turningrite

1.) Agree 2.) True, the Conservatives have played the same identity politics game the Libs play. 3.) True, except that few Canadians, if asked, would likely want to spend a whole lot more on the military. We're largely satisfied with existing under the American umbrella. 4.) Completely true. 5.) I largely agree. We've focused too much on the problems and needs of the subsidy class and too little on promoting real economic growth and productivity. If we pursued the latter approach, real wages would rise in tandem. .

Interestingly, the parts of Canada where opposition to large-scale immigration and migration might have the greatest degree of political resonance are the provinces most impacted by it, like Ontario and British Columbia. Some parts of Canada remain largely unaffected by large-scale immigration and therefore traditional (mainstream) party loyalties are more likely to hold. Canadians are less mobile than are Americans and live in a country with far fewer economic alternatives and opportunities. The radical immigration strategy Canada has pursued over the past generation has generated a lot of economic dislocation and misery, including a precipitous decline in the middle class, and it would seem foolhardy to believe there won't eventually be a political reckoning similar to the 2016 experience in the American "flyover" states. We'll experience the same counterattack here, I'm sure, centred on claims of xenophobia and racism (i.e. the "deplorables"), which is simply a predictable progressive smokescreen. The real issues are economic. Perhaps progressives on both sides of the border should stop to consider the phrase, 'It's the economy, stupid', because that's the real root of popular discontent with immigration and migration. If Clinton's comments reflect an evolution in her perspective, she now appears to understand the problem. Too bad progressives aren't picking up on it. In the U.S., they're now apparently trying to distance themselves from her.

We need not worry. The Toronto Star seems to be gearing up to preemptively declare Trudeau and his party the winners of next year's federal election. I have to admit that I'm a dinosaur who still reads old-fashioned newspapers and when I went through my copy of this morning's Star I was startled to read David Olive's piece 'The Liberals are on track for a big win election day'. Now that the Libs are turning their attention to a business agenda, Olive seems to believe they've trumped the Scheer's CPC on the only turf (the economy) on which to date it's held the high ground. In concluding Olive's piece, a secondary headline further into the Business section declares that 'Weak Scheer will find himself on the wrong side of history'. Wow. Why even bother holding an election?

If the government does ending up funding journalism in this country, please don't let it decide who'll get the cash. A "free" press must not end up being a propaganda machine for any sitting government.

It sure does seem like the demonization of Trump on this issue is highly hypocritical, don't you think? There are respected academics, like Sir Paul Collier in the UK, who've reached similar conclusions on the burden large scale immigration puts on those with the least wealth and power. However, the agenda of the progressives dovetails nicely with the interests of the elites on this matter. You've got to wonder if a lot of progressive activists and politicians are just being played for fools - or whether they're playing everybody else for fools?

Well, progressives must be apoplectic. According to a piece published on the NP site, Hillary Clinton now appears to agree with the proposition that migration and immigration are fueling nationalism and populism. Will she be working for Trump in the near future? For all the fuss made by progressives about Trump's views on immigration and illegal migrants, there might be something valid in Trump's position after all. If Hillary now gets it, however belatedly, can ordinary people (i.e. "deplorables") be criticized for reaching similar conclusions? I find the observation of the Italian politician Giorgia Meloni particularly relevant where she notes that Clinton appeared to acknowledge that opposition to migration was “not a problem of racism,” and that “if you don’t control migration it will affect mostly poor people, people living on the outskirts, working classes." Why has it taken otherwise intelligent people so long to figure this out? https://nationalpost.com/news/world/hillary-clinton-says-if-europe-wants-to-curb-right-wing-populism-it-must-get-a-handle-on-migration

I think they'd rather we freeze than acknowledge that we live in a vast country with a cold climate where using practically available sources of energy for transportation, heating and light is a necessity.

We are already a major uranium producer and exporter. But my guess is that environmentalists would go ballistic at the idea of vastly expanding the role of nuclear energy, just as they detest building hydro dams. Their view of the future revolves around the widespread adoption of solar and wind energy, which won't be practical unless and until electricity storage technologies are vastly improved.

