Sean Hayward

As for you assertion that allophones "obviously opt for English", I believe there is census data to the contrary. Actually, I think that the percentage of the population of Quebec speaking French went up slightly between the 2001 Census and the 2006 Census. You say that the Quebec Culture Minister acknowledges that Quebec's French-speaking society is surrounded by a much larger English-speaking society as if you think that is a rejection of Quebec's language policies. You miss the point entirely. The purpose of Quebec's language policies is to protect the use of French within Quebec from the influence of English from outside of Quebec. Therefore the fact that there are so many English-speakers surrounding Quebec provides more reason for the language policies.

I understand that Quebec's language policies are controversial among English-speaking Canadians, but as an English-speaking Canadian, I personally support them. These policies try to preserve the French language in Quebec and that is a valid goal for the government of Quebec to be pursuing. The government of Quebec has a responsibility to preserve Quebec's culture and this is a part of that.

"AS long as the Conservatives are in power we will be nothing but America's little bitch. When we remember that we are CANADIANS who have a right to make our own laws and enforce them how WE see fit, we will send these raptureists packing, and their "the world is 6000 years old" followers can follow behind them, thumping their bibles to the tune of the stars and stripes forever." Whoever made the above comment disgusts me. They represent exactly the ignorant, simplistic attitude that threatens to destroy Canada. In my opinion, this government has been very good, and if they are able to gain a majority, they have the potential to be one of the greatest governments in Canadian history. I have many good things and very few bad things to say about the current Conservative government. On the economy, they are reducing taxes, especially business taxes, and this will help to make Canada one of the most competitive and prosperous countries in the world. They have launched a massive infrastructure program to renew and expand national infrastructure. They are looking at ways to strengthen Canada's economic union. On the environment, they have proposed emissions reductions, and made progress on creating and expanding national parks. They are investing in green technologies and introducing new environmental standards for things such as consumer products and vehicles. Too bad the opposition parties blocked the Clean Air Act from being passed. On foreign affairs, they are asserting Canadian sovereignty over the Canadian Artic and rebuilding the military after its destruction by the Liberals. They are committed to the mission in Afghanistan, which is important in the global struggle for freedom. The suggestion that they are selling out Canada to the Americans is a ridiculous attempt by leftists to provoke a reaction from the Canadian public, who they know would be outraged if the allegations some of them are making were true. On governmental reform, they have set fixed election dates, passed the Federal Accountability Act, and recognized the Quebecois as a nation within Canada. Senate reform has been delayed and sabotaged by the Liberals. These and other reforms are what this country needs so desperately in terms of reforming our government. On the issue of Quebec, my greatest hope is that Harper and Charest can succeed where Mulroney and Bourassa failed, and finally achieve a constitutional arrangement acceptable to all parts of Canada, including a recognition of the status of Quebec.

That's why they need to somehow get an election this spring, before these problems begin to mature.

Don't tell me about "the evil right-wing" as if that is something I am saying. I've already said I consider myself generally right-of-centre and I am a supporter of the Conservative Party. I think its a generally accepted fact that the vast majority of unemployed people in Canada are not highly-skilled people. Most unemploment problems in Canada arise from declining industries, such as the cod fishery in Newfoundland and the manufacturing sector in Central Canada. And this is not even something we have to debate because the purpose of the Conservative government proposal is to prioritize immigrants on the basis of skills requirements in Canada, so how could immigration ever cause unemployment in that system? That system wouldn't accept immigrants that have skills for which there is no demand in Canada.

Yeah, typical Conservative Party, trying to not take the blame for someone framing them or misrepresenting them. They do it all the time. (Sarcasm) How will they ever have a hope of a majority when there is such a broad coalition in Ottawa out to make them look like incompetent, socially conservative, anti-women, anti-human rights, anti-aboriginal, and so on? Certain interest groups set something like this up, in this case the Rideau Institute, for their own political reasons, the media plays along, as they have to, and then the Liberals throughout the country try to trap the Conservatives in a corner by critcizing any attempt to explain. This situation is slowly changing though; I remember back in the days before the 2006 election, CBC was much more anti-Conservative than it is now.

