turningrite

I think your vision is somewhat 'pie in the sky' as immigrants tend to gravitate to about half a dozen urban areas upon arriving in Canada. And they can't be forced by governments to move elsewhere. Personally, I don't believe Canada's population should exceed about 45 million and we should strive to reach this level over a period of perhaps 35 years or so, which would entail a lower population growth level than we're currently experiencing.

It's my understanding that the two immigration categories that exert a considerable drag on taxpayer funded services are refugees and sponsored relatives (other than spouses and natural children). As those who enter the country under these categories aren't assessed for economic potential I believe the approach needs to change. First, Canada needs to align its refugee determination criteria with those of other Western countries in order to avoid attracting benefits seekers. Secondly, sponsored immigrant criteria should involve an economic test, including language proficiency, and sponsors should be required to purchase health insurance for their sponsored relatives throughout the period of the sponsorship.

Actually, Trudeau is benefiting from a relatively prosperous economy, a situation that permits his government to delay the infrastructure spending it had promised. But you have to wonder how with a supposedly booming economy income tax revenues have actually dropped? Logic suggests this should not be the case. With a rising deficit in a period of relative prosperity, one shudders to think of the size of the deficit that will emerge when the country inevitably experiences a recession.

A large percentage of the Canadian population lives on a very small proportion of the land mass. Southern Ontario, home to almost 40% of Canada's total population and host to roughly half its immigrant population, already features a population density similar to many European countries. Were immigrants clamoring to inhabit northern Canada, perhaps the intake numbers might be less controversial. Even the famous environmentalist David Suzuki has acknowledged that Canada is full. Further, it makes no sense to move people here from warm countries as once here their environmental footprint vastly increases. If one is concerned about the future of the planet, Canada's population growth should be very limited. As for the concern about Bernier splitting the conservative vote, I wonder if you and others actually examined the Abacus polling, which indicates that Bernier is pulling support from the Libs and NDP as well as the CPC. Including his new party in the Abacus polling dragged Lib support into distinctly minority territory (34%) whereas without his new party in play the Libs are close, at 37%, to repeating their 2015 majority. Equating the impact of Bernier's party, should it emerge, to the impact of past splinter parties, might not be particularly useful.

My post was intentionally facetious, at least in part. I have no use for Saudi fundamentalism, nor for any other manifestation of religious extremism, either in Canada or abroad. I was simply addressing Trudeau's hypocrisy in standing on principle for "our (Western) values" where it suits him and otherwise castigating those who reference Western values where it's politically expedient for him to do so. The Western alliance with the Saudis is, of course, predicated mainly on oil and money, although there's a dollop of strategic value in it for some, including the Americans, in that the Saudis help keep the Iranians and Russians in check in the ME. But Canada can't claim strategic virtue here.

Well, now we know. Trudeau's tax strategy of increasing the top marginal tax rate has resulted in - wait for it - lower overall revenue generation. I guess that deficit really won't balance itself. Normally, those of us who talk of Trudeaunomics mean the propensity of his government to spend our tax dollars on schemes intended to buy off potentially Lib-friendly voters. Apparently, however, the Lib strategy goes much deeper than that. They're blaming other factors, of course, like the decline in revenues in depressed Alberta (which began in 2014, by the way) as well as in income shifting by those trying to avoid the 2016 changes (big surprise) but the impression arises that they simply might not have a clue. Funny that they couldn't wait to start shoveling money out the door for pet projects without considering the revenue side of the ledger. It's the Lib way, I guess. Budgets balance themselves - or not. Look at my socks. Aren't they cute? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-high-income-earners-paid-46-billion-less-in-taxes-in-2016-despite/

Yes, and the Saudi prince gets to look tough by challenging interfering Western infidels while Trudeau gets to posture about "our values" here at home. I find his values blustering particularly discordant as his party's general penchant is to castigate others for 'dog-whistling' whenever the concept of our (Western) values arises. Now that his government is involved in a dispute with an unabashedly fundamentalist Islamic regime, I guess it's okay to trot our values out for political gain. But Kellie Leitch must be frozen in disbelief. Were Trudeau ethically and philosophically consistent, he'd issue an abject apology to the Saudi regime, noting that he'd violated that regime's right to unfettered religious freedom, which in a domestic context our government essentially interprets as meaning 'anything goes' provided it's ostensibly justified by religious belief. Our role is merely to shut up.

