Machjo

It's Canada imposing that tariff, not the US. On the condition that Canada not subsidize its milk industry, I can support getting rid of milk tariffs.

I'd rather my taxes not go to subidize my food purchases and instead just pay more for my food than to have my taxes subsidize food that I myself might not even buy? canadian milk is more expensive than US milk in part because of supply-management and tariffs, but also in part because the US subsidizes its milk. I do not want my taxes to subsidize your milk consumption. You want to buy it, pay for it yourself. I can support ending supply-management and even tariffs, but not in exchange for subsidies. In fact, one of the few virtues of Canada's present system is that my taxes don't subsidize the milk my neighbour buys and I want to keep it that way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think globalists would want to eliminate tariffs and other intentional trade barriers and nationalists would want to promote such barriers.

I never said I supported supply-management, but just that subsidies are even worse than supply-management and milk tariffs. At least with the latter two, I have the option of not giving my money to the milk industry. With the first option, my taxes would go to it whether I buy milk or not. In relative terms, the US subsidy-system is even more socialist than the Canadian supply-management system. Let's not jump from the frying pan of supply-management and milk tariffs into the fire of subsidies.

I have no issue with Canadians crossing the border to buy milk since I'm not paying for it. Actually, US taxpayers ought to be seeing red at the fact that their taxes are subsidizing Canadian cross-border-shoppers' milk consumption. The moment the Government of Canada subsidizes it, then my taxes are subsidizing someone else's milk purchase whether I buy milk or not. That's why subsidies are even worse than supply-management and tariffs.

I dislike tariffs but I still prefer a tariff to a subsidy. If I don't buy milk, then I don't pay the inflated price of milk; and if I don't import milk, then I don't pay the tariff either. In other words, supply-management and tariffs, for all of their ills, do have at least one virtue: they're more user-pay than subsidies and at least give me a choice of whether I want my money to go to it or not. If the government subsidizes the milk industry, then my taxes subsidize my neighbour's milk consumption whether I buy milk or not and so I lose all control over where my money goes then. That's why for all of their ills, supply-management and tariffs still surpass subsidies, both economically and morally.

The Conservative Party of Quebec seems to have a mostly libertarian-leaning platform.

Do you vote for a candidate or against a candidate? what I mean by that is, will you vote for Sheer or against Trudeau (ie. just any schmuck who'll get Trudeau out)? I've never voted strategically in my life and I never will. In fact, I've voted for the one I believed to be the best local candidate even when I knew he'd lose. I'd rather vote for the best candidate even if it results in the worst candidate winning than to support the second worst just to keep the worst one out. Strategic voting pushes politics to the lowest common denominator.

I can see one thing that might spook a potential Bernier supporter like myself. I oppose the dairy cartel on principle, not because it affects me directly: I don't buy milk products anyway. However, should the government dismantle the milk cartel and a later government decides to subsidize milk producers, then I'd find myself subsidizing other people's milk, which is even worse since then it wouldn't just be an abstract principle but something that would affect me personally. Even in terms of abstract principles of justice, the milk cartel has the claim of being user-pay at least in that the price is passed directly onto consumers. With subsidies, all taxpayers, including those like me who don't even buy milk, would now be paying into it. Though I can support abolishing the milk cartel in principle, I'd first want a reasonable guarantee that subsidies won't replace it.

Supply-management does not affect me directly as a vegan shopper in Canada far as I know. As far as I know, the Government does not subsidies milk products but rather just limits competition. This means that the buyers of milk products bear the full brunt of the cost of milk-production in Canada. If Canada should adopt the US policy of subsidizing milk products, then I would be subsidizing other people's milk purchases even though I don't buy milk products myself. looking at it from the standpoint of user-pay, supply-management far surpasses subsidies both economically and morally. Should push come to shove, Canada should propose that the US adopt a North-American supply-management system and stop subsidizing its milk products. I'm not saying that supply-management is a good thing, but just that subsidies are even worse and I don't want us to jump from the frying pan of supply-management into the fire of subsidies.

I agree. Think Russell Williams. He was an immigrant too by the way. We definitely need to keep Britons out of Canada.

Plus that meme could apply just as easily to Trudeau.

On a side note, though Hong Kong and Singapore might be less generous than Canada when it comes to social assistance for immigrants, they actually give out work and other visas more easily than Canada does.

Or Hong Kong or Singapore to use just two examples. Both are wealthier than Canada per capita.

Well if it pays well...

Hmmm... well... if it's 'too' sparsely populated, then I presume it must have many employment and business opportunities too, no? You don't trust the market?

Why more bureaucracy?

Oh... but I thought foreigners were all poor third-worlders, no? Anyway, there is a simple solution to that too: maybe allow foreign nationals to reside visa-free only within X kilometres of a river bank for example. They would need a visa to reside anywhere else and the government could refuse it. This would mean that they'd have to squeeze themselves into a a small area while Canadian nationals, permanent residents, and visa holders would be the only ones allowed to reside beyond that zone. the rest would need to reside within the zone and it wouldn't take long for many to bail because of excessive costs.

Simple solution: impose environmental policies that restrict construction in any environmentally sensitive area. This would limit the availability of housing which would naturally push prices up and so make Canada naturally less attractive. Trust the market.

Tough. You don't buy a house like you do stocks. You buy a house to live in it.

I hope that one catches on in the next election.

Just establish a strict minimum wage for foreign workers. In other words, you can work in Canada visa-free but on the condition that you can earn a certain minimum of income. As for cities, I've visited Hong Kong a few times and have read about Singapore. I love Hong Kong, much more efficiently run than Toronto. I can say with certainty that Toronto is not run by Hong Kong... unfortunately. They know how to plan a city!

If you deny social assistance, then suddenly Canada is not so attractive to many people anymore. And the more people come, the more real estate prices rise until the construction market can catch up. The market will naturally moderate itself. Why do you think not all Quebecers are moving to Alberta for example? As for population growth, it means a larger tax base and more efficient urban infrastructure. Trust the market.

I can't vote in that poll but I don't think of it in terms of numbers. If one billion people come to Canada and find work, that's just fine. If one comes to collect social assistance, that's one too many. We should shift from a quantitative policy to a qualitative one. Let people come to Canada to visit, study, work, or do business visa-free but don't give them any social assistance other than a one-way ticket home and let the market take care of the rest... if you believe in free markets that is.

If the Libertarian Party is smart, it will jump on this opportunity to fill the void.