turningrite

In comparison to what other countries? People who engage in racialist diatribes like that in your post often seem to think that the rest of the world is some kind of tolerant paradise in comparison to despotic old Canada. And yet, objective international surveys routinely place Canada among the world's most racially and culturally tolerant countries. Yes, we have a past. What country doesn't? But the BNA Act, which references the British and French "privileges" you so abhor, was enacted in 1867 when people of these backgrounds formed a huge majority of the European-Canadian population. And indigenous rights actually predate the BNA Act, emerging from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is now formally written into the constitution. Perhaps it would be nice to live in a country without a history of any kind, although I don't know where you'll find such a paradise. But Canada is probably one of the few countries where history plays a relatively minor role in the day-to-day relationships between people.

1.) Where did you come up with this? The middle class in Canada has been in steady decline since at least the Mulroney era under successive regimes that have catered primarily to the interests of economic neoliberalism and globalism. In 2014, during Harper's regime, the PBO reported that virtually all income gains during the Harper years went to the already well-off. Real income declines for middle class Canadian workers were at the time partially masked by the oil boom in Alberta. Once discounting for that, as the boom ended in 2014, the income picture is even more bleak. We now know that over the two decades starting in the 1990s Canada's middle class shrunk from nearly 70 percent to under 50 percent of the population, in large measure under Harper, and the decline continues under Trudeau. 2.) Trudeau often seems vacuous and on a personal level I suspect this criticism is valid. However, his regime is much more dangerous to our future than many imagine. I see Trudeau mainly as a useful idiot who serves the interests of corporate globalism, but a Thomas Walkom column in today's Toronto Star, 'The Liberal hawk has made a comeback', illustrates the radical nature of his government's agenda. Walkom maintains that Freeland and other Libs favour a strategy of radical income redistribution in order to bolster support for their globalist agenda (fantasy?). Otherwise they believe people will become disillusioned by their coveted "liberal world order." (The term "liberal world order" should make any thinking person shudder!) Don't they think many Canadians will become utterly disillusioned by radical income redistribution? Somebody will have to pay for it, and, as Margaret Thatcher famously pointed out, governments eventually run out of other peoples' money to give away. Even worse, says Walkom, hawks like Freeland are apparently willing to use military muscle to achieve their ends. Poor, poor Canada, to be governed by such fools. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/01/28/the-liberal-hawk-has-made-a-comeback.html

I didn't say I call Trudeau that but I have heard others do so. I call him a useful idiot in the service of the interests of economic globalism.

It's my understanding that the rather crude term "Cuck" is contemptuously applied by the some on the right to servile men who espouse mainly moderate or progressive views. I've heard Trudeau described as such but have never seen or heard a conservative, moderate or otherwise, described as such.

I'll let you rant. There's no point in responding further as it appears you're not interested in rational debate, as you've demonstrated.

Stephens' columns often appear in the NY Times and like many of its writers and contributors I'd characterize him as a moderate, even if conservative, writer. His work is respected enough that he's won a Pulitzer Prize. His centrist credentials are illustrated by the fact that he was part of the conservative 'Stop Trump' movement in 2016. I try to read commentaries from all points on the political/ideological spectrum. I think it's the only way to arrive at an objective view of the world. Why eyeball apparently thinks Stephens is some right-wing hack is a mystery to me when the NY Times has a reputation of being moderately progressive. It seldom projects a hard right perspective. But we've become all too used to those on the left reacting to any opinion (or fact) they don't like with accusations of racism, a term that's been debased due to overuse and misuse. Below is an excellent article from CNN's site (another reputedly progressive MSM outlet) about the inappropriate overuse of accusations like 'racism' and 'white supremacy, noting the anti-intellectual and antidemocratic aspects entailed in this trend. https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/21/opinions/richard-spencer-liberal-protestors-mcwhorter-opinion/index.html

