Machjo

The US has around ten times Canada's population and a higher population density to boot. Add to that its geographical proximity to Canada compared to other states and it's inevitable that Canada will need to trade with it to prosper. However, Canada has no control over US policy: it can control only its own policies. With that in mind, Canada's best strategy is unilateral global free trade. That way, even if the US raises tariffs against Canadian businesses, those same Canadian businesses could import the best machinery from the US and abroad tariff free. It could import the lease expensive high-quality products from Asia for its manufacturing. Canadian consumers could also import products from around the world including the US at lower cost and so perhaps be willing to work at a lower wage in compensation for that. That would help to compensate at least somewhat for the US tariffs. Meanwhile, US tariffs would force US businesses to import machinery and other products at higher cost or limit themselves to more expensive or less ideal US products for what they need. It would also push consumer prices up and so force US workers to demand higher wages. All of this would push US prices up. Add to that that if the US raises tariffs against Canada and Canada doesn't reciprocate, Canada's balance of trade deficit relative to the US would push Canadian prices down relative to US prices, which again would compensate for the US tariffs. Canada should adopt unilateral global free trade and let the US go its own way.

How's that good for Canada if it just deprives Canadian consumers of more choice? Honestly, a bad deal is worse than no deal. Canada should just adopt unilateral global free trade and let the US close in on itself if it wants to, but please don't drag Canada into fortress North America.

They can't even agree among each other on that. The day after independence, Quebecers would be bickering about what their new constitution should look like.

I was referring to the PPC site, not the LP site.

I think another important point would be to make sure the detainee understands what his choice would mean for him to make sure he understands before making his decision that while an inquisitorial trial would give the judge more power to access information from the police files and interview witnesses, etc. it would also give him more power to search and seize the accused's property than is the case in an adversarial hearing and that he would forego his right to silence and at least to a greater degree than otherwise, to his privacy. he'd need to understand that while an inquisitorial system could work faster and clear an innocent's name faster, it could also be far more intrusive into his personal life. He would need to understand this before making his decision. But, if he's innocent, and especially if found in a compromising situation, doesn't fear or at least can tolerate the potential embarrassment of discovering things about him that could embarrass him, and he has the stomach for it and wants a faster process, then an inquisitorial trial might be for him. He'd need to understand the pros and cons of it though before he makes his decision.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the inquisitorial is perfect or that it would transform a biased judge into an impartial one. However, it would increase the probability (even if not a guarantee) of him accessing more information on which to make his decision. We can hope that more information could challenge any prior bias he might have had. On the matter of allowing an inquisitorial trial on appeal, one of the greatest strengths of the inquisitorial system is in fact at the pre-trial since, with the judge having more power to authorize search and seizure and to interrogate witnesses (or appoint someone to do so) right at the start makes it more difficult to then speculate about whether or not the accused might have had time to destroy evidence, collude to make up a story, etc. Even if a person is innocent and is telling the whole truth, even just the impression that he might have had an opportunity to destroy incriminating evidence or colluded with someone could hurt him when facing a biased judge. This means that to fully exploit its advantage in clearing the name of an innocent accused found in a compromising situation, we would want to allow an inquisitorial trial right from the start, with the person being informed of his right to an inquisitorial trial right at the times of his arrest. That said, I can see a problem even with the inquisitorial system. Since most innocents would tend to choose an inquisitorial trial (so they can get it over with faster) and most guilty parties would opt for an adversarial trial (so as to maintain some control over their circumstances), a judge could develop a prejudice assuming that choosing an inquisitorial trial is somehow proof of innocence and to choose an adversarial one is proof of guilt, and that would be an error in itself. I'll give some examples of when an innocent might prefer an adversarial trial and a guilty party an inquisitorial one. If a person is innocent of the crime he's accused of but guilty of cheating on his wife let's say, and he fears that while an inquisitorial trial might prove his innocence of the crime we're accusing him of but expose his affair (since it would still be a public hearing), then he might opt for an adversarial trial even though he's innocent of the crime in question since he wants to hide his infidelity from the court so as to prevent his wife from finding out. If a person is guilty but is particularly confident that he's destroyed all incriminating evidence or that since the police were involved in some corrupt activities themselves during his arrest, he could undermine their credibility through an inquisitorial trial especially by exposing their corruption if their testimony is the main proof against him, he might take the gamble and opt for an inquisitorial trial. So yes, it would be important to ensure that a judge understand that choosing an inquisitorial trial would not in itself prove innocence anymore than to choose an adversarial one would prove guilt. They might even need to undergo some explicit training to counter any such potential bias even though there would be some truth to it. They'd need to understand that there could always be exceptions to that general tendency.

I think we could learn from Hong Kong and Singapore, both of which are more open to immigration than Canada ironically yet still boast a higher per-capita GDP than Canada. So how can they be more open-bordered and still end up wealthier than Canada per capita? I think Milton Friedman hit the nail on the head when he said that we can have a welfare state or immigration, but not both. Hong Kong and Singapore do have a social safety net, but it's a no-frills no gimmicks kind of bread and butter safety net. I think that combined with free trade has allowed them to integrate their immigrants much better. due to a simple safety net, they don't need to spend massive sums of money to keep people out. And due to unilateral free trade, they actually have jobs for their immigrants. Canada has it all backwards. We spend massive sums on frills and gimmicks in our social system, so then we need to spend massive sums on border security to try to keep people out to compensate, and then we have the most protectionism of any developed country so the immigrants that we do accept can't find work. What we need is less imagination and vision and more logic and technocracy setting policy like Hong Kong and Singapore have done. There is no shame in learning from and copying the example of Asian jurisdictions.

Bernier created the site, so yes, the party and Bernier's policies are identical at present.

