I am Groot

You ever been to New York? I lived there for a decade decades ago. Trump was kind of a local clown even then.

So I take it the answer is 'yes'. Any criticism of Trump is dismissed thusly. That's... uh... deranged.

So how come that provincial MPP hasn't been arrested?

I take it that's your reflex towards any criticism of Trump? To me, the deranged people are the ones who admire him. Or really any politician. I've been voting for over forty years and never voted FOR anyone. They're all venal, self-serving incompetents and carpetbaggers and I try to pick the least worst among them The deranged people are the ones who go and watch their speeches and cheer and scream in adulation. Worse are the ones who send them money. Anyone who thinks Trump is in this for the 'common man' has never looked into any aspect of his past and is simply falling for the character he played on that TV show.

I was quite happy with him his first few years, disdaining the Chinese, after Chretien had led squadrons of politicians hat-in-hand over to China in the preceding years. It's too bad he caved after the recession hit.

Donald Trump never met an autocrat he didn't like. Moreover he is fantastically corrupt and has been his entire life. He's not going to do anything about China but pocket more cash. Now some might say Biden is corrupt, as well. They'd be right. Far too much of the US political body is corrupt. But Trump's weakness is his incredible greed. Biden already knows he's got more money than he can spend in his remaining life. Trump will still, at 76, desperate for more money.

Family reunification AS WE DO IT is dumb. The thing which gets me is we have something much of the world wants. We can be choosy. We can make high demands. We can pick those who are most likely to succeed and seem most adaptable. We don't bother. The same goes for the skills program. We can be very choosy. We can conduct interviews, try to see who is most interested in learning about and joining in with Canada, ensure they have higher language skills and make it a requirement that their spouse also learn the language before coming. We can do a lot of things to ensure that immigrants do well, but perhaps not when we want half a million a year. You know the deal. Younger workers pay into healthcare which they mostly don't need, and then become heavier users as they get older. And even then the system is starved. But bringing in tens of thousands of people each year who never paid and just immediately begin to use resources is... not helpful. Other countries require people who sponsor parents to have health insurance. But we can't really do that here since there is no health insurance to pay for regular hospital or other services here. That should change. No. But when a billion people want to come here we can and should be much more discerning about who we select. We should also be out there looking for people in specific industries (like medicine and the trades) that we want to recruit rather than just taking whoever applies. We should be focusing on couples who both have skills. And we should not be bringing in people just to bring in people. Our population was already rising. We didn't need to double immigration, with all the resulting problems in housing, immigrant poverty, etc. that this brings. And we absolutely should shut down the back door to immigration sitting on Roxham road. We need to withdraw from the asylum treaties we signed in the 1950s. They were never designed with the kind of floods of people surging around the world we have today. When people come to the United States, dump their papers, and then show up at our border we should automatically turn them back.

Buddy if you think the Chinese aren't doing this in the US you're really naive. And it's so much easier to funnel dark money into political campaigns down south at every level.

The Canada Child Benefit will pay a couple on welfare with three kids over $38,000 a year. This is non-taxable, so it's actually equivalent to something more like $45,000. And that will go on top of whatever you get as a family of five for welfare. Now here is the trick with immigrants. If you're native born we have a record of your children being born and where. But if you're an immigrant we have no such records. Immigration Canada would know how many kids you brought in but they consider that private information. Thus it's much easier to cheat the system.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/sabrina-maddeaux-universities-escape-blame-for-soaring-rents https://thehub.ca/2021-07-23/howard-anglin-the-one-factor-in-the-housing-bubble-that-our-leaders-wont-talk-about/ https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-more-housing-supply-wont-solve-unaffordability

No, on this. And this. Do you really think immigration is designed to counter an aging population? If so please explain why Trudeau increased the number of elderly immigrants who can be sponsored three times now since he's been in power, from 5k to 30k. Thirty thousand is a small city's worth of elderly immigrants coming in every year, none of whom have contributed a dime towards the healthcare services they will need.

We don't need half a million a year. That's not designed for stability. It's designed to more than double our population under the Century Initiative.

