turningrite

More realistically, we need to move to a system where the extent of eligibility is based on formula calibrated on length of residency and contributions to the system. Those who've already paid taxes for years should be credited with "deemed" contributions and going forward all adults over the age of 20 should have to contribute. Otherwise, "universal" coverage should be afforded only to those 20 years of age and younger.

Here in Ontario, each year we're adding tens of thousands of new users, many of whom have never paid taxes in this country, to an already overburdened system. This is simply not sustainable. Which party has the guts to address the actual roots of this problem, including large-scale immigration? Among the traditional mainstream parties, which form a cartel of sorts, I don't see any hope for reform. If Bernier's party can open up this debate, I believe Canadians will be well-served. Otherwise, we're doomed to putting up with an increasingly inadequate and dysfunctional health care system.

And yet, much of the complaining on this issue is coming from vets, including in legal actions filed by vets against the Canadian government. This undermines your position, don't you think? I believe you've fallen into the trap of conflating a specific case, based on anecdotal reference, with the broader general case. One should be more careful to avoid such lapses in logic. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-pensions-benefits-court-1.4608601

1.) Well, consider the alternative, which is autocracy of one sort or another. Historically, rule by the aristocracy and/or elites has ended up as badly, or worse, than rule by the mob. In fact, insofar as modern democracy exists in any form today it's largely in reaction to failed and self-serving leadership on the part of the elites. According to a piece in the Guardian this week, populism may be a response required to maintain democratic legitimacy (link below). Even Churchill, himself to the manor born, acknowledged the advantages of democracy in spite of all its inherent faults. I'll trust the wisdom of the masses any day in contrast to rule by special interests. 2.) The problem with the modern form of globalization is its tendency to undermine national sovereignty and democracy. When multinational organizations, many of which serve narrow corporate and/or ideological interests, supplant the power of voters to exercise their will over their own national affairs, globalization becomes a threat and pits itself against the idea of democracy itself. The funny thing about modern democracy is that once many experience it they're loath to give it up. In much of the West, it's "baked" into the political culture. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/11/could-populism-actually-be-good-for-democracy

Most sensible countries tie immigration levels and policies to the economic needs of the host economy and citizenry. Canada moved away from this during the Mulroney era and has maintained a steadfastly politically and ideologically driven immigration program ever since. The surprising thing is that the reaction against it has been so tepid, perhaps because Canadians have been intimidated into believing that criticism of the program will be interpreted as intolerance. There was a good item on the NP site this week about why opposition to open immigration isn't, and shouldn't be characterized as, racism. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/stephen-ledrew-quebec-just-proved-its-not-racist-to-control-immigration

Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs have negatively impacted manufacturers and consumers throughout North America. The big U.S. automakers are complaining about reduced profits and as much as it is possible to do so extra costs are generally passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices, a reality that impacts consumers and undermines manufacturers throughout North America. The principal logic behind Trump's tariff strategy is to counteract dumping, particularly of steel, into developed economies by developing world producers. The U.S. would have been better off to explicitly deal with this issue and Canada would have been better off to work with the U.S. to develop a common tariff strategy to counteract the practice. Ultimately, the WTO is the logical body to encourage fair practices and develop and enforce anti-dumping rules but the institution is deeply flawed and the Trump administration appears to have given up on it altogether.

Perhaps true, as a result of the fact that such rankings tend to lag available data, i.e. 2017 rankings reflect 2015 data. However, Canada has seen a downward trend since the 2015 rankings, where I believe it ranked 6th. My guess is that things have not improved under Trudeau's tenure. It will we interesting to see the 2018 and 2019 results once the impacts of the Trudeau government's generally freedom stifling tendencies are better reflected. One area where the U.S. has a particular advantage is in its tolerance of free speech, where, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study of 38 countries, it led the world. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-country-comparison/

Who said Trudeau is the only problem here? Canadian veterans were mistreated under Harper as well. And while "loud caterwauling" might not in its own right constitute public opinion, it likely reflects strands of a broader view that Canada's treatment of its military vets isn't and hasn't always been particularly fair.