Your approach here seems to be to transform the determination process from a legal into a bureaucratic one, and that might in fact provide an effective solution of sorts, at least pertaining to the claims of migrants who are from relatively peaceful countries. But I suspect that many of these migrants could be fairly easily denied entry and/or status from the get-go, according to the opinion of a law professor, Michael Barutciski, who wrote a piece for the National Post several weeks ago noting that the Trudeau government is exaggerating Canada's obligations under international law where these migrants are concerned. The missing element appears to be more a lack of political will on the part of the federal government than a lack of possible solutions. The influx allows Trudeau to play the role of diversity Santa Claus while foisting the costs on already burdened provincial governments. Trudeau seldom seems interested in the concerns of Canadian taxpayers. Such concerns are left to those below his pay grade and lofty pedigree, apparently.

A biker? Call the cops! Were Bernier guilty of a serious security offense, he would have been turfed from cabinet and perhaps even from caucus. To tell you the truth, when I think of the incident all I clearly recall are the photos. Oh, those photos... Trudeau is a horrible prime minister. But, as I've said elsewhere, unless the other traditional parties can distinguish themselves from Trudeau's politically correct brand they're ceding territory to Bernier's prospective party. Bernier's views appear to resonate with a broad swath of voters. Unfortunately, two of the traditional parties are utterly committed to so-called "progressive" ideology (i.e. the Libs and the NDP) while the CPC seems terrified of even visiting the issues Bernier is addressing, preferring "consultation" instead, which to many is political-speak for doing nothing. The 49% of Canadians who disagree with current immigration policies as well as the likely larger percentage who are tired of identity politics can't all be wrong. It's foolhardy to deny them a political outlet and home. And any attempt to label them "racists" will probably backfire. The word is now so overused as to have become debased. And voting in Canada is still governed by a right of privacy at the ballot box, rending it unlikely voters can be intimidated into complying with the progressive agenda.

I'm always wary of the news clips and stories that supposedly "illustrate" growing intolerance in this country. I suspect that those who promote this approach are hoping to see a greater degree of conflict than actually exists in real life. And I always wonder about the other side in many of these instances. Undoubtedly, some people do make racist comments or otherwise appear to be intolerant. Human beings are human beings. Where one is mistreated or disrespected, the temptation is very often to react in a similar fashion. Were the incidents the media is now fond of covering (hey, almost everybody has a cellphone camera) illustrative of an epidemic, however, I suspect our news broadcasts would have no time to cover anything else. The incidents that concern me more are ones, like coverage of the fake hijab attack in Toronto earlier this year, that foment a false impression of widespread and virulent intolerance, which is truly propagandizing.

It won't.

Actually, I think a fairer system would be to permit foreign workers only from countries that offer reciprocal consideration and we might consider applying similar logic to citizenship eligibility. If Canadians aren't permitted access to another country's labor market then citizens of that country shouldn't be able to compete for jobs in Canada. This logic should apply to all foreign workers, including skilled temp foreign workers, and in order to prevent corporate wage arbitrage of the kind that's currently taking place employers shouldn't be permitted to deduct the wages of skilled foreign workers as a business expense. Why is Canada graduating tens of thousands of skilled workers a year who can't find decent employment here, often prompting them to leave the country, and then permitting corporations to fill positions with foreign workers? The whole system needs a rethink.

1.) Right now, Bernier's impact would appear to have reduced Lib. support to minority territory (34%). CPC supporters and others should be thanking him. 2.) Well, results are results. That 49% indicate they'd at least consider supporting Bernier's prospective party suggests that a vacuum exists in the current party system. Three issues may dominate, but elections can turn on one or two issues. 3.) I believe Bernier was defeated as a result of the voting system used for the CPC leadership contest, where new and reportedly temporary members put Scheer over the top, particularly in Quebec where the supply management proponents were able to take advantage of the lack of CPC members in many ridings. Otherwise, I believe analysis suggests Bernier was more popular among grassroots CPC members. Where did you come up with the "unstable" theory? Can you provide a citation to illustrate how it might have played a role?

