Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[CumbrianLefty]

I am becoming very concerned about the state of the country in general. We are struggling to control immigration (not to mention all the scams and dishonesty associated with it), foreign powers can meddle in our politics as if it were a board game, we can't meet our NATO commitments that our allies have either already met or are on their way to meet, we have appallingly high cost of living, especially with regards to housing, we have a struggling economy and rapidly declining levels of productivity, there are issues with the healthcare system and other aspects of the social safety net, the current government is extremely unpopular yet the PM won't even resign or call an election, there is an incredible amount of corruption (eg, the ArriveCan app).

The most concerning thing isn't that we have so many issues, but no one really wants to comprehensively discuss these things and fix them. You listen to Poilievre - vague rants about the carbon tax and entrepreneurs 'fleeing' Canada, the Liberals defending their policies with weird analogies about a being in a car for 10 days with no washroom breaks and the NDP doesn't seem to care about anything except keeping Trudeau in power and Jagmeet Singh getting his pension lol.

Is there no one in this country trying to fix these things? Is this the best we can do? If so, it pains me to say it, but our future is bleak.

Though not sharing your country or politics, I can certainly relate to at least some of this. I think that you might take some comfort, as do I., from an election resulting in a change of government meaning that other things *will* change too. For both the Canadian Tories and UK Labour, the incentives that come from being in power are rather different from those when you are trying to get there.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Based on how the parties reacted (or didn't react), it sounds like MPs from both CPC and LPC may be implicated. Poilievre didn't bring this up in Question Period today, and he's not known for showing restraint when attacking Liberals. For their part, Liberals are also playing coy and refusing to name names, which I don't think they would if this was a clear slam dunk on the Tories. But if both parties are implicated, then both will want to let the situation develop and not politicize it right away, because it could backfire hard.

I don't know, I have no more information about this than anyone else, but that's my hunch.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I am becoming very concerned about the state of the country in general. We are struggling to control immigration (not to mention all the scams and dishonesty associated with it), foreign powers can meddle in our politics as if it were a board game, we can't meet our NATO commitments that our allies have either already met or are on their way to meet, we have appallingly high cost of living, especially with regards to housing, we have a struggling economy and rapidly declining levels of productivity, there are issues with the healthcare system and other aspects of the social safety net, the current government is extremely unpopular yet the PM won't even resign or call an election, there is an incredible amount of corruption (eg, the ArriveCan app).

The most concerning thing isn't that we have so many issues, but no one really wants to comprehensively discuss these things and fix them. You listen to Poilievre - vague rants about the carbon tax and entrepreneurs 'fleeing' Canada, the Liberals defending their policies with weird analogies about a being in a car for 10 days with no washroom breaks and the NDP doesn't seem to care about anything except keeping Trudeau in power and Jagmeet Singh getting his pension lol.

Is there no one in this country trying to fix these things? Is this the best we can do? If so, it pains me to say it, but our future is bleak.

Though not sharing your country or politics, I can certainly relate to at least some of this. I think that you might take some comfort, as do I., from an election resulting in a change of government meaning that other things *will* change too. For both the Canadian Tories and UK Labour, the incentives that come from being in power are rather different from those when you are trying to get there.

I think it's interesting that you bring up the state of UK politics, because I'm following your election and it all feels very similar to Canada. Labour is almost certainly headed towards a historic landslide, yet it doesn't seem like there's a massive "Starmer-mania", it's more that the nation is in such a state of pessimism similar to what BlahTheCanuck said about Canada, people really want to punish the current government, and there's one clear alternative that's just acceptable enough to just enough people. This is my impression anyway, correct me if you think I'm wrong. But again it all feels very similar to Canada's current politics. But beyond the superficial similarities, even the way Brits talk about the issues facing your country is eerily similar to how Canadians talk about the issues facing our country. And honestly, even though I've backed Poilievre since day one, I'm under no illusion that he's going to "fix" Canada, just as I don't think Starmer/Labour will fix the deep-seated issues plaguing the UK. I think the Tories are good enough on enough issues that I'm happy to vote for them, but mostly it's a vote of non-confidence against a government that is completely ill-equipped to handle Canada's challenges, in my opinion. And again, I get the impression that a lot of Labour voters in the UK feel the same way.

