Support NeoGAF

[matthewwhatever]

There is a danger that Urban Canada can cause a Trump affect by being condescending towards Rural Canada

Canada's advantage is that it is more balanced than the US and that balance keeps us healthy

I love how you complain about people mistaken in conflating federal and provincial politics, and then turn around and proceed to act like the US and Canada are interchangeable.

One of the many reasons the US is so screwed up right now is because their electoral system was set up from the very beginning to give small, rural states and voters way more power than their population merits. We don't have that in any comparable way. The closest our system comes is regionalism in the Senate, whereby PEI is basically as powerful as BC, but it's not like PEI senators can band together to promote some nefarious scheme that advantages Islander values at the expense of everyone else. (Actually, come to think of it, that would be kind of adorable to watch.)

Our system is set up to generally reward parties for going where the people are -- which is to say, urban Canada. Rural voters don't exist in sufficient numbers to deliver conservatives elections; there are 24 federal seats in Toronto alone, which basically negates most provinces. The same goes for provincial politics for the most part (i.e. look at the last few Ontario elections, which the Liberals won crushing majorities despite being mostly non-competitive in rural areas). The swing voters in Canada are all in the suburbs, and even though they may be a little socially conservative, the last election showed that they still have their limits.

Obviously, I'm not saying that any party should ignore or condescend towards rural Canada. But the dynamics in Canada are just totally different than they are in the US.

It would depend on a few things.
One - whether it can be grown as a cash crop. Tobacco farms were no small thing, costing 6 figures to operate, and the amount of land needed to make a profit was ridiculously large, because the money being paid to farmers by the tobacco companies was getting squeezed all the time until it basically bottomed out. Seniors being able to get high is not going to turn back the tide unless they can convert tobacco kilns into... whatever the weed equivalent would be.

The Parliamentary Budget Office actually just released their study of legalized port's impact on the economy. I posted it several pages back, but the bottom line is that pot, at least at first, won't be a cash crop, because the margins are going to have to be super thin in order to compete with the illicit stuff. Eventually, they think the system will reduce inefficiencies enough to make it profitable as far as tax revenues go, but it'll be awhile -- if ever -- before pot is a cash crop here.

Michael Chong actually seems pretty great. Basically he's proposing large reductions in income taxes and a doubling of the Working Income Tax Benefit financed by a carbon tax ($130 per tonne by 2030) and the elimination of a bunch of boutique tax credits. It's like exactly what I've wanted for a while, and I would vote for him over Trudeau. (I suspect that I'm probably to the right of most people here)

I think I might join the CPC just to vote for him. (With the added benefit of helping to stop Trumpism spreading to Canada).

Counterpoint: Chong also wants to completely deregulate the housing market by privatizing the CMHC. I know it's an article of faith among conservatives that "the market" will magically lower costs and prices, but I'd think that the example of the US between 2005 and 2009 shows where deregulating the housing market leads.

 

[maharg]

The closest our system comes is regionalism in the Senate, whereby PEI is basically as powerful as BC, but it's not like PEI senators can band together to promote some nefarious scheme that advantages Islander values at the expense of everyone else. (Actually, come to think of it, that would be kind of adorable to watch.)

You know, I think you'll get your chance to see that. That's one of my big concerns with Trudeau's approach to senate reform: A senate that believes it has a right to an opinion (as opposed to just review) will eventually develop one, and it's pretty horribly unbalanced. Weirdly, imo, the fact that they were all party hacks led to them knowing the limits of people's tolerance for their existence.

 

[bremon]

I emailed my MP about the importance of proportional representation, one of his staff emailed me back the next day and I've been invited to a "12-18 person rout table discussion" where I can speak more about my concerns with the current system. I'll call them on Monday to get a date/time and an idea of what format these discussions follow but has anyone been to something like this? Any tips? I plan on putting some papers together and citing some sources etc so if I don't have time to say much they can at least maybe skim over something at their leisure.

Thanks for any input guys, I didn't anticipate a quick response, much less an opportunity for in-person discussion.

 

[killer rin]

I emailed my MP about the importance of proportional representation, one of his staff emailed me back the next day and I've been invited to a "12-18 person rout table discussion" where I can speak more about my concerns with the current system. I'll call them on Monday to get a date/time and an idea of what format these discussions follow but has anyone been to something like this? Any tips? I plan on putting some papers together and citing some sources etc so if I don't have time to say much they can at least maybe skim over something at their leisure.

Thanks for any input guys, I didn't anticipate a quick response, much less an opportunity for in-person discussion.

Thats awesome!

Mind if I ask what party your MP is from?

 

[rrtyu]

I'm positive this isn't the right place to post this, but someone told me this might be the best place for me to find an answer, so here I go.

I'm a U.S citizen who has been thinking about studying in Canada for a while, and on account of being a minority and the recent election, I'm starting to give this much more thought. I'm currently about to finish my first year of studies for a bachelors in electrical engineering at a state school, and was thinking about finishing the rest of my degree in Canada, and more likely than not, staying.

