turningrite

If the information communicated about her, including about her membership in an supposedly far-right group, isn't accurate, I believe she has a valid case to file a defamation claim, at the very least. And if Trudeau called her an intolerant racist on this basis, as is now the justification stated by some to defend him, he too should be held to account. We, members of the public, are permitted to slag politicians and in so doing be protected from legal sanction, but I don't believe our legal system so insulates politicians who defame members of the public.

When searching specifically for federal legislative or policy information, I tend to refine the search by ending it with "gc.ca" in order to get the most relevant results. The immigration information is fascinating, reading in some instances as a form of advertisement.

As I said before, sponsored landed immigrants are by definition permanent residents and therefore qualify for government health care coverage, although some provinces apply a three-month waiting period. Don't confuse apples and oranges by confusing permanent residents with other classes of non-citizens.

I don't know why you're citing an American source for this? The Canadian government's site for newcomers states: "If you are a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, you may apply for public health insurance. With it, you don’t have to pay for most health-care services." The only restriction that can be applied, as is done in some provinces, is the imposition of a three month waiting period for eligibility. As sponsored landed immigrants are by definition permanent residents, most qualify from the outset, or near outset, for the same coverage that's available to Canadian citizens. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/new-life-canada/health-care-card.html

I absolutely hope she pursues action and challenges those who have slagged and degraded her. I watched an English-language news broadcast earlier this week where the anchor emphatically proclaimed that the woman "IS a racist" (anchor's emphasis on "IS") due to her alleged membership in a far right, anti-illegal/irregular migrant group. Even if the woman does belong to such a group, which reportedly she denies is the case, how could this undermine her right to speak out on an issue of public policy in a country where the Charter purportedly protects the freedoms of expression and association. And why would association with such a group necessarily deem one a racist anyway? I guess that for our shrill progressives the Charter is only applicable where their own pet causes are concerned. She should definitely seek redress.

I've had three friends/acquaintances and a relative who've obtained an assisted death since it was approved. I think medical professionals are largely giving those with significant illnesses the benefit of the doubt where their patients seek an assisted death. Reports suggest that in some medical settings assisted death is now being encouraged, as in the case of the guy in London Ontario who recorded staff recommending this option to him. And he's only seeking compassionate care to deal with a chronic illness. One cannot expect compassionate care, apparently, as we can't afford it. Assisted death is the system's preferred choice. I had a friend who last year chose assisted death rather than return to hospital. And as I live with a serious degenerative illness, it's my plan to do so as well. As more Canadians get older they'll begin to realize how degraded and unreliable our health care system has become. The next step, of course, is advance directives. It's a travesty that the current system doesn't permit them. Canadians will demand it. Maybe we could set up death wards to do this efficiently and keep a coroner on standby. Nah, we don't generally do efficiency in this country.

Sponsorship doesn't pertain to health care costs. I believe that for sponsored landed immigrants, health care costs are borne from Day 1 by taxpayers. This should be changed, of course, and sponsors should be required to purchase health insurance to cover their relatives during the sponsorship period (which I believe for sponsored seniors is generally 10 years) but as immigration is now a vote buying scheme don't expect this to happen anytime soon. By the way, the Canadian Medical Association has calculated current per capita annual health care costs for seniors as amounting to roughly $12K (see link), so if an average senior arrives in this country at 65 and lives to 85, it's reasonable to assume their health care needs will cost taxpayers almost a cool quarter-million bucks, not counting for inflation. Not a bad deal in return for paying, well, nothing into the system, eh? For Canadian seniors who toiled and paid high taxes for decades only to endure an increasingly terrible health care system in their old age it's a real bummer. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senior-health-care-federal-1.4749684

Your stupider ilk? To whom are you referring? I'm a non-ideologue, believing that all ideologies, political, social and religious, contain the seeds of their own destruction. I believe only in rationality, i.e. whether an idea or policy serves an objective, demonstrable and sustainable purpose.

We were waiting for assisted death. Now that we have it our health care system can continue to deteriorate because the final option is available.