The WTO model isn't a panacea but does offer a roadmap of sorts to fair trade. However, it's in need of major reform. Obviously, Western countries underestimated the impact of the exemptions created for developing countries and the lack of an appropriate mechanism to adjust these exemptions. All of us would have been better off if Trump and other Western countries agreed to a united front on needed WTO reform. Trump simply believes that the U.S. can and should be able unilaterally dictate the conditions for access to its markets regardless of WTO provisions. With China and the U.S. (our two biggest trading partners) both steadfast in their respective exceptionalist positions, however, there's little hope for multilateral reform. In this environment it's hard to imagine that Canada's current trade strategy is realistic.

Bernier hasn't said that he doesn't believe climate change is real. What he has said is that he won't offer an opinion on its cause(s) as he doesn't have the qualifications or credentials to be able to do so. I think that's a remarkably honest and principled position. The climate change issue has become a game of whack-a-mole in any case, with Western countries agreeing to curb emissions just as other parts of the world are ramping up emissions. And much of Canada's emissions issue emerges from our position (well, at least for the time being) as a major carbon-based energy producer and exporter. Otherwise, domestically, Canada has done a fairly good job of promoting conservation and efficiency and reducing carbon-based emissions. Notably, we've achieved a significant reduction in coal-generated electricity, a policy which if adopted worldwide (as if that's going to happen) would be enormously beneficial. Personally, I believe Canada should permit its provinces to adopt their own carbon pricing and energy efficiency policies, a strategy that has been quite successful in the U.S., as a 'one size fits all' policy is impractical for Canada. I suspect Bernier would agree with this approach. As for Bernier's dating history, I couldn't care less. One of the few legitimate virtues of the Canadian political culture in comparison to its American counterpart is the avoidance on this side of the border of moral Puritanism. Let's hope that difference remains intact.

The problem, however, is that Grenier's system includes older polling in its weighting formula. Polling firms only very recently started including Bernier's PPC and it's very likely that a large percentage of voters don't even know the party's name. I haven't recently been contacted by a polling firm but when I was in the past the format generally only included the names of the various parties without further elucidation or explanation. I suspect that a great number of voters contacted now still don't know what the PPC is. Bernier has to start to correct this situation quickly if his party hopes to gain traction ahead of next year's election. Interestingly, there has been quite a bit of vilification of Bernier and his nascent party in the MSM, which could have the potential impact of undermining the willingness of voters to indicate their support of it to polling firms.

This issue has been discussed under U.S. politics but is also applicable to Canada and I believe deserves greater policy scrutiny here than has been the case to date. A front page article in today's Toronto Star ("More 'anchor babies' born here than estimated, study shows" - I won't copy and paste the link due to the paywall issue, however I believe it can be accessed for most via online search) illustrates the need for greater attention in this country. According to the article, the study concludes that birth tourism probably accounts for 1,500 to 2,000 births a year, a level far greater than Stats Can calculations. The discrepancy is in large measure attributable to the fact that many of the mothers involved provide temporary Canadian addresses for purposes of completing the provincial birth records that are the basis of Stats Can's calculations. Much of the problem is focused in the Toronto region, the epicenter of Canada's immigration boondoggle. Greater Vancouver (i.e. Richmond - the leader) and Montreal are also represented among the locations of the top ten hospitals listed for non-resident births. The study raises three strategies for possible reform: 1) Making it an offense for a visitor to fail to disclose a pregnancy or that the purpose of their visit is to give birth (probably very difficult to enforce), and/or 2) Adopting a qualified birthright approach requiring a child to live in Canada for 10 years after birth to claim citizenship, and/or 3) Prohibiting rooming houses, consultants and support services for birth tourism. Oddly, there is no discussion in the article of banning birthright citizenship where neither parent has status in or significant attachment to Canada. Perhaps it is this last option that we should consider more seriously? Unlike in the U.S., there would appear to be no constitutional barrier applicable to reining in birth tourism in Canada as is done in all Western countries outside of this hemisphere.