Some info

- 3.7 GPA and 33 ACT/1500 SAT score
- Speak fluent English, no French.
- Completed first years classes in Calc, Chem, and Phys, as well as a few gen eds.
- Have lived abroad, in worst places, for a few months before, so i'm used to being in different environments.
- I would prefer a university that accepts U.S financial aid and lets me work.
- My current overall cost for college is about $27000 USD per year, but FA, scholarships, and work, reduce it down too about 5000 USD. I plan to pay the remainder off with loans. My parents are willing to support me, but I'd rather prefer they didn't.

Some Questions

- Can you actually get permanent residency after completing a degree and finding work, or is it more difficult and complicated then it sounds? I know about express entry and PGWPP, but I'd love to hear from people who have gone through the immigration process.
- Do international students qualify for scholarships, and would I qualify for any?
- What are some good universities and cities I should look out for? I'd like urban, but would definitely consider rural, if costs are lower.
- How's the job market for tech?
- What are some pros or negatives about Canada that I may not have thought about?

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[Mr.Mike]

Counterpoint: Chong also wants to completely deregulate the housing market by privatizing the CMHC. I know it's an article of faith among conservatives that "the market" will magically lower costs and prices, but I'd think that the example of the US between 2005 and 2009 shows where deregulating the housing market leads.

There are a lot of steps between privatizing the business of insuring mortgages and anything that might be called a deregulation of the housing market, and yet more steps to get to the situation that lead to what happened in the US between 2005 and 2009. Indeed the same section on his website that talks about privatizing the CMHC's insurance business also talks about strengthening the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to reduce such risks.

 

[Smiley90]

Does anyone here have any idea when we might see C-6 go into effect? I can see it's been moved to second reading:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2967829/senate-looking-to-change-controversial-citizenship-law/

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-6/?tab=mentions

It's very relevant to me as I'm on the path to citizenship and it becoming law would shorten the time I have to wait before being eligible to apply for citizenship by ~2 years... But I have no idea about the timescales for something like that.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

I haven't had to go through it myself but know several people that have.

- Can you actually get permanent residency after completing a degree and finding work, or is it more difficult and complicated then it sounds? I know about express entry and PGWPP, but I'd love to hear from people who have gone through the immigration process.

Yeah it's pretty much the easiest way to get PR. A lot of wealthier immigrants just do a university degree that they don't need to come into Canada. You'd get 4 years (not PR) very easily right off the bat just for studies, and it's pretty easy to extend that if you want to do more years of school.

One word of warning is that universities here largely abuse this fact to make a lot of money off of international students. Tuition fees for international students are really high.

There are other weird ways that this country takes advantage of international students. In Ontario at least as an international student you can't get public health insurance which is just stupid and shameful -- you'll get coverage through your school but there'll be a gap between graduation and when you qualify for provincial coverage (you get it even without PR after a certain number of months working). There are also a lot of cases of scumbags doing rental scams targeting students from abroad so watch out for that.

- Do international students qualify for scholarships, and would I qualify for any?

Yeah but you wouldn't qualify for the best scholarships which are entrance scholarships.

- What are some good universities and cities I should look out for? I'd like urban, but would definitely consider rural, if costs are lower.

If you're doing electrical engineering go to Waterloo. I don't think it's a particularly great school but their co-op program is amazing and they have really good connections to lots of tech companies. You could cover most of your costs with co-op jobs alone.

- How's the job market for tech?

Very good right now.

- What are some pros or negatives about Canada that I may not have thought about

People like hockey way too much to the point of it being super annoying.

Everything is more expensive. Not just games but even when the dollar is at par like a Big Mac is 1.3x the cost of one in the US.

There are still a lot of racists. People will compare to the US and conclude that because it's not as bad as there that it's not a problem but racism in Canada, especially against natives but even black, Somali, and Arab communities can be pretty awful, especially outside of big cities.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

So, would it be within the rights of the government to pass whatever laws banning edit: hijab (as an example), from the public service? From flights as a security issue? From schools in general? All of this just generally under whatever justification they can come up with?

..??? No? What... How did you get this? Security reasons = "any justification"?

I seriously don't know how I can clarify further, so I'm bailing out of this conversation. Sorry if you have more questions but I'm getting too frustrated.

Just to chime in as somebody who is retired after a career in the Canadian Armed Forces. As far as I know, Sikhs are allowed to wear beards and turbans at all times. If there is a requirement to wear combat gear like metal helmets, they must wear them, but they have smaller turbans that they can wear under the helmets.

That seems fine and reasonable. I wonder, are non-Sikhs allowed to wear turbans for non-religious reasons if they wanted to? I guess it doesn't actually happen, but hypothetically...

 

[CazTGG]

It's also worth noting that Chong was fine with the niqab ban which, as far as i'm concerned that's a big, red flag even if he is considered The Good Conservative™. If this is the best that the CPC can boast...well, i'll take it over Bernier or Leitch in the off-chance that electoral reform falls through and we don't get MMP but I won't be happy with them. Definitely not voting conservative, that's for sure.