I don't think it's a secret that the strength of the Canadian economy is somewhat dependent on natural resources.

I find it somewhat suspicious that the person who found these documents just happens to work for the Rideau Institute, a left-wing group that is known for criticizing military spending and criticizing the military in general. I have also heard that these documents may have been for an alternate building plan that was rejected, and in that case they would not be dangerous at all.

We have gotten very off-topic here and I don't think it helps anyone, or furthers the debate on immigration, to be talking about the "anti-immigrant right-wing" or the "dishonest Liberal Party". Both are obvious over-generalizations and it serves no purpose to use them here. When we talk about unemployment in Canada, we are usually talking about unskilled, undereducated people. It is a desperate argument to say that an immigrant doctor or engineer is taking a job away from a Canadian-born fisherman, forestry worker or factory worker.

The argument that we should not accept skilled workers from the third world is ridiculous. Like others have said, if we close our doors, they will simply go elsewhere. People who are looking for a better life will not just give up if Canada closes it's doors. I agree that certain older immigrants may have certain un-Canadian values that they acquired in their home country. But their Canadian-born children will likely not adopt these values and will instead turn to the values of mainstream Canadian society. For those immigrants who do have values incompatible with those of Canadian society, they will just have to deal with it and understand that, as Ezra Levant said, "they aren't in Saudi Arabia anymore". I don't think the Canadian public would accept any accomodation for people who feel that homosexuals should be killed or that women are inferior to men. I agree with cutting the levels of family re-unification immigration. It is ridiculous and abusive to Canada to force us to let in someone's entire extended family just because the one person qualified. It should be limited to immediate family only. Immigration is socially desirable and I cannot offer any statistics or quantifiable proof for this. It is just my opinion that diversity is something to be sought in a dynamic society, and that Canada will remain great and become greater if we seek growth not only in economic terms but also in social terms, just as we have for many years. On the issue of the right-wing and immigration, the current Conservative government should serve as proof that anti-immigration sentiments are not popular in the right-wing. I would consider myself a member of the right-wing, or at least centre-right, and I am apparently one of the most pro-immigration people on this forum.

OK lots to respond to here. Let me first say that I think you are terribly mistaken to say that people of non-European ethnic origin have inherently incompatible and different values than Canadians. People's values are shaped by the society they live in and so immigrant groups will naturally adopt Canadian values over time. Will there ever be a few "bad apples"? Of course. As to the issue of why is immigration socially desirable, immigrants are desirable because they want to work hard and contribute to Canada, and one day they or their descendants will be as Canadian as those whose families have been here much longer. As to the language issue, I already said in an earlier post that we should impose more strict requirements for immigrants to have a working knowledge of English or French before they immigrate. Yes, bringing in skilled workers is a short-term solution, but until we have a long-term solution ready, it's the best solution we've got. I agree we should invest in training Canadians to meet our long-term needs in various professions, but you have to realize that we will never have enough skilled workers in all professions, there will always be shortages of one kind or another. You say that the federal government is notoriously unable to effectively deal with skills shortages. I would suggest that is because this area and its related areas, such as education, healthcare and labour, are primarily provincial responsibilities. I believe we should provide a greater role for the provincial governments in immigration policy. Let them tell the federal government what skills they need in their province.

No. Its a way to ensure that the money actually gets to the poor, and that it isn't spent on bureaucracy.

First of all, I agree with Argus that Canadians are the ones to decide who is allowed into Canada, and that the sole factor in considering immigration issues should be what is best for Canada. I mention multiculturalism because those who are against immigration seem to think that allowing immigrants with a foreign culture into Canada is a threat. I aim to show that it is not a threat by pointing to multiculturalism as an publicly accepted and desirable policy. I assume your reference to federal government public service policies is a reference to affirmative action. I personally am strongly against affirmative action programs and so I guess I would agree with you in that regard. Discrimination should not be allowed in Canada, whether called "affirmative action" or any other name. On the economic issues, I don't think anyone would dispute that there is a shortage of skilled workers in certain professions in Canada. I would put forward the medical profession as an example. There may not be shortages in other areas and so there is no purpose to bring in workers in those professions. Isn't that the purpose of the Conservative proposal?