The NPC is somewhat socialistic, albeit nationalist too. So it's a little like the NDP in terms of big government but very anti-immigration and anti-free-trade. very closed-bordered nationalist.

Good point. I think we do need a national debate on that: do we maintain the welfare state or open up to more immigration: Can't have both!

The government could easily pass an act requiring the machines to be programmed to not save the information. In other words, once it's determined your eligibility to buy it, it could then sell it to you or refuse you but then automatically delete your information once it's fulfilled its task.

Not really. He just wants to reduce immigration rates to the same as Harper's time. Personally though, I disagree with numerical quotas altogether. Instead, we should aim at specific personal criteria and he who meets them is welcome to Canada.

Interesting. In Canada, while a CBSA officer has the authority to decide who can or cannot enter the country other than those who have an inherent right to do so like Canadian citizens, they are still subject to certain rules requiring them to provide a rationale for refusal of entry and any person can appeal the decision on request. This is to prevent officers from basing their decisions on race, religious, or other discrimination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd imagine the US has some kind of system in place to prevent such abuses too. I can't imagine that the officers are just given carte blanche to refuse entry on a whim.

Paranoia. To take an example, in some jurisdictions, you must scan both your ID and fingerprint to enter a casino. If you're registered on a self-exclusion list, the gate will not open for you, otherwise it will. Either way though, the machine will not save your information so no one can know whether you went to the casino or not. I presume that any such list in Canada would work the same way. It would be there to determine whether you can legally purchase weed, not record your every attempt to do so.

Seeing how all the other parties defended the Separate school system even though it conflicts with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the grounds that 'it's in the constitution' (essentially the same argument the Iranian Ayatollahs to defend their violations of international human rights), and even though i don't particularly like Doug Ford, I'm happy to see him give that rag we call a Charter the respect it deserves.

Given the provinces on either side of Quebec, we would want to ensure easy access through Quebec at least for private citizens, and of course that would need to be reciprocal. If there can be no agreement, then Quebec would not get to split. I'm not saying Canada should abuse its power and should still offer a just offer, but if Quebec insists on being unreasonable, then no, it should not be allowed to separate, though perhaps we could allow for more decentralization especially on the language-policy front.

You might be right. Given how some soft nationalists in Quebec, and even federalists among them, have expressed a preference for the territoriality principle in language policy, I'm not sure why we don't offer it to them: English where English dominates and French where French dominates would save some money. In 2016 alone, Canada spent 2.4 billion just on fulfilling the language provisions of the Charter!

True. And on more thought, if Quebec remained in NATO, depending on the agreement, our respective militaries would probably be on friendly terms anyway. Also, even if Quebec's borders shrunk drastically, that wouldn't matter much if there was a common citizenship anyway. In fact, a combination of Canada guaranteeing a common citizenship after separation combined with pressure to respect indigenous rights could make Quebec more willing to make land concessions. Again, with the guarantee of a common citizenship if Quebec wanted that, a large Quebec land mass wouldn't be that important anyway.

Bernier's not in my riding, so I can't vote for him anyway. That's why I vote candidate, not party. And by the way, Bernier is not against immigration. If you think that, then you haven't read much of what he's written. yes, he's for reducing the numbers back to the Harper era, but that's it. He's not looking for what you're looking for. You might fit in better with the Nationalist Party of Canada.

Did the people who voted Bernier because they liked his ideas, whatever they thought of his party's, waste their vote?

FPTP encourages a tendency towards the mean and so towards stability. Pro-rep allows the far right and left in all along the spectrum.

Hawaiians, Chinese, English, and French Canadians. I think I remember reading that they traded with the Spanish and Russians too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_Jargon

If every public school in Canada taught Esperanto, then it would serve as an inter-language. While Chinese Canadians could trade with China, English Canadians with the US and the UK, and French Canadians with France and Belgium, etc. Canadians could communicate with one another too. If English Canadians can't even learn French well, how will they learn Chinese well? Sure some have that aptitude, but let's not assume that everyone could learn it. Just have everyone learn Esperanto as a second language and then, if they want, a third language of their choice. Heck, even Richmond could benefit from that between its English and Chinese populations, same with parts of Toronto like Markham. Montreal could greatly benefit from it too and even Ottawa-Gatineau seeing how even many in Gatineau do not know English well. They know just enough English to make you think they know it well, which is the most dangerous level of all to lead to misunderstandings. I work in the National capital Region, so I know how bilingualism in the region mostly means the ability to hold a basic conversation, just enough to make you think they're more competent than they are.

Do you work in a bilingual environment? I'm sorry, but knowing how to order a coffee in both official languages does not count as 'being bilingual.' When I'm communicating with someone, I want to know that that person understands what the hell I'm telling them and I want to be sure that I understand what they are telling me the same way I do. Lexical errors are the most difficult to detect unlike spelling and grammatical errors, since the word might be correct but the person using it or the person reading or hearing it might misunderstand its meaning in the standard language. I've encountered that in my work too and it's bloody frustrating. It wastes time and causes costly mistakes. Just look at the stats. Statistically around half of adult Canadians are functionally literate in neither official language. As for Stats Can statistics, they are based on self assessed ability to converse in the language. They are neither objectively tested and even if they were, they don't address functional literacy, only the ability to hold a conversation, which is something totally different. One friend once shared police and CBSA reports relating to another friend along with the hearing transcript, and it was all in broken English. That one probably cost the taxpayer tens of thousands since he would probably never had gone to the IRB had the CBSA officer understood English better. I can give other examples. But just to be clear, I'm not talking about ordering a coffee or showing off your bilingualism to your friends. I'm talking about communication in the work environment. It's very broken.

I've never had cable, so I don't know what you're talking about.