I will give him credit for calling out Leitch, mind.

 

[Sean C]

You know, I think you'll get your chance to see that. That's one of my big concerns with Trudeau's approach to senate reform: A senate that believes it has a right to an opinion (as opposed to just review) will eventually develop one, and it's pretty horribly unbalanced. Weirdly, imo, the fact that they were all party hacks led to them knowing the limits of people's tolerance for their existence.

While the Senate is neither equal on a per-province basis or proportionate to population, it's not unbalanced in a manner that is particularly worrisome for US-style problems. If anything, the most conservative regions (Alberta and Saskatchewan) are underrepresented.

Unrelatedly, with all the talk around appointments to the Senate, it occurred to me recently that it will be interesting to see how the government approaches the replacement of the Governor General. David Johnson's term was tended to next September (unnecessarily, as it turned out, but he's good at the job). Will the government use something akin to the Senate search panel to screen candidates?

Though it's not terribly relevant right now since the government is a majority, I think that we should make a practise of having the GG at least receive a motion of support from the House of Commons on appointment. Not a veto or anything like that, but something to bolster the position slightly -- particularly if minority governments are going to be more common going forward, with or without electoral reform. It would also be good, I think, for the electoral reform process to specify in more detail some aspects of what the GG should do in some cases. Among other things, it should be clarified that the House should never be prorogued if there's an active issue of confidence (I understand why Jean granted Harper's request, given the weakness of her own position in many ways, but that was a horrible notion from a constitutional standpoint).

 

[Azih]

I emailed my MP about the importance of proportional representation, one of his staff emailed me back the next day and I've been invited to a "12-18 person rout table discussion" where I can speak more about my concerns with the current system. I'll call them on Monday to get a date/time and an idea of what format these discussions follow but has anyone been to something like this? Any tips? I plan on putting some papers together and citing some sources etc so if I don't have time to say much they can at least maybe skim over something at their leisure.

Thanks for any input guys, I didn't anticipate a quick response, much less an opportunity for in-person discussion.

Good on you for this. Check out fairvote.ca for a whole lot of collected information and wastedvotes.ca for some stats. I've had success by citing 'Irish' forms of PR (STV) or German/New Zealand forms of PR (MMP) as examples of systems which are very proportional while retaining regional representation. Seems to work better than throwing tons of acronyms at them.

 

[mo60]

It's also worth noting that Chong was fine with the niqab ban which, as far as i'm concerned that's a big, red flag even if he is considered The Good Conservative™. If this is the best that the CPC can boast...well, i'll take it over Bernier or Leitch in the off-chance that electoral reform falls through and we don't get MMP but I won't be happy with them. Definitely not voting conservative, that's for sure.

I will give him credit for calling out Leitch, mind.

I'm surprised CPC candidates like Leitch are still bringing up more of the same stuff that resulted in the conservatives getting crushed by the Liberals in the last election.

 

[matthewwhatever]

You know, I think you'll get your chance to see that. That's one of my big concerns with Trudeau's approach to senate reform: A senate that believes it has a right to an opinion (as opposed to just review) will eventually develop one, and it's pretty horribly unbalanced. Weirdly, imo, the fact that they were all party hacks led to them knowing the limits of people's tolerance for their existence.

I met with a few senators as part of my Master's program (side note: Carleton's Political Management program is amazing, and I highly recommend it to anyone in here who has any interest in political work as a career), and someone actually raised that issue with them. They seemed dismissive of the idea, saying that they'd never have the democratic mandate of the House, so they'd need to be careful to fulfill Trudeau's idea of their intended role while not overreaching.

I do see where you're coming from on this, though. It's easy for them to say that now, while they've only ever experienced the old way of doing things. Who's to say that in 5-10 years, after they've gotten used to their independence, that they may not get a little too emboldened? And like you're always saying about judges, we're fine with it as long as they support our ideas, but there's definitely a concern of what happens when the next CPC PM gets in and starts appointing the small-c conservative equivalents of the people being appointed now. For now, I'm hopeful that they'll fill their role of sober second thought and instigate good policy, but the House will also need to step up and remind the Senate that overreach won't be tolerated. (And hopefully if/when that does happen, it doesn't create a constitutional crisis.)

I'm surprised CPC candidates like Leitch are still bringing up more of the same stuff that resulted in the conservatives getting crushed by the Liberals in the last election.

Reminder: the Conservative base that turned out in 2015 liked what Harper was saying, and they only lost 50,000 votes or so from 2011. Those voters are the people most likely to be card-carrying CPC members. Candidates like Leitch and Blaney are just going where they see votes...which, when you think about it, might be the best reason for progressives to go along with the "Join the CPC to influence its direction" plan.

 

[Pedrito]

I'm surprised CPC candidates like Leitch are still bringing up more of the same stuff that resulted in the conservatives getting crushed by the Liberals in the last election.

