Machjo

Given the potential harms, it should be illegal, though I'd probably limit the penalty to a heavy fine that doubles for each repetition of the offence, with the fine for a first offence well above a thousand dollars.

Coming from a...? I don't follow.

Why would anyone want to destroy the USA? To destroy the USA would be to destroy Canada's most important trading partner? Only a fool would want to shoot himself in the foot like that.

I agree with the latter. As for telecommunications, we should definitely eliminate foreign-ownership rules. As for finance, likewise. As for any other deregulation in finance, I'd still maintain strict borrowing limits on how much of a financial institution's assets can be put into debt investments like loans. None of that changes the fact that however skilled half of Canada's working-age adult population may be, the other half is functionally illiterate at least in an official language. That plays an important role too. Again, I'm not talking about basic literacy or functional literacy in a foreign language but rather functional literacy in an official language.

Sorry, I just found it. The same link mentions further below that it is limiting itself to literacy in at least one official language. That doesn't mean that your stat is wrong, just that they're not addressing the same things.

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/provincial/education/adlt-lowlit.aspx 'Forty-eight per cent of Canadian adults have inadequate literacy skills—a significant increase from a decade ago.' Bear in mind that the above refers to functional literacy which is a higher standard than basic literacy. Also, though that site doesn't say it, I seem to remember reading somewhere that that half-literacy rate refers to literacy in an official language, meaning that some of the 'functional illiterates' might be quite functionally literate but just not in an official language. Given how language laws determine access to Canada's economic resources though, functional literacy in an official language is what counts.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, around 1/2 of working-age Canadians is functionally literate in neither official language (and no, that 'n' in front or 'either' is not a typo). With that in mind, when we talk of Canadians being among the most educated in the world, we're clearly talking about the other 50%. Firstly, if around half of our population if among the most skilled in the world while the other 50% if functionally literate in neither official language, that's inevitably going to contribute to a major wage gap between them. While the educated 50% would be unaffected by a rise in the minimum-wage since they're already earning well above it, that minimum-wage will price the other 50% out of the labour market. After all, why would an employer pay more for a functional illiterate except as a last resort? Even if the functional illiterate half of the population unionized, how effective could it be? Notice how the labour unions with negotiating power usually represent a skilled workforce like pilots for example. How often do cashiers unionize and go on strike? They don't since they know their skills are a dime a dozen and customers could just as easily shop at the shop or the restaurant next door. In that sense, even labour unions can effectively represent only skilled workers (i.e. the 50% that represent the most skilled workers in the world). The other 50% might not even possess the skills to organize a labour union effectively. Worse yet, this also means that skilled workers could push the price of their products and services up to make it more difficult for the poor to afford them and so further expand the wage gap since labour unions benefit primarily skilled workers and not unskilled ones. That's why I say that if you want to help the poor, the state should invest more on literacy, trades, and profession education for them. Until then, the minimum wage will just price them out of the market, they might not even possess the skills to unionize effectively, and even if they could do that, their skills aren't unique enough to give them enough clout with their employer. Even if they did go on strike, how much money could a labour union collect from minimum-wage workers and how long could they sustain a protracted strike before they run out of money? A big difference exists between a union of tradesmen and professionals and a union of unskilled workers. A union is useless for the latter group in practical terms. They need literacy, trades, and professional education, not gimmicks.

Labour unionization, minimum-wage laws, and other such gimmicks to nothing to raise real wages over the long run due to inflation. Only nominal wages increase. To increase real wages more sustainably requires raising worker' skills. Statistically, around half of Canadians is functionally literate in neither official language. No gimmick will help that person. You want to help that person? The government should send him back to school to raise his skill set so that an employer will want to raise his real wages. That's real help for the poor. Enough with the gimmicks already.

I wasn't referring to any party in particular. I was addressing a general principle. But yes, we can always find a fool in any party.

