Hydraboss

I think of it this way: Canada is one part EU and one part UN. EU - We use a common currency. Some pseudo-council (our federal government) lays out what they feel are important policies on law, immigration and taxation and not all provinces agree (too bad for you, Mr Province but here's your carbon tax so we can feel good on the world stage). UN - As a group of "countries", completely dysfunctional and useless. We fight among ourselves constantly, none of us particularly liking all the others, but no matter what individual provinces decide as a group - here comes one of the ones with a permanent "veto" (Ontario or Kwebek) to impose their views on the rest. Any country this large is artificial. Look at the US - the United STATES of America. Ask the Maritime provinces why they don't just drop their individual provincial names and go with "Maritimes". Canada as an entity is about as unreal as you can get. As for whether or not "many of the current provinces would be better off"........ Alberta separatist, remember?

What? You've never been held up at turban-point? I agree. The turban argument has been going since a Sikh walked into a Legion wearing one.... I see the stupidity of the disagreement from this point: You cannot discount "Canadian traditions and laws" to make allowances for a turban, and then turn around and start berating people for "violating Canadian values" (like wanting border laws enforced). These ill-defined values are no more important than these traditions or laws. It's hypocritical to argue both sides of what is essentially the same damn argument.

Eyeball, you're contradicting yourself. The fact that our money is going abroad speaks to the fact that we are paying for whatever resources we obtain in other countries. We are not stealing like some country from the dark ages - we are trading our money for those resources. Which means that other countries have absolutely no claim to anything in Canada. Whether or not you feel this is exploitation is irrelevant. Our interests are focused on what we need as a country, not what the other country needs. It's up to them to raise the price of what we want if they feel they are being unduly exploited.

The use of my taxes should be narrow and small. "Thinking bigger" will simply spread the money of Canadians too thinly and gain basically nothing. All the while, Canadians go without in this country - and that should be our only focus. edit->sp

And that means???? I'm not sure what your "zooming out" has to do with anything. Existentialism?

Not sure about him, but I would ignore their peril because they're not my responsibility and therefore not my problem. Now, other Canadians are my concern.

"Hate" in this case is appropriate. In the same way that people "hate" a certain brand of coffee or "hate" anything in broad terms...."I just hate the oil business". Nobody in your part of the world knows where Scheer is from....yet. As we get closer to election time, you can be sure the rhetoric will ramp up...comparisons to Harper, Manning and Wall will be all the rage. The media will play the fact that he's from Saskatchewan as an anti-east thing. Ideas won't matter - the election will be based on the same things it always has: Are Canadians ready to get rid of Trudeau yet? Are there still enough hand outs being given to "me"?

Really? Watch what happens when any party puts an Albertan at the helm. Remember the whole "Harper is from Alberta!" ranting that hit the Toronto Star, etal? Care to make a bet that the same thing happens to Scheer because, well, he's not from Kwebek or Ontario? We do the exact same thing out here to anyone from the Middle of the Universe.

Canadian politics has always been about regionalism. If you hate Alberta, you get elected in Ontario. If you hate Ontario, you get elected in Alberta. If you hate Alberta and Ontario, you get elected in BC. If you give away free money, you get elected in the Maritimes. Canada is a zero-sum game and the guys pulling the political strings know that. Pareto efficiency.

Trudeau certainly would eliminate oil and gas employment if it meant he would be reelected. You are correct that most governments wouldn't do that - but you ignore the fact that Justin Trudeau is of substantially lower intelligence than the people that run "most governments"....and the re-election is all about him working his way to his real goal. Secretary-General of the United Nations

I doubt it. They'll just move investment out of Canada. That's exactly what the corporation I work for is doing (we rely on oil and gas production) - we, and our financial backers Those With The Checkbook, decided at the board meeting last Friday that putting any more money in this country is a really bad financial risk. We're moving all new proposed manufacturing to north Texas instead of expanding our Alberta/Saskatchewan presence. And get this: our new sales and distribution hub is going to a region that is waaaaay easier to deal with when you're in fossil fuels.............California.

C'mon. It's obviously not hot enough. (am I really the first one to say that??) I propose three new threads in their own section: 1) The USA is EVIL 2) 911 Was a Sham 3) Denying Science (Have You No Morals?) That should clean things up a bit.