They'll pivot...eventually...or maybe not.

 

[Apathy]

In case anyone forgot our defence minister is a Sikh and has been in combat zones. The military is fine with respecting their practices while also keeping them safe.

 

[pr0cs]

But...isn't that ok? Isn't burning the oil for energy kind of the main problem? I never understood this. I'm cool with using oil to make my new iPhone, I just don't want to be burning it and raising the temperature of the planet

The problem is that it creates carbon pollution to produce it. So no matter what we are stuck needing it and the pollution it creates

 

[gutter_trash]

I think it is time for Canada to step up and fill the void that US is going to create.

Canada can now step forward as a leader of human rights, leader of environmental awareness, leader in peace keeping, leader in diplomacy and most important a leader of keep stability among NATO allies

 

[mdubs]

..??? No? What... How did you get this? Security reasons = "any justification"?

I seriously don't know how I can clarify further, so I'm bailing out of this conversation. Sorry if you have more questions but I'm getting too frustrated.

What is stopping the government from using any justification? Why does there have to be a security justification, or any justification in the first place if there should be no protections for religious people as you say?

If you are suggesting there has to be some sort of acceptable rationale for that sort of ban, then you are in fact supporting that the religious do have rights and could potentially have exceptions if the government's reason for a prohibition is not good enough.

Your viewpoint is not clear at all. Either you think there should be no exceptions and the government can do as it wants regardless of the religious, or there are situations where the government must justify sufficiently to impinge on religious beliefs (ie. by bringing up the interest of security or safety).

If you are saying that the government must sufficiently justify before putting a prohibition in place, then you are in fact supporting the idea that they have to respect religious beliefs to some degree. This is why what you are saying is not logically consistent - you can't say "no exceptions for religious people" and then seemingly say "but the government needs to justify under security or some other good reason to disregard their beliefs".

 

[diaspora]

Leitch has the support of 19% of the tories, 18% are undecided, Scheer has 14%, Chong's at (surprisingly) 12%, and O'Toole's at 11%. While Chong's favourability numbers are marginally lower than Leitch's, The percentage of people that view him unfavourably is almost half that of Leitch. Scheer's got even higher favourables than Leitch with a lower unfavourable rating than either her or Chong but is more of an unknown than either among conservatives.

The good news is that Ontario has the privilege of having 3 completely inept parties though

Sigh.

Yep. Horwath has been so useless I don't know why she's still in charge.

 

[Sean C]

Leitch has the support of 19% of the tories, 18% are undecided, Scheer has 14%, Chong's at (surprisingly) 12%, and O'Toole's at 11%. While Chong's favourability numbers are marginally lower than Leitch's, The percentage of people that view him unfavourably is almost half that of Leitch. Scheer's got even higher favourables than Leitch with a lower unfavourable rating than either her or Chong but is more of an unknown than either among conservatives.

Where are you getting that from?

 

[Hycran]

Just to chime in as somebody who is retired after a career in the Canadian Armed Forces. As far as I know, Sikhs are allowed to wear beards and turbans at all times. If there is a requirement to wear combat gear like metal helmets, they must wear them, but they have smaller turbans that they can wear under the helmets. In all cases, the CAF makes adjustments to allow for religious beliefs.

Part of the problem is that many Sikhs believe you cannot put something on top of your turban. The result is that wearing a combat helmet means violating their religious beliefs. Obviously if you're in combat you need a fucking helmet, not a piece of cloth, but yeah, at least allowing them to wear the turbans and have beards is a pretty sensical choice all things considered

I emailed my MP about the importance of proportional representation, one of his staff emailed me back the next day and I've been invited to a "12-18 person rout table discussion" where I can speak more about my concerns with the current system. I'll call them on Monday to get a date/time and an idea of what format these discussions follow but has anyone been to something like this? Any tips? I plan on putting some papers together and citing some sources etc so if I don't have time to say much they can at least maybe skim over something at their leisure.

Thanks for any input guys, I didn't anticipate a quick response, much less an opportunity for in-person discussion.

Give them my story. My vote has literally never been worth anything because I have lived in either White Rock or Kamloops every time I have had the chance to vote. Considering I live/lived in conservative strongholds, the feeling of disenfranchisement is real because my vote has never amounted to anything. I don't really care what system is in place, but as long as it isn't first past the post and my vote has SOME bearing on the issues and representation that exists in parliament, i'll be peachy.

 

[diaspora]

Where are you getting that from?

Mainstreet Research.

 

[maharg]

While the Senate is neither equal on a per-province basis or proportionate to population, it's not unbalanced in a manner that is particularly worrisome for US-style problems. If anything, the most conservative regions (Alberta and Saskatchewan) are underrepresented.

I don't really know how to respond to your replies to me lately. You're taking a fairly literal tack to any mention of similarity to the US that feels like a strawman. I'm not saying that our senate is or will be identical in its dysfunction as the US. I'm not saying that a Canadian alt-right candidate would be identical to Trump, or that any of our politicians have been identical or in cahoots with their American counterparts who are similar.

