillfully manoeuvre just to survive. Are you convinced the Trudeau government, with its predilection for "progressive" ideological posturing and lecturing, has the ability to do this? I'm not. 2.) Comparing Scheer to Trump is a laugh. Scheer is an inoffensive compromise figure who was installed as party leader by special interests. And the CPC brand is otherwise little different in substance from its Lib counterpart on economic issues. It struggles to separate itself. Over the weekend, Scheer indicated that his party will stake its election run on opposing the carbon tax. Otherwise, though, where are the differences, other perhaps than in style? Bernier has noted this. There is really very little ideological difference between the three traditional mainstream parties. 3.) That's very presumptuous of you. What can Canada teach America about caring and social responsibility? We care little that thousands of Canadians are homeless and many more are underhoused and/or are a paycheque or two away from losing their housing. We care little that our health care systems are straining to provide even marginally decent care, with Ontario an excellent example of deteriorating care. We care little that we're facing an opioid crisis, much of it grounded in economic and social misery, of almost equal scale to that unfolding south of the border. We care little about the fact that wages have been stagnant in Canada for much of the past three decades and that the one industry that helped to buck this trend, the energy sector, is now on its knees. And, as Conrad Black noted in a recent NP column, Canada's relative economic prosperity, which is necessary to sustain healthy social programs, has been deteriorating for quite some time. In some cases, Canadians have marginally more protection from the vicissitudes of markets than do our American neighbours while in others they have the advantage. It's pretty much a wash as far as I can tell, so we shouldn't be too smug about it.

Personally, although I've read variations of this argument in several places. I find it somewhat specious. China's rise has been heavily facilitated by Western capitalism's desire to obtain cheap labour and minimize other resource input costs. Essentially, an economic model has been imposed in the developing world that promotes the use of the cheapest fuels, and mainly coal, in order to juice profits. China and other developing world countries could have jumped the industrial age by applying energy production and consumption best practices from the get-go, but that wouldn't have served the globalist agenda. A friend who traveled to India on business a few years ago noted how the Indians, who never developed an adequately functional land-line telephone system, had vigorously and pretty much universally embraced cellular phone technology. They didn't go back and start with switchboards and rotary dial phones. Rather, they leapfrogged an entire technological phase altogether. Personally, I think that other than relying on technological advancements in energy production and consumption to curb C02 emissions, we'll have to implement a global trading system based on carbon intensity whereby goods that are produced with the lowest carbon inputs will get preferential access to markets. Taxing consumption as the Trudeau government is now doing is a chimeric mug's game.

It's becoming increasingly clear that this is a fantasy. Individual nation states, including in the West, must protect the interests of their own citizens. This is the only way democracy can be sustained. This doesn't preclude international cooperation but to be fair such cooperation must be accompanied by reciprocity: i.e. 'We'll do it provided you do it as well.' The problem with the current climate change agenda is that any progress made by cooperating states, mainly in the developed world, is being more than offset by rising emissions in the developing world. The current climate change strategy, then, is doomed and for the West is economically absurd. We are being told or made to sacrifice without adequate regard to the deleterious economic impacts we're absorbing, and these impacts are often most seriously felt by the least empowered. Thus, we witness reactions like the "yellow vest" movement in France, which could easily spread elsewhere. I believe that climate change is a valid concern. I don't, however, subscribe to globalist orthodoxy concerning the response to it. I think technology will have to drive the response as global "rules" that are observed by only some won't do the job.

Selivan: Like that's going to happen. I've never heard of the notion that the sale was supposed to be temporary (i.e. for one hundred years), which if true would have rendered it a lease, as Britain once had on Hong Kong, rather than a "purchase" as it's been characterized for generations. Perhaps's you're relying on "fake news" as your source? In contemporary terms, indigenous Alaskans would no doubt cast Russia's role in Alaska prior to 1867 as amounting to a colonial occupation. But, hey, if the Russians feel they got a bad deal, perhaps they should file a land claim and seek better compensation. Oh, that's right, it's the U.S. and not Canada. We'd roll over with ease. Thank goodness the Americans own Alaska.

That's a pretty subjective assessment. Turner and Campbell each held the office for such short periods that it's impossible to assess their records. When a PM has little or no legislative record to speak of, how can he or she be rated or ranked?

Who knew the police have so much power? My guess is that they tend to serve their political masters. If information is being suppressed, I personally would tend to look further up the ladder.

I think there may be some cross-over between these two "types," however the analysis may well hold value as a general classification system. What is truly breathtaking, however, is the ability of our Type A media, political and activist types to embrace the values and interests of newcomers who clearly fit the Type B classification, particularly where social and religious issues are concerned. Is it not the ultimate form of hypocrisy for the Type A's to scream about xenophobia, or worse, when mainstream (if one is permitted to use that term these days) Canadians get irritated by some of the social customs and values newcomers bring with them and persist on maintaining? What's not to like about the promotion of gender inequality, homophobia, religious chauvinism or cultural exclusivity, provided one advocates for these things from a "diversity" perspective, right? Personally, I believe that much of the "accommodation" narrative amounts to pandering. As my mother, herself an immigrant, used to say when she was alive regarding the expectation that local norms be observed and respected: 'When in Rome...'

