carepov

OK I get it, American Dairy products are cheaper and in theory we import them and save money, let's stop thinking there and end supply management and 99 % of us will be happy saving on our grocery bill. But wait... what if grocery stores import cheaper dairy products tomorrow and sell at the same price as they do today? Could that happen? How about the long term effects of ending supply-management?

I am glad that you read the report and also found it interesting. I am also glad that we are in agreement about Canada accepting a generous amount of refugees for humanitarian reasons. When calculating the cost/benefits of immigration we should really exclude refuges, no? Sponsorship of parents and grandparents has been but on hold and replaced with 10-year-super-vistting-visas. Good idea, IMO. The report does say that if we improve our system and increase annual immigration from 250,000 to 350,000 GDP per capita would increase by 0.8% or $200 per person. If it were up to me I would go in this direction.

PM Margaret Thatcher - 1980's Thank you for proving my point. Mulroney, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Harper - all have been growing government. Conservatives/Republicans = smaller government? No, I say it is a myth and an image/brand that they have used very successfully to get elected.

OK, perhaps you are right and dairy prices would go down... or maybe you are wrong because "volumes could be a factor". Or maybe transportation is a factor. Maybe distribution and retail wages and mark-ups are higher in Canada? All I am saying is that there are no guarantees - there are many products that are not supply managed and have no import restriction and they are STILL 30% more expensive in Canada. Why would dairy products be different?

Here is an interesting study: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/grei-rgei/eng/documents/Synthesis_wp_000.pdf

I think you are misunderstanding me. If I am wrong, please quote my erroneous statement. Again, choose almost any basket of consumer products that have no import restrictions and no supply management. I will bet you that of these products there are several that are 30% cheaper in the US. Why?

Thanks for the link - it is full of interesting info. Regarding number of federal employees there are multiple sources and an infinite number of ways to spin the reports. I am not sure what happened under Johnson, I would put more emphasis on recent administrations and compare Clinton to Reagan, Bush and Bush. It is true that spending/debt is at a record high under Obama. Reagan and the Bushes also set record highs. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png Again, this can be spun left or right but my point is: Conservatives and Republicans talk the talk of reducing government but when was the last time they actually did?

You don't need to back anything up, just don't expect me to believe you when you make claims on "what most people want...". I am glad that you at least agree that Canada is not a hellhole. My point was more like "Canada is arguably the best country to live." It sounds like your stance on immigration has softened a little. Mine certainly has after reading the Fraser report (even if I disagree with it). I still see benefits far outweighing the costs, but there are certainly improvements that can be made to our system.

I have backed up my statements in previous posts: -Canada ranks #5 in the world for Life Satisfaction (happiness) as per UN study -Vancouver and Toronto are consistently voted amongst the best places to live in the world -Canada's GDP per capita is growing -Canada's unemployment trends follow the economic cycle (GDP growth) and most studies suggest immigration improves GDP growth -Here's a new one: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/24/canada-scores-near-the-top-of-quality-of-life-index-study/ How about backing up some of your statements? Perhaps you can start with, "Most people want to live near a larger urban center that has all the amenities. Very few of them actually want to live in high density areas - that's why we have the flight to suburbia." or how about "we have begun to slip back in OECD standings."

I agree, if products in Canada cost the same as the US, we will reduce cross border shopping. However, I do not agree that ending supply management/allowing imports will lower dairy prices in Canada. I may be wrong, but as far as I know we allow imports for beef, fruits, vegetables, turkeys, bread, canned gods, processed foods and we do not manage the supply. These items are still 30% cheaper in the US, why would dairy products be different?

Conservatives and Republicans have this in common: they have successfully branded themselves with the image of cutting government - while in fact they have grown expenditures to record highs. The goal is not to actually reduce government but make it look like they are so that they win elections. It may just be symbolic, but come on Conservatives: look at the size of our Cabinet, increasing the number of seats in the House, lack of Senate reform. The best example in the US I can think of for bloating the government is the whole department of Homeland Security. We should be looking at areas to cut government spending while improving services at the same time - business does this all the time. Similarity, if done right (a big if), we can streamline environmental regulations, make environmental reviews faster AND better protect the environment.