I'm saying if you keep saying "Not like that. Not here." You're gonna be surprised when your homegrown version of someone else's bad decisions turn out just as bad in a way that's uniquely suited to you.

And I don't consider imbalances that are not in my favour bad things. Accepting imbalance when it favours you, but not when it doesn't, breeds reactionaries who are on some level entirely right to resent you.

 

[Sean C]

Looking at the poll in question, I'm not really surprised Leitch has the largest amount of individual support. She's staked out the most distinctive identity thus far, at least in terms of appealing to a base constituency.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Where are you getting that from?

Here are the numbers. The good news (from an accurate polling perspective) is that they've at least stopped asking all Canadians for their opinions on the CPC leadership race, since that data was useless and completely irrelevant.

The bad news: it's still pretty useless and irrelevant, since they still have no way of knowing whether these "Conservative-leaning voters" are eligible to vote in the contest. In fact, considering that Canadians generally aren't members of political parties at all, the number of people they spoke to who'll actually vote in the race is so small that it's essentially meaningless. That's compounded by the fact that it's a preferential ballot, so what really matters is who CPC members have as their second and third choices.

Absent a pollster getting a hold of CPC membership lists, the only publicly-available numbers that mean anything are the fundraising numbers. I can't find those on the Elections Canada site, but the stories last week all indicate Leitch and Bernier are way ahead of everyone else at the moment on account of jumping in early.

 

[Sean C]

Absent a pollster getting a hold of CPC membership lists, the only publicly-available numbers that mean anything are the fundraising numbers. I can't find those on the Elections Canada site, but the stories last week all indicate Leitch and Bernier are way ahead of everyone else at the moment on account of jumping in early.

Bernier's biggest advantage is going to be that there's a ton of Quebec ridings where relatively few members will have equal weight to ridings in rural Alberta that are packed with CPC members.

This also makes Atlantic Canada, which doesn't have a favourite son candidate in the race, a potential goldmine. If I were Michael Chong, I'd be flogging a Red Tory message in those provinces very heavily.

 

[gutter_trash]

The unfavorableity rating is the most important aspect of that poll,
Chong, and Sheer have the lowest unfavorables.
while Bernier and Leitch have the highest unfavorables.

say Leitch breaks ahead among fundamentalists, she will get countered by an equal amount who are against her.

 

[Sean C]

while Bernier and Leitch have the highest unfavorables.

That doesn't surprise me either. That's the other side of taking the most polarizing stances (in terms of economics and cultural issues, respectively). There'll be a lot of CPC voters who don't want somebody who's likely going to be tagged as Trump North running things.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Bernier's biggest advantage is going to be that there's a ton of Quebec ridings where relatively few members will have equal weight to ridings in rural Alberta that are packed with CPC members.

This also makes Atlantic Canada, which doesn't have a favourite son candidate in the race, a potential goldmine. If I were Michael Chong, I'd be flogging a Red Tory message in those provinces very heavily.

1) Apparently that's why Steven Blaney is running: specifically to stop Maxine Bernier. According to people I know in the CPC, his stances are all being taken solely with Quebec in mind, which is why he's pandering so hard to those voters on stuff like hijabs and supply management. It's horribly cynical, but it shows how much the rest of the caucus apparently dislikes Bernier.

2) Lisa Raitt was born in Sydney, so I wouldn't be surprised if she goes for that favourite, er, daughter angle with Atlantic Canada.

(Speaking of Raitt being born there, her background is kind of crazy: she was raised by her grandparents, only to discover when she was a teenager that the woman who she thought was her sister was actually her mother. It has no bearing on her politics or anything else, but as life stories go, that's pretty dramatic.)

 

[Mr.Mike]

So if the US formaly withdraws from the TPP it would still be able to pass with the remaining countries (but the US does have to formally withdraw). So in that case we would still be able to sign it, and perhaps we should since we really could use some diversification from the US economy.

 

[mo60]

That doesn't surprise me either. That's the other side of taking the most polarizing stances (in terms of economics and cultural issues, respectively). There'll be a lot of CPC voters who don't want somebody who's likely going to be tagged as Trump North running things.

Someone that is labelled as trump north becoming the next CPC leader would also be a death sentence for the CPC in everywere besides rural areas and a few other strong conservative areas in the next federal election.

Also. Leitch is saying that she is not a racist now.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kellie-leitch-i-am-not-a-racist-1.3157166

 

[SweetTeddie]

I'm positive this isn't the right place to post this, but someone told me this might be the best place for me to find an answer, so here I go.

I'm a U.S citizen who has been thinking about studying in Canada for a while, and on account of being a minority and the recent election, I'm starting to give this much more thought. I'm currently about to finish my first year of studies for a bachelors in electrical engineering at a state school, and was thinking about finishing the rest of my degree in Canada, and more likely than not, staying.