1.) You say she can freely express herself and yet you denigrate her. That's not particularly consistent on your part. Further, the issue here is not what Harper would or wouldn't have done. Harper tended to avoid substantive contact with the media and public whereas as part of his brand Trudeau is more willing in general to put himself in situations where he might be exposed to open questioning and/or criticism. As such, though, he also has to accommodate and accept the downside, which is that he might have to respond to questions he finds inconvenient or even distasteful. If he can't do so in a respectful fashion, he should drop the "open" schtick for which he seeks credit. I suspect he reacted in the fashion he did because he's aware that public opinion is not on his side where the refugee debate is concerned. In politics, petulance isn't generally perceived as being virtuous. 2.) If you watch the entire news clip, it's clear that Trudeau's response was quite derogatory, angry and he became more intolerant and vitriolic as the woman persisted in her questioning. The tone of the exchange and the nature of the PM's response were notable enough to render the incident a lead story on some news broadcasts. So, not just another rally. 3.) I've already answered this. There are more effective and efficient ways to address these problems than to in a tokenistic fashion bring several thousand people to a cold, economically declining and completely foreign country.

Obama understood the American health care system's basic problem, inadequate access, when he proposed a "public option." He chickened out in response to vociferous attacks from the right and the insurance industry. Canadians would no doubt be wary of copying the American model but other systems like those in many European countries offer hybrid models within dominant publicly sponsored systems. Perhaps it could be called a "private option" model. As I think our current so-called "universal" public monopoly is irretrievably broken, this might provide a solution of sorts for us. We should also consider attaching health care eligibility to objective residency and contributory criteria. Too many people who haven't paid into the system, including both newcomers and Canadians who return from abroad when they're older and/or ill, are getting a free ride. I've come to understand this problem during the countless hours and days I've spent in hospitals over the past couple years. Unless Canadians are prepared to pay big tax increases, which I suspect they/we are not, we must adopt a new model based on rational principles. "Free health care for all" isn't rational and has led to an inferior and declining system. It's not free. Somebody has to pay the bills. And the people who pay the bills should have a right to adequate care when they need it.

1.) You have to consider that under the Charter we have to respect "freedom of association." The Charter is broadly and perhaps primarly intended to protect political freedoms and not just religious proclivities. It is not against the law to belong to a group that opposes immigration and/or refugee policy. To do so is protected as much as many people argue is the right to wear a burqa or niqab. You might not like the woman's views, but she has every right to freely express them anywhere she wishes, including to the PM. (Unless, of course, you only believe that "freedoms" apply to activities and beliefs you like, which seems a progressive predilection these days.) 2.) Why wouldn't he answer her question directly? She's as much a citizen as (presumably) are you and the matter she raised is legitimately one of public debate. He could have civilly and respectfully said something like 'we know there are problems and concerns and we're working to address them' without launching into a derogatory tirade. The tone of his response suggests that he doesn't respect democracy, or at least the kind of democracy (i.e. actual democracy) that permits the expression of dissenting views. It's his way or the highway. Hopefully, next year Canadian voters will show him the highway. 3.) The size of Canada is irrelevant. And our relative wealth is sliding in global rankings in any case. Our social infrastructure, in particular, has in many places been permitted to fall into a state of inadequacy and disrepair. Many analysts have concluded that the best way to help the largest number of refugees is to address their needs 'in situ' in camps near their homelands. Moving several thousand across oceans to foreign countries where they'll have difficulty adjusting is more tokenism than a humane response. David Suzuki, the well-known environmentalist and member of the Order of Canada, has noted that from an ecological perspective Canada has reached a full population level and pointed out that bringing people here from developing countries isn't enlightened because it drains the countries they leave of important human and leadership resources. Others have pointed out that moving people from the developing world to Canada is an ecological disaster as their carbon footprint expands substantially once here. Canada is one of the coldest countries on earth. There's no "progressive" way to get around that fact.

It's existed in many places where it's had nothing to do with European imperialism. The Arab slave trade boomed for centuries and even Europeans, mainly from Portugal, Spain and Italy but also from further north, were enslaved. Estimates of the number of those enslaved by Arabs between the 8th and 19th centuries range from roughly 11 million to 17 million. The transatlantic slave trade is estimated to have involved about 12 million Africans, almost 85 to 90 percent of whom survived the voyage, although this trade was conducted over a shorter duration in comparison to the Arab trade.