I'm not sure why any part of Canada would at this point in time want to secede to become an American state? Canadian provinces have greater power and independence vis-a-vis the Canadian federal government than do American states vis-a-vis their federal government. And federal power and authority restrict the freedoms of ordinary individual Americans to a greater degree than is the case in Canada. Further, there's a stronger authoritarian streak in the U.S. in comparison to other Anglo-Western countries, although this is somewhat counterbalanced by a stronger libertarian instinct. The CATO Institute's Human Freedom Index (2017) ranks Canada in 11th place globally in comparison to the 17th place U.S., although Canada's ranking has deteriorated under the Trudeau government. I wonder if this deterioration reflects the impacts of the Trudeau government's redistributive bent, bizarre "diversity" policies and its predilection for throttling free speech? In any case, I suspect most Canadian will continue to choose to remain politically independent of the U.S. - for now. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/2017-human-freedom-index.pdf

You're forgetting Collins and Murkowsky?

Flake owes Trump nothing at this point. Trump sunk Flake's quest to win the GOP senate nom in Arizona and has nothing to lose in snubbing Trump on his way out the door. Blowback is always a problem in politics. If the battle to get Kavanaugh's nomination confirmed is lost, and particularly if the GOP loses control of one or both houses of Congress, Trump's strategy regarding Flake will have completely backfired. And who knows at this point what Collins and Murkowsky will do? It is division within the GOP itself rather than obstruction by the Dems that could well sink this ship.

Trump has changed his tack in one important respect, which is that he now makes it clear that his battle is with the Canadian government and its negotiators and representatives rather than with Canadians as a whole, who enjoy a level of passive goodwill among Americans that isn't enjoyed by many others, except perhaps Brits. As governments and political parties do extensive polling, this was probably being reflected in American public opinion, particularly in border states, otherwise Trump wouldn't have changed course. Mexico was in a weaker position than is Canada. It apparently agreed to conditions that Canada simply won't accept. It's main entry to U.S. markets is predicated on cheap labour, something Canada doesn't rely on. A lot of observers believe that other than for the auto sector in Ontario the demise of NAFTA wouldn't have a hugely negative impact on Canada's now largely services-based economy. Prior to Trump's NAFTA-inspired anti-Canada campaign, I recall one poll indicating that something like 25 percent of Canadians thought the country had benefited under the FTA/NAFTA regime, suggesting only lukewarm support for the arrangement. Support for the status quo grew as Trump's attacks commenced mainly due to the prospect of change, which few relish. But we can adapt to it if need be. One thing Trump will have to be careful about going forward is that his continuing bluster is actually boosting the Trudeau government's political fortunes. If he wants to see friendlier faces in power in Ottawa, he'd be best advised not give Trudeau a helping hand.

I think that if the GOP senators think they can win a vote they'll hold one as quickly as possible. If they don't think they can win, the vote will be postponed, likely until after an FBI investigation, which either the Senate or Trump would have to initiate, is concluded. Until yesterday's events, I think Kavanaugh's confirmation was a foregone conclusion. One legal analyst on a U.S. news channel noted last night that it's now likely a '50-50' proposition. In other words, Kavanaugh's approach yesterday didn't help his cause. The applicable standard in the so-called '#metoo' era has shifted, something Kavanaugh and his supporters don't apparently appreciate. As I've said previously under this topic, I don't think it's entirely fair but it's a reality nonetheless.

The problem for Trump is that many powerful interests in the U.S., including the big U.S. automakers and the industrial unions, don't share his views about trade with Canada. And they're clearly exerting their influence to thwart Trump's ability to act out on his instincts. Even when taking a swing at Canada during his press conference at the UN this week, Trump undermined his own argument by stating that he could proceed with a U.S.-Mexico deal and Canada will come later, thus suggesting that he likely won't unilaterally pull the plug on the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement. I'm not sure that Trump has much in-depth knowledge of the trade file. He is clearly correct that the WTO system is problematic and that the form of corporate globalism that's emerged under the guise of "free trade" has sacrificed the interests, stability and prosperity of American industrial workers, but this has also been the case for industrial workers throughout the developed world, including in Canada. Trudeau is a shill for the corporate globalists and thus perhaps deserves Trump's ire, but as a country Canada, while it presents some valid irritants (i.e. supply management in dairy), shouldn't be Trump's enemy.

