turningrite

I think the move toward globalism, including widespread labour market manipulation, was considered by the Mulroney government in terms of its broader context. The political points that might be scored among immigrant voters (who couldn't vote for a few years following their arrival anyway) were likely seen as a downstream bonus. Of course, as well all know, the political advantage has turned out to be a zero-sum game as all three major parties that comprise the mainstream cartel in Ottawa reach out to the same immigrant voters, with each party in turn offering its own package of goodies in return for votes. The same constituencies that supported Harper switched to Trudeau when it suited their interests to do so.

That's an outrageous requirement. We all retain a right to privacy. You should simply acknowledge that the views of those who do express well-founded outrage at the well-documented shortcomings of our system should be respected. Furthermore, I'd probably have to write a book to explain all the problems I've experienced in the health care system. I don't think this site/forum intends to serve such a purpose.

In any consultation one should hope that all sides are heard. What's needed is perspective. Where you raise the issue that few if any are likely going to come out and argue in favor of racism,you entirely miss the point. The real objective of any effective analysis should be to determine whether our interventionist policies are accomplishing their intended goals, whether they're creating negative or unintended consequences and, ultimately, whether they're necessary at all. A piece published in the NP several months ago (link below) indicates that minority representation on university faculties has now achieved equity in terms of broadly reflecting minority vs majority demographics but the piece notes that equity advocates still aren't satisfied and apparently seek ever more 'equity', a mission that apparently will never reach completion. The goalposts have now been moved and equality of outcomes based on measures chosen by the advocates as well as specific representation for less advantaged sub-groups, presumably in the latter instance at the expense of the majority representation even though some other equity sub-groups are now over-represented, are the new targets. Presumably, under-representation of the majority is the intended even if not explicitly acknowledged goal here. So, what is equity? What should it look like and what should it hope to achieve while maintaining a semblance of fairness for those not favored by its requirements. These are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed lest the general public develop the impression that the whole enterprise is simply a game that intends to reallocate public resources to meet the political objectives of constituencies favored by government. Is this all part of what Maxime Bernier has described as "extreme" diversity and multiculturalism? Is the Trudeau government even concerned about the answer to that question? Probably not, but I suspect many Canadians are. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/turns-out-there-is-discrimination-in-hiring-professors-but-not-against-minorities

Well, at least this topic is open to public commentary and engagement, unlike the Trudeau government's effort.

While I agree with much of Harper's assessment, I'm not sure he's the best spokesperson for the anti-globalists or populists. After all, during his lengthy tenure as PM he largely served the interests of the globalizers, continuing to promote the holy trinity of policies associated with the global labour/wage arbitrage agenda: "free trade" deals, large-scale immigration and increased access (to Canadian jobs) for foreign workers, particularly in skilled labour fields. Implementation of this agenda began in earnest in the Mulroney era and has continued unabated ever since, including under Harper. Harper states that "In short, the world of globalization is not working for many of our own people. We can pretend that this is a false perception, but it is not. We now have a choice. We can keep trying to convince people that they misunderstand their own lives, or we can try to understand what they are saying. Then we can decide what to do about it." Go figure. My response, though is to ask what his government(s) did to address the situation? Sure, they tinkered around the edges of the (very real) problems associated with our refugee and sponsored immigrant programs. But the globalist agenda was largely permitted to continue its dirty work in undermining middle class stability and prosperity.

Ah, and the CBC isn't a knowledgeable source and neither are the vets who are pursuing legal claims against the government? What's the standard you're applying here? Your own?

Please elaborate. Drive-by insinuations hardly contribute to rational debate, after all. Or are you just dog-whistling?

We should admit that our health care "system" (such as it is) is neither free nor "universal" and then objectively look at ways in which it might be fixed, including opening our minds to private insurance and other options. It's clear that Canadians won't pay increasing taxes to support a system that doesn't guarantee them access to good or even adequate care when they need it. We don't just have a two-tier system, rather, we have a multi-tiered system in which access and outcomes are essentially dictated by connections, chance and luck. Why not just spend your money on lotto tickets rather than pay taxes if you can end up being told that you have a serious medical condition for which you can't be treated in this country and have to draw on your (limited) retirement savings to pay for assessment and care elsewhere? Our system does the easy stuff, although unevenly at best. But you can be left on your own where the difficult stuff is concerned, just as uninsured Americans are (as Canadians often smugly point out). Isn't this precisely the nightmare Canada's public monopoly health care model was supposed to resolve? Think again if you believe it's working. I used to support the Canadian public "system" - until bitter reality forced me to realize that it's a crock.

