John

If Canadians are so opposed to this idea then maybe they should man up and support a military befitting of a country with the second largest land mass and 11th largest economy. Too many want to just sit back and let the US protect us.

Why don't you go live in the US? lol

Why should I go live in Japan? So what if they have a low birthrate? Other large countries have higher birthrates.

At a minimum of 250,000 immigrants per year for most of the past 24 years we have admitted well over 5,000,000 and I don't see any social disorder or threats to stability and social cohesiveness arising from new Canadians. What part of Canada do you live in? Also...you still haven't clarified your previous reference to "native born" Canadians. What does that mean again?

Finland is also not a strong voice on the world diplomatic scene. Having a large and powerful military would help Canada become more of a force for good than we currently are. And I don't believe you can 100% predict what the public mood will be towards a large military if we have 100M people. We're looking at a century or so down the road...a lot can happen in that time frame.

You're aware Canada is quite large, right? The beautiful thing is that we can have bustling metropolises and also vast open and pristine wilderness. It's not a one-or-the-other kind of proposition. Over the past several decades the US, Japan & Germany were the top 3 economies in the world. China recently took the No. 2 spot. Here's a list from wikipedia for your enjoyment. The number column indicates gdp. 1 United States 16,768,050 2 China 9,181,204 3 Japan 4,898,532 4 Germany 3,730,261 5 France 2,806,432 6 United Kingdom 2,678,455 7 Brazil 2,243,854 8 Italy 2,149,485 9 Russia 2,096,774 10 India 1,937,797

Large populations don't need to live in squalor. Japan has 127,000,000 on a group of tiny (compared to the size of Canada), mountainous islands and so live mainly on the coasts. Here's a really great article on the subject. Admittedly...it's a vision of Canada which, to me, is very inspiring. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/what-would-a-canada-of-100-million-feel-like-more-comfortable-better-served-better-defended/article4186906/?page=all

The point about the Ukraine was that this kind of thing can happen unexpectedly.

We live in a very different world than we did 200 years ago and we need a larger military to continue to competently participate in world affairs when force needs to be used. And we do have obligations to NATO and we also like to participate in UN peacekeeping missions. Unfortunately, if we play nice and try fly under the radar with our heads down, other countries will simply push us around. I'm not talking about Canada specifically, but the West in general. Everyone is cutting military spending except the Russians and Chinese. As our influence wanes you don't think they will step into the vacuum? You don't think that they already are? A few years ago nobody might have dreamed that Russia would move into the Ukraine. But they did didn't they? What if they had just taken all of Ukraine and the Baltic States? You must be able to admit that it could have been a possibility. Finally...I'm sick of the old line..."well the US will protect us if we're ever attacked." How pathetic is that???? We cannot be a true voice in the world while we hide behind the military might of the US. No...we cannot afford a military to beat them back if they ever decide to invade us. But we can at least try to have a military which befits the size of our country. I remember a newspaper article not too long ago in which Finland was preparing for a possible crises and sent letter to all 900,000 of it's reservists. Finland has 5.2 million. http://europe.newsweek.com/finish-military-preparing-900000-reservists-crisis-situation-326712 I thought that was interesting. Could Finland whip Canada on the battle field?

Cities would grow outward and upward... all the new immigrants and subsequent generations 20-30 years from now will not be stuck in cities which are exactly the same as they are today without having gotten bigger. It's up to the cities to plan accordingly. Just because some certain cities aren't handling current growth well (arguably) doesn't mean they will mess it up in the future as well. If you search the Web for news and article you will see many economists stating that prices are higher in Canada compared to the US for many reasons...one of which is that there are a lot fewer people in Canada. Telecommunications...travel...clothes...cars...appliances... http://www.canadianbusiness.com/economy/8-things-that-cost-more-in-canada-and-why-that-is/ So trade deals are good...they just don't cover everything you suggest that they do.