Wow, you're rude and disgruntled. 1.) Are you accusing Stephens of being a conservative racist? Really? The guy is pro-immigration but simply thinks that immigration only works well when combined with integration and (gasp!) assimilation. History would seem to substantiate his perspective on this. Please name some countries that have encouraged widespread immigrant tribalism and have prospered and functioned peacefully. 2.) Modern, politically correct, tribal multiculturalism in the major immigrant receiving post-colonial societies emerged before people like Limbaugh and Coulter had any impact. They are part of the response. You really need to brush up on the "chicken and egg" analogy because it appears your lack of perspective has led you to an inaccurate conclusion. 3.) Huh? What does that mean? Please make concise comments if you want to be taken seriously. 4.) Huh? What the f*** does that mean? I think you need to get some help. Seriously.

The article you reference is a good analysis of the dead end into which rose-colored globalism has led us. China operates purely on the basis of self-interest. So, too, is Trump's world view formulated on this basis. The author's final line is particularly apt: "Over the long term, strengthened self-reliant economic development policies... and serious security policies should underpin a new Canadian China narrative, as globalist visions dissolve in the acid of the new geopolitics." Trudeau and his globalist minions seem not to realize that their fantastical vision of a globalized nirvana is now passe, as if it had any credibility in the first place. As for McCallum, he was the wrong guy for the China job. Although reputedly a Sinophile, he didn't seem to realize that an ambassador's job is to promote the interests and positions of his/her own country as determined by its sitting government. Trudeau's sentimentality more than anything else seems to have planted McCallum in Beijing, which is unfortunate given the importance of the posting. There were signs when McCallum was Trudeau's immigration minister, for instance where he bizarrely and falsely touted the existence of widespread support for massively increasing immigration levels when polling indicated otherwise, that he could be a loose cannon whose perspectives weren't/aren't always governed by objective considerations. To be effective, foreign policy must be governed primarily on the basis of seeing the world as it is rather than as one would like it to be. The dreamers running the show in Ottawa seem to have no clue. Their dreamer in Beijing is gone. Can the crowd on Parliament Hill be far behind?

In ethno-racially defined societies, which overwhelmingly represent the places from which Canada now receives immigrants, tribalism remains a predominant cultural and political principle. The major Immigrant receiving post-colonial countries, like the U.S., Canada and Australia, however, function according to a different principle, which, for lack of a better term, is assimilation. Those who assimilate do not "lack power of cohesion" as you argue, but instead become empowered as fully engaged participants in their adopted societies. It is those who don't assimilate and remain attached only to their tribal roots and diaspora communities who become insignificantly trivial and marginalized within the general population.

I've read about the Confucius Institute and the controversy it's created on some university and college campuses in both the U.S. and Canada. More broadly I suspect that most Canadians have little idea of the extent of Chinese influence in big urban regions like Toronto and Vancouver, where in each case hundreds of thousands of Chinese immigrants now reside. I'm not really sure how dangerous it is but it's bound to raise concerns about divided loyalties. Diaspora politics is always a minefield but is even more likely to be so if it's funded from abroad. Speaking more generally, I recently read a fascinating NY Times column 'The West Has Gone Adrift' by Brett Stephens, who asserts that in becoming complacent about values and principles crucial to the Westernism both the left and right wings have lost moral authority in a world where dictators and despots offer more alluring alternatives. China's Xi, he notes, "has raised the banner of efficient authoritarianism as the preferred model of governance." While he criticizes both the left and right for complacency, Stephens, who is generally pro-immigration, comments: "Liberals were heedless when they embraced identity politics" and that while "immigration is a blessing; immigration without assimilation is a curse." Stephens speaks to the American and European experiences, but his analysis could as easily and perhaps even more accurately be applied to the Canadian experience.

