carepov

jbg, in your opinion are people that commit horrific crimes/massacres: a) born "evil" b.) choose to become "evil" at some point in their lives c) weak-minded people that are converted to the dark-side? d) other

That is not the way I see it. First of all he makes it clear from the start that perpetrators are enemies and must be caught and brought to justice. The second point is that we need to try and understand the motives. We need to get in the head of our enemies so that we can prevent future crimes. This does not mean appeasement as you suggest. It just means obtaining a better understanding of the problem - a pre-requisite to finding a solution. An analogy is the study of psychopaths by criminal psychologists. The search for better understanding of a crime does not at justify the crime nor does it imply appeasement.

I am a English-Francophile-Canadian, I do not waste any of my time/energy thinking about banks and fees. Why do you ask?

So are you saying that TFW policies have very little impact on the Canadian labour market? If so, then we agree. Overall TFW policies do help improve Canadian lives. -Canadian unemployment is low -Wages are growing (http://www4.hrsdc.gc...-eng.jsp?iid=22) -Living standards are increasing -Most TFWs are doing the work that Canadians do not want to do -Our TFW policies give Canada more flexibility, for example: -In boom times we can get projects going quickly and efficiently -In bust times we can send TFWs home and stop bringing them in before laying off Canadians By your logic, should we cut off foreign aid?

Unemployment is low relative to our historic rate and low relative to other countires. Without immigration it would certainly be higher and without TFW it would likely be no different and perhaps higher. Canadian banks charge ridiculous rates and fees because Canadians are either too stupid to realize that they can avoid fees at credit unions or other financial institutions or they have so much disposable income that they don't care.

So now TFW are responsible for the imbalance of unemployment rates across different regions? Really? Perhaps the imbalance has more to do with things like the oil boom in Alberta? "There is reason to fear that adding more vulnerable workers to weak labour markets since 2008 has further worsened unemployment and undermined wages." Guess what, it is now 2013 and we can stop worrying - we have data showing that unemployment is historically low especially compared to the US. Notice how until 2009 out unemployment rate was consistently about 2-4% higher than the US. Also, wages show no sign of being undermined.

Yes, and more than yes. Constant dollars are used to compare wages over time meaning that inflation is included. The average Canadian today is spending a lower percentage of their income on necessities (food, shelter, and clothing) compared to 40 years ago. The cbc article does a pretty good job explaining this: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ood-prices.html As I wrote earlier, in the last 20 years: -Wages have gone up for the top 80% -Wages are flat for the bottom 20%, but poverty is at a record low Yes we are spending a greater percentage of our income on housing, but less on food and clothing. Believe it or not, even after adjusting for inflation, the average Canadian has more disposable income today than 40 years ago.

The figures are adjusted for inflation. Here are some more facts supporting my claim that overall Canadians are better off now than in the past: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/06/f-food-prices.html Why don't you (or someone else) show me some data supporting any one of these claims: -TFW are resulting in net job losses in Canada -Poverty is increasing in Canada -Wages are decreasing in Canada -Life satisfaction or quality of life is decreasing in Canada -The "Canadian field" is more tilted now than it was in the past Feel free to use sources like the Council for Canadians or other similar groups.

Oh yes I am!! The proof is that here I am trying to have a fact-based rational discussion with you.

Earlier you said that wages are being driven down, the data contradicts your statement - it looks like wages are going up for the top 80% and flat for the bottom 20%. What do you mean by "tilted playing field"? Other posters have suggested problems with increased poverty in Canada, the data suggests otherwise: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=23

Who's wages are being driven down? http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=22

Of course the quality of life of my family is worth more TO ME than the quality of life of strangers - my family's quality of life is however worth no more than any other family's. In the TFW program when some Canadians lose jobs (although my opinion is that net Canadian jobs increase) the jobs gained by non-Canadians will be a huge benefit to them and raise the quality of life many more people in their country. Overall humanity's quality of life increases, isn't that a good thing?

