Jump to content

Bernier's Party at 13% in the polls


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, under our Charter we have no say in that. Immigrants get the same rights as Canadians, and there is no legal way to shut them out from social welfare services. Further, we have a more progressive tax system than Singapore which means immigrants who get lower paying jobs and have several children will not be paying any income tax, despite the government paying for their health care, education and other services.

Most of our immigrants come from countries which Canada Immigration's study in 2015 showed tend to produce people with poor economic outcomes in Canada, countries in the middle east, for example, and northern Africa.

A work visa does not grant a person the right to any social assistance beyond a free ticket back home. I dislike our present Charter; yet even under out present Charter, it would be easy for Canada to allow a person to visit, study, work, or do business in Canada visa-free without conferring citizenship or even permanent residency on him. As long as we don't give him citizenship or permanent residency, then he would enjoy only the right to work and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

A work visa does not grant a person the right to any social assistance beyond a free ticket back home. I dislike our present Charter; yet even under out present Charter, it would be easy for Canada to allow a person to visit, study, work, or do business in Canada visa-free without conferring citizenship or even permanent residency on him. As long as we don't give him citizenship or permanent residency, then he would enjoy only the right to work and nothing else.

But the justification for our immigration system (none born out in evidence) is that we need to bring in many new people to expand our population, to make up for an aging population, to make up for a lower birth rate, etc. None of that is addressed by TFWs.  That none of that is actually true is beside the point. Immigration has been sold on that basis for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Argus said:

But the justification for our immigration system (none born out in evidence) is that we need to bring in many new people to expand our population, to make up for an aging population, to make up for a lower birth rate, etc. None of that is addressed by TFWs.  That none of that is actually true is beside the point. Immigration has been sold on that basis for many years.

Nothing would stop Canada from allowing a person to visit, study, work, or do business in Canada visa free but then agree to confer permanent residency or citizenship on him only after 5 years of primary residency in Canada for example. This would mean that unless he can make it on his own for the first five years, he'll soon have to return home. That would help to filter them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And on the matter of birth rates, increased immigration could actually increase Canadian birth rates. Many Canadians reside abroad, might marry abroad, have children abroad, but decide whether to return to Canada based on how easily they could bring their family to Canada. Also, population growth creates jobs which in turn could give people more confidence to have more children. People have fewer children in recession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2018 at 12:56 PM, Machjo said:

And on the matter of birth rates, increased immigration could actually increase Canadian birth rates. Many Canadians reside abroad, might marry abroad, have children abroad, but decide whether to return to Canada based on how easily they could bring their family to Canada. Also, population growth creates jobs which in turn could give people more confidence to have more children. People have fewer children in recession.

Australia's examination of its immigration program concluded that the demographic argument often used to justify large-scale immigration is flawed. Its study concluded that to sustain any demographic gains large scale immigration has to be perpetually maintained as the boost is generally only applicable to the most recent generation or two of immigrants after which there is reversion to the mean in terms of demographic profile, fertility rates, etc. Observers have noted that the conclusion suggests that the demographic argument is therefore largely a ponzi scheme that can only be sustained by new entrants.

As for emigrants returning to Canada, I think you are overly optimistic. For many immigrants, particularly from the developing world, getting into Canada is seen as a "stepping stone" to getting into the U.S., particularly for their offspring who after attaining education in this country have easier access to the U.S. than they would have had from the developing world. Thus, any demographic benefit is lost to Canada and sponsored family members who arrive in this country are in general far less likely to be economically productive than those who leave.

Finally, population growth in and of itself doesn't raise living standards. It's essentially a zero sum game as there's little evidence that it boosts average wages. In fact, it contributes to greater competition for jobs and housing thus driving down wages and raising living costs. The British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted that any economic benefit for developed economies attributable to large scale migration is marginal and is unevenly distributed, with the rich benefiting and the poor, including poor immigrants, losing out. In other words, large scale migration exacerbates poverty and income inequality. Anybody living in a city or urban region heavily impacted by large scale migration, like the GTA, would notice these impacts.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2018 at 12:55 PM, Machjo said:

Nothing would stop Canada from allowing a person to visit, study, work, or do business in Canada visa free but then agree to confer permanent residency or citizenship on him only after 5 years of primary residency in Canada for example. This would mean that unless he can make it on his own for the first five years, he'll soon have to return home. That would help to filter them out.

What you're describing is essentially a conditional entry system. Personally, I don't think this is a bad idea but it's not likely to fly among proponents of immigration who oppose the notion of applying any kind of performance or outcome criteria to the assessment of immigrants or immigration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, turningrite said:

What you're describing is essentially a conditional entry system. Personally, I don't think this is a bad idea but it's not likely to fly among proponents of immigration who oppose the notion of applying any kind of performance or outcome criteria to the assessment of immigrants or immigration.