With all that said, one thing I like about the state of Canadian (and perhaps UK) politics is that, personally, it feels like Canadians are still able to compartmentalize politics. I have conservative views, I make no secret of that, but I don't get the sense that progressives see me as the enemy or as a fundamentally bad person, nor I them. Now I'm talking about real life, not the internet, where there's obviously a lot of toxicity. But I have friends and family with progressive views, and even if political disagreements come up, it's genuinely not an issue. And I bring this up because it seems like in the states, politics has gotten so toxic that it literally poisons interpersonal relationships like family and friends. The idea that someone in Canada would disown friends or family because they support the other party just seems so insane, and while I'm sure some people do, I think most Canadians would see them as unreasonable. Whereas in the US, whether it's Republicans or Democrats, it almost seems like partisans applaud interpersonal hostility.

But another similarity that Canada and the UK seem to have is that American trends always make their way here, it just takes a bit of time. So it really wouldn't surprise me if we're headed down the same path, and that does concern me. If the trends continue, I don't think the end of liberal democracy is merely possible, I think it may be inevitable. Like, if political polarization gets to a point where it infects every aspect of life, then I don't see how you could have a functioning democracy at all. Now I'm not talking about Nazi Germany or North Korea, I think small-l liberalism is far too ingrained in our DNA (thanks to you Brits) for us to ever accept totalitarianism. But liberal democracy isn't the natural order of things, and if we're not able to stop the erosion of the civil society that underpins liberal democracy, then some kind of hybrid authoritarian regime may well be the inevitable conclusion.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Based on how the parties reacted (or didn't react), it sounds like MPs from both CPC and LPC may be implicated. Poilievre didn't bring this up in Question Period today, and he's not known for showing restraint when attacking Liberals. For their part, Liberals are also playing coy and refusing to name names, which I don't think they would if this was a clear slam dunk on the Tories. But if both parties are implicated, then both will want to let the situation develop and not politicize it right away, because it could backfire hard.

I don't know, I have no more information about this than anyone else, but that's my hunch.

Look for Hindus...

I'd rather not start a Hindu witch hunt without evidence. Names will come out soon enough, I'm sure.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Anyway, in the unlikely event that Poilievre is personally implicated in these foreign interference revelations, I think he should step aside and let a cardboard cutout of Marc Miller take over as Tory leader. I certainly can't think of anyone else who could make a better case against giving the Liberals another term.

"Oh no, immigrants who don't speak English or French have to go the extra mile of learning the language of the country they live in! The horror! When will this injustice end?"

Give me a break. That's just about the last thing Canadians want to hear from this government right now.

https://twitter.com/therealmrbench/status/1797766900832960604

[Agafin]

Man, opinion on stuff like immigration and integration are so different from the pre covid era. I remember reading a thread on reddit in which some canadians were proudly claiming that there is "no canadian culture". Even when confronted, they would just say that their culture is "multiculturalism", every immigrant just comes and brings in their own culture into the wider salad bowl (as opposed to the melting pot of the US). Some were even enthusiastically proclaiming how Canada will be the first immigrant majority country by 2040 (that is, a country with more immigrants than native born citizens).

Looking back, it seems obvious at this point that some level of actual nationalism is necessary for the well being of a country. You don't need to go full colonial era france with forced assimilation (or residential schools like Canada itself) but equating nationalism with xenophobia while importing a lot of people who are still very much nationalistic vis-à-vis their native culture/country was inevitably going to lead to the dual loyalty related issues currently shaking the canadian parliarment. And it's gonna get worse with stuff like Israel/Palestine.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Man, opinion on stuff like immigration and integration are so different from the pre covid era. I remember reading a thread on reddit in which some canadians were proudly claiming that there is "no canadian culture". Even when confronted, they would just say that their culture is "multiculturalism", every immigrant just comes and brings in their own culture into the wider salad bowl (as opposed to the melting pot of the US). Some were even enthusiastically proclaiming how Canada will be the first immigrant majority country by 2040 (that is, a country with more immigrants than native born citizens).

Looking back, it seems obvious at this point that some level of actual nationalism is necessary for the well being of a country. You don't need to go full colonial era france with forced assimilation (or residential schools like Canada itself) but equating nationalism with xenophobia while importing a lot of people who are still very much nationalistic vis-à-vis their native culture/country was inevitably going to lead to the dual loyalty related issues currently shaking the canadian parliarment. And it's gonna get worse with stuff like Israel/Palestine.

Which Canadians were you talking to? Reddit is not representative of the general population. Lots of polls from before COVID show Canadians are actually more likely than Americans to want immigrants to assimilate. Several polls also show that Canadians have a more positive view of nationalism than Americans do (I would link an example, but it is from a leger PDF link which I don't think I can link here).

