Party leaders lack real vision

[John]

http://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/in-the-spirit-of-donald-trump-10-politically-incorrect-challenges-facing-canada

Not a big fan of Diane Francis but I think this article is right on target when talking about the leaders and the current election being more about "house keeping" than "nation building".

I'd like to see a leader whose vision includes: a much much larger military for this country and also one who seeks to rapidly increase Canada's population to 100 million which would primarily come through increased levels of immigration.

There is so much more a government can do outside of the mundane tax and spend issues which seem to dominate the election.

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting piece from the FP, but alarmingly dependent on American substance and style.

Any real vision for Canada should be Canadian in my estimation.

[Queenmandy85]

I agree we should have a viable military, one that can defend the nation. Political reality means Canadians do not want to pay for it nor serve in it in sufficient numbers.

I strongly disagree with the OP regarding population. I would like to see the population reduced to 15 million. Obviously,that is about as realistic as having a strong military.

The essence of Canada is our unspoiled wilderness. 32 million people are too many to sustain that.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Queenmandy85

[G Huxley]

Hey Queen when was the last time Canada was actually attacked by another military? I mean actual boots on the ground. As far as I'm aware other than a couple of mini skirmishes it was 1812 and it was from our neighbours down south. That's over 200 years ago. Can't think of anything else we could be doing with all that money?

Although totally agree on your population/environmental position.

Edited September 13, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

Why on earth would anyone want 100 million people in Canada? Is it just greed?

[ReeferMadness]

I agree we should have a viable military, one that can defend the nation. Political reality means Canadians do not want to pay for it nor serve in it in sufficient numbers.

I strongly disagree with the OP regarding population. I would like to see the population reduced to 15 million. Obviously,that is about as realistic as having a strong military.

The essence of Canada is our unspoiled wilderness. 32 million people are too many to sustain that.

I think anyone who advocates radical depopulation should be willing to be at the front of the line for any schemes that come out of that goal.

The idea that there is a "right" number of people that the planet can support is just plain wrong. Given the right technology and people with the right attitudes, the planet could easily support 10 billion people. On the flip side, if greed and selfishness continue to be the guiding ethos, it won't matter what population we have - eventually we will screw things up.

[G Huxley]

We've already caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died out.

[Queenmandy85]

I don't favour radical de-population, but gradual de-population is possible. Limit immigration to slightly less than emmigration and encourage smaller families. I used to favour a baby tax of one free child and $1000 per year for each child after that. I used to be a jerk.???

[Queenmandy85]

Hey Queen when was the last time Canada was actually attacked by another military? I mean actual boots on the ground. As far as I'm aware other than a couple of mini skirmishes it was 1812 and it was from our neighbours down south. That's over 200 years ago. Can't think of anything else we could be doing with all that money?

Although totally agree on your population/environmental position.

Defence Policy should be based on what could happen, not what happened in the past. Hence, the drafting of Defence Scheme Number One by Colonel Brown, the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence. Brown is one of my personal heroes. Edited September 13, 2015 by Queenmandy85

[G Huxley]

We could be invaded by an army of gnomes from outer space. Should we spend all our time and resources preparing for it? Or should we spend those resources intelligently to make this a better country?

Edited September 13, 2015 by G Huxley

[-1=e^ipi]

Why on earth would anyone want 100 million people in Canada? Is it just greed?

To benefit from economies of scale. Due to our low population density, we have to pay more per capita for public goods (military, roads, etc.) and we have less competition (look at telecommunications).

Obviously, too fast a rate of population increase results in physical capital depreciation, and one also has to look at the quality of immigrants.

[G Huxley]

So greed. Thanks.

The environment is more important than human greed and unsustainable economics.

And actually quality of life is better in low density populations. If you disagree go live in India or China and leave at least one country with a low population density for those of us who actually prefer it that way.

Edited September 13, 2015 by G Huxley

[-1=e^ipi]

So greed. Thanks.

You have a strange definition of greed.

The environment is more important than human greed and unsustainable economics.

The sun won't last forever, and as far as we can tell, neither will the universe. Everything is unsustainable.

And actually quality of life is better in low density populations. If you disagree go live in India or China and leave at least one country with a low population density for those of us who actually prefer it that way.

Or perhaps quality of life as a function of population density is initially increasing, reaches a maximum, and then decreases. So while Bangladesh may be worse off per capita if its population increases, Canada may benefit from an increase in population.

[Freddy]

http://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/in-the-spirit-of-donald-trump-10-politically-incorrect-challenges-facing-canada

Not a big fan of Diane Francis but I think this article is right on target when talking about the leaders and the current election being more about "house keeping" than "nation building".

I'd like to see a leader whose vision includes: a much much larger military for this country and also one who seeks to rapidly increase Canada's population to 100 million which would primarily come through increased levels of immigration.

There is so much more a government can do outside of the mundane tax and spend issues which seem to dominate the election.