I disagree with much of your analysis. Bernier's past security misstep in essence boiled down to a tempest in a D cup, so to speak. Leaving confidential docs at a girlfriend's place, while perhaps indiscreet, isn't likely to be seen by the public as suggesting compromised loyalties. Bernier's political concerns speak to broad public angst with the state and direction of the country and its dominant traditional parties, which between them represent virtually no variety of opinion on many important policy fronts. It's telling that the Abacus poll indicated that Bernier's prospective new party is cutting into both Lib and NDP support in addition to CPC support. In fact, were the polling to reflect an election held today the Libs would be in minority government territory at 34% while without Bernier's party they remain close to majority territory at 37%. Obviously, Scheer's CPC isn't resonating. Supporters of all three existing mainstream parties will of course try to attack Bernier's party, but that will only likely increase its visibility and credibility. They can call him a racist and xenophobe all they want, as they will no doubt be tempted to do. The problem is that this could well backfire as many Canadians could feel they are equally being labelled and castigated for having and/or expressing reasonable concerns about issues like immigration levels and refugee policies. Will Bernier's supporters be labelled as "northern deplorables" in an attempt to dissuade them from supporting Bernier, who after all is no Trump? It seems a very risky strategy to pursue as it could pit a significant percentage Canadians on one side against a cadre of self-appointed "progressives" on the other. Such a contest could well serve to illustrate Bernier's point that the traditional parties are essentially the same and leave the field open for him to promote an alternative populist agenda.

He's trying hard to make things worse. He really is! The problem is that many of the cost burdens he's willing to foist on the shoulders of Canadian taxpayers, including with his refugee and sponsored immigrant policies, actually impact provincial budgets. So he can take the credit for playing Santa Claus while provincial governments scramble to reallocate resources to pay for these policies.

The "citizenship of convenience" issue heavily impacts the number of Canadian citizens living abroad. Canadian citizenship is far easier to obtain than is U.S. citizenship, something our government seems to think a good thing but which irks many ordinary Canadians. The real downside of migration loss is where we lose tens of thousands of educated young Canadians each year who perceive that opportunities abroad, mainly in countries like the U.S., Australia and Britain, exceed those available to them in their home country. The tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of highly educated Canadian emigres who reside in places like Silicon Valley will in most cases likely never return. Our government has for a decade or more sponsored an unfair competition scheme against its own workers, rendering it likely this unfortunate situation will persist. I was talking to a relative a couple weeks ago who said her young son, who will soon graduate with an education in a STEM field, is so discouraged by the options available to him here that he's considering alternatives, including emigration. The way Canada is being run is no way to run a successful country. We're content to be a 'farm team' rather than play in the big leagues.

I believe Chretien demonstrated that heavily accented English isn't an impediment to appealing to English-speaking Canadians. He was generally more popular outside his home province of Quebec than inside it. As for Bernier, people will no doubt wait and watch as his political brand takes shape. Much will depend of whether he can attract good candidates to run in the next federal election. I think Bernier's potential appeal is pretty broad. The Abacus polling results released on the weekend indicate that 49 percent of respondents will either vote for his new party or are at least open to considering doing so, which is a stunning result for a party that doesn't yet exist. This suggests widespread dissatisfaction with the tri-party cartel that dominates policy discussion in Ottawa at present. So, I wouldn't focus on Bernier's accent but instead consider what his new party might have to offer. A lot of Canadians might well be receptive to its message.

That's an interesting result, isn't it? I wonder if it's a coincidence that the Abacus poll released this weekend on the impact of Bernier's party indicates that 49% of respondents indicate that they will vote for it, are likely to vote for it or will consider voting for it? The elite tri-party consensus in Ottawa appears to be at risk here. Successive federal governments have treated Canadians like lab rats, without much if any consideration of the massive impacts on things like labor markets, housing, health care, transit and commuting times. The approach appears to be to continuously plunk more into the box and see how far resources will stretch before the rats start cannibalizing each other, I guess. Great way to run a country, eh?