I think they need to understand the distinction between immigration and social assistance. I'm all for open borders, but not for open wallets. As Milton Friedman put it, you can't have open borders and an overly-generous welfare state at the same time. It has to be one or the other. Hong Kong and Singapore appear to have understood this. In many respects, they are more welcoming of immigrants than Canada is on a per-capita basis; but the reason immigrants integrate so much better there is because immigrants to those countries don't enjoy as easy access to social assistance. In fact, the reason Canada is less welcoming of immigrants than Hong Kong and Singapore are is precisely because our welfare system makes it unsustainable.

 

Proponents of open borders need to understand that they have to choose, it has to be one or the other, and that they can't have it both ways. In fact, aside from racial laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act, Canad, the US, and many other states had far more open borders up until WWI than they do today. So why not now? simple: they didn't have the welfare state we have now either. History, Hong, Kong, and Singapore bear Milton Friedman's claims out again and again.

Perhaps we need a national conversation on this: do we want to be more open-bordered like Hong Kong (in which case we will need to curb our welfare state to basic bread-and-butter issues) or do we want to maintain our overly-generous welfare state (in which case we will need to close our borders at least somewhat). That's not racist, that's just economic reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I think they need to understand the distinction between immigration and social assistance. I'm all for open borders, but not for open wallets. As Milton Friedman put it, you can't have open borders and an overly-generous welfare state at the same time. It has to be one or the other.

Perhaps we need a national conversation on this: do we want to be more open-bordered like Hong Kong (in which case we will need to curb our welfare state to basic bread-and-butter issues) or do we want to maintain our overly-generous welfare state (in which case we will need to close our borders at least somewhat). That's not racist, that's just economic reality.

I agree with these positions. However, they won't gain much traction among our mainstream parties. So, we need a new political option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

What you're describing is essentially a conditional entry system. Personally, I don't think this is a bad idea but it's not likely to fly among proponents of immigration who oppose the notion of applying any kind of performance or outcome criteria to the assessment of immigrants or immigration.

Also, a conditional entry system is not as cruel as some might think. For example, Jose gets an online job offer to come and work in Canada. He works in Canada for a year but then his hours start to decline. Feeling the pinch and thinking he can live better back in Mexico, he returns to Mexico to work. He later gets another good offer in Canada. He returns and maybe gets a better job this time. Again, after a year, his hours decline and he returns to Mexico to work.

Finally the third time, he gets a well-paid management job, lives well, and can finally support himself in Canada for five years straight. Nothing would stop him from returning to try his luck again until he can make it. Nothing cruel about it. That's life for anyone. Same with a Canadian who wants to move to another province. Why should it be any different for a foreigner wanting to find work in Canada?

Edited by Machjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

What you're describing is essentially a conditional entry system. Personally, I don't think this is a bad idea but it's not likely to fly among proponents of immigration who oppose the notion of applying any kind of performance or outcome criteria to the assessment of immigrants or immigration.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with immigration. No performance or outcome criteria or assessment. And even where one is made no one will alter immigration because of it. Ie, when the Immigration Department did a study 2 years ago to see where they most economically successful and least economically successful immigrants came from that information made no difference in the selection process. In fact, the very idea we would give preference to people from the most successful areas as opposed to those from the least generally gets howls of outrage and accusations of racism.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

I agree with these positions. However, they won't gain much traction among our mainstream parties. So, we need a new political option.

If Bernier actually came out with positions calling for restrictions on immigration and rebuilding it around economic success and cultural adaptability I'd be very, very strongly tempted to vote for him and his alleged party, were it to come into existence. But so far he hasn't offered up anything much but his damnation of the dairy cartel.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Nothing would stop him from returning to try his luck again until he can make it. Nothing cruel about it. That's life for anyone. Same with a Canadian who wants to move to another province. Why should it be any different for a foreigner wanting to find work in Canada?

Of course, this is the way immigration once worked in this country. Countless hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of immigrants who arrived in past generations moved on, either going back home or to another country, if things didn't work out in Canada. That's how my maternal grandfather's mainly Irish ancestors ended up in the U.S., when after figuring out that their economic options were limited in Canada fairly quickly moved south. There were few if any economic incentives available prior to the emergence of the welfare state to tie them to Canada. And this was particularly the case for urban immigrant laborers. Even as recently as the 1950 and 60s European immigrants who couldn't quickly adapt often left. The notion that there's a collective responsibility to ease the integration of immigrants into Canadian society is in my opinion a fairly recent development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

If Bernier actually came out with positions calling for restrictions on immigration and rebuilding it around economic success and cultural adaptability I'd be very, very strongly tempted to vote for him and his alleged party, were it to come into existence. But so far he hasn't offered up anything much but his damnation of the dairy cartel.