Lack of vision seems to run rampant in our Canadian population. We are a low risk tolerance population that wants everything but are waiting for someone else to do it for them. So we get the kind of politician, that best represent us. I think the lot of present candidates represent Canadians perfectly.

Your perceived problem may be more to do with how boring Canadians are in general. Not the boring politicians who are trying to gain votes from boring Canadians who watch TV 25+hours a week.

[Topaz]

Diane Francis, born in the US, her view of nation building is Canada, US and Mexico, become the North America Union. I've listening to her many times and I don't agree with her but I do know sometime down the road, the 3 countries will come together, against both, Canadian and American citizens wishes. Until Harper came to the PMO, we didn't need a strong military because we mind our business but the US needs a very huge military to protect itself from countries seek revenge of whatever activities the US does has done or will do.

[Smallc]

How do you know....nevermind.

[bush_cheney2004]

Diane Francis, born in the US, her view of nation building is Canada, US and Mexico, become the North America Union. I've listening to her many times and I don't agree with her but I do know sometime down the road, the 3 countries will come together, against both, Canadian and American citizens wishes. Until Harper came to the PMO, we didn't need a strong military because we mind our business but the US needs a very huge military to protect itself from countries seek revenge of whatever activities the US does has done or will do.

Canada most certainly did "mind its own business"....supporting and attacking other regimes as needed to serve Canadian interests. As we have seen so many times before, Canada cannot effectively define itself by pointing at America or wishing for a "North American Union".

Where is the true Canada ? Watching American media !

[bush_cheney2004]

...Your perceived problem may be more to do with how boring Canadians are in general. Not the boring politicians who are trying to gain votes from boring Canadians who watch TV 25+hours a week.

Thanks for stating the inconvenient truth.....means a lot more coming from an actual Canadian.

[Freddy]

Thanks for stating the inconvenient truth.....means a lot more coming from an actual Canadian.

Most people can't bring themselves to speak ill of themselves. They say it's not healthy.

If we are going to better ourselves it helps if we can find and admit what category we are mediocre at. My judgment on my country is in the hope we can change and become more interesting. Collectively.

Right now it's nothing to get exited about, that's for sure.

My community consists of a bunch of old people sitting on their porches waiting for a kid to run on their lawn so they can screen at them to get off their lawn. That sums up canada well at the moment.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Freddy

[Argus]

http://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/in-the-spirit-of-donald-trump-10-politically-incorrect-challenges-facing-canada

Not a big fan of Diane Francis but I think this article is right on target when talking about the leaders and the current election being more about "house keeping" than "nation building".

I'd like to see a leader whose vision includes: a much much larger military for this country and also one who seeks to rapidly increase Canada's population to 100 million which would primarily come through increased levels of immigration.

Why would you want our population to increase to 100 million? What are the benefits vs the many drawbacks of overcrowded cities, vanishing farmland, higher pollution, etc?

Plus, where are these immigrants going to come from? Even as it stands now over half the population in Toronto and Vancouver are foreign born. Do you want native born Canadians to be a minority in their own country?

[Argus]

To benefit from economies of scale. Due to our low population density, we have to pay more per capita for public goods (military, roads, etc.) and we have less competition (look at telecommunications).

Obviously, too fast a rate of population increase results in physical capital depreciation, and one also has to look at the quality of immigrants.

We have free trade agreements so that we don't have to worry about economies of scale. And low population density costs are related to how spread out over the country we are. Immigration isn't going to change that. Instead Toronto and Vancouver will be cities of ten or fifteen million apiece, and the rest will be jammed into our other already crowded cities. Immigrants aren't settling much in small towns and villages and rural areas.

[Argus]

My idea of vision runs more to a radical reordering of our health care and post secondary education/skills training systems, to say nothing of a radical change in our immigration system.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Argus

[Freddy]

I agree we should have a viable military, one that can defend the nation. Political reality means Canadians do not want to pay for it nor serve in it in sufficient numbers.I strongly disagree with the OP regarding population. I would like to see the population reduced to 15 million. Obviously,that is about as realistic as having a strong military.The essence of Canada is our unspoiled wilderness. 32 million people are too many to sustain that.

We have a lot of folks where I live that care more for their front yard lawns then for other human kids. You should move down here, they all sit on there porches and wait all day to yell at any kids that run on their lawn. you'd fit right in.

[G Huxley]

"Or perhaps quality of life as a function of population density is initially increasing, reaches a maximum, and then decreases. So while Bangladesh may be worse off per capita if its population increases, Canada may benefit from an increase in population."

If you don't like Canada because it doesn't have enough people go live in Bangladesh or anywhere else where you prefer the population density. Leave the Canadian environment alone.

[Freddy]

"Or perhaps quality of life as a function of population density is initially increasing, reaches a maximum, and then decreases. So while Bangladesh may be worse off per capita if its population increases, Canada may benefit from an increase in population."

If you don't like Canada because it doesn't have enough people go live in Bangladesh or anywhere else where you prefer the population density. Leave the Canadian environment alone.

Canadian environment, As in your front yard. Grass is such a precious thing for us Canadians.