Immigration benefits Canada both socially and economically. I will attempt to explain what I mean by that and address some of your other concerns. Socially: Along time ago in Canada, we came up with an idea called "multiculturalism". This means that we accept that different cultures exist within Canada. We also value diversity, and that our society remains open and dynamic. You shouldn't view immigrants as people that are fundamentally un-Canadian. They are no less Canadian than the immigrants of previous generations, first the French and British, next the Germans, Poles, Ukrainians and Italians, and then others. These new immigrants will eventually become an integral part of Canada, just as previous generations of immigrants did. We should welcome these people, and offer them a part in the future of Canada. Economically: Canada needs immigration to provide skilled workers and to meet the labour demands in our economy. Canada's greatest economic growth has always occurred at times of the greatest levels of immigration. Our economy thrives when we bring in the people needed to help it grow. That is the reason for my support of the Conservative proposal on immigration. I agree that we should give priority to immigrants who have the skills needed in Canada's economy. We also need to do a better job with getting immigrants accredited so they don't end up driving cabs or in other jobs well below their education. Also, I am not an "open immigration" proponent as you characterize it. I believe in immigration for the good of Canada. I do not have an infatuation with another culture. I value multiculturalism and a diversity of cultures. As a final note, remember that immigration is now far more regulated and at a much lower level than it was in the past. It is not as if we have let down our guard, lowered our standards, or anything like that.

I agree with your point. The leaders of this country need to wake up and realize that the public system needs to be overhauled. Too bad that any political leader accused of supporting "American-style healthcare" is immediately forced to go on the defensive and prove that they are fully committed to the public system as it is. The goals of public healthcare are worthy, but the current system simply doesn't work. Perhaps we should look at a hybrid system like the one being explored in Nova Scotia.

As pointed out by others, there is a big difference between not providing support for something and censorship. Some claim that bill C-10 is censorship. This argument is ridiculous because C-10 does not propose to censor anything, just to cut government funding for certain productions. Why should the taxpayer be responsible for funding works that are considered offensive by the general public? In general, Canada needs subsidies and tax shelters for the cultural industry because they are necessary for the preservation of Canadian culture. However, the types of productions that would be affected by bill C-10 are hardly mainstream Canadian culture and so they do not deserve the same protection.

I never said that there isn't a need for balance in the immigration system. However, I believe that, all things considered, immigration benefits Canada both socially and economically. Of course we should not "overload the system", but I see no real evidence that the system is being overloaded. Don't try to say that "immigrants stole your job" as evidence of a crisis. Immigrants are generally hard-working and honest. That is why they came to this country, to make a better life for themselves. I have a problem with those who first criticise immigrants for being lazy and for being a burden to society, and then accuse them of stealing jobs. Which one is it? Are they too lazy to get a job or too inconsiderate to remain unemployed?

Canada is a country built by immigrants. That is a fact. No knowledgeable person can dispute it. Almost all Canadians living today are the descendants of immigrants. Immigrants contribute greatly to Canada, both economically and socially. This is true, always has been true, and will forever be true. However, the primary factor in the immigration debate should be "What is best for the future of Canada?". If it is not in the best interests of Canada, they should not be allowed in. Translated into the specific debate here, that means we should not allow these "family reunification" immigrants in unless they are directly and immediately related to a qualified immigrant. It also means that all immigrants, including family immigrants, should be required to have a sufficient knowledge of either English or French BEFORE immigrating to Canada. In addition to these requirements, all adult immigrants should be required to pass a test on Canada before their application is accepted. This test would ensure that immigrants possess a sufficient knowledge of the country they are about to join. This is similar to programs in other countries such as the US and the UK. On the issue of these "Canadians of convenience", I suggest we amend the Citizenship Act to provide for any citizen who fails to meet reasonable residency requirements to have their Canadian citizenship removed. This requirement would be something along the lines of: maintaining residence in Canada for at least 270 days per year for 3 out of any 5 consecutive years. If any citizen fails to meet that requirement, they would receive notice that their citizenship would be terminated within 6 months. This would ensure that a situation such as the Lebanese-Canadian evacuation problem never occurs again because people who do not live in Canada for many years would no longer be citizens of Canada.

