turningrite

No, it would appear for the time being to be a vote for a conservative party not beholden to special interests. We'll see whether Bernier's party emerges and how its platform develops, but at present I and apparently a lot of others are tired at the lack of options provided by the traditional tri-party cartel that runs the show in Ottawa.

Ah, but you're missing the crucial point in all of this in that Canada's market for new vehicles remains larger than Mexico's. The auto manufacturers, including the American brands, will not want to sacrifice this market. Trump's crowd generally holds market share and power rather than production to be the most important element in trade discussions. Well, if so, Canada retains a very important bargaining chip vis-a-vis Mexico. Mexico jilted us at the alter, although its outgoing president was trying to appease us during his bizarre conversation with Trump the other day. At this stage, though why should we consider Mexico's interests in any future dealings we have with the slippery Americans? It's now everybody for themselves.

You do realize that Bernier lost the leadership vote based on special interests aligning against him, right? It was believed that he was the preferred choice of rank-and-file CPC members but this wasn't enough to overcome powerful lobbying interests, particularly due to Bernier's stance on supply management. And I believe Scheer had the CPC's so-cons on his side as well, although this faction doesn't broadly reflect or represent the Canadian electorate. Bernier apparently feels the CPC simply can't be reformed. Maybe he's right.

Walkom has been one of the few prominent MSM voices to take an objective view on the NAFTA imbroglio. He long ago said that Canada might be better off ditching the thing. We could instead pursue side deals on various sectors, like autos and steel, and seek WTO reform, which is a necessity in any case. And there's no longer any logic in concerning ourselves with Mexico's interests. Any deals on autos or other sectors should simply leave the Mexicans out of the loop.

Another G&M piece by Lawrence Martin notes how weak Canada's negotiating position has become. We've lost almost any leverage we might have had. It's either Trump's way or the highway now for Trudeau and Freeland. The Trudeau government and its enablers have failed to appease the Americans and to get a deal we'll have to accept our role as supplicants. My view is that we should simply withdraw from NAFTA talks and move on. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-us-mexico-double-cross-puts-canada-on-the-defensive/

Of course, the Americans are untrustworthy trading partners. My (now late) father, a businessman, was solidly opposed to the original FTA (which preceded the NAFTA regime) when it was being debated 30 years ago. He prophetically noted that one day the whole thing would end badly when (not if) an autocratic and nationalistic leader came to power south of the border. Well, look at what happened. The naive Trudeau government believed it could leverage Canadian connections in the U.S., a strategy that now appears to have failed. I think it's now time to pull the plug and move on. But maybe we should wait until a couple weeks before the midterms as I believe Canada is the largest foreign market for more than half of all U.S. states.

Even MSM outlets are now hinting that Trudeau's trade strategy has likely failed. And this has happened even with broad consensus on the part of the Canadian economic elites, Ottawa's political elite and provincial governments. We were snookered by the U.S. and Mexico and it looks like we'll have to accept Trump's terms or fold up the NAFTA tent. To me, this reflects an utter failure in leadership on the part not only of the Trudeau government but also those who have enabled its approach. Is there any hope left on this front or should we now start planning for the inevitable end of the NAFTA regime? As Thomas Walkom noted in his column in today's Toronto Star, the Americans have demonstrated they're untrustworthy partners. He might have added that the Mexicans aren't much better although it's easier to recognize the difficult position they were/are in. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/08/29/why-sign-trade-deal-with-untrustworthy-partner.html

You're stating truths that our immigration lobby and the political cartel in Ottawa as well as their media acolytes and partisans don't want to acknowledge. The only hope on the horizon for a sensible new policy approach is Bernier's proposed party.

Those are interesting numbers but CAQ support among Francophone voters no doubt gives the party a distinct advantage. My guess at this point is that the election is the CAQ's to lose. The PQ/SQ numbers are interesting as well because it suggests that even if the overtly nationalist vote weren't divided its support would clearly rank in third place. Of course, the old axiom is that most Francophone Quebecers are in reality nationalists of one version or another, however they appear to be shifting to the right rather than left.

It was a motion at a convention and has no binding impact on government policy should the CPC get elected. Harper, after all, didn't change policy on this even though he would no doubt have faced little public resistance had he chosen to do so. It's my impression that in this country the immigration lobby largely gets what it wants no matter which mainstream party is in power. Thus, the appeal of Bernier's proposal.

The Yemeni conflict involves several Muslim countries. Although strategic alliances play a background role, the Yemeni conflict, unlike the one in Syria, isn't particularly important to the West. It's seen as a relatively minor proxy skirmish and the West simply isn't willing to compromise its alliance with the Saudis and has therefore taken a mainly 'hands off' approach, while continuing of course to ship arms to the Saudis. There's money to be made, after all. There been no need to crank up the Western propaganda machine or to agitate antsy activists to lionize or demonize the various actors in this conflict. The notion that principles govern Western attitudes on issues in the region is largely laughable.