A good friend of mine who is Chinese raises exactly the same point. He says the Chinese in Canada (and elsewhere) can and generally do quite well without interventionist assistance but also sardonically notes that if governments are offering preferential treatment to minorities his community will generally and quietly accept the unnecessary boost. It's telling when lobby groups like BLM note that racism impacts them differently than it does other groups, which appears to be an admission that members of some groups succeed quite well despite facing some degree of racism while others don't. It tends to undermine the bizarre notion that a blanketing form of "systemic" racism is at the root of the problem. In fact, racism exists everywhere, and likely to a lesser extent here than in many other places. Adaptation and integration have never been seamless processes for minority groups throughout this country's history, which renders it bizarre as to why some figure the situation today is different or any worse than it was in the past.

The two differ in important systemic aspects. A poorly run business is ultimately accountable to its owner(s) or shareholders, who bear the risks of tolerating poor customer service. This same logic simply doesn't apply to the public sector. The public sector, including the health care system, isn't generally designed to reward excellence, initiative or innovation, particularly on the front lines, and there are few risks when members of the public aren't satisfied with the services they receive. In my experience, the biggest problems Canadians face when dealing with private businesses generally arise from interaction with companies in heavily protected and oligopolistic sectors. In this regard, my late mother, an immigrant, used to sarcastically describe the private sector bureaucracy often apparent in some sectors of the Canadian economy as "Canadian service." She believed that Canadians simply didn't complain enough. Maybe she was right.

This is precisely my point.

1.) Where your own health is in question, I believe a perfectly valid metric is established. Whatever the case, based on recent reporting, my experience is hardly unique. And the wider world is taking notice. (See link below.) 2.) See above response. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/william-watson-why-canadas-best-health-care-system-just-got-ranked-last-again

I'm in Toronto, the country's largest city and based on my experience those who believe our health care system is either "universal" or even adequate are fooling themselves.

Consultation with people (i.e. constituencies) who are already convinced of the virtues and benefits of promoting their own sense of victimhood seems more likely to me. What is the point of the process if it only confirms for the government its wisdom in catering to these beliefs? The potential outcome, however, is that it will likely only serve to substantiate the opinion held by Maxime Bernier that the Trudeau government is engaged in an exercise of "extreme" diversity and multiculturalism that negates the positive attributes of Canadian society and promotes increasing socioeconomic interference and tension. Wow, unity in division appears to be the progressives' version of nirvana - well, until the whole enterprise eventually backfires.

My perception is that public sector wages tend to converge toward the middle, with less skilled workers enjoying better compensation than that paid in comparable private sector roles while more educated and skilled workers often face lower compensation than that paid in comparable roles in the private sector. During my career, I worked on both sides of the divide and this perception was pretty much confirmed for me. The biggest difference between the two kinds of workplaces related more to quality of work and performance, where I believe the private sector was vastly more consistent in comparison to the public one and this applied to performance expectations at all job levels, albeit there were still some outstanding performers in the public sector who were mainly driven by personal pride, intelligence and good work habits. The prevailing mentality in the public sector, however, was that there was little point in working too hard to accomplish much because you got the same pay as those in your position who accomplished little and the work not done by non-performers was often foisted on the productive staff. In other words, it was a system governed by disincentives.

Of course, one has to assume the Trudeau government is only interested in hearing polarized, predetermined positions that are unaffected by reason, evidence, facts or rational thought, provided they bolster the government's predetermined positions and its identity politics approach to campaigning and policy. It looks like this "consultation" will be conducted within an echo chamber, a fact utterly consistent with the government's general approach to such issues. One side of the debate only, please!

According to a report published in the G&M, Ottawa has commenced a secretive consultation on racism, hoping to avoid any public backlash that might emerge if Canadians were permitted to openly debate the topic. This suggests that insiders, presumably heavily represented by advocates and lobbyists from the funded identity and "diversity" industry will have the field to themselves to convince the government that Canadians are truly and hopelessly racist. Meanwhile, international studies and comparisons actually identify Canada as being among the world's most tolerant countries. Reportedly, the advocates are already complaining that the concept of "systemic" racism has been taken off the table by the government. The notion of a hidden hand in racism must presumably be permitted to reflect their 'a priori' logic. Is this consultation really necessary or is it simply a prelude to more socioeconomic interference and virtue-signalling on the part of progressives as well as a government that's already heavily invested in the identity-politics game? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-holds-consultations-on-racism-behind-closed-doors/