Read, lady, read! Please! The information is readily available if you look for it. Don't speak on the basis of ignorance and then demand that others prove their claims. Kavanaugh's position, supported by many of those alleged to have been present during the period that Dr. Ford's complaint covers, has been widely reported both inside the U.S. and around the world. Look at he article below in a UK outlet, which succinctly states "Judge Brett Kavanaugh said he does not recall having any memorable interactions with Christine Blasey Ford, a 51-year-old research psychologist and professor who accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1980s." http://uk.businessinsider.com/kavanaugh-doesnt-remember-christine-ford-supreme-court-2018-9

No, but at the very least it strongly suggests that he is wavering. We'll have to see what Collins and Murkowski intend to do. The slim GOP majority in the Senate didn't get Trump a win on his first attempt to dismantle Obamacare. He got a second kick at that can. However. I believe that if Kavanaugh's confirmation vote fails there isn't a similar opportunity for a do-over. If the vote is delayed beyond early next week, it's fair bet that the wavering GOP senators aren't on side.

1.) Because he has said so. This has been part of his defense. And others reportedly present at the time have also argued lack of recall of the events raised by Dr. Ford. 2.) My point is that his approach was problematic and ill-considered from a strategic perspective, which is odd given that he is a lawyer and a judge. As legal commentators pointed out on news outlets I watched yesterday, lawyers usually advise their clients, whether innocent or otherwise, not to appear angry or aggressive before a court. Essentially, albeit in an extraordinary fashion, Kavanaugh is on trial here for his past behavior. His anger and defiance made him appear entitled, which while perhaps appealing to the other entitled males likely rendered him unsympathetic to many others, potentially including the wavering GOP senators, two of whom are females, who will determine the fate of his Supreme Court bid.

The Judiciary Committee doesn't speak for or act on behalf of the entire GOP Senate caucus. Reportedly, Sen. Jeff Flake is now asking for an FBI investigation. If Flake is serious, it will only take one other GOP senator, be that Collins or Murkowsky, to put the brakes on a quick-and-dirty confirmation next week.

The treatment of vets has become an open sore. Politically, the issue has been mishandled by two successive governments. The current government needs to make this situation right or face the political consequences for not doing so. At least Harper's government had a broadly-based antipathy to all manner of benefits claimants so could reasonably claim virtue in its consistency. With Trudeau, though, some interests and groups get special treatment while others are shunted to the sidelines, rendering the treatment of vets more apparently callous.

While I sympathize with Kavanaugh, who's faced a rush to judgment, what I found most off-putting about his appearance yesterday was his open anger and propensity for self-pity. Had he reacted in a more empathetic fashion, acknowledging that given the passage of almost four decades he has little accurate recollection of the events in question but noting too that he was no angel when he was young - as few of us (at least males, if we're honest) were, I think he would have garnered more sympathy. I suspect that in the court of public opinion, and particularly among women, he lost yesterday's round. Of course, the important audience is much smaller and boils down to 3 or 4 undecided senators. I believe that partisan loyalties will win the day here, which is problematic given the prestige and importance of the position Kavanaugh is seeking. I agree with the American Bar Association, which yesterday released a statement supporting a thorough FBI investigation prior to the confirmation vote. Presumably, the ABA is concerned about the legitimacy of the USSC. Kavanaugh needs to win this battle on the basis of evidence, or lack thereof on the other side, rather than partisan math. In this country we've seen that the reputation of the judiciary is increasingly a matter of public debate and the American judicial system has become so politicized to the extent that it's now difficult to think of it as being truly impartial. Can a democracy thrive without an independent judiciary? I suspect not.

There's a good column on the National Post website about the growing reaction against high immigration levels in once ultra-progressive Sweden, which notes that Canada could face a similar backlash. (link below) It notes that the approach of the mainstream politicians to suppress debate on immigration and refugee issues, usually by demonizing critics, is more likely to fuel rather than calm discontent. We need to subject our approach to immigration and refugee policy to a thorough and honest review, with a view to ensuring that the actual needs of Canadians and the Canadian economy are taken into account. Skilled economic immigrants should still be permitted within reasonable limits that take into account real labour market needs and conditions and the family reunification program (i.e. sponsored relatives) should be adjusted by implementing a policy of proportionality, whereby applicants with a significant proportion of their family members in Canada would be prioritized, as I believe Australia has done. Sponsors should also have to purchase health insurance for their relatives covering the applicable sponsorship periods. And the refugee program should be calibrated to prioritize claimants who demonstrably face a risk of persecution in their homelands. Marginal applicants should be expeditiously processed and removed. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-immigration-hardened-swedish-hearts-it-can-happen-here-too