IMO your suggested policy will result in higher unemployment and lower wages in Canada because in many cases business will choose to expand/invest outside of Canada. The market for most goods and services is global, we should move carefully towards an global market for labour.

I am sorry about your situation. I just think that without TFW there would be more Canadians in similar or worse situations.

Canada's unemployment rate is low relative to it's historical value: Also, it is low relative to most comparable countries - especially the USA that traditionally has had a lower rate than Canada's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

There are many different sitations using TFW, here are two examples that I had in mind when I opined that the TFW is a net bennefit to Canadians: -A new mine is being propsed, potentially creating 1000 jobs. With 800 TFW, the project is feasible and the investment is made, 200 Canadian jobs are created. -A manufacturing company is bidding on a new contract for product to export to the US. A plant expansion would be required creating 300 new jobs. To quote a competive price 200 TFW are needed, 100 Canadian jobs are created. Do these examples help you understand my position?

Well you may be right in principle on this issue, however: -Isn't it only 45 jobs? -If the jobs are going to be outsourced anyway does it really matter how or where the foreign workers are trained?

In some cases yes - a job lost is a job lost. However, in some cases, if a non-Canadian gets the job another Canadian gets a better job. In some cases 1000 Canadians lose their job due to temporary workers, but even more Canadian jobs would have been lost without temporary workers. Perhaps in some cases 100 temporary workers created 50 new jobs for Canadians? Our relatively low unemployment rate suggests to me that our current policies are in line with our own self-interest.

OK that's a pretty good answer, thank you. On the philosophical side: If nations "should consider the security and prosperity of their own people first and foremost", then should provinces do the same? Should Albertans be upset that Newfoundlanders are stealing their jobs? On the practical side: After many years of policies favouring outsourcing, temporary workers, high immigration (~250,000/year), it is obvious to me that Canada's "quality of life" is increasing and is amongst the highest in the world. There are costs and benefits to Canada in these policies. The costs have been pointed out throughout the thread but not the benefits, here are two: -Lowering some labour costs allows Canadian companies to be more competitive and increase other jobs. For example, without temporary workers or some outsourcing a company my not be able to justify investing an investment that would add new jobs to Canadians. Or perhaps if labour costs become too high then entire companies would shut down and instead of "loosing" a few jobs to outsourcing/temporary workers, Canada would loose more jobs. -Business is relationships. Undoubtedly immigration, outsourcing and temporary workers increase relationships between Canadians and non-Canadians and should increase trade and lead to new business for Canadian companies and new jobs for Canadians The fact that the net results for Canadians have been positive with the current policies suggest that they are working - it would need some strong evidence to convince me that without temporary workers and fewer immigrants Canadians would have a higher quality of life. There is certainly room for improvement. I would look at increasing immigration and temporary workers and improving the selection process.

If you say so. But still: Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life of a non-Canadian?

This is a pretty good discussion so far, there many good comments... If we are a "global village" then shouldn't we be happy for our less fortunate citizens that are getting better jobs and improving their lives whether it's through outsourcing or the foreign worker program? Why is the quality of life of a Canadian more important than the quality of life of a non-Canadian?

Before I try to answer this question and respond to your post can you please suggest a few measurements for "quality of life of people living in undeveloped nations"?

If you want this type of hockey it is already available - its called the AHL.

Hi Michael, I just want to give you my support and thanks for all your posts. I know that you are not excusing mismanagement or caving in to FN demands like others seem to be accusing you of doing. I admire the way that you respectfully push for a reasonable discussion about pragmatic solutions that are based on facts. Keep up the good work! edit: <sincerity>

Evidence? The OP was asking for one's opinion, and my opinion is that hockey is better without fighting. The best hockey is Olympic hockey and also NHL playoff hockey- especially games when there are no fights. No. I think that bare-knuckle punches to the head are barbaric and no longer are a good fit with today's NHL hockey.