I believe Bernier has recently criticized Trudeau's open-ended  or "extreme" multiculturalism and during his run for the Conservative leadership race said he'd reduce the immigration numbers to the 250,000 level of the Harper era. (See link.) He's also noted that immigration policy should be reformed in order to meet the needs of the Canadian economy and should not be permitted to be a burden to Canadian taxpayers. It will be interesting to see if he does form an actual political party and what that party's formal position on immigration and refugee policy will be. We know the Lib government's policy will be to increase immigration to whatever level it can get away with and the CPC is promising only a "consultation" on immigration policy, which doesn't mean much of anything in my view. It was actually Mulroney's PC government that cranked up the large-scale immigration program we've experienced over the past three decades. No doubt, it was a corporate-driven agenda intended to suppress wages (which it did) and enhance rentier profits (which it did), but it's been massively costly to ordinary Canadian workers and taxpayers.

https://www.maximebernier.com/an_immigration_policy_to_fulfill_canada_s_economic_needs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2018 at 4:02 PM, turningrite said:

Of course, this is the way immigration once worked in this country. Countless hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of immigrants who arrived in past generations moved on, either going back home or to another country, if things didn't work out in Canada. That's how my maternal grandfather's mainly Irish ancestors ended up in the U.S., when after figuring out that their economic options were limited in Canada fairly quickly moved south. There were few if any economic incentives available prior to the emergence of the welfare state to tie them to Canada. And this was particularly the case for urban immigrant laborers. Even as recently as the 1950 and 60s European immigrants who couldn't quickly adapt often left. The notion that there's a collective responsibility to ease the integration of immigrants into Canadian society is in my opinion a fairly recent development.

It's not your opinion, it's historical fact. Countries increasingly closed their borders off to immigration as the welfare state grew. Racial laws aside, even Canada was far more open-bordered prior to WWI than it is today. Coincidence?

Edited by Machjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a good article written by Bob Plamondon in today's G&M (link below) that addresses some of the problems facing Scheer's CPC, including the divide between agricultural free traders and protectionists as well as between the party brass and the social conservatives who helped Scheer's winning leadership bid. The article also explains some of the appeal of Bernier's nascent breakaway movement, noting that at this point it potentially enjoys the support of about 16 to 17 percent of the electorate. I suspect that if and/or when Bernier formally starts his party it could well garner up to 25 percent support, thus transforming next year's federal election into a four-way race in which it would be unlikely any party could achieve a majority and might in fact be the most effective means of dethroning Trudeau.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-can-andrew-scheer-lead-conservatives-to-success/

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2018 at 9:00 AM, Argus said:

Let's get real. What support Bernier has is not because of dairy marketing boards. It's because of his remarks about diversity, and the reaction to it from the political and media elites. A lot of people have been given the idea Bernier is going to come out as opposing the current high level and type of immigration system as well as multiculturalism and diversity. If he does... that could put the cat among the pigeons. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with immigration and the state of cultural assimilation of immigrants. But there's no political outlet for that dissatisfaction. If Bernier provides one that will resonate in Quebec, for sure, and likely in many other parts of Canada, as well.

Go, Bernier, go. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2018 at 8:27 AM, turningrite said:

Australia's examination of its immigration program concluded that the demographic argument often used to justify large-scale immigration is flawed. Its study concluded that to sustain any demographic gains large scale immigration has to be perpetually maintained as the boost is generally only applicable to the most recent generation or two of immigrants after which there is reversion to the mean in terms of demographic profile, fertility rates, etc. Observers have noted that the conclusion suggests that the demographic argument is therefore largely a ponzi scheme that can only be sustained by new entrants.

As for emigrants returning to Canada, I think you are overly optimistic. For many immigrants, particularly from the developing world, getting into Canada is seen as a "stepping stone" to getting into the U.S., particularly for their offspring who after attaining education in this country have easier access to the U.S. than they would have had from the developing world. Thus, any demographic benefit is lost to Canada and sponsored family members who arrive in this country are in general far less likely to be economically productive than those who leave.

Finally, population growth in and of itself doesn't raise living standards. It's essentially a zero sum game as there's little evidence that it boosts average wages. In fact, it contributes to greater competition for jobs and housing thus driving down wages and raising living costs. The British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted that any economic benefit for developed economies attributable to large scale migration is marginal and is unevenly distributed, with the rich benefiting and the poor, including poor immigrants, losing out. In other words, large scale migration exacerbates poverty and income inequality. Anybody living in a city or urban region heavily impacted by large scale migration, like the GTA, would notice these impacts.