I think Bernier's effort may turn out to be different. He's fairly well known and if he is serious about tackling immigration and refugee policy, an area avoided by the traditional mainstream parties, his party might have greater visibility and garner more support than achieved by other breakaway political movements. Also, Bernier apparently acknowledges that Canadians are effectively being held hostage in a number of sectors by entrenched cartels and monopolies. I've long believed this to be the case. If he can make a coherent case as to how this can be combated, a lot of voters might be willing to give his party a chance. I figure that provided the NDP is able to hold at least 15 percent support (a bit of a risk I suppose, given that the NDP appears to be in decline), Bernier's party only needs about 20 percent support to ensure that we don't get another Liberal majority next year, and if Bernier's group can pick up more seats than the NDP next year a CPC minority with PPC support may well be as likely as a Lib-NDP coalition. The biggest risk that might emerge would be that to thwart a CPC-PPC government NDP supporters might hold their noses and flock to the Libs. But as polling suggests the Libs and NDP are both vulnerable to bleeding some support to Bernier's party, this might not be as big a risk as some might assume to be the case.

The link to the poll is in the first entry under this topic. I believe a more recent straw poll by Nanos (i.e. asking a hypothetical question as Bernier's party didn't legally exist when the polling was done) indicated firm and/or leaning support for his group at 17 percent. Given that a significant segment of voters, many of whom pay little attention to politics outside of election periods, are likely unaware of Bernier's party and its policies, it's possible these figures understate the percentage of voters who will or might consider voting for it.

I take it you confused Ford with Bernier in your first sentence? In terms of temperament and qualifications, the two are miles apart. You're correct that debate on immigration is largely forbidden by the established mainstream parties. I, too, think immigration numbers remain too high and that 250 thousand is likely too generous a target at the current time. At least Bernier seems open to studying and debating the issue. And we need to drastically restrict the temp foreign workers program as well, particularly to prevent employers from using foreign workers to displace qualified and skilled Canadian workers. If we are so short of IT workers, for instance, why are tens of thousands of university graduates in STEM fields leaving the country each year? We need to make greater efforts to retain them as well as to keep experienced and skilled older workers in the workforce. And our education system needs to be calibrated to produce workers to meet current and future labour market needs. Further, we have to ensure that those who arrive under the immigration program are contributing economically. Otherwise, what's the point of immigration? The Libs, of course, are utterly beholden to immigration and refugee interests, but neither the CPC, which seems driven by business interests and propaganda (i.e. touting "labour shortages"), nor the feckless NDP seems interested in considering the interests of average Canadians.

I don't pay a lot of attention to council debates. It's my understanding that council meets in full session about once a week and given that a lot of business has to be handled in a short period of time the situation can be very chaotic. I do pay a lot of attention, though, to whether I get a quick response when I raise a concern or issue with my councillor. Council debates will likely be as dysfunctional under the new regime as was previously the case because the old left-right and downtown-suburban splits will persist. But this is one level of government where access to one's representative in real time is of vital importance, particularly where local bylaw enforcement is concerned. With councillors in Toronto now expected to serve wards of roughly 120 thousand it's difficult to imagine that reasonable access to remedy (i.e. bylaw enforcement) won't suffer. Our taxes won't decline and we'll get less service for the money we pay. As for Toronto council's control over condo projects, the city has little jurisdiction but to manage the development industry's impacts after-the-fact as condo approvals are largely pro forma and developers generally get their way, even after the Wynne government's largely cosmetic reform of the dreaded OMB. As Christopher Hume noted in a column this week in the Toronto Star, the developers remain in charge: "Toronto’s cacophonous approach to planning and lack of vision combined with the Ontario Municipal Board and its successor, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, have, in effect, privatized the future and handed it over to developers. They are the city’s de facto planners, its regulators of growth and arbiters of design. The box-tickers at city hall can rarely do more than watch and submit another report." https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/09/25/why-toronto-should-seek-greatness-like-paris-does.html