Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

There are times when I think I genuinely understand Marxists more than modern-day liberals. I don't agree with their ideology at all, but at least when Marxists reject traditional notions of belonging (culture, religion, etc) they seek to replace it with class. 21st century liberals like Trudeau Jr (as opposed to 20th century liberals like Trudeau Sr) seem to have no answer to this.

I have posted this here before. You could not be more wrong about Pierre Trudeau 'Sr.'

Pierre Trudeau especially hated ethnic nationalism:
Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We
should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let
alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more
disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no
such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the
concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is
one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average
citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what
in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human
values: compassion, love, and understanding.

~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Remarks at the Ukrainian-Canadian Congress,
October 9, 1971.

And Pierre Trudeau on multiculturalism (whatever he may have meant by that.)
National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense must be
founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect
for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes, and assumptions. A
vigorous policy of multiculturalism will create this initial confidence. It can form
the basis of a society which is founded on fair play for all.
~ Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in the House of Commons, October 8, 1971

Pierre Trudeau was a great believer in individual rights. And I think he would have realized this for the obvious contradiction it is:

conservative: Canadians should be free to do what they want (within the law)
Also conservative: immigrants must assimilate to Canadian culture/we need to enforce? a Canadian culture.

John Turner in the 1988 free trade debate also backed this up when he argued against free trade on the basis that countries that are north/south are more likely to be culturally 'homogenous' than countries, like Canada, that are east/west.

"We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States."

You are correct that Trudeau 'Sr' did not really have any answer to the lack of a national Canadian identity. Trudeau 'Sr' was a person who in today's parlance was an 'anywhere' (the so-called somewheres vs. the anywheres') and his solution was bilingualism so that Quebecers could be comfortable in the rest of Canada, and English speaking Canadians comfortable in Quebec. Of course, for 'somewheres' who have an attachment to their community, that was hardly a top concern.

However, the problem for a Canadian 'identity' is that British Columbians have more in common with Washingtonians than with Ontarians who similarly have more in common with Michiganders.  

Mind you, there is also the notion that the world (or at least the big cities in the world) are all becoming homogenized.

Yes, but nobody here wants ethnic nationalism. People are ok with people preserving their diverse heritages, but also acknowledging that there is a national Canadian identity we are a part of.

I think Canada already has that.

This was Trudeau's thinking on ethnic nationalism summarized by Ron Graham:
"Deep at the core of his (Trudeau's) position was an abiding hatred of all ethnic nationalism, the belief that the people of a particular race or culture should lay exclusive and collective claim to a political territory. Trudeau saw this as a primary cause of many of the great atrocities of human history, from the tribal battles of Africa to the gas chambers of Nazi Germany. Even an ethnic nationalism based on language and customs rather than blood could never be, in his view, a truly positive or progressive force. It would always attempt to coerce the individual into the group and attend to the welfare of some of its citizens over the welfare of all. "A state that defined its function in terms of ethnic attributes would inevitably become chauvinistic and intolerant," he wrote. And since very few (if any) political states are perfectly homogeneous, persecution by the majority would compel every minority to demand a political state of its own, and on and on, until the whole world was engulfed in liberation movements and "the last-born of nation-states turned to violence to put an end to the very principle that gave it birth." Instead, different peoples, different cultures, different languages, and different religions had to learn to live side by side as individuals who freely consent to come together with equal rights and equal opportunities. And if a particular set of circumstances should make a unitary state either impractical or undesirable, he extolled the inherent diversity of federalism."

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Happy Canada Day!

[Make Canada Boring Again]

United States looking at all options to respond to Canada's digital services tax

This appears to be another Liberal policy that may end up backfiring.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

With all that said about multiculturalism/immigration, another thing I take real issue with is the way Canadian progressives have appropriated American race relations rhetoric (largely concerning Black Americans, who exist in a very different context as nonwhite immigrants to Canada, as nonwhite Canadian immigrants chose to come here and most Black Americans were brought in as literal slaves).

Consider the following sequence of events:
1. Bring in tons of immigrants, most of whom are not white, and promise them a better life.
2. Fail to give them a better life, because really you're just using them as serfs for big box stores.
3. Teach their children that this is a consequence of living in a supposedly white supremacist society.

Now you tell me how that leads to anything other than wide scale resentment of your own countrymen.

B.C. act to streamline foreign credential recognition comes into effect July 1
https://www.cicnews.com/2024/06/b-c-act-to-streamline-foreign-credential-recognition-comes-into-effect-july-1-0645056.html#gs.bj71ae

This lack of recognition of foreign credentials of people who already live here is one of the biggest issues with Canada's immigration system that is rarely ever addressed.

Because back when we took in 250k PRs for year, some of them could not work in the Canadian labour market because their credentials were not recognized, so we could not maximize the economic benefits of their skills.

But the government said that's not enough - we need even more PRs/tfws/other immigration streams - but many of their foreign credentials won't be recognized in the Canadian labour market either!

Our immigration system could be far more efficient in an economic sense if we took in fewer people but recognized their credentials.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

With all that said about multiculturalism/immigration, another thing I take real issue with is the way Canadian progressives have appropriated American race relations rhetoric (largely concerning Black Americans, who exist in a very different context as nonwhite immigrants to Canada, as nonwhite Canadian immigrants chose to come here and most Black Americans were brought in as literal slaves).