Wow, the post-national state in action! I'm obviously a lot older than you. When I attended elementary and high school in Ontario, mainly in the 1960s, O Canada, the Lord's Prayer and a prayer called the Nicene Creed were daily staples. Even though we were taught the words to it, we didn't often hear God Save the Queen in Catholic elementary school (not popular among the nuns who were mainly of Irish or French-Canadian background, I guess) although there were rumors that our cohorts in public school had to sing it daily. Monarchists all, I surmised. Truthfully, I'm not sure that any of this did any of us any harm. There was never any mention of indigenous heritage back then, of course, but if my faint recollection is a good indicator most students would likely consider it briefly endured background noise. It's interesting that you mention the aversion of Asian immigrants to such daily rituals. My guess would be that in China, in particular, indoctrination is encouraged and where better to start than in the school system? Is this the basis of the aversion among those who come to Canada? Were they to go to the U.S. (the preferred destination for most, I suspect), they'd in many places have to manage the Pledge of Allegiance and probably the Star Spangled Banner. Could they deal with it?

1. and 3.) You seem fixated on minimum wages. Those earning minimum wages actually represent a very small portion of the work force. The real problem in Canada has been the stagnation (and therefore in real spending power decline) in middle class wages. The 2014 PBO report that I referenced previously, which indicated that there is no generalized labour shortage in Canada, also indicated that during the period studied virtually all wage gains had gone to a small group at the top of the economic ladder. As for your reference to the sorry state of worker protection in some U.S. states, the growth of temporary and contract work in Canada, which is scarcely regulated - the least regulated in fact among OECD countries - has created the same conditions for about 20 percent of Canada's workforce, a figure that's constantly increasing. The middle class in Canada knows it's shrinking as the percentage of Canadians who define themselves as earning enough to consider themselves middle class has dramatically shrunk from about 70 percent a couple decades ago to less than half now. And all with the blessing of sitting governments. 2.) Resources can be a curse as much as a blessing, particularly if a country relies on them for economic stability. Resource prices are highly cyclical, leading to boom and bust cycles, and allocating investment dollars to resource industries rather than to more innovative endeavors can entrench poor productivity outcomes. Harper's government went "all-in" on resource development, which was fortunate for it as oil prices were high for several years prior to 2014. But the strategy masked a serious underlying problem in the economy as analysis now apparently shows that higher income jobs in the oil patch actually propped up wages throughout the boom, suggesting that the actual decline in real wages among middle class income earners in the broader economy was far steeper than was believed to be the case. 4.) Maybe there should be a consequence for killing good middle income jobs. But there won't be. So governments have to use other available levers, including labour market input controls (i.e. immigration) in order to ensure that workers aren't the only ones losing out. In a tight labour market, real incomes rise, something that hasn't happened in Canada for three decades, which happens to parallel the most recent period of large-scale immigration. Coincidence? I think not. 5.) I don't know where you get your figures? According to stats disclosed during the free trade debate, in 2016 1.1 million (yes, 1.1 million out of a population of 36 million!) Canadians had obtained visas of one sort or another, including under the NAFTA exemption, to work in the U.S. (see link below) and there's little indication this trend will subside with the USMCA in place, assuming it's approved by Congress. Visa applications from Canadians to work in the U.S. in fact amounted to a staggering one-third of all such applications processed by American authorities in 2016. As for immigration, experience now demonstrates that Canada is accepting far more immigrants than its economy can productively absorb. Studies suggest that the economic outcomes for immigrants who've arrived over the past generation have been considerably poorer than was the case for prior cohorts. So, we're exporting highly skilled labour, educated at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and we can't absorb the immigrants who are supposedly replacing them. This creates a recipe for a subsidy system that will simply be unsustainable as time goes on. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/twice-the-headache-why-it-s-getting-harder-for-canadians-to-enter-u-s-1.3761804

I've only reported one member on this site and only after dealing with what I believed to be persistent harassment on his/her part. And the problem with ignoring is very often that it ends discussion on particular topics you decide to ignore. Moving on is fine, particularly if you believe you've contributed to the problem, which in this instance I honestly don't believe to have been the case. As I mentioned earlier, being cautioned for "excessive quoting" on a site that has a quote function seems bizarre to me and even perhaps amounts to favoritism. I've seen so many posts where members apparently violate the site guidelines, including using derogatory language and engaging in 'ad hominem' personal attacks, and yet I wonder if these transgressions are addressed by the moderators? Why was my supposed offense of quoting two long posts written by another contributor deemed to be problematic? I just don't get it.