1. The problem is that it's getting worse. And others among my friends and my broader group of acquaintances have had similar experiences. 2. My impression of the system is based on the ongoing treatment over the past three years of a serious, degenerative and likely genetically-based medical condition, which has resulted in serious functional impairments and overt disability. It's not based on occasional or "once-in-awhile" contact. I was referred to the U.S. for necessary medical assessment and treatment but that fell through for reasons entirely beyond my control, including the fact that Ontario's coverage for such care (as I was informed by a rep for the American institution to which I was being referred) is minimal and has been declining for more than a decade. If you get sick in this province, especially with anything rare or unusual, you're essentially left to your own devices. As I was told, and quite contrary to our propaganda about "universal" coverage, Canadians are just "uninsured" patients when dealing with U.S. institutions, even when no equivalent care or expertise is available in Canada. My on practical option now, essentially, is assisted death, when I reach the point where I can no longer tolerate the effects of my illness.

You've changed your tune? My post responded to your earlier assertion: "I don't know what social circles you move in within Canada. I don't know any Canadians who've permanently moved to the U.S., highly skilled or otherwise." But U.S. data, which reflects places of origin for those residing in that country, (and yes, I googled the issue in order to confirm my position), suggest that your understanding, while perhaps indicative of your own personal belief, doesn't reflect reality. My point about education is raised to indicate that those Canadians who do migrate to the U.S. are among our best and brightest, which surely must be seen as a loss where Canada's own economic needs and potential are concerned.

My dismal experience with the Canadian (well, Ontario's) health care system has transformed me into a critic. This has nothing to do with the "free market" or "slavery". Rather it has to do with realizing that I'd been defrauded, having dutifully paid taxes for decades only to find the health care system, when I really needed it, utterly inadequate and dehumanizing. Nothing will more effectively change one's mind about our health care system than having to spend days on a gurney in an emergency department as an "admitted" patient while sharing a bathroom with dozens of other patients and their visitors and trying to brush your teeth at a sink blocked with other peoples' hair and vomit. And that's for starters. Don't lecture me on the benefits of Canadian health care without acknowledging its clear shortcomings. To do so simply suggests that you are blindly ignoring glaring realities for ideological reasons.

Huh? Hundreds of thousands of well-educated Canadians move to the U.S. to live and work. Several in my extended family have done so as have two siblings. According to American data, the number of Canadians living in the U.S. in 2016 was over 700 thousand. (See article in link below.) According to the article, Canadians residing in the U.S. as permanent residents are notable for higher levels of education and income in comparison to the broader immigrant population: "Compared to the overall foreign-born population, Canadians have a higher median income, are less likely to live in poverty, and are more likely to have health insurance and to be college educated." Further, as a group Canadians rank in third place in terms of the number entering the U.S. under H-1B (temporary employment) visas. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/canadian-immigrants-united-states

You are probably correct in this. But one can't disconnect the current large-scale immigration program from access to social benefits as the right to such for immigrants has been won in the courts. Thus, to effectively reform the system we'll have to transform the system for everybody, and attach benefits eligibility, including for health care, to a contributory formula. Discrimination can't be argued to apply where everybody is subjected to the same criteria. Otherwise, effective reform will require the application of the notwithstanding clause, which can easily be withdrawn by a subsequent government.

1.) This seems to be a deliberate outcome of government policy which intends to provide Canadian corporations with the cheapest workers and discourage the employment of qualified and skilled Canadians. Canadian educational qualifications are accepted at face value in most other Western countries, and particularly in the U.S., which provides a safety valve of sorts. 2.) I think you've got the order (i.e. cause and effect) wrong here. Skilled and educated Canadians do leave, often aware that their government is running an competition scheme against them. And many of the best and most skilled immigrant workers leave as well, both after establishing a beachhead to bring relatives into the Canada and utilizing it as a stepping stone to get into the United States, which is often their preferred destination in the first place. 3.) I think this assessment is overly broad. Skilled Canadians do remain in the country but unfortunately too many are effectively forced to leave.

The model Canada has developed is one of the worst in the developed West. Until we admit this and start to make necessary changes, the system will not improve.

It's more likely that he tripled the immigration rate at the behest of his corporate backers, who wanted to exert downward pressure on wages as they and the government moved to implement a globalist agenda. Large scale immigration to Western countries in an environment where jobs are at the same time being "off-shored" to low wage countries is a component of corporate globalism, which imposes a far-ranging system of wage arbitrage.