That would be Trudeau. You remember, the guy who refuses to uphold Canadian law. These people are not refugees, they are looking for welfare (which is paid for via taxes). The people coming across the border are doing so illegally - why the hell isn't the government instructing the RCMP to do their frickin job and prevent it? How many other crimes are the Liberals going to "turn a blind eye" to? Car theft? Rape? Election fraud? The people crossing should be prevented from doing so by armed RCMP or CBSA agents. Staring down the barrel of a .223 will turn all but the dumbest away. Putting in trailers for illegals is aiding and abetting. Pure and simple, which means the Liberals, the RCMP and CBSA agents involved in this sham are actually breaking Canadian law.

This was brought up earlier (by Michael maybe?) - giving some land to foreigners is one option. Years ago I suggested that ANYONE immigrating to Canada should be required to live for a minimum of five years north of 60. I got called a racist for the suggestion. If you want out of your shit hole of a homeland because you're scared for your life, etc - no problem. We have a pile of land just waiting for people to move into. It's called the Territories. Spend five years there and then you're free to move anywhere you want in the country. This way, we get all those "hard working immigrants and refugees that just want to work and provide for their families", they get to realize their dream of living in a "safe" country, the north gets the increased population that "some" people think we need, and the ghettos in Toronto grow...slower. Don't like snow and the cold? Tough shit. Move to Mexico then.

So is the thread title accurate? "The Left..."? From where I stand, it looks a lot more like "Trudeau invites terrorists into our home" - and pays them millions (10.5 to be exact). Then our illustrious leader appoints someone who will no doubt invite even more terrorists in - hey! why not just let EVERYONE in?? That way, every one of us can be correct - we'll let in the terrorists, the non terrorists, the people who want to work, the people who don't want to work, all colors, all religions, etc. Canada will be just like the UN. And we all know how awesome that works and how much that group loves each other. Why, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the delegates from Iran, Saudi, Japan and North Korea sit down and play a round of Bridge together over a pint. After all, multiculturalism is just fantastical isn't it?

Report and ignore, Michael. Report and ignore.

Are you actually a Leitch supporter, Michael? Funny...when that was publicized, she was called a racist. If there's such support, who exactly was it calling her a racist?

Except what he wrote is accurate. Stress is one of the top relapse triggers. To put a very recent (a year?) recovering alcoholic (all alcoholics are "recovering" regardless of time off the bottle) in that kind of position reeks of cronyism and is a dangerous game to play with our governance. All that said, there has never really been any "merit" to how ministers are chosen for positions - how do we end up with an obese person as a Minister of Health? What about someone in charge of finance that can barely understand a balance sheet (or not at all)? Sport and Disabilities....no one cares so put someone clueless there. Indian Affairs (or whatever it's called this week)? Hows about we put someone there that actually KNOWS something about...I don't know...Indian affairs? The one that amazes me is the refugee in charge of Immigration and Refugees - are you kidding me? Does anyone expect this guy to react critically to a system that let him in? What a joke. Trudeau putting the ex-drunk in charge of the military is just his SOP - take someone that will piss off the people concerned about the portfolio and tell them to giver'. (I'm surprised he hasn't named himself Minister of Energy (just to irritate Alberta and Saskatchewan).

Not at all. I just find it amusing that so many people accuse him of doing exactly what Trudeau does, but when it's Justin, those same actions somehow turn into magazine cover photo ops.

Not at all like The Justin visiting wildfire sites in Ft Mac and BC. Nope. Not at all. You mean the way our guy wants to try a little "'nudge nudge wink wink' to have non-White Americans Canadians prioritized over others"? Your "curiosity" doesn't even make sense. Sorry.

And you're my second favorite poster that has Lucille Ball as an avatar.

I think it's acceptable to disregard what anyone posts if their quoted "studies" are garbage. I happen to think that Argus tends to link to rather credible sources. If he didn't, I'd call bullshit the same as I do about anyone quoting 911truth dot org (or whatever the hell that site is).

Equality? That's SOOOOO 2015. I thought progressives were all about "equity" because "equality" wasn't good enough??

If we're going to spend taxpayer money on it, I'd like to see some decent studies that say it works. Kindergarten IS nothing more than daycare - provided by union personnel at multiples the cost of daycare itself.

Why would full time daycare increase the birth rate? Is that what people are actually doing while their kids are eating finger paints?