Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank]

In terms of commitments, interesting the difference, especially on some of the right (more the right wing establishment) between Canada meeting the global warming target, and Canada meeting the NATO target, and I acknowledge I've argued on opposite sides here myself, but I don't regard the two as equally serious.

Those on the right (not all but nearly all on the right and some not on the right) argue that what Canada does on global warming is irrelevent, that Canada contributes only 1.6% to worldwide GHG emissions (which still makes Canada the 9th highest emitting nation in the world.)

On the military, and to be sure Pierre Poilievre doesn't and I don't hear Conservative members and supporters either speaking of the NATO 2% committment, but many right wing organizations like the MacDonald-Laurier Inistitute (or, as I call them, the MacDonald-MacDonald Institute), as I mentioned previously, will turn any discussion on foreign issues into Canada needing to increase military spending to 2% of GDP.

To be sure, this includes others like the Globe and Mail and Andrew Coyne and, I believe, the Center Ice Canadians (whatever they've renamed themselves as a political party) who think Canada needs to meet both its carbon reduction target AND its military spending target.

However, As I also mentioned here previously, interestingly, the increase in Canada's defence spending required to get to 2% would be about 1.6% of the U.S entire military spending. So, to some/many on the right, 1.6% of GHG emissions is irrelevent, but a 1.6% increase of the U.S military budget by Canada is essential for NATO. From what I've read from the MacDonald- MacDonald Institute and from what other people have said here, it's not even that Canada has anything specific to increase military spending on, just that Canada must show it's 'serious.'

Well, if that's so important, getting GHG emissions down, is far more serious.

From a partisan political perspective, this would be, of course, a far stronger argument to make if Poilievre and the Conservatives were making noise on Canada increasing its military spending to 2% of GDP, and I certainly don't think this interesting numerical comparison (interesting to me anyway) is a reason the Conservatives haven't made noise, but for anybody outside of Canada hoping Canada will significantly increase its military spending under a Conservative government, the decline in military spending started under the Harper Conservatives despite all his noise in favor of the military (see the Canadian government celebration of the War of 1812 in 2012) and his government trying to turn Rememberance Day into a celebration of the military, and while I don't think Poilievre would decrease spending even further, I don't think he'll make moves to seriously increase it either.

Outside of politics, Harper's interest were in Canadian history: military history, the Franklin Expedition and fairly obscure hockey history. I'd probably like him outside of poltics.

[Benjamin Frank]

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these

They haven't acted on reducing immigration. Their announcement was to cap immigration rates once it reaches 500k/year. That's not reducing, that's increasing until it reaches a hard cap. There's also been no word on limiting or reducing international student applications, who have been a big part of the conversation re: immigration. Particularly here in southern Ontario, this has been probably the single driving factor in now-popular calls to reduce immigration. Marc Miller did announce that the feds would "step in" to crack down on fake diploma mills. Diploma mills are basically an industry in the GTA that profits from selling fake college programs to naive Indian teenagers who end up coming here to do low-skilled labour. That's progress, but undercut by the fact that Marc Miller also suggested that one of the government's motives with the international student program is cheap labour.

You can say that nothing will really change or whatever,  which may be correct, but the government has said that it will target immigrants more and will try to improve coordination better with the provinces and the municipalities. I believe they also announced a program to encourage more immigrants to move to areas other than the big cities.

[Benjamin Frank]

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these

They haven't acted on reducing immigration. Their announcement was to cap immigration rates once it reaches 500k/year. That's not reducing, that's increasing until it reaches a hard cap. There's also been no word on limiting or reducing international student applications, who have been a big part of the conversation re: immigration. Particularly here in southern Ontario, this has been probably the single driving factor in now-popular calls to reduce immigration. Marc Miller did announce that the feds would "step in" to crack down on fake diploma mills. Diploma mills are basically an industry in the GTA that profits from selling fake college programs to naive Indian teenagers who end up coming here to do low-skilled labour. That's progress, but undercut by the fact that Marc Miller also suggested that one of the government's motives with the international student program is cheap labour.

You can say that nothing will really change or whatever,  which may be correct, but the government has said that it will target immigrants more and will try to improve coordination better with the provinces and the municipalities. I believe they also announced a program to encourage more immigrants to move to areas other than the big cities.

I specifically replied to the "reducing immigration" comment, which they categorically haven't, and have specifically said they won't.

Yes, don't disagree. But there are the other non immigrant streams, the worker and student visas. I think they said the immigrant stream would be half of the total population increase, which would mean about 1 million, which I think would actually be a reduction.