Some info

- 3.7 GPA and 33 ACT/1500 SAT score
- Speak fluent English, no French.
- Completed first years classes in Calc, Chem, and Phys, as well as a few gen eds.
- Have lived abroad, in worst places, for a few months before, so i'm used to being in different environments.
- I would prefer a university that accepts U.S financial aid and lets me work.
- My current overall cost for college is about $27000 USD per year, but FA, scholarships, and work, reduce it down too about 5000 USD. I plan to pay the remainder off with loans. My parents are willing to support me, but I'd rather prefer they didn't.

Some Questions

- Can you actually get permanent residency after completing a degree and finding work, or is it more difficult and complicated then it sounds? I know about express entry and PGWPP, but I'd love to hear from people who have gone through the immigration process.
- Do international students qualify for scholarships, and would I qualify for any?
- What are some good universities and cities I should look out for? I'd like urban, but would definitely consider rural, if costs are lower.
- How's the job market for tech?
- What are some pros or negatives about Canada that I may not have thought about?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Does the $27000 cover your living costs as well? International students pay bonkers tuition (checked UofT and it says $37,090). Factor in housing, food etc and it'll get very expensive. As scary as things are you'll probably be fine staying at your school. I'm sure cities like Chicago, Seattle, NY etc will continue to be fine for minorities.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Counterpoint: Chong also wants to completely deregulate the housing market by privatizing the CMHC. I know it's an article of faith among conservatives that "the market" will magically lower costs and prices, but I'd think that the example of the US between 2005 and 2009 shows where deregulating the housing market leads.

After witnessing the Vancouver market over the last several years I'd lean toward supporting the CMHC getting out of the business of backstopping mortgages. At this point at the very least my default view is that the government backing of mortgages seems harmful and I'm interested to hear an explanation from the alternative view point as to why exactly the Canadian government should be continuing to take on housing market risk instead of the banks and what the benefits are to Canadians here. The current set of policies seem like an experiment from another era that is clearly no longer having the desired effect.

From Chong's webpage

Privatizing CMHC's mortgage insurance and securitization business, and strengthening OSFI's oversight over the mortgage market will:

* Make housing more affordable for Canadian families;
* Increase financing available for small- and medium-sized enterprises;
* Lessen the risk to Canadian taxpayers; and
* Reduce federal debt and interest payments.

I definitely agree that this would make housing more affordable for Canadians in some areas of Canada. What we've seen in hot markets such as Toronto and Vancouver is that since banks are carrying zero risk, they have an ability to set extremely low interest rates and are happy to lend to anyone, including people that are over extending themselves and really shouldn't be buying a home. The effect of this lax lending has been a spiking of housing prices as everyone is able to get massive mortgages. The entity taking on all the risk here unfortunately is not the banks but the Canadian government. If the housing bubble bursts spectacularly, it will be Canadians, not banks, that will have to pay to bail everyone out.

If the CMHC stops backstopping mortgages, then the risk will have to be borne by the banks. This means that interest rates will rise and the banks' will be a great deal more careful about who they lend to and how much. With a much lower pool of buyers with less money available to spend, the price of housing will fall.

In my opinion the recent moves from the new Liberal government toward starting to share risk with banks is one of the best policies I've seen from the new government in this first year and I'd like to see this continue. I'd rather see the CMHC involved in funding public housing than subsidizing private mortgages.

I'm always concerned about the spectre of some US style housing bubble collapse as well. I think the way we have to guard ourselves here is with tough regulations to ensure that private lenders aren't lending to people that can't afford it.

 

[djkimothy]

So if the US formerly withdraws from the TPP it would still be able to pass with the remaining countries (but the US does have to formally withdraw). So in that case we would still be able to sign it, and perhaps we should since we really could use some diversification from the US economy.

I was just thinking about that when I was walking my dog. It is still worth it to join as it opens up the Japanese market to Canada.

We would still benefit from trade with the US through NAFTA, but with Trump in office i don';t know how long that will last.

 

[TheRealTalker]

So if the US formerly withdraws from the TPP it would still be able to pass with the remaining countries (but the US does have to formally withdraw). So in that case we would still be able to sign it, and perhaps we should since we really could use some diversification from the US economy.

if we reform it before ratification

like those internet laws, company power laws, etc...

then it is fine by me

we and the rest of the world needs to be more stable with US non leadership and Russia and China trying to do power plays

we need to stick together and be more influential and independent

 

[PumpkinSpice]

There would probably have to be some sort of renegotiation period as access to US market may have been a large reason for some countries to join in to TPP, but I'd like to see it continue.

 

[djkimothy]

There would probably have to be some sort of renegotiation period as access to US market may have been a large reason for some countries to join in to TPP, but I'd like to see it continue.