Bernier's party only recently started to be included in mainstream polling. Further, it still has little visibility and I believe has organized riding associations in perhaps one-third of the country's ridings, at most. It will be interesting to see how it fares as it gains in visibility and is increasingly included in mainstream polling. Also, I believe it will fail to gain much traction unless it specifically raises the profile of its immigration critique, the issue most likely to engage voter interest. I personally believe in economic libertarianism and increasingly support shrinkage of the welfare and subsidy state, however such policies likely aren't at this point widely popular among a critical mass of Canadian voters. I would prefer to see a CPC minority backed by the PPC, which could be possible should Bernier's party attract 12 to 15 percent of the vote, which is likely as positive a result for it as might be expected. It would change the dynamic and hopefully force a minority CPC government to seriously address immigration and refugee policy. As the NDP appears to be headed into oblivion, though, let's hope disillusioned NDP voters don't hold their noses and keep the Libs in power. A second point to be made here is that recent polling is inconsistent, with some mainstream polling indicating a Lib lead (i.e. Ipsos) in October while other polling indicated a CPC lead (i.e. Forum). My belief is that few Canadian voters who aren't politically engaged except during election campaigns are yet tuned into the 2019 election. In 2015 the Libs were solidly in third place among the mainstream parties in early August and ended up winning a majority mandate not much more than two months later. Campaigns do matter.

China and Trump, ironically, adhere to the same mercantilist philosophy. Mercantilism, which was largely the economic logic of colonialism, promotes the export of a country's products while protecting its domestic markets from foreign competition in order to amass large trade surpluses. This is clearly not consistent with a viable global free and open trading system, particularly when such practices are adopted by the largest economies. Since joining the organization, China has benefited from WTO rules that permit 'developing' countries to adopt and maintain protectionist policies. Trump is correct to hold that this situation has created a massive trade imbalance between China the U.S., as it has between China and many other countries. The most logical solution, of course, is WTO reform, however Trump is utterly disdainful of multilateralism and therefore apparently seeks relief just for his own country. If the Americans and Chinese reach some sort of truce between themselves on trade, as appears increasingly likely, the entire WTO regime could well become redundant as other countries would be incentivized to similarly negotiate their own deals. Those that would be most hurt are smaller trading economies, like Canada's, that rely heavily on foreign trade.

I think this issue involves symbolism more than anything else. Ontario has no dedicated French-language universities as far as I'm aware (In contrast to three English-language universities in Quebec) but does have bilingual post-secondary institutions. But all the Franco-Ontarians I know are fluent in English in any case. In fact, as knowledge of English is an economic necessity outside of Quebec, except perhaps in parts of northern New Brunswick, the issue of providing French services seems largely moot. It is bizarre, though, that politicians court immigrant votes by providing multilingual services and heritage language programs while expecting Francophones to assimilate, which most of them do. My Francophone paternal grandfather used to agree with the opinion of Rene Levesque that French-Canadians living outside of Quebec were doomed to assimilate. (I believe Levesque called them "dead ducks.") My grandfather was neither angry nor bitter about the situation. To him, it was just a fact of life. But downgrading the status of the French language outside of Quebec does send a message that Anglo-Canadians largely agree with Levesque's assessment. Perhaps we should ponder the implications of this. We can't realistically complain about Quebec's separateness or distinctiveness if this is a reality that we, too, appear to prefer.

Well, the APEC summit ended in disarray, with the U.S. and China unceremoniously packing their bags without any agreement on the fundamental problems facing global trade. My suspicion is that the U.S. and China will pursue and reach their own accommodation on trade outside of the WTO rules. But where does that leave Canada, with our federal government apparently slavishly committed to a multilateral strategy that may simply have reached its end? For Canada, I believe the best approach would be to develop a common response among developed economies to China's apparent resistance to give up some of the benefits it gains under the current WTO rules. Trudeau doesn't have the gravitas, nor likely the credibility or insight, to pursue such a strategy.

I've listened to Gergen's views. However, the existence of the caravans is a separate matter from denying that uncontrolled migration is a crisis. In Canada, for instance, we also have a problem with self-selected migration. The Libs deny it's a crisis, but in places most acutely facing its impacts, like in Toronto and Montreal where there is no available shelter space, and in Toronto's case inadequate affordable housing to meet the ordinary needs of the existing population, it surely is.

It'll be fascinating to see which shiny baubles the Libs will bring forward to distract voters in 2019. I suspect it's a pretty safe bet they're gearing up to demonize those who try to inject immigration policy concerns into the policy debate.

I don't think American progressives deny the existence of the caravans. They disagree with the negative characterizations of mass migration, particularly by those on the right. However, I believe progressives underestimate the degree of legitimate anxiety such migration creates for majority populations in countries that face the challenges of absorbing large numbers of self-selected migrants. It's interesting that according to media reports many in Mexico aren't particularly happy about these migrants entering and remaining in their country. It undermines the notion that all such concerns are grounded in racism and/or xenophobia, the fallback explanations too often reflexively employed by the progressive set.