I think you're confusing cosmetic surgery with elective surgery. Within the health care system in this country elective surgery generally means having to live with an often debilitating medical condition while one waits for a surgery spot to open up. Some of those waiting are immobile and wait for hip or knee replacements. Others, like me, suffer significant eye diseases and have to wait for surgery because, well, being nearly blind won't kill you, right? Others are put on heavy duty medications to allow them to endure and/or survive waiting periods, often suffering debilitating side effects. To trivialize the waits for elective surgeries effectively trivializes the plight of tens of thousands with serious and/or chronic debilitating conditions who are simply abandoned by the health care bureaucracy for months or in many cases years.

But if he starts a new national party you will have an opportunity to vote for it, provided of course that you're entitled to vote in Canadian elections.

I think the interesting aspect of this poll is that the Libs are down to 34 percent support. It's almost impossible to imagine they could win another majority with this level of support. It also suggests that Bernier's party, if it comes to fruition, could peel supporters away from both the Libs and NDP. If recent polling indicating significant dissatisfaction with immigration levels and other fairly recent polling indicating concerns about multiculturalism are indicative of broader trends, there's an appetite for change among supporters of all three traditional mainstream parties. And Bernier's economic and trade policies, once fleshed out, could well appeal to a broad constituency. The fact that Bernier's proposed party is starting off with the support of more than one-in-eight voters when a lot of Canadians don't yet know much, if anything, about it suggests that the movement has a lot of room for growth. According to the Abacus polling, 49 percent of respondents indicate they'll either vote for Bernier's party or consider doing so, which is a stunning result for a party that doesn't even exist at this point. I think it's far too early to write off the project even though MSM commentators have been tripping over each other to declare it ill-fated before Bernier has a chance to develop the idea.

Huh?

I believe the discussion under this topic about the legal system focused specifically on refugee access to funded legal services to facilitate the pursuit of their claims. It's my understanding that legal aid falls under the jurisdiction of and is administered by law societies. At least, I believe that to be the situation here in Ontario. What sort of justice and/or legal reforms would you consider to apply? Argus raised the ability of refugee claimants to obtain services based on the applicability of the Charter. Any reform in this regard would, I believe, likely entail political intervention in the form of the application of the notwithstanding clause rather than justice reform per se.

I believe you're correct. The biggest threat to social harmony and unity in much of the world appears to be "diversity," particularly where people believe it is foisted on them. As a (now late) friend of mine who spent a lot of time in Southeast Asia used to note, ethnic and religious differences and animosities in the region generated the fuel that ignited and sustained many fires. And we're now seeing what significant immigration is doing in Scandinavia, and particularly Sweden, long considered one of the world's most tolerant places. As a column by David Brooks in the NY Times noted a few months back ('The Strange Failure of the Educated Elite'), promoting diversity for the sake of diversity is doomed to failure. The political and economic elites, the column points out, have developed a "misplaced idolization of diversity" and have apparently failed to realize that "diversity for its own sake, without a common telos, is infinitely centrifugal, and leads to social fragmentation." In other words, the maintenance of common values is crucial to harmoniously functioning societies. Ordinary voters, including in the largely tolerant democratic West, on the other hand, seem increasingly cognizant of this reality. The elites and their MSM acolytes continue to wail about intolerance and racism (Hello Justin!) without recognizing the underlying forces they're encouraging. Healthy modern societies are not blank canvasses upon which fanciful visions can be painted. Rather, they're rich, textured and intricately interconnected murals where the impact of each new element that might be added has to be considered in relation to every other aspect on the canvas.

You're correct. The term "Liberal" in Canada essentially represents a brand name rather than a consistent political and economic philosophy, particularly where the federal Liberal Party is concerned. The current iteration of the party might more appropriately be termed "progressive" but only so in a very narrow definition of that word as it's mainly concerned with pursuing policies that further the agendas of special interest and identity-focused constituencies. It's certainly not a "liberal" party in the classical sense of the term. The CPC has similarly developed a grab bag approach to politics, although its constituencies include social conservatives, among others, the Libs have sidelined. Otherwise the two parties are largely similar and tend to quibble over relatively minor differences. Tommy Douglas used to describe the two main federal parties as "Tweedledee and Tweedledum," a description that still applies. Given that the NDP has in many aspects joined their club, perhaps it might be called Tweedledumdum? Those concerned about Bernier trying to split the CPC should focus instead on the good that could come out of splitting up the tri-party cartel that's monopolized policy discussion in Ottawa.