Yes good point, I was looking at it in a North American POV. that may take years to sort out. :/

 

[TheRealTalker]

maybe now Trudeau will stop backtracking on some stuff he said we were going to try and do against the US's will

like drop the F-35s

 

[SRG01]

The unfavorableity rating is the most important aspect of that poll,
Chong, and Sheer have the lowest unfavorables.
while Bernier and Leitch have the highest unfavorables.

say Leitch breaks ahead among fundamentalists, she will get countered by an equal amount who are against her.

My only problem with Sheer is that he's a blank slate. While that can be a good thing, no one really knows about Sheer as a politician since he was speaker for the entire time.

 

[CazTGG]

One more consideration: Unlike the left or center-left, Canada's right-leaning voter base doesn't have a viable alternative party on the federal level to vote for and likely won't unless the Conservative party has another split (which i'd place a 10% chance on happening now that Harper's no longer leading them, incredibly unlikely but we are seeing some within the party call out the more radical suggestions like Chong's aforementioned criticism of Leitch). Given Leitch's approval ratings that diaspora mentioned, I doubt she's in any danger of severely alienating their base if she does become the Conservative Party's leader, certainly not to the point of being unelectable, let alone that she couldn't benefit from taking the CPC further to the right. Recall that we did see a spike in hate crimes against Muslim Canadians like one woman who was put into the hospital when picking up her child from school among other hate crimes because they felt it was justified after Harper's many islamophobics remarks ("Islamicism is the biggest threat to Canada") and the Conservative Party still got roughly 32% of the vote. Who's to say a Canadian Trump-like candidate like Leitch couldn't capitalize on that by further normalizing people's islamophobic or various other forms of internalized bigotry? We all thought Trump's various incendiary remarks would have sunk him in the general but he ended up winning the electoral college.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

One more consideration: Unlike the left or center-left, Canada's right-leaning voter base doesn't have a viable alternative party on the federal level to vote for and likely won't unless the Conservative party has another split (which i'd place a 10% chance on happening now that Harper's no longer leading them, incredibly unlikely but we are seeing some within the party call out the more radical suggestions like Chong's aforementioned criticism of Leitch). Given Leitch's approval ratings that diaspora mentioned, I doubt she's in any danger of severely alienating their base if she does become the Conservative Party's leader, certainly not to the point of being unelectable, let alone that she couldn't benefit from taking the CPC further to the right. Recall that we did see a spike in hate crimes against Muslim Canadians like one woman who was put into the hospital when picking up her child from school among other hate crimes because they felt it was justified after Harper's many islamophobics remarks ("Islamicism is the biggest threat to Canada") and the Conservative Party still got roughly 32% of the vote. Who's to say a Canadian Trump-like candidate like Leitch couldn't capitalize on that by further normalizing people's islamophobic or various other forms of internalized bigotry? We all thought Trump's various incendiary remarks would have sunk him in the general but he ended up winning the electoral college.

The extremist approach to leading a party is to fire up the base and increase turnout, thus winning the election. That backfired for Tim Hudak and I'd hope it would backfire for anyone at the federal level, but let's not even go there.

Honestly if PR happens I can guarantee 100% that eventually the Conservative party will split, or a more extreme party will emerge and take their core base. The entire reason that party was created was to win elections in our FPTP system, which the Reform/Alliance and PCs couldn't do while splitting votes.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

In case anyone forgot our defence minister is a Sikh and has been in combat zones. The military is fine with respecting their practices while also keeping them safe.

Cool. I don't know why the fuck mdubs kept bringing up that example then. Must be some sort of "gotcha" attempt or something.

What is stopping the government from using any justification?
Why does there have to be a security justification, or any justification in the first place if there should be no protections for religious people as you say?

If you are suggesting there has to be some sort of acceptable rationale for that sort of ban, then you are in fact supporting that the religious do have rights and could potentially have exceptions if the government's reason for a prohibition is not good enough.

Your viewpoint is not clear at all. Either you think there should be no exceptions and the government can do as it wants regardless of the religious, or there are situations where the government must justify sufficiently to impinge on religious beliefs (ie. by bringing up the interest of security or safety).

If you are saying that the government must sufficiently justify before putting a prohibition in place, then you are in fact supporting the idea that they have to respect religious beliefs to some degree. This is why what you are saying is not logically consistent - you can't say "no exceptions for religious people" and then seemingly say "but the government needs to justify under security or some other good reason to disregard their beliefs".

This is getting beyond stupid. My very final attempt 'cause I'm running out of ways to repeat myself:
The government should not prevent people from expressing their religious beliefs in a peaceful, legal, non-threatening, non-harmful, unsafe way. People should be all equally free to wear whatever the fuck hat or accessory they want so long as it does not conflict with other rules that are applied to non-religious people. A Christian dude wants to wear a cross at his public government job? A Jewish man wants to wear his yarmulke? A Muslim lady wants to wear a headscarf? Who cares. It doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't interfere with their ability to do their job. A Muslim woman wants to wear a burqa that hides her entire face and body, muffles her voice, and wants to work with the public, and it's been determined that this is inconvenient and interferes with her job? Then she gotta take it off, or we should allow anyone to wear a potato sack over their head.
A Sikh wants to wear a turban under his helmet? If the military says "eh whatever, they're still well-protected and it causes no risk", then cool. If a non-Sikh says "turbans look cool, I wanna wear one too", then they should say "all right, since it's OK for him it's OK for you too" and not "nuh-huh, you don't have a sincere mystical belief about the sacredness of this object, no turban for you". Either the turban is harmful/unsafe, and should be banned for everyone, or it's totally fine, and should be allowed for everyone.