Not sure what you mean by "native born Canadians". We certainly wouldn't be letting in 60 million foreigners. But they would have children...and THEY would have children and we'd get to 100 million in that fashion.... Once the immigrants have kids...then those kids would be "native born Canadians"...or am I missing something somewhere...

http://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/in-the-spirit-of-donald-trump-10-politically-incorrect-challenges-facing-canada Not a big fan of Diane Francis but I think this article is right on target when talking about the leaders and the current election being more about "house keeping" than "nation building". I'd like to see a leader whose vision includes: a much much larger military for this country and also one who seeks to rapidly increase Canada's population to 100 million which would primarily come through increased levels of immigration. There is so much more a government can do outside of the mundane tax and spend issues which seem to dominate the election.

Well...I think that the only way to stop the current refugee crisis is to have Western troops on the ground battling IS. Regardless of how the current situation has come to pass it seems like the air campaign isn't doing to much to stop them

If every EU country plus Canada, the US and Australia each took in refugees at a rate of 0.5% of their respective populations there would be no crisis...

The way he came out of nowhere to win the leadership was quite impressive.He now has 3+ years to work on showing Ontario what he's all about and prove he's not scary. I think he can do it. It's going to be very interesting to watch things unfold.

That's a fair statement. How would you break the cycle of dependency?

Don't we currently have programs for those on social assistance to maximize their potential? If we do, I don't know if it's working out or not. I think that if we gave people a basic income they would have the security in knowing they won't have to choose between rent & food and go out and do something productive for themselves or their family or their community. I don't think I'm naive in thinking that most people are not lazy and do not like living in, or near, poverty and don't want to live on handouts.

I get what you're saying. But I think that the percentage of people who are lazy/cheats is small. And for me it breaks down like this...there very well may be lazy/cheats, but is it morally right to let so many people live in poverty because of such a small percentage of n'er do wells? For me the answer is no.

I think they should probably be raised. What I'd really like to see is some kind of a basic income for every adult who doesn't meet a specific income threshold. The costs of letting people fester in poverty far outweigh the costs of doing something about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt The Ontario debt consists of domestic bonds, international bonds, treasury bills & U.S. commercial paper and non-public debt. As of September 30, 2013 the breakdown is as below:[7] Domestic Bonds - $189.6B (66%) International Bonds - $65.5B (23%) Treasury Bills & U.S. Commercial Paper - $19.7B (7%) Non-Public Debt - $13.3B (4%)

While you still have the fees...at least you have something that will more than likely have appreciated in value...at least in the bigger markets. With renting you only pay off your landlords mortgage every month.

If you think a realtor brings value to the table then he/she is worth the money. If you don't think a realtor brings value to the table then he/she isn't worth the money. A good realtor will be many things: A chauffeur, a negotiator, a cleaning person, a decorator, a project manager, a psychiatrist (for divorcing/fighting couples), a marketer... The kicker is that all of these things are done for free...until a deal is completed. How many detractors of the profession themselves actually work with no guarantee of getting paid? Are there bad realtors? Yes, of course. Just like there are bad carpenters, plumbers, contractors, hockey players, lawyers, doctors, politicians...the list goes on and on. Do these "bad" workers deserve their money? Someone must think so...because if they are employed they get paid... Full disclosure: I'm a realtor.

I doubt it...but maybe they can produce "green" products which will help me sweep my own porch and wash my own car.

Free trade isn't supposed transfer wealth to poorer nations. It is to help raise the standard of living in all countries involved. They get jobs because it is apparently cheaper and easier to produce stuff there and we get cheaper goods. Everybody wins. The climate change deal would actually be a transfer of wealth to poorer countries and the benefits aren't so transparent. What if they don't use the money for the intended purposes? What if only some of them do? What if we don't see any results? What then? Why are wealthier countries dealing with higher costs for goods/services without seeing any reduction in climate change? Not so cut and dry...

Well said! I couldn't agree more. I feel that the benefits of our free trade agreements have not been fully realized because politicians have clung to manufacturing and not let the economy diversify as much as it might have.