I'm not sure the foreign interference issues are a result of dual loyalties per se - it may be, but the MPs working with China/India may also not be of that ethnicity, like Bob Menendez in the USA accepting bribes from Qatar despite having no ties to that country. The bottom line is, we need more information.

In fact, many Chinese Canadian MPs like Michael Chong and Jenny Kwan have pushed for passing a foreign agent registry and taking a stronger stance against the Chinese government in general.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Anyway, in the unlikely event that Poilievre is personally implicated in these foreign interference revelations, I think he should step aside and let a cardboard cutout of Marc Miller take over as Tory leader. I certainly can't think of anyone else who could make a better case against giving the Liberals another term.

"Oh no, immigrants who don't speak English or French have to go the extra mile of learning the language of the country they live in! The horror! When will this injustice end?"

Give me a break. That's just about the last thing Canadians want to hear from this government right now.

https://twitter.com/therealmrbench/status/1797766900832960604

This is another typical example of Liberals trying to find a loophole. They can no longer bring in as much cheap unskilled labour through temporary residents because it's unpopular, so they decide to give them PR instead. Outrageous.

[Hatman 🍁]

Canadians probably have a higher view of nationalism because nationalism in this country is not as toxic as in other countries.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I read a bit while on the bus of the 1986 book 'One Eyed Kings' about the governing of Canada from 1980 to 1985. (I'm still reading Civilization and Capitalism: 1500-1800), it pointed out the narrow choices that were available at the time suggesting based on public opinion itself.

Of course, this shortly after led to the rise of the Reform Party and maybe the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec nationalism obviously long preceded the Bloc, but there had been at least one prior attempt at a Federal nationalist/separatist Party for Quebec I believed named the Parti Nationale and it went nowhere.) Of course, preceding this dogging Joe Clark, occasionally Brian Mulroney and Kim Clark were the 'Dinosaur Caucus.' For the Reform Party anyway, I recall a great deal of the discussion in Western Canada was the dissatisfaction with the narrowness of federal political debate and discussion. Some referred to this as 'Frum Speak' for the lead anchor at the time on CBC Barbara Frum.

However, that the public generally at that time in the mid 1980s did not accept broadly conservative positions confirms what Bill English said in his biography of Pierre Trudeau, that Canadians did not want the Liberals to be in government anymore, but they still wanted Liberal policy.

This was clearly true when Stephen Harper was elected as well, as he was elected due to the Sponsorship Scandal and probably due to disappointment with the promised brilliant tenure of Prime Minister Paul Martin (although he was not anywhere near the 'ditherer' right wingers in the media claimed him to be.) Other than trying to govern on behalf of the fossil fuel sector and passing deliberately unconstitutional legislation to be struck down in the courts for fundraising purposes and genuinely reducing the deficit after the Great Recession, the Harper government mostly marked time in the false belief that 'every day the Liberals don't govern Canada, Canada becomes a little less liberal.'

As One Eyed Kings mentions, the most active governments are during periods of genuine (manufactured as well?) crises when things that were previously unacceptable become necessary, and this was the case with the Chretien government that privatized things even the Mulroney P.Cs did not, cut spending and gave powers to the provinces that under normal times would never have been accepted. There on those on the left who B.S that the deficit/debt were made up crises, but, for instance, both the provinces of Saskatchewan and, I believe, New Foundland, were saved from having to declare bankruptcy by the Federal government guaranteeing their interest payments. This was kept quiet at the time.

So, the concern for liberals like me, is that everything has come together for Pierre Poilievre. First, it seems what made Canada become less liberal was for Canada to be governed by the Justin Trudeau Liberals (especially with this term) there are genuine crises related to cost of living the related housing and productivity (which, like the deficit in the 1990s is at least 20 years in the making), and Pierre Poilievre, unlike Brian Mulroney, is a genuine reactionary. For Pierre Poilievre, this is clearly a case of opportunity meeting crises. Obviously, I think he'll use this opportunity to implement a right wing agenda that has little to do with the genuine issues Canada is facing, but that obviously won't matter for at least a couple years.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1798696379587633256
I'm convinced my six year old nephew would do a better job than whoever is handling LPC comms.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Canadians probably have a higher view of nationalism because nationalism in this country is not as toxic as in other countries.

Underrated point about Canadian nationalism. Some of my views are pretty far into the nationalistic end of the spectrum as far as Canada is concerned, and even I cringe at the kind of stuff you hear from self-described nationalists in other countries.