Consider the following sequence of events:
1. Bring in tons of immigrants, most of whom are not white, and promise them a better life.
2. Fail to give them a better life, because really you're just using them as serfs for big box stores.
3. Teach their children that this is a consequence of living in a supposedly white supremacist society.

Now you tell me how that leads to anything other than wide scale resentment of your own countrymen.

B.C. act to streamline foreign credential recognition comes into effect July 1
https://www.cicnews.com/2024/06/b-c-act-to-streamline-foreign-credential-recognition-comes-into-effect-july-1-0645056.html#gs.bj71ae

This is good news, I fully support it. Immigration is a two-way street, if we want immigrants to be fully-fledged Canadians (as is our tradition), we also need to ensure that they can fairly participate in today's highly regulated Canadian economy.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

*snip*

Of course, there's no guarantee that Poilievre will do anything. That's the gamble of representative democracy, for better or worse, you cast your lot with whoever you think will do the best job on the issues you care about, but it also requires sustained pressure on governments to act. And for better or worse, when you have wave elections like we're likely to have, issues aren't the focal point. Poilievre is running against a bogeyman, and he is very likely to win by virtue of not being the bogeyman, it is what it is. But the coalition that brings the CPC to power will be one that overwhelmingly wants to see a reduction in immigration rates, and this is no longer a minor issue that parties can just ignore like Trudeau did with electoral reform. Could just be wishful thinking on my part.

I disagree that Poilievre's "willingness to pander" is proof of anything though. Trying to specifically appeal to hyphenated Canadians isn't something Poilievre introduced to the CPC in the wake of Trudeau's immigration policies, it's a continuation of what Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney once did, long before Trudeau and his Cabinet massively increased our immigration intake. It's the nature of political campaigning in a country with a heterogenous electorate.

Bringing it back to my defense of multiculturalism, I think where you're coming from is the active pursuit of multiculturalism. I would agree with that, actively trying to make Canada more multicultural for the sake of making Canada more multicultural is stupid policy. We should acknowledge and respect the inherently heterogenous nature of the Canadian society that already exists, denying that reality is not sensible or sustainable. But 21st century liberalism seems to take it for granted that making a society more multicultural or diverse inherently makes that society better, and this seems to be based on cherrypicked half-true facts at best and completely nonfactual vibes at worse.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Of course, there's no guarantee that Poilievre will do anything. That's the gamble of representative democracy, for better or worse, you cast your lot with whoever you think will do the best job on the issues you care about, but it also requires sustained pressure on governments to act. And for better or worse, when you have wave elections like we're likely to have, issues aren't the focal point. Poilievre is running against a bogeyman, and he is very likely to win by virtue of not being the bogeyman, it is what it is. But the coalition that brings the CPC to power will be one that overwhelmingly wants to see a reduction in immigration rates, and this is no longer a minor issue that parties can just ignore like Trudeau did with electoral reform. Could just be wishful thinking on my part.

Agreed. Something similar happened with Jean Chretien in the early 90s and that resulted in him cutting immigration. I guess a bigger question might be why it took so long for the public to notice the tfw/student visa program was exploding and express their backlash against it.  

I disagree that Poilievre's "willingness to pander" is proof of anything though. Trying to specifically appeal to hyphenated Canadians isn't something Poilievre introduced to the CPC in the wake of Trudeau's immigration policies, it's a continuation of what Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney once did, long before Trudeau and his Cabinet massively increased our immigration intake. It's the nature of political campaigning in a country with a heterogenous electorate.

You are partially right and I understand that, but under Harper, Kenney, et al it didn't happen even nearly to the same extent. There was occasional pandering, (which is fine), but there wasn't anyone in the CPC was pandering to international students who aren't citizens and can't even vote, for example. This is exactly what Poilievre did - he demanded the federal government stop the deportation of international students that were involved in a scam because (presumably) he thought this would gain him votes. Canadian pandering has become so strange in recent years that it defies all logic and appears out of touch, not to mention it often demonstrates the complete abandonment of moral principles. I highly doubt that the votes of most Canadians, including those who are immigrants or are of Indian/Punjabi/Sikh origin would be won over by seeing Poilievre pander to international students. A lot of Indo-Canadians who are citizens and immigrated here by legitimate means despise the fact that there are so many international students who try to game the system. Polling suggests even immigrants in Canada are turning anti-immigration, so why doesn't Poilievre's stance reflect that?

Bringing it back to my defense of multiculturalism, I think where you're coming from is the active pursuit of multiculturalism. I would agree with that, actively trying to make Canada more multicultural for the sake of making Canada more multicultural is stupid policy. We should acknowledge and respect the inherently heterogenous nature of the Canadian society that already exists, denying that reality is not sensible or sustainable. But 21st century liberalism seems to take it for granted that making a society more multicultural or diverse inherently makes that society better, and this seems to be based on cherrypicked half-true facts at best and completely nonfactual vibes at worse.

You're right, and this is a conversation we need to have. With that said, I'm not sure 'multiculturalism' is the best word for this. It's one of those words with a very amorphous definition and I think the fact that it has become so institutionalized in Canada is to the country's detriment and makes it easy to be abused.