Machjo

It's nice to promote the local economy, but not at all costs. A shift to a gas tax from income tax might help a little as products from farther afield become more expensive and local products drop in price, but it's still not a panacea. Providing public education to the unemployed in a trade or profession can also help to upgrade their skills so as to increase their employability in the local economy. Beyond that though, there really isn't much that can be done to keep jobs local. Certainly it helps, but in the end other backup strategies are needed just in case. I think some kind of international labour-movement agreement, especially between Canada and the US, could be beneficial to both sides. Moving towards a common currency and promoting freer trade can certainly help too.

Another point. Let's say Canada closed its borders to foreign ex-pats, and their countries reciprocate against Canada. Next thing you know, you could have plenty of Canadian ex-pats coming back to Canada unemployed and going on social assistance until they can re-integrate into the Canadian market, especially if they'd been abroad for awhile. This would also make it harder for Canada to access expertise we might be short of in Canada. In the end, everyone benefits, whether they're aware of it or not, from more open borders.

You're confusing immigration with migrant work. They are not the same thing. By the way, I'm a Canadian who'd worked abroad before, and appreciate the fact that I was accepted. If Canada start closing its borders to foreign workers, other countries could retaliate, causing many Canadian ex-pats to lose their jobs and come back to Canada to look for work, thus pushing you into unemployment anyway. Personally, I think Canada could benefit from some kind of free labour movement agreement with other countries, especially the US. This way, when Canada's economy is doing well and the US has high unemployment, Americans would be free to cross the border to look for work here. And when the opposite is true, then Canadians could cross the border to find work in the US. You know, the scratch-my-back principle.

You may be right, but this still does not explain the unemployment situation of Canadians. In fact, if what you say is true, then the burden that unemployed immigrants places on the social system would actually create jobs, wouldn't it? Sure it would not create wealth, but it would create jobs, which was the issue brought up in the OP. That said, I also agree that more importantly than creating jobs, the government must ensure wealth creation. After all, the purpose of work is to generate wealth of some kind. So if what you say is correct, then the the solution is not to have immigration quotas but rather a minimum standard. For example, we need to scrap the LINC programme (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/welcome/wel-22e.asp) and instead expect all persons entering the country to first pass a language test in the local language where he's planning to go. While this would likely cause a drop in immigration, at least it would ensure that those coming will contribute more than they take. However, this would have to do not with lower quotas, but rather more stringent standards. Anyone who could meet the minimum standards should still be welcomed, as they would in fact be creating jobs and wealth.

If Canadian companies suddenly cannot sell their products abroad, and Canadians aren't interested in buying Canadian products, then companies have no choice but to lower costs to compete. This means narrower profit margins, pushing salaries down. Deflation by definition. Now of course if we're lucky this might not happen. Let's say that Canadians increase imports from the US quickly this trade imbalance could cause the Canadian dollar to restabilize quickly too, pushing the Greenback up again against the Canadian dollar, and we're back in business. It would really depend on how quickly the market adjust, and so again it's not the currency fluctuations that matter so much as the price fluctuations at home if they occur.

So essentially, that is what I meant when I said it would affect us indirectly. the drop in the US dollar is not in itself a problem we need to react to. But if it should cause out of control deflation here in Canada, then and only then should we react, but then we wouldn't be reacting to the drop in the US dollar in relation to the Loonie, but rather to the drop in prices in the Canadian economy itself. It may be that the drop in the US dollar would be the cause of it, but we should not react to that until the deflation sets in for sure. Again, if we wait it out, we might be lucky and not face such deflation.

OK, that I agree with, in the sense that a drop in the US dollar will likely result in a drop in Canadian exports to the US and an increase in Canadian imports from the US. In the short term, this could cause deflation. If that happens, then and only then might we want to counter-deflate the currency by printing more money if necessary. But that must be a last resort after all other options have failed. Until this happens, we should wait out the storm. If we're lucky, we won't need to resort to such drastic measures.

It matters, but only indirectly. If the US dollar drops in relation to the Canadian dollar, that's not a reason for Canada to worry. Now, if we're experiencing out of control price fluctuations within our borders, that's something to worry about.

Personallhy, I don't consider the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to that of any other currency to be particularly important. What I do consider important is the stability of our currency at home. If we have our debt, inflation rate, deficits, and Bank rate under control, then it really doesn't matter what our currency does compared to that of another country.

You insist that they're mutually exclusive when in fact they can go hand in hand. Immigrants take jobs, but they also create them. And more importantly, they pay taxes, thus increasing the government's revenue which it can then use to provide job training to the unemployed, which increases their chances of finding a job. To simply halt immigration will certainly take immigrants out of the job market, but it will take jobs out of the market too, so you'd still have no guarantee of finding a job, plus government revenue would be smaller thus increasing the likelihood that the government would not have the funds necessary to educate you so that you could get a good job. So don't bite the hand that feeds you, which is the workers, native and immigrant equally. Your machinations seem to be an illogical and veiled attempt to find any excuse to legitimize anti-immigrant sentiment, when in fact well over 90% of Canadians can trace their roots to outside North America within the last 400 years.