I think this is largely because nobody has a monopoly on Canadian nationalism, which I think prevents the extreme polarization on nationalistic lines that we see in many other countries. Both Liberals and Tories have their own way of playing into nationalism. The Liberals' preferred strategy is to identify an out-group (Americans), turn them into a bogeyman, and associate your opponents with the bogeyman. This is a classic nationalist tactic, and Liberals use it very effectively. And yet they're a very cosmopolitan party that's not really nationalistic when you get down to brass tacks, it's mostly just performative.

The Tories for their part also do this performative nationalism stuff, but in their own way. Their bogeyman isn't any specific country (China to some extent, but definitely not the US), but they play into a kind of populist disdain for the "international community" (Poilievre's hard line on the WEF is a good example). But again, this isn't really reflected in most of their policy. Based on the strong populist streak within the CPC, especially under Poilievre's leadership, you'd think it would be a hardline nationalistic, maybe even nativist party - yet they're about as nationalistic as Keir Starmer when it really comes down to it. CPC is very much an ideological successor of the Reform Party, which was a very rare example of a right-wing populist party that's not nationalistic. Decentralizing political power remains in the DNA of Canadian conservatives, which clashes with nationalism.

And I think these internal contradictions over nationalism within both major parties in Canada prevents the kind of hardline nationalism that we see elsewhere.

[Hatman 🍁]

And the NDP has been quite nationalist on economic issues too.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I am becoming very concerned about the state of the country in general. We are struggling to control immigration (not to mention all the scams and dishonesty associated with it), foreign powers can meddle in our politics as if it were a board game, we can't meet our NATO commitments that our allies have either already met or are on their way to meet, we have appallingly high cost of living, especially with regards to housing, we have a struggling economy and rapidly declining levels of productivity, there are issues with the healthcare system and other aspects of the social safety net, the current government is extremely unpopular yet the PM won't even resign or call an election, there is an incredible amount of corruption (eg, the ArriveCan app).

The most concerning thing isn't that we have so many issues, but no one really wants to comprehensively discuss these things and fix them. You listen to Poilievre - vague rants about the carbon tax and entrepreneurs 'fleeing' Canada, the Liberals defending their policies with weird analogies about a being in a car for 10 days with no washroom breaks and the NDP doesn't seem to care about anything except keeping Trudeau in power and Jagmeet Singh getting his pension lol.

Is there no one in this country trying to fix these things? Is this the best we can do? If so, it pains me to say it, but our future is bleak.

Though not sharing your country or politics, I can certainly relate to at least some of this. I think that you might take some comfort, as do I., from an election resulting in a change of government meaning that other things *will* change too. For both the Canadian Tories and UK Labour, the incentives that come from being in power are rather different from those when you are trying to get there.

I think it's interesting that you bring up the state of UK politics, because I'm following your election and it all feels very similar to Canada. Labour is almost certainly headed towards a historic landslide, yet it doesn't seem like there's a massive "Starmer-mania", it's more that the nation is in such a state of pessimism similar to what BlahTheCanuck said about Canada, people really want to punish the current government, and there's one clear alternative that's just acceptable enough to just enough people. This is my impression anyway, correct me if you think I'm wrong. But again it all feels very similar to Canada's current politics. But beyond the superficial similarities, even the way Brits talk about the issues facing your country is eerily similar to how Canadians talk about the issues facing our country. And honestly, even though I've backed Poilievre since day one, I'm under no illusion that he's going to "fix" Canada, just as I don't think Starmer/Labour will fix the deep-seated issues plaguing the UK. I think the Tories are good enough on enough issues that I'm happy to vote for them, but mostly it's a vote of non-confidence against a government that is completely ill-equipped to handle Canada's challenges, in my opinion. And again, I get the impression that a lot of Labour voters in the UK feel the same way.

With all that said, one thing I like about the state of Canadian (and perhaps UK) politics is that, personally, it feels like Canadians are still able to compartmentalize politics. I have conservative views, I make no secret of that, but I don't get the sense that progressives see me as the enemy or as a fundamentally bad person, nor I them. Now I'm talking about real life, not the internet, where there's obviously a lot of toxicity. But I have friends and family with progressive views, and even if political disagreements come up, it's genuinely not an issue. And I bring this up because it seems like in the states, politics has gotten so toxic that it literally poisons interpersonal relationships like family and friends. The idea that someone in Canada would disown friends or family because they support the other party just seems so insane, and while I'm sure some people do, I think most Canadians would see them as unreasonable. Whereas in the US, whether it's Republicans or Democrats, it almost seems like partisans applaud interpersonal hostility.