Two kinds of immigrants. One was the guy who owned the company that painted my house last week. The other kind is the woman who talked to him during an orientation for immigrants who told him he was doing it all wrong. All you have to do, she told him, was tell them you have a bunch of children and they'll send you money every month! And they won't even check!

What I want to know is if any of the candidates got elected. And their names.

Wouldn't you like to know who the MPP was who funneled all that money through to election campaigns for the Chinese government? And why they haven't been arrested?

I'm sure Trudeau will take action immediately in defense of Canada's sovereignty and national security and defense. Any day now. He'll at least say something anyway. Probably. I mean, maybe it'll just be in writing. Yeah, a stern note. Well, maybe not so stern but anyway, he might send a note. And he might not even sign it with 'best regards'. Just 'regards'. That'll show those Chinese communists!

Remember that of that 60% only about 1/4 to 1/3 will be the principle applicant tested for skills. So let's say it's 1/3. That means 20% of immigrants will be 'skilled'. The rest might not even speak English.

We barely have enough construction tradesmen to build what we're building now, which isn't enough NOW. You want to increase the rate at which housing is going up we need more people in the construction trades. A lot more. You think they're going to want to plunk their arses down in Thunder Bay or Whitehorse, people largely coming from areas near the equator? They're going to Toronto, Vancouver, and a few other cities. Which means making those cities more crowded or increasing urban sprawl by paving over farmland. And for what, exactly? Will they remit more than the government has to spend on them? The last study done strongly suggested otherwise. Economics experts? Like this guy? https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-has-abandoned-middle-class-says-b-c-s-former-top-civil-servant Oh yes, I forgot about all those empty houses that can't be rented or bought because, like, there's such an oversupply. More potential customers? Indeed. But you know what else comes with more potential customers? More potential competition. The only businesses that are certain to benefit are the oligopolies who have lobbied the government for this, and some of the real estate and construction industry.

That is the sort of thing which ought to have been studied prior to the decision to increase immigration - 7 years ago. But Canada has undertaken no real study of the benefits or drawback of immigration, what immigration can do for the country, what it has done so far, or how to adjust/alter it to get what we want. Or even what we want. The government has studied none of this and has no plans to do so. Obviously, bringing in even more immigrants will exacerbate the housing shortage and resulting price increases in everything from rent to mortgages. Very few of the new immigrants will be construction tradesmen, and we have no idea how well their skills (presuming they have any) will meld with Canada's needs. Bringing in half a million people a year means more demand for housing, which in the absence of a flood of new people into the construction trades we will be unable to supply. Likewise medical services, especially since Trudeau has grandly increased the number of elderly immigrants three times in the last seven years, from 5,000 to 30,000 now (and counting). What we can be fairly sure the new flood of immigrants will do is make it easier for low wage jobs like those in the restaurant and hospitality industries to be filled without raising wages. Ditto for the tech industry, which will continue to spurn Canadian software grads in favor of more experienced and much cheaper Indians and Chinese. There's no real suggestion any of this will be good for Canada, at least in the short to medium term. Nor, I suspect, is it supposed to be. It's designed to make corporate Canada happy and to meet the Liberal party's goals under the Century Initiative as well as increasing immigrants from ethnic groups seen to be strong Liberal party supporters.

Perhaps you simply haven't followed it as closely as I have. But in any event when the Supreme Court can make a decision on a thing and then thirty odd years later change their minds without the actual document ever having been altered its clear that the decision rests not on the document but on the mindset, ideology and personal beliefs of whatever group of political appointees are interpreting it at any particular moment in time.

Unlikely. The Notwithstanding clause can only be used for certain portions of the charter. In any event, your being bothered by this seems to be an indication you have a respect for the charter I completely lack. Realistically, it's nothing of importance since the nine political appointees can simply interpret it any way they want to. As they have on the issue of strikes. Don't forget a previous panel of political appointees said there was nothing wrong with the government legislating workers back to work and that the Charter did not protect strikes. This panel is further to the Left so has redecided issues based on their personal beliefs.

The constitution is not being abused when an integral part of the constitution is being invoked. Btw, were you similarly concerned when Quebec invoked it twice last year on behalf of a bill to further 'protect the french language' which was itself based on extremely tenuous evidence of danger?