I like the idea of privatization of certain social services, but I dislike the idea of putting them in the hands of groups, such as those which are religiously motivated, who may be altering the service provided to suit their own goals. For example, if we hand over some social service to a church, or "faith-based organization" as they are now known, would they make receipt of that social service conditional upon conversion to their faith or attendance of their church. It may not be so obvious, but they may use more subtle methods to advance their agenda. There are better ways to streamline the welfare system, such as the creation of Crown Corporations to handle social services, and targeted tax incentives to allow low-income people to retain more of their own working income.

I agree with you on most points, Wild Bill. One thing I was trying to get across with that last post but maybe didn't emphasize enough was that both of them (Flaherty and McGuinty) should stop trying to tell each other what to do. McGuinty says: "The federal government should provide support (through transfers and direct aid) to Ontario to help us with our economic issues". Flaherty says: "The provincial government should reduce taxes and become more competitive to resolve these issues". They both need to accept that this is a provincial problem with a provincial solution, stop blaming each other, and get on with it. Sure the federal government can help, by reducing its own corporate tax rates and making Canada more competitive, but the primary efforts must come from the provincial government. On the issue of Ontario voters, this is no way for the Conservatives to go about expanding their support. They should consider sending messages such as: "All governments across Canada, federal, provincial and local, should aim to make Canada more competitive in the globalized economy, and some provincial governments (not naming any) should consider reducing business taxes to that end", rather than singling out Ontario and saying very publicly that Ontario's newly elected government doesn't know what it's doing. The way to bring people over to your side is through co-operation and negotiation, not insult and confrontation.

What does Flaherty think he's doing? Do the Conservatives think labelling Ontario as the "last place in Canada to do business" is going to help them win a majority government? They better be getting enough seats in Quebec in the next election to offset the ones they're going to lose in Ontario. Maybe Jim Flaherty thinks he can insult Ontario because he is from Ontario and so its "not as bad" as if he were from somewhere else. Too bad most Ontarians probably don't know that Flaherty is from Ontario. First of all, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to be dealing with issues such as the decline of local industries. That is, in my opinion, clearly a provincial responsibility. The responsibility of the federal government on the economy is to enforce the economic union, run economic programs that operate uniformly throughout all of Canada (such as employment insurance), and to undertake and co-ordinate economic tasks that would be impossible for any single province to do so alone. Therefore, acknowledging that these issues are provincial issues, what business has the federal government in interfering with provincial policies in these areas. Respect for the jurisdictions of the constitutional orders of government is a two-way street, and if the Conservatives really mean what they say about allowing the provinces to conduct their own affairs, then what are they doing telling Ontario what to do. Just as the government of Ontario has no business bullying the government of Canada into following certain policies under its jurisdiction, the opposite is also true. And as for Dion, is he upset that Ontario does not have the same "Canada owes us everything" attitude that Quebec has? Dion seems disappointed that Ontarians are not as petty as Quebeckers. Not that all Quebeckers share that attitude, but I am certain that some do.

Both these topics, a common securities regulator and a national free trade agreement, relate to the broader issue of the economic union, something which has been forgotten by politicians for too long. It is encouraging that the Conservative government is now looking into strengthening the economic union. I agree that something along the lines of the TILMA (the trade agreement between British Columbia and Alberta) should be developed for all of Canada and implemented by the federal government. Isn't that the nature of an economic union? And a single Canadian securities regulator is something that is long overdue and necessary for Canada's economic progress.

The Liberals will, without a shadow of a doubt, win 3 of the 4, and the Saskatchewan riding is questionable, especially given Dion's early mistakes meddling in the nomination process. This will most likely be seen as a reinforcement of Dion's leadership, but if the Conservatives manage to get a seat, they can claim victory as well. It is a situation in which both major parties can claim success and so the only real effect of these byelections will be to encourage both parties towards causing an election (maybe it will give the Liberals enough confidence to actually vote in the future). I disagree that the Saskatchewan riding will "likely" go Liberal, I see it as being more up for grabs.