Some points have been brought up concerning corruption, mismanagement, and leaving it to the private sector. While I certainly do agree with much of that, it also seems there's a double standard when it comes to government funding for French and English, especially when we consider that we ourselves tried to forcefully assimilate them.

First off, I don't see the point of a First Nations University. Let's reverse our historical roles for a moment. Imagine that the Huron nation had discovered and colonized Europe and put all the Europeans on reserves once the Huron culture was the majority culture. Then, as a gimmick, the Huron Federation of Europe decided to set up a First Nations University in Central Europe (Poland, let's say). Do you really think the Englishman, the Frenchman, the German, the Italian etc. will be happy to just be lumped together as if one homogeneous mass? It's pretty obvious that the common language and culture at that univeristy would continue to be the Huron culture. Cleaver gimmick indeed. It would make more sense then to either have an English university in England, a French university in France, etc. or if their numbers cannot support that, then at least have an English-language department in a Huron-medium university in England, and the same in a Huron-medium university in France, etc. Now coming back to reality, how accessible is the First Nations university to Canada's Huron Innu people in Quebec who can't speak any English for example? Personally, I'd say scrap the First Nations University and stop lumping the First Nations together as if one homogeneous mass. Instead, establish either a separate Huron university, Algonquin university, Salish university, etc. or, if numbers do not warrant that, then an Algonquin department in a local Ottawa university for example, and the same for other First Nations. Notice the -s at the end of Nations. There are not one homogeneous mass. On that front at least I agree with scrapping that particular university. A Huron is no more similar to a Micmac than an Englishman is to a Frenchman.

Sorry to hear that. Why compete? If I want to open up a business, and the town I live in is flooded with fast food restaurants but has a shortage of cinemas, do I open a restaurant in the hopes of competing with the others, or do I open a cinema next to one of the restaurants so that we can in fact benefit each other? Perhaps it's a matter of rethinking your strategy? No one want to hire someone who'll compete against him. they want to hire someone who has something to offer. You're wrong in your suggestion that the number of jobs in the economy is fixed. It fluctuates at all times according to circumstances. Immigrants take jobs, but also created jobs through their spending and purchases. If we simply cut immigration, on the one hand we'd have fewer immigrants taking our jobs, but on the other we'd also have fewer immigrants creating jobs. In the end, you'd still find yourself in the same boat but within a smaller economy? How do you think Japan has been so successful in spite of its population? May you write your book. Now if you really want help getting a job, closing our doors to immigration, tourism, international students, etc, all of which create jobs, why not ask for education instead? If you don't have the money to go to school, the government should send you to school to ensure you have the skills to offer to a potential employer. Again, no one will hire you because of how you can compete against them, but rather because of what you can offer them.

Adding to the national anthem? Oh my, how sacrilegious. Just look at those traitors. Muir wasn't satisfied enough with God Save the Queen. Oh no, he had to go out of his way and compose the Mapleleaf forever, 'cause God save the Queen just wasn't good enough for him. ANd then Weir had to come along and compose Oh Canada 'cause he thought the Mapleleaf Forever just wasn't good enough for him either. Innovation and creation, what terrible things.

So you think with your gut?

And look how all those PC Brits ruined god Save the Queen/King by tampering with and removing such wonderful verses as: Lord, grant that Marshal Wade, May by thy mighty aid, Victory bring. May he sedition hush, and like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush, God save the King.

And what ever happened to Canada's status as a British colony or, even further back, and a land comprising multiple nations?

Correction: 'Dost thou think so?'

Why not scrap minimum wage laws altogether and just introduce some kind of co-determination law? Sweden is one example of a country with no minimum wage legislation, and it's often hailed as a model socialist state.

How would this be a make-work project? It would take five minutes and it's done unlike spending months of debate over whether we should change it or not.

With all the discussion now about changing the words to the national anthem, why not just de-officialize it and let the people decide which anthem to sing. besides, God save the Queen is not official in the UK, nor is Du Gamla Du Frieden, the unofficial but universally accepted Swedish official anthem, etc. Why should politicians waste time on issues that the general public could settle on its own?

No, Weir's. That's why i'd typed this above: As you should know, Weir's original version is not a translation of the French version. That said, if we're going to be one country, it would make sense to translate from one language to another and not have 2 original versions so that we're all singing to the same 'tune' meaning-wise.

No, not another version. They're talking about re-adopting the original version.

Weir's 1908 original version (his was not a translation of the French original, and so must be considered equally original in its own right): O Canada! Our home, our native land, True patriot love thou dost in us command. We see thee rising fair, dear land, The True North strong and free; And stand on guard, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. Refrain O Canada! O Canada! O Canada. We stand on guard for thee. O Canada! Where Pines and Maples grow, Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow. Thou art the land, O Canada, From East to Western sea, The land of hope for all who toil, The land of liberty. Refrain O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies, May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise; And so abide, O Canada, From East to Western sea, Where e’er thy pines and prairies are, The True North strong and free. Refrain

From what I read in the link below, they're not planning on 'making' it gender neutral, but rather re-adopt the gender-neutral original version from which the current version was modified.