How do you figure?

Hi Canuckistani, Try to look at it this way. Since our current immigration policies have been in place, the quality of life in Canada has been increasing faster than almost any OECD country. Why? There are many factors that make Canada different that the rest of the OECD, immigration is a big one though. Sure, maybe our standard of living would be even higher had we not allowed so many immigrants into Canada. I don't think so, and most economic studies don't either. We are amongst the best in the world - how much better can it get! Another point, it sounds like you assume that a higher population density = lower quality of life. This may be true for you personally, and I have my own preferences, however we should not assume the average citizen feels that way. Most people gladly accept living in higher population density area to enjoy the benefits of big-city living. The ranking of world class cities and recent life-satisfaction surveys support this.

Supply-managed dairy products are 30% more expensive in Canada compared to the US. Non-supply-managed food products are also 30 % more expensive in Canada compared to the US. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that eliminating supply management will have no significant impact on the consumer price for dairy products. Please let me know if I am missing something.

Here is our national unemployment rate since 1976: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=16#M_1 Our economy has performed better than almost any OECD country by any measure.

It is pointless to look at changes in any single year. Look at the trend from circa 1970 to today. Canada has been growing, our standard of living has been increasing - in part due to our immigration policy.

Toronto and Vancouver consistently rank highly in the best places to live in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_most_livable_cities

Your economic arguments fall apart with one graph: GDP per capita over time adjusted for inflation, see: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-per-capita Immigration increases the efficiency of existing infrastructure. Also, infrastructure renewal benefits all Canadians. The Globe and Mail article is a very good, brief summary of both sides the argument - thank you. Maybe we should be bringing in more immigrants during recessions? By the time we realize we are in a recession (6 month lag) and the immigrant settles in, the recession could be over. Immigration today is an investment for Canada of 2032 and beyond.

Yes, I would think that living in TO or Van is better today compared to 1970. Check out the various lists of "best places to live in the world". The Fraser report assumed that the average immigrant costs the taxpayer as much as the average Canadian - this assumption is the author's "gut" and my "gut" disagrees. I also posted a statistical refutation of the report earlier. I can't believe that you and Cannuck are arguing against economic growth.

Maybe you are right, but its hard to imagine food costs any cheaper than they are now - the cheapest ever, and one of the cheapest in the world.

As I stated earlier: -Canadian families are spending record-low percentages of their income on food, this suggests that there is nothing to fix -Maybe food costs 30% more in Canada than the US. So what. A lot of things cost 30% more in Canada. I would not assume that supply management = higher food prices. I may have stepped on a landmine bringing up healthcare, you are right this is a monster problem... The point is we have limited problem-solving resources let's focus on the real problems. I take similar issue to those crying out to fix our troubled justice system. We are making a relatively small problem into a bigger problem! Don't you think that there is a possibility that eliminating supply management will be a step backwards? Maybe it will work, maybe not either way IMO it is not worth changing the status quo. De-regulating Ontario-hydro comes to mind...

Yes they are. Rewards of fixing the food supply system. -some say ~$300 off the average Canadian’s annual grocery bill -I say BS, there are practically no rewards for fixing this perfectly fine system versus Rewards of fixing the health care system -improved health and health care for all Canadians -lower cost/taxes How to fix the health care system is debatable. That's the point, we should be debating it instead.

Opps my bad, you are right regarding the health and educations systems, “troubled" is a better word that I should have used. Another way of putting it is to say: there are far greater opportunities for improvement in other areas (like health, education) compared to the food system.

I meant that we should be looking at fixing issues related to heath care, education, etc... before trying to re-vamp a food system that is generally working very well. By the way, I do think there is a place for more private health care in our system. Yes the risks may be higher but so are the rewards. To put is another way, why mess with a good system (food supply) when there are far more broken systems to tackle (health, education...)?

I am new here, very interested in this issue but don't feel like reading through 173 pages of posts... Can someone please sum up the arguments (or provide a link) explaining why Canada needs any fighters at all? Thanks.