I think the mixed market approach is the only reasonable solution in both the U.S. and Canada. The main problem is to find the correct balance in each country. The American system relies too heavily on the private market and thus in the absence of a "public option" insurance alternative promotes monopoly and/or oligopoly. The Canadian system, which for basic and necessary health services is a public monopoly, now relies essentially on rationing, which is a clearly sub-optimal approach. The price elasticity principle, of course, generates higher prices when demand for any necessity exceeds supply, suggesting that the Canadian system is far worse off than its American counterpart, where access cost is the main policy concern. As the supply of health services has been so constrained in most Canadian jurisdictions for so long adopting a strictly private market approach would create chaos and result in skyrocketing prices. I believe the Canadian system has to target private market insurance at meeting particular needs before entirely opening up the public monopoly to competition. The U.S. is actually in a more advantageous position and has more room to manoeuver to resolve its access cost and services cost problems.

I largely agree with you, particularly with your final sentence. I think we need to examine our system to see whether it's meeting the country's needs but think we should avoid trying to reinvent the wheel. The Australian analysis likely offers many insights into the problems in our system. I believe it also addresses the problem of the disconnect between immigration selection and real labour market needs. And it's my understanding that it addresses some of the concerns about sponsored relatives (aside from legal spouses and natural children). Unless there is clear acknowledgement on the part of politicians, policy analysts, corporations and mainstream media that the current system is deeply flawed, a reactive alternative, whether in the form of Bernier's proposed party or something else, will eventually emerge.

I'd be willing to take the chance. My bet is that if Scheer's CPC is the only option available on the right, Trudeau will win again and will most likely get another majority. Without Bernier, the only real hope for a minority parliament or a governing party other than the Libs is a strong showing on the left by the NDP. But the NDP slides further into obscurity every day. Many of its long-time MPs likely won't even run next year and its leader has been a flop. Bernier's not yet formed party has firm support almost equal to that of the NDP. So, I think if we want to see real change next year Bernier has to enter the race.

It wouldn't be a regional party, which means that its potential to appeal to a broad swath of voters would be much greater.

Your demographic argument repeats a myth that's often used by immigration proponents. Australia, which has pursued a large scale immigration program similar to Canada's and which largely modeled its selection process on Canada's system, fairly recently undertook a thorough examination of its program and policies. Interestingly, it concluded that the demographic argument for high immigration levels is largely overstated as its impact on the age structure of the population isn't particularly large and can't be sustained without constantly maintaining very high immigration levels. Commentators in Australia have thus noted that the demographic strategy essentially amounts to a ponzi scheme. So, we have to discuss immigration in terms of its real impacts both good and bad and determine a level that is ideal for both the existing population and for new arrivals. I believe that level is probably around 150,000 to 180,000 annually. Sure, the rate of population growth with drop but there is no proof it would in any way undermine economic conditions and/or living standards and it could in fact have many beneficial impacts.

Perhaps among diehard CPC partisans this might be an issue but not likely among conservative-leaning voters in general. Don't forget that Manning and Harper were rebels too, rejecting the then mainstream conservative PC party. Eventually, that split ended. Bernier's appeal to moderate libertarians and those who want to see immigration and refugee reform might have much more potency than did Harper and Manning's mainly regional protest movement. When a TV news reporter covering last weekend's CPC convention in Halifax interviewed a few of attendees about Bernier's proposed venture some indicated that they were open to considering the idea. Among those in my social circle with whom I've discussed the matter there's also a broad openness to seeing what Bernier might come up with, including among those who have indicated past or current support for the CPC. The problem the CPC faces in any challenge against Trudeau's Libs is to distinguish its brand from the Lib brand. On a lot of issues it's difficult to see much difference. Bernier has said that Scheer amounts to a watered down (although likely a less pompous) version of Trudeau. A lot of voters seem to agree as recent polling suggests Scheer can't beat Trudeau even in the absence of Bernier's party. If Bernier on the other hand can reduce Trudeau's Libs to a minority, what harm might ensue?

I would end birthright tourism, for sure. The issue is now being confused in the MSM with the refugee issue, noting how banning birthright citizenship could generate stateless citizens where children born here to refugee claimants are concerned. While this is a legitimate consideration to take into account, a law ending automatic birthright citizenship should focus on those, including tourists and temporary residents and visa holders, who have children here while not holding and not formally seeking status in Canada. It should be fairly easy to write such a law.

Bernier hasn't started his party yet, so perhaps we should all wait and see what he does. Some of Bernier's economic views are certainly libertarian but I'm not sure a good dose of libertarianism would be bad for the Canadian economy, where too many sectors are protected and cosseted at great expense to Canadian consumers. Harper restrained his party to the extent of suppressing the strong social conservative faction within the CPC. And that remains a weakness of the current CPC, although I suspect Scheer, reputedly a social conservative himself, would if he ever formed government have a much more difficult time keeping this faction in check. As far as I know, Bernier is not a social conservative. In an contest between a mild libertarian option on the one hand and a potentially social conservative one on the other I suspect many would opt for the former.