When reading this, I didn't know if it was intended as satire. Trudeau's cutesy social media image burns bright outside of this country among those who pay little attention to Canada in general. Otherwise, he's not taken seriously. Despite his obsequious entreaties, his trip to China was a bust, with its leaders mainly avoiding him while shortly thereafter giving Macron of France a welcome fit for royalty. And need we get into his India costume tour and the ex-con invitee fiascos, which rendered him a laughingstock both internationally and at home, a situation exacerbated by his "peoplekind" antics? Sometimes the guy just doesn't know when to stop and seems captivated by his own social media buzz, rendering accusations of narcissism entirely justifiable. Will I vote for his party? No. Neither will I support the hapless NDP. The CPC might be a viable choice but as I live in a solidly safe Lib riding I'll likely vote for whomever runs under Bernier's party banner.

1.) But, also, I believe that according to the OECD Canadians working in temporary or contract positions have the least protection among member countries. This affords business a lot of flexibility and yet despite this our productivity performance has been dismal, suggesting that the main purpose of this trend in Canada has been to reduce wages, which actually disincentivizes investment in productivity-focused innovation. Minimum wage levels impact a relatively small percentage of the work force. Wynne's reforms in Ontario were half-hearted, made late in her mandate and largely intended as a political ploy. The issue of whether they would have had a beneficial impact if left intact is now a moot point. 2.) They do, but this seems to be about the only sector in which we can make any claim to competitive advantage but it's hardly an earned advantage. As I said earlier, "free trade" was supposed to reduce or eliminate our productivity gap with the U.S., offsetting the disadvantages of our small domestic market and resource sector reliance, but this hasn't happened. Bad economic management and poor policy choices attributable to successive governments starting with Mulroney's seem far more likely to account for the poor performance. Other countries that have faced similar challenges resulting from globalization have fared much better. 3.) As I pointed out in my first response in this post, Canada has the weakest protections for temporary and contract workers among OECD (i.e. developed) countries. Obviously, other countries have achieved better economic outcomes without abusing their own workers to the extent that's permitted here. 4.) I'm not sure what you mean by this? 5.) Educated Canadians have by the tens of thousands annually decamped to the U.S. seeking better opportunities throughout the recent period characterized by Canada's relative economic decline, a significant net loss of talent that's been ongoing except perhaps during the height of the 2008/09 recession. And not only does the U.S. remain the primary destination for educated Canadians, it overwhelmingly remains the first choice internationally among those who say they'd like to move elsewhere. Among the main reasons people go elsewhere is that American immigration laws and limits are quite restrictive. Its legal immigration limit on a per capita basis is about one-third of the Trudeau government's current annual immigration target. You just to do the math to figure things out. Educated Canadians have had a particular advantage in this due to the labour mobility provisions afforded them under the FTA/NAFTA/USMCA regime(s).

I'm sure there was pressure from the U.S., mainly exerted mainly behind the scenes. The U.S. and China are engaged in a titanic trade and economic struggle, the outcome of which is crucial to the world. I'm a bit skeptical of the legitimacy of the charges against Ms. Meng on grounds of side dealings with Iran. I think it more likely this is a tangential skirmish that's just part of the broader struggle. And we got stuck in the middle. But, if we have to pick sides, do we really have a choice as to which side we support? Our relationship with the U.S. is much more important to us than is our relationship with China. That's just a realistic observation and not a slight to China per se. McCullum didn't seem to understand the limitations he was under in his role as ambassador. It was his role to promote and defend Canada's interests, as determined by the government of the day, rather than to defend China's interests, whether vis-a-vis the U.S. or Canada. How or why would he have thought otherwise? I predicted in a post under this topic on Friday that McCallum would not retain his ambassadorship for much longer: "Trudeau says he won't replace McCallum at this point, but the ambassador's credibility has certainly suffered. It seems likely he won't serve in the position for much longer." I don't think any other outcome was possible. 