The "justification" should be one that involves harm, safety, or practicality. Does it interfere with your work/activity, does it create health or safety risks, does it actively cause harm? No? Then cool, wear what you want. Yes? Follow the rules like everyone else.

Clear now?

 

[mo60]

One more consideration: Unlike the left or center-left, Canada's right-leaning voter base doesn't have a viable alternative party on the federal level to vote for and likely won't unless the Conservative party has another split (which i'd place a 10% chance on happening now that Harper's no longer leading them, incredibly unlikely but we are seeing some within the party call out the more radical suggestions like Chong's aforementioned criticism of Leitch). Given Leitch's approval ratings that diaspora mentioned, I doubt she's in any danger of severely alienating their base if she does become the Conservative Party's leader, certainly not to the point of being unelectable, let alone that she couldn't benefit from taking the CPC further to the right. Recall that we did see a spike in hate crimes against Muslim Canadians like one woman who was put into the hospital when picking up her child from school among other hate crimes because they felt it was justified after Harper's many islamophobics remarks ("Islamicism is the biggest threat to Canada") and the Conservative Party still got roughly 32% of the vote. Who's to say a Canadian Trump-like candidate like Leitch couldn't capitalize on that by further normalizing people's islamophobic or various other forms of internalized bigotry? We all thought Trump's various incendiary remarks would have sunk him in the general but he ended up winning the electoral college.

The problem is the conservative party would run into the same problem they ran into when harper and the CPC started using the niqab as a wedge issue and did or said other things that pissed off minorities. Swing voters would run away from them like what happened in the recent federal election and move to one of the other parties if they managed to focus on a more extreme version of what harper and the CPC did in the last federal election.

 

[firehawk12]

The Tories just have to wait until the Liberal malaise starts happening after a few years, as it inevitably does. The collapse of the NDP and the semi-resurgence of the Bloc means that all the CPC has to do is just wait and win by default when Ontario decides to vote Tory again.

 

[bremon]

Thats awesome!

Mind if I ask what party your MP is from?

CPC so I feel it will be an uphill battle, but I'm excited at the prospect of being able to participat in a discussion.

Good on you for this. Check out fairvote.ca for a whole lot of collected information and wastedvotes.ca for some stats. I've had success by citing 'Irish' forms of PR (STV) or German/New Zealand forms of PR (MMP) as examples of systems which are very proportional while retaining regional representation. Seems to work better than throwing tons of acronyms at them.

Thank you for this, I will definitely check this out.

Give them my story. My vote has literally never been worth anything because I have lived in either White Rock or Kamloops every time I have had the chance to vote. Considering I live/lived in conservative strongholds, the feeling of disenfranchisement is real because my vote has never amounted to anything. I don't really care what system is in place, but as long as it isn't first past the post and my vote has SOME bearing on the issues and representation that exists in parliament, i'll be peachy.

This is my situation as well; I've lived in conservative strongholds all my life and my vote has never made an ounce of a difference or carried an ounce of weight beyond tossing some pocket change at the party I vote for.

 

[Clov]

How can we best avoid the election of a Trump-like figure? Is electoral reform the answer, and if so what system would work best? Would mandatory voting help things?

 

[firehawk12]

This is my situation as well; I've lived in conservative strongholds all my life and my vote has never made an ounce of a difference or carried an ounce of weight beyond tossing some pocket change at the party I vote for.

Harper killed that before the last election, so unless the Liberals have put it back in since then, voting literally is meaningless if you are in a riding that is guaranteed to go one way.

How can we best avoid the election of a Trump-like figure? Is electoral reform the answer, and if so what system would work best? Would mandatory voting help things?

Canadian regionalism means that every election is basically decided by Ontario/Quebec, and both parties seem to peak at around 40% popular vote when they win anyway, so it's not going to happen. Like, maybe Alberta and Quebec share the same anti-Islam sentiments in terms of things like the niqab, but the cultural reasons for those values are so diametrically opposed that you can't win one group over without alienating the other if you are fighting purely on social issues. Harper basically learned that the hard way.

 

[DopeyFish]

Apparently if NAFTA goes away, US-Canada still have a free trade agreement already ratified from 1989.

So if NAFTA goes down, free trade still exists... But mexico is taken out of equation and the tribunals go away.

Not bad if you ask me.

 

[firehawk12]

Isn't the tribunal the only reason why Canada was able to win its softwood lumber fight from like a decade ago?