An MP who resigns from his party caucus, unless he resigns from Parliament too, still keeps his vote, and even the Prime Minister himself has only one vote that is worth no more and no less than that of the backbencher.

Even a backbencher gets his one vote in the House.

If the party leader is a genius but his colleagues are all fools, you'll have a dysfunctional party in the House. If the party leader is an idiot but his party members in the House are wise and competent people of character, they can still share valuable ideas in the House. Remember, an MP can always resign from his caucus and vote independently of his party in the House. He can also try to talk some sense to his leader or even vote to change leader That's why I vote for the best candidate, since the party will be only as good as its caucus members.

So I should vote for an idiot just because of his party affiliation?

I think another determining factor will be the local candidate. I like some of Bernier's ideas, but that will not automatically translate to me voting for his local candidate in my riding just because he's link to the same Party as Bernier. I hope his party will have a strong vetting process in place to ensure quality candidates in each riding. I've voted for a candidate in the past even if I preferred another party leader just because I thought that candidate was the best candidate for the job.

I'm not denying that fascism probably exists in Canada. That said, don't confuse fascism with semi-democratic ideals. I myself could probably be described as semi=-democratic, meaning that though I believe in a democratic system, I do support reasonable limits to that system.

How does a law that guarantees a worker the freedom to choose put pressure on him? Should conditions worsen, you'd think he'd then change his mind and join the union, no? Am I missing something here?

You'd be surprised. In Richmond BC and Scarborough ON, a well-educated Chinese speaker can easily tap a local Chinese-speaking clientele that prefers to be served in Chinese. Remember too that we now live in the age of the internet. This means that a tech-savvy entrepreneur can produce software that he can sell around the world online. I've met successful entrepreneurs in Scarborough who barely speak English at all. That said, yes, they are essentially limited to the Richmond and Scarborough markets.

Right-to-work legislation does nothing to prevent a union from forming. It just protects a person from being denied employment for choosing to not join said union. And yes, the UN Declaration does guarantee a person's right to work and freedom of association, something labour unions deny by trying to impose closed-shop rules on employers. Right-to-work legislation forces unionized workplaces to remain open-shop to reduce discrimination against non-members.

I don't entirely blame Mexico. Yes, a united front could have given better results, but only if Canada's demands were reasonable. Canada broke its pact with Mexico by playing these games. Mexico probably wanted to stick with Canada but once it saw Canadians playing these games, realized it needed to focus on itself until Canada smartens up.

Why? We should launch it out of the solar system.

Trump should play the same game. The separate-school provisions of the Constitution Act 1982 violate a few articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. If Trump said he'd consider Trudeau's feminist ideas on the condition that Canada scrap the separate-school system on human-rights grounds, given Canada's Catholic voting base that supports it, Trudeau would have fit.

That is unfortunate. Canada is just as bad as its neighbours if not worse in some respects. If Trump shoots America in the foot, Trudeau is sure to shoot Canada in the foot with an even higher-caliber rifle when the correct response would be to recoil from such foolishness and follow a different path. Unfortunately, Sheer and Singh will probably not be much better.

I suppose Canada could try to pressure the US to improve its universal compulsory education or to provide more trades and professional education for its unemployed, under-employed, and underpaid; but that's not the same as pressuring the US to abrogate a person's right to work and freedom of association.

Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (of which Canada is a signatory Member State) states: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states in Part III, Article 6: How can the Government of Canada try to pressure the US to abrogate its right-to-work laws when Canada itself is a signatory Member State of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? Not only does Canada fail to live up to its international obligations by lacking right-to-work laws of its own, but it then actively encourages another state to ignore its international obligations on the matter too. Should any trade deal not be founded on the basic international human-rights documents that Canada itself has signed?

Freeland is complicating things way too much. She needs to promote unilateral free trade and recognize that any tariff the US or the EU imposes on Canada is to their own respective consumers' own detriment. Just because the US and the EU want to shoot themselves in the foot doesn't mean Canada has to do the same.