1.) Three policies that involve NAFTA? How did you pull that out of the air. Sure, supply management intersects with NAFTA negotiations, but immigration, refugee and multicultural policies are entirely separate. You're correct that Bernier's party, if it comes to fruition, will have to flesh out its policies. At least give it the chance to do so. 2.) I don't think you're looking at all the Abacus polling. Bernier's entry pushes Trudeau's party into minority position while it retains near majority support without the new party. I believe that a minority Trudeau government would be much better than another majority Trudeau government and it appears unlikely at this point that Scheer's CPC can overtake the Libs. Bernier's entry would upset the apple cart, for sure, but give us a real possibility for change. 3.) See previous point. Bernier's entry, while perhaps more dangerous to the CPC in terms of peeling off supporters, also cuts into Lib and NDP support. Could the Libs win a majority with, say, 32 or 33 percent of the popular vote? I suspect it's an unlikely prospect and if it ever happened would certainly put the final nail in the coffin of the FPTP system. 4.) Kevin O'Leary? Really? The American reality show guy? Hasn't that kind of thing been tried elsewhere? And he doesn't speak French.

Are you proposing then that we basically abandon regular immigration and simply permit workers to enter on a temporary basis in order to demonstrate their ability to contribute, integrate and sustain themselves? This might be feasible provided Canadian workers are not pitted against these new entrants in seeking and obtaining opportunities in this country, and in particular provided the system isn't set up as an inherent form of wage arbitrage as temp workers cost less to employ mainly due to the lack of non-wage benefits costs associated with employing Canadian workers. Governments would have to require that wages and salaries paid to this temporary class of workers be grossed up to match the equivalent costs of Canadian workers, perhaps stipulating that the gross up funds be paid into pension plans that the temp workers can remove if or when they leave the country.

I wondered about the background of the article's author, Tony Keller, as I couldn't find any reference to it in the Atlantic piece? An internet search suggests that he may be a G&M editorial writer, but I'm not certain of this. In any case, the Atlantic article is illustrative of the generally rosy elite corporate-political consensus view of Canadian immigration and it reiterates assumptions that simply may not be true at this point in time if public opinion is taken into account, particularly where the author states: "If my country’s pro-immigration consensus is ever to come undone (something I hope can be avoided), this is where it’s going to happen. The whole apparatus of bureaucratic dissuasion can be circumvented by anyone who is already in the U.S. and is willing to simply walk into Canada at any random spot along the world’s longest undefended border." Recent polling suggests this "consensus" does not hold among the general population, almost half of whom believe general immigration levels are too high. The illegal/irregular refugee issue may have led to greater scrutiny of the entire immigration system, but I suspect discontent has been increasing for quite some time. The corporate elite and its political servants have an interest in maintaining high immigration levels. Ordinary people, not so much. This is not merely about fixing the migrant issue at the Quebec/U.S. border. A much more complex set of concerns is in play here.

That's a good question but it raises another topic altogether: Why does the federal government sponsor an unfair labour competition scheme against Canadian workers? To me, the answer is that the situation illustrates the fealty of successive governments to corporate interests and power. It also raises the issue of why we need so many temporary and visa workers, particularly in highly-skilled fields, when at the same time so many immigrants are entering the country and struggling to establish themselves. The situation suggests a massive disconnect between our immigration policies and the requirements of our labour market(s).

I have pointed out in some of my posts that the Abacus polling indicates that up to 49% of Canadian voters would at least consider supporting Bernier's proposed party, which is a stunning result. Further, I've noted that his proposed party appears to pull support from both sides of the political spectrum. CPC supporters on here seem apoplectic about Bernier's impact on their party's prospects, however at present the most important single impact would appear to be to reduce Lib support from near-majority to minority status. If Bernier actually does form a party, and given that there's a year to go until the next election, the entire Canadian political landscape could be reshaped. For those who are tired of the lack of choice afforded by the traditional tri-party arrangement in Ottawa, Bernier's proposal seems a breath of fresh air.

1.) I doubt your suggestion would be possible. For one thing, the Charter in Section 6 guarantees mobility rights: "Citizens and Permanent Residents have the ability to move to and take up residence in any province to pursue gaining livelihood." Neither the Charter nor current Canadian law appear to contemplate the possibility of conditional residency and court challenges would likely strike down any attempt to implement such a regime unless a government were willing to impose the notwithstanding clause. But a change in government could easily cancel a conditional residency policy, rendering any long-term ability to impose such a regime highly impractical. 2.) It's believed that by mid-century birth rates could fall below replacement rates in at least half the world's countries and very likely in most Western countries. So the world will simply have to get used to this. A smaller global population will not be a bad thing. We're not doing a very good job at keeping older workers economically productive and we're not fully utilizing the skills of Canadian post-secondary graduates, a significant percentage of whom leave the country for better opportunities elsewhere. We should address these issues before bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year, many of whom take years to become economic contributors. And your comparison of Germany with Ontario is highly artificial as only about 4 percent of Ontarians reside in the province's vast north while the other 96 percent reside in the much smaller region known as Southern Ontario, which has a population density of about 260 persons per square mile, which isn't much below France's population density of around 300 persons per square mile and exceeds Spain's population density of around 240 persons per square mile.