Identity theory implies that people who consciously attach themselves to identity-focused ideologies are followers who mimic doctrines served up to them by others. Can such people really, then, claim religious "belief," for instance, as a legitimate rationale for their choices and behavior. True belief implies the coexistence of free will, which is negated where one simply follows the tenets of a received ideology. It's an interesting conundrum that challenges our preconceptions about the validity of purely legalist concepts of "freedom" and dignity. One can choose, of course, to identify with a particular ideology but beyond that are any of one's choices actually products of free will if they emerge as manifestations of ideological compliance? In my opinion, this is a fundamental (if I may use that term) weakness of the very notion of religious freedom as we have come to understand it in this country and in much of the West.

Leftists generally display a poor grasp of economics. Where large refugee flows and high immigration levels do "help" the economy, this is a function of the impact of new entrants into labor markets, which suppresses wages, and into the broader marketplace where they bid of up the price of goods and services, including housing, that are in short supply. In other words, it's a boon for capital but lowers living standards for many, particularly for those who lack economic resources and stability in the first place, and exacerbates economic inequality. The respected British economist, Sir Paul Collier, has discussed the negative implications of large-scale migration in developed economies, but you won't hear people like Trudeau discuss anything but rainbows and unicorns.

The current large-scale immigration model began in earnest under Mulroney and has more or less continued apace since then. Harper tweaked it, mainly to prefer skilled and employable immigrants and to rein in problematic aspects of the refugee program, but still kept intake levels relatively high. The reasons for high intake levels are often misrepresented. It's been demonstrated via objective analysis, including by Australia's Productivity Commission, which examined that country's similarly large-scale immigration program in depth, that the "demographic" argument used to justify high intake levels is mainly hokum. I believe it more likely that the principal intent of Canada's programs has been wage suppression combined with rentier profiteering, and in serving these objectives has done an admirable job of lowering living standards and increasing economic inequality. But why be forthright when you can get away with propaganda, right? I suspect you are correct that Trudeau's intent is to opportunistically divide the country, although this may be backfiring if polling results published this week in the National Post, which indicate increasing resistance to high immigration levels, are indicative of growing public discontent. Trudeau's approach, and that of his backers, appears to be to double down, casting aspersions on anybody who even remotely appears to challenge the government's agenda. This is dangerous stuff in a democracy. To me, there's little or no moral difference between one racialist agenda, imposed diversity, on one side of the ideological agenda and another racialist agenda, Eurocentrism, on the other. Trudeau is playing with matches if he thinks his agenda is somehow morally superior.

If it provides an inferior level of care, though, as I've experienced here in Ontario, what's the point of it? In some respects, a terrible system like the one we have is almost worse than having no system at all. We assume we're covered for necessary health care. I used to do so. Those who believe this should think again. I've learned from bitter experience that the "universal" coverage system is a sham.

I'm not sure about the well-administered part. My perception of government is that very little it runs is well-administered, so I won't grant the benefit of the doubt here. In any case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing any government policy in a democracy. That's essentially the purpose of the system. It's supposed to be messy and contentious, or in more casual terms disagreement and debate are features of the system and not bugs to be corrected. In any case, I was startled when watching a private network's national news broadcast yesterday evening to hear the anchor proclaim that the woman who confronted Trudeau in Quebec "IS a racist," a conclusion justified by the anchor on grounds that the woman reportedly belongs to a group that opposes irregular/illegal migration. Well then, I thought, our media are at it too, demonizing anybody who disagrees with the government's pro-immigration, pro-refugee, pro-hyperdiversity agenda. This makes me fear for the survival of actual democracy in this country, a concept that's clearly under siege. There is, apparently, only one proper way to think and we are permitted no public forum to openly disagree with our leadership without being moralistically disparaged. Is Canada being transformed into a cult?