Massive immigration is a farce. Canada cannot support all the immigrants that are coming to Canada. There is not enough work for them all. Someone should ask the unemployed Canadians out there that are looking for jobs that are being taken away from them if they are in support of massive immigration with all of this overboard immigration to Canada going on. Massive immigration is the main reason as to why wages are so low. Canadians should demand a moratorium on immigration for at least a decade. Canada will still survive. We did it back in the 60's with a low population and survived back then. All more immigration does is the government having to create more infrastructure and more health care services which is in big trouble today.  We never saw decades ago where Canadians had to sleep in hospital hallways like we are seeing today. Now it's normal. No one can tell me that this has nothing to do with all of this massive especially massive third world immigration that is going on in Canada. Only a fool would argue that massive immigration is good and great for Canada. It's great for immigration lawyers and special minority immigration groups who appear to have an interest in more massive third world immigration. My opinion. 

 

Edited by taxme
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, turningrite said:

There's a good article written by Bob Plamondon in today's G&M (link below) that addresses some of the problems facing Scheer's CPC, including the divide between agricultural free traders and protectionists as well as between the party brass and the social conservatives who helped Scheer's winning leadership bid. The article also explains some of the appeal of Bernier's nascent breakaway movement, noting that at this point it potentially enjoys the support of about 16 to 17 percent of the electorate. I suspect that if and/or when Bernier formally starts his party it could well garner up to 25 percent support, thus transforming next year's federal election into a four-way race in which it would be unlikely any party could achieve a majority and might in fact be the most effective means of dethroning Trudeau.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-can-andrew-scheer-lead-conservatives-to-success/

I don't mind no majority party as long as we end up with a majority coalition. A minority government remains too unstable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Machjo said:

I don't mind no majority party as long as we end up with a majority coalition. A minority government remains too unstable.

Majority governments are overrated and I think most voters very quickly find them disappointing. Other democracies, and particularly those with systems other than FPTP, function quite well with coalition governments. It seems to me that such governments provide the possibility of real time accountability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, turningrite said:

Majority governments are overrated and I think most voters very quickly find them disappointing. Other democracies, and particularly those with systems other than FPTP, function quite well with coalition governments. It seems to me that such governments provide the possibility of real time accountability.

They haven't in Europe. Parties of all political stripes grew so close together they agreed on almost everything important. The reason the far right are rising is due to the solidarity of the normal political elites in ignoring the will and concerns of the public at large. Wrapped in their own tight little echo chamber, they, like Canada's elites, believe their virtues and morals are identical to the country at large, even though they certainly are not. The only thing proportional rep does is allow for the quick formation of new parties when the old ones betray democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

They haven't in Europe. Parties of all political stripes grew so close together they agreed on almost everything important. The reason the far right are rising is due to the solidarity of the normal political elites in ignoring the will and concerns of the public at large. Wrapped in their own tight little echo chamber, they, like Canada's elites, believe their virtues and morals are identical to the country at large, even though they certainly are not. The only thing proportional rep does is allow for the quick formation of new parties when the old ones betray democracy.

Some periods of minority government in Canada have been legislatively productive. Many observers believe the Pearson minority period in the 1960s was among the most productive in our federal political history. I understand your point, however, and think it has broad validity in the modern era. I believe representative democracy, controlled by political parties, has failed in recent decades to reflect popular concerns on many issues. In fact, as I've said elsewhere, we've developed a system that might best be described as "managed" democracy, whereby political parties seek to  rationalize, package and sell to the public policies that are often intended to serve narrow special interests. In this environment, I believe the public interest has in many instances been both misrepresented and subverted. Thus, I've increasingly become a fan of various forms of direct democracy, which new technologies should render increasingly practical although some argue these technologies could be vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. And direct democracy requires an engaged and informed electorate. So, I'll stick with my preference for minority parliaments until a better mousetrap is invented.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/7/2018 at 1:09 PM, turningrite said:

Some periods of minority government in Canada have been legislatively productive. Many observers believe the Pearson minority period in the 1960s was among the most productive in our federal political history. I understand your point, however, and think it has broad validity in the modern era. I believe representative democracy, controlled by political parties, has failed in recent decades to reflect popular concerns on many issues. In fact, as I've said elsewhere, we've developed a system that might best be described as "managed" democracy, whereby political parties seek to  rationalize, package and sell to the public policies that are often intended to serve narrow special interests. In this environment, I believe the public interest has in many instances been both misrepresented and subverted. Thus, I've increasingly become a fan of various forms of direct democracy, which new technologies should render increasingly practical although some argue these technologies could be vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. And direct democracy requires an engaged and informed electorate. So, I'll stick with my preference for minority parliaments until a better mousetrap is invented.

Why don't you just all admit it to yourselves that you are just a pawn on a chessboard and that there never will be a better mousetrap invented and built. Your head is already stuck in a mousetrap that is going to keep your head held down by the mousetrap spring forever. The political system in Canada is totally rigged in the favor of corporations, banksters, special interest groups and leftist liberal and conservative party's that are hell bent on keeping your head stuck tight in that corrupt mousetrap forever. You are a nobody. Live with it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...