All I can say is 'Thank goodness for the FBI' in view of these events. In response to those who constantly berate our relationship with the U.S, which some like to excitedly portray as the 'Great Satan', this instance illustrates why we should be thankful the Americans have the skills and resources to identify such risks. I hope there won't be an ant-Muslim backlash but people are right to be skeptical about whether we have the ability (or inclination?) to adequately screen migrants, including refugee claimants. And, for those out there who aren't paying attention, this issue is now warranting greater attention in the U.S., where some politicians are pointing out that their northern border may be more of a security risk than their southern one. Is this a hit Canada can afford to take in our already strained relationship with our neighbour?

1.) Our reliance on natural resources is a matter of public policy. In other words, it's a choice our leaders have made. In the globalized environment, where "comparative advantage" is supposed to govern economic decisions, our leaders have apparently determined that the only area in which we have a clear advantage is natural resources, which we had nothing to do with putting here in the first place. In fact, if you'll recall the debate in the late 1980s, "free trade" was touted by economists and politicians as a way to eliminate our productivity gap with the U.S., but things haven't worked out that way, have they? In fact, the situation has worsened. As for the sorry investment record Canada has experienced over the past couple decades, our corporations are voting non-confidence in this country with their choices but in the meantime expect to be coddled with market protection, industry-friendly regulatory regimes, guaranteed profits and, of course, a beneficial tax structure. And their bought-and-sold political allies have given them all this and expected shockingly little in return, ensuring that mediocrity continues to be the abiding characteristic of our economic landscape. In 2014, based on a rational and objective analysis, the PBO reported that there's no evidence of general or emerging labour shortages in Canada, except in a few very limited sectors and geographical locales, suggesting that much of the basis of the government and private-sector immigration propaganda campaign is aimed at - you guessed it - lowering business costs (i.e. wages) and boosting profits, a strategy that actually disincentivizes investment in innovation and productivity enhancement. Our politicians have decided that profits are more important than the collective economic well-being of Canadians. 2.) The record low (official) unemployment rates being reported in Canada and some other countries don't actually mean much. I read an article not long ago about why even in a recessionary environment the official unemployment rate will no longer be an effective indicator of the actual state of the economy because of the growing impacts of the "gig" economy, whereby it's estimated that perhaps 20 percent of workers - a percentage that's constantly increasing, particularly in Canada which has among the weakest labour protection laws among developed countries - don't have regular full-time employment but are still considered to be employed and are not effectively reflected in the un/employment stats, whether or not they're actually working. These are the people most likely to quickly lose work in a recession and yet we won't know it unless we start to look at other indices like welfare stats (which remain quite high in parts of Canada) and bankruptcy rates, which reportedly are currently on the rise. As for Canada being a safer society, that's a bit of a red herring. Many parts of the U.S. are as safe as is most of Canada. I have many relatives, including two siblings, who live in the U.S. and to my knowledge none has ever reported experiencing or witnessing a serious crime.