Our "universal" health care system, at least in Ontario, is a mess, and perhaps even a fraud, at least in the latter case for those who have in good faith paid their taxes to support it for years. But that's not the issue being discussed here. Blatchford's concern is that the failure to expeditiously report on the incident has generated a vacuum that only serves to validate concerns that there's more involved here than the public has been told. Public officials could quickly resolve these concerns by simply releasing the report in an expeditious fashion. The delay itself, and not Blatchford, is validating the concerns of those who believe that serious public security issues are involved. Can you name another Western democracy that withholds such information from the public after these kinds of events occur?

Our "progressives" are quick to admonish those who raise legitimate concerns about the views of those who hold views generally antithetical to Canadian norms. It's an oddly discomfiting example of hypocritical cultural relativism, which insists that antithetical views be examined only in the context of incoming cultures while our norms remain open to criticism from all sides. The progressives, as exemplified by their high priest, JT, have created a neat but unconvincing work-around for this, arguing that this society has become "post-national" and therefore anything is permissible where values are concerned - except for mainstream values, of course, which must bend to accommodate new entrants. But then, progressives have ditched the whole idea of "mainstream" as well. JT tells us there is no mainstream, which is, of course, sociologically absurd. It seems to me like the goalposts get moved to accommodate only one side in this debate.

And that's the nub of Blatchford's concern. The police role here seems pretty obvious. Based on available reports, they were properly pursing an active shooter who ended up killing himself. Plainly put, the delay in releasing the full report on this incident undermines public trust in the objectivity and/or efficiency of the system. Initial media reports on the incident, including in U.S. media outlets (which are widely available to English-speaking Canadians, just in case our officials don't understand this), some of which speculated on a possible terrorist connection, underline the need to be forthright with Torontonians, Ontarians and Canadians. If the delay is merely a matter of bureaucratic inefficiency, then this issue needs to be addressed. If it results from a desire on the part of officialdom to withhold potentially controversial information from the general public, the concern becomes much more serious. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but I wonder whether the province, which controls the SIU, plans to allow the investigative conclusions to be released immediately prior to or during the 2019 federal election, particularly if a legitimate security issue is involved? Perhaps the federal government should press the province to immediately release the results. The general public has not been well-served by the manner in which this matter has been handled to date.

It's good of you to cast yourself as the arbiter of (assumed) virtue. In fact, there are several valid arguments one might pursue to challenge the efficacy of Canada's current large-scale immigration program. Suzuki's position focuses on the negative environmental implications of population growth for Canada as well as the deleterious social and economic consequences of Western migration for the developing nations from which we now receive most of our immigrants. But there are also strong economic arguments grounded in domestic realities to counter the assumed logic and efficacy of our current approach to immigration. Further, the "demographic deficit" argument for immigration is being discredited and some of the cultural arguments against large-scale migration are being validated by objective analysis. A federal government study reportedly concluded that Canada's ability to absorb immigrants at current levels is declining, noting the increasing tendency of some immigrants to segregate and fail to assimilate. Sometimes, pontificating in support of your preferred ideological perspective, as you appear to do, only serves to undermine the perspective you strive to promote.

Don't count on it. Many NDPers, who tend to detest the Liberal Party, which is often fairly viewed as progressive front for the interests of capital and big business, could switch to the Green Party or, if immigration becomes an election issue, could opt to vote for Bernier's party. Initial straw polling on the appeal of Bernier's party indicated that it could draw support from the three mainstream parties.

Actually, you're at least in part incorrect. About one-half of those granted permanent resident (i.e. Immigration) status in the U.S. each year already live there and a large percentage of these are working visa holders. These immigrants enter the U.S. with jobs in hand and demonstrate their economic value from Day 1. Family reunification dominates among the entry characteristics of other immigrants. However, given the much lower per capita overall immigration entry rate the American family reunification program is probably roughly similar in size to Canada's in proportion to the general population. As for the argued benefits of our system, which purportedly results in more skilled immigrants entering the country (although many end up leaving), there's been criticism, particularly relating to the inability to match skilled immigrants to actual labour market needs and employment opportunities. I believe that Australia, which copied Canada's points system a few decades ago, has concluded that prioritizing (English) language skills and permitting employers to select newcomers from abroad to fill actual labour market needs results in better outcomes than the points system has generated. Were we to adopt the benefits of the American system, these would include: 1.) Encouraging economic self-sufficiency by reducing dependency incentives, 2.) Bringing total intake numbers into a more reasonable range, 3.) Adjusting intake levels to account for actual economic conditions, and 4.) Granting permanent resident status to those already in the country and integrated into the economy, perhaps by transforming the skilled temporary foreign worker and visa programs into a conditional entry program. Were we to undertake these reforms I suspect a lot of the current angst about immigration would dissipate. The sad reality in Canada is that proponents of our immigration system seem utterly unable or unwilling to subject it to objective evaluation. My guess is that there are too many vested interests involved, particularly where family reunification is concerned. Thus, the political answer will likely have to emerge from outside the current mainstream party clique in Ottawa.