We do, however, need to apply some degree of scientific logic. It's been determined in the U.S., which incarcerates a much larger percentage of its population than does any other Western country, that long sentences for repeat/habitual offenders do in fact help to reduce crime rates. In this country, a significant percentage of habitual offenders seem to begin their "careers" at quite early ages and the youth offender system is seen by many as merely as slap-on-the-wrist resolving door program that does little good. I agree with those who say that serious crimes, and particularly gun-involved crimes, committed by offenders over the age of, say, 15 should be addressed in the regular court system with the attendant penalties. And habitual criminals should be treated differently than are first-time criminals. Try rehabilitation early on. If it doesn't work, it's not likely to.

Of course the caravan is real. No country that I'm aware of puts in place and allocates what some apparently believe to be excess taxpayer-funded services and resources to deal with people who on their own just decide to show up. Ultimately, one of the main solutions to the problem of uncontrolled migration will have to be to change international law to restrict the definition of "refugee" to include only those who face the imminent threat of political, racial or religious persecution in their homelands. Permitting tens or even hundreds of thousands who are mainly moving for economic reasons or who are merely members of groups that are actually involved in civil wars to claim refugee status actually undermines the interests of real refugees.

It makes you cringe, doesn't it? Unless his lines are written for him and studiously practiced in advance, Trudeau tends to babble incomprehensibly. I think the critique in the last election that Trudeau was "just not ready" was entirely too generous. He never will be. How can we endure this for another year?

Trudeau's main objective is to paper over the enormous problems generated by corporate globalism and the associated and precipitous decline, at least in this country, of the middle class. The problem is that you can't draw blood from a stone and what's left of the middle class is increasingly tapped out. Corporations and the truly wealthy use all the mechanisms available to them, including their influence and connections in government, to avoid taxation and, meanwhile, working, taxpaying Canadians are increasingly squeezed by incremental demands by governments at all levels that they contribute 'a little bit more' to help the subsidy class as well as by escalating living and particularly housing costs. The income base upon which government (i.e. taxpayer) 'generosity' is based is simply shrinking. And yet callow politicians like Trudeau yelp about the fallout (i.e. 'Racism!' and 'Xenophobia!'), as if the reaction, which if truth be told is grounded in economic conditions, wasn't entirely predictable. There's in interesting piece in today's Toronto Star ('Election door knocking reveals a darkness in the burbs') by a recent municipal election candidate in one of the GTA's previously contented and secure middle class suburban communities, who was startled by the extent of struggle and pessimism she confronted while campaigning. The article's author worries that people will seek a "scapegoat" and points to immigration as one particular focus of anxiety. But isn't this a problem government, including feckless politicians like Trudeau, who touts job-shedding globalism at the same time as promoting increased immigration, has created? I believe the heart of darkness in this country lies not in its declining middle and wage-earning taxpaying classes but in those who have designed and implemented policies that have undermined once-broad middle class security and prosperity. The consequences have not been accidental. A solution will only emerge after we abandon reflexive progressive sloganeering and name-calling and start to objectively analyze the situation.

I'm not a fan of the the party name either. I'd rather it have been something like the 'Popular Action Coalition of Canada' but names are just names. The bigger issue for me is that Bernier stay on track on economic issues and avoid getting sidetracked into debates driven by social conservatism. Likely half of the electorate is amenable to Bernier's critique of immigration policy, however a similar market doesn't exist for social conservatism. Allowing for free votes on contentious social issues is fine but Bernier has to make it clear that his party doesn't exist to promote social conservatism.

100 million? We will not reach this level and neither should we try to. Nor will we become a major international geopolitical power and neither do we need to. Canada now has one of the fastest growing populations among Western economies and yet is facing massive social and economic problems as a result. Our middle class, in particular, has declined precipitously. I don't think there's any viable or rational basis for promoting large-scale population growth in a place with a cold climate in which most of the population is for practical purposes restricted to living on a small proportion of the country's territory. Realistically, I believe we should aim at relative population stability (perhaps 50 million, at most, by the end of the century) in combination with enhancement of productivity and incomes. We should figure out what we can best do and what we can constructively cooperate with others to do. Population growth is no panacea. Those countries that are expected to experience the most population growth throughout this century are also for the most part also predicted to experience the biggest social, economic and environmental problems. Why join that club?