No, the socialist mindset is one that wants to give increasingly generous benefits to those who haven't paid their fair share, if anything, into the system. The only way those who have worked and paid high taxes to support the system get anything back is through "universal" rather than means or income testing eligibility. As a really good friend of mine who was a multimillionaire (and, sadly, is now deceased), pointed out when he qualified for the seniors drug program, he was finally getting back a tiny fraction of the taxes he'd paid into the system for years as he was already having his pension fully clawed back due to his income. My preference is to see the health care model transformed into a contributory program, like the U.S. Social Security system or our CPP model. Those already over the age of, say, 50, would be credited with deemed contributions based on a residency formula. Contributions could be subsidized for those who can't afford them, with immigrant sponsors and the federal government responsible the costs of newcomers (i.e. those who've resided in the country for fewer than 10 years). Eliminating benefits for those who've paid their fair share into the system throughout their working lives, whether based on means or income testing, is a surefire way to undermine the legitimacy of the system. I'd want the government to fully refund all the taxes I've paid for years, and continue to pay in retirement, which I view as premiums that were and continue to be paid in good faith.

Canada is flailing economically. Its relative standing in the world, as measured by per capita GDP, has declined precipitously over the past few decades. If our productivity growth rate over the past three decades had kept up with the American productivity growth rate, it's estimated that our per capita GDP would be roughly 15 to 20 percent higher than is the case today. We have an entitled business sector that in general eschews investment in innovation and seeks monopoly and/or oligopoly and seeks protection of its "right" to profits from a bought-and-sold, self-serving political class. It's not a "good news" story. As for our education system, our "best and brightest" continue to flee the country in droves (as apparently a young nephew who will soon graduate university with STEM qualifications is considering, according to his mother), heading to places like the U.S. and Australia, where their skills are recognized, utilized and appreciated.

1.) Well, and according to the CBC report, both the PC and NDP members agreed with the increase. Also, are you saying that the huge PC majority in the legislature couldn't have pushed back and cancelled the increase if it so chose? Silence equals consent in such matters. 2.) I think you're being overly optimistic here. (Oops, I'd better watch out. My response is shorter than the quote, which is apparently a concern on this site.)

1.) The other issue with means testing, of course, is that while it sounds fair it's actually quite inequitable. A single person in Toronto with an income of 19K, and particularly a tenant with such an income, is more disadvantaged than is somebody with a similar income who lives in a small town in the boondocks. Our PC MPPs have set the standard for affordability in Toronto by raising the housing allowance for MPPs who live outside the city to $2,300 monthly. By that standard, anybody earning less than about 60K to 70K annually should be spared a claw back. 2.) My point is that in the U.S. many employers do provide drug benefits to their retirees, particularly in unionized environments, in recognition of the fact that there aren't universal programs. And many provide some degree of health insurance coverage into retirement for the same reason. Universal programs, then, function as much as a subsidy to business, as American critics of our health care system often argue to be the case. I believe that Lee Iococca, a former head of Crysler, has argued that public universal health care and benefits programs are beneficial to both business and the public interest. My guess, is that Ford's crowd will simply transfer drug costs to ordinary seniors, thus putting a lot of them in a situation worse than that faced by their American counterparts. Meanwhile, our governments continue to juice housing costs in big cities with mass immigration and agree to trade deals that include provisions that significantly increase medication prices. When governments are working every which way against the interests of ordinary citizens, isn't it fair to ask why we should have to pay taxes?

Move on to another site? That's what I'm thinking of doing.

You know, the interesting part is that I hardly ever quote verbatim long-winded and verbose posts. When I did on one occasion mainly to illustrate that despite their extensive verbiage these posts did not respond in a concrete fashion to the points I had raised in a discussion, points at which the writer was ostensibly aiming his or her criticism, a fact I noted in response to the verbatim quotes. In my opinion, it's long-winded stream of consciousness commentaries that can dull or thwart discussion that need to be reviewed. In other words, I was making an intellectual point, which apparently wasn't well understood by some, including the moderator.

What an outrageous post! My question is why quoting a poorly written and verbose post in order to question its purpose is an entirely valid rhetorical strategy. If you look at my posting/quoting history here I seldom do this. If you picked up on a history of such "excessive" quoting, perhaps you might have a valid. But in relation to the (apparently two) quotes you've questioned, why exactly are you raising this concern? Is it favoritism? It sure seems that way to me.