Huh? I don't think you've got a clue about any of this. Racism and cultural discrimination are characteristics prevalent in much of the world. They are least prevalent characteristics in post-colonial Anglo-Western and some Latin American societies as well as in Scandinavia. A Washington Post piece published in 2013 compared levels of racism around the world confirming this. The two most racist countries identified were Lebanon and India, although in the former case a relatively small sample may have skewed the results. I hope you are aware that on the Indian subcontinent religious and ethnic rivalries have in the modern era resulted in over a million deaths. And let's not get into discussing ethnic tribal violence in places like Rwanda and Uganda. Studies other than that cited by the Washington Post have reached similar conclusions. Perhaps overt discrimination is less tolerant in parts of Asia because East Asian countries, in particular, tend to remain deliberately monocultural and exclude foreign migrants. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b006b5c7aae

Good to know this stuff. Progressives often scoff at those who post on here about the deliberate Lib pursuit of identity politics, including racialist denigration of their critics. They certainly blasted Bernier for publicly identifying the problem. Maybe they should be more concerned about Ontario, where, as a National Post article today notes, concern about immigration levels has risen to the extent that almost majority now think those levels are too high. The Libs are losing the support of mainstream Canadians in the migration and cultural battles. I suspect they just don't realize it, although given JT's tantrum in Quebec this weekend maybe they do and are doubling down. I just don't see it as a winning formula.

Cynical politicians like Trudeau don't and won't acknowledge the link between immigration and declining public services even though I suspect most Canadians clearly understand it. I think the health care system is too far gone to be adequately reformed within the current model. Rather, I believe we should permit the sale of private health insurance and otherwise attach eligibility for health care services to objective eligibility criteria like length of residency in Canada in combination with the number of years people have filed and paid taxes, with a combination of say 25 to 35 required to establish eligibility for benefits for all of those older than 40.

According to polling reported on in today's National Post (thanks to Argus for posting the link in another topic), about half of all Canadians definitionally meet Trudeau's criteria to be called racists. Trudeau and his cronies probably aren't racists. Rather, I believe they're racialists, who exploit racial and cultural categorization and division for political purposes, as Bernier has accused them of doing. But it seems they're losing the battle where public opinion is concerned. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/survey-shows-spike-in-opposition-to-higher-immigration-in-canada-but-too-soon-to-call-it-a-trend

Thanks for the link to the article about this poll. It confirms a belief I've long held that there's widespread concern about immigration levels. Presumably, according to our racialist-in-chief Trudeau, close to half of all Canadians must be unrepentant racists. Is this the "fringe" element he wanted to deny a political voice when he reneged on electoral reform? Interestingly, Ontarians are among the vanguard in strongly expressing their anxieties about high immigration levels. I wonder if this is because we so clearly experience the problematic impacts on a daily basis? The quality of our lives and public services (i.e. health care) have continuously declined over the past generation. I'm puzzle as to why opposition is more muted in B.C.? Are things a lot better out there" Maybe the survey sample was smaller and therefore less reflective? In any case, it's no wonder poor JT is flummoxed. His propaganda machine hasn't convinced of us of his beneficent superiority and brilliance on these matters. More Canadians than not apparently have to live and survive in the real world.

I really enjoyed the picture you posted with your comment. Anyway, while watching Trudeau's angry attack in French on the woman in Quebec - which, unusually, the English news broadcast I watched played in full - I couldn't help but notice the level of anger in his voice. It made me wonder if internal party polling suggests that his immigration, refugee and cultural policies are undermining Lib support with not much more than a year to go until the 2019 election? I think he might be angry as well that aside from the predicable progressive cacophony, Maxime Bernier's recent remarks haven't been broadly denounced. Of course, Bernier is expressing concerns likely held by a majority in this country. Oddly, Trudeau's government yesterday announced an increase in immigration intake numbers for grannies and grandpas, which made me think he might be trying to inflame the immigration debate so he can more easily cast all his party's opponents as inherently racist. (Who doesn't like grannies and grandpas, even if they've never paid taxes here?) Based on his recent tone, it appears he's losing touch with mainstream public opinion. He blasts others for playing divisive and opportunistic politics while it appears to me that he's an enthusiastic practitioner of the art. Just don't respond in kind or you're a racist!

Peterson is, however, a good debater and fascinating to watch in that role. I don't buy into a lot of his male psychology buzz but think he has some interesting insights into broader cultural issues.