But another similarity that Canada and the UK seem to have is that American trends always make their way here, it just takes a bit of time. So it really wouldn't surprise me if we're headed down the same path, and that does concern me. If the trends continue, I don't think the end of liberal democracy is merely possible, I think it may be inevitable. Like, if political polarization gets to a point where it infects every aspect of life, then I don't see how you could have a functioning democracy at all. Now I'm not talking about Nazi Germany or North Korea, I think small-l liberalism is far too ingrained in our DNA (thanks to you Brits) for us to ever accept totalitarianism. But liberal democracy isn't the natural order of things, and if we're not able to stop the erosion of the civil society that underpins liberal democracy, then some kind of hybrid authoritarian regime may well be the inevitable conclusion.

I think one thing that people tend to underestimate is how much policy has an effect on the levels of political polarization. For now, Canadians are still able to compartmentalize politics because for most of the last several decades, Canada has been a comparably well-run and boring country. There was no reason to fight over the things other countries fought about - immigration in Canada was relatively controlled, cost of living and incomes were reasonable with reasonably low levels of economic inequality, there was relatively little racial or ethnic tension, other than maybe the issues with Quebec separatism and so on.

With that said, in the last several years, I think we're seeing a lot of toxic trends and policies that suggest polarization is only going to increase in the future. There are obvious ones like the boom in uncontrolled immigration, cost of living and the housing crisis and there are less well known but still insidious ones, like certain excesses with so called ''employment equity' and many others, such as the ones I mentioned in some of my previous posts.

I am not sure how quickly these new trends will be curbed and whether or not these issues will be solved - and if they are not solved soon, political polarization and social tension will only increase. In terms of campaigning and making promises, federal and provincial parties are very vague in terms of what kind of policies they want to implement, so it's hard to tell what will happen regardless of who's in power.

With that said, I fear that the good old days of a moderate, pragmatic Canada may be coming to an end - we have an increasingly populist and provocative right, an increasingly woke ultra-'progressive' left, and both sides are just caricatures of their ideology. One can argue that these trends are largely American culture war imports, and let's be honest, they mostly are, but that doesn't change the fact that they are rapidly gaining ground in Canada. I am concerned about what our future is going to be like.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Canadians probably have a higher view of nationalism because nationalism in this country is not as toxic as in other countries.

Underrated point about Canadian nationalism. Some of my views are pretty far into the nationalistic end of the spectrum as far as Canada is concerned, and even I cringe at the kind of stuff you hear from self-described nationalists in other countries.

I think this is largely because nobody has a monopoly on Canadian nationalism, which I think prevents the extreme polarization on nationalistic lines that we see in many other countries. Both Liberals and Tories have their own way of playing into nationalism. The Liberals' preferred strategy is to identify an out-group (Americans), turn them into a bogeyman, and associate your opponents with the bogeyman. This is a classic nationalist tactic, and Liberals use it very effectively. And yet they're a very cosmopolitan party that's not really nationalistic when you get down to brass tacks, it's mostly just performative.

The Tories for their part also do this performative nationalism stuff, but in their own way. Their bogeyman isn't any specific country (China to some extent, but definitely not the US), but they play into a kind of populist disdain for the "international community" (Poilievre's hard line on the WEF is a good example). But again, this isn't really reflected in most of their policy. Based on the strong populist streak within the CPC, especially under Poilievre's leadership, you'd think it would be a hardline nationalistic, maybe even nativist party - yet they're about as nationalistic as Keir Starmer when it really comes down to it. CPC is very much an ideological successor of the Reform Party, which was a very rare example of a right-wing populist party that's not nationalistic. Decentralizing political power remains in the DNA of Canadian conservatives, which clashes with nationalism.

And I think these internal contradictions over nationalism within both major parties in Canada prevents the kind of hardline nationalism that we see elsewhere.

I think that is a small amount of liberals/Liberals, mostly in Ontario, people who would likely be New Democrats if they were out west.

I think Liberal/liberal nationalism is wrapped up with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 'diversity is out strength' and all that.

Pierre Trudeau has been criticized as an 'anywhere' (by me, just a few days ago)  who didn't appreciate that deep attachment many Canadians feel to their communities, but I think his overall sentiment on the difficulty of a homogeneous nationalism has on a nation as large as Canada is correct.

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.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Man, opinion on stuff like immigration and integration are so different from the pre covid era. I remember reading a thread on reddit in which some canadians were proudly claiming that there is "no canadian culture". Even when confronted, they would just say that their culture is "multiculturalism", every immigrant just comes and brings in their own culture into the wider salad bowl (as opposed to the melting pot of the US). Some were even enthusiastically proclaiming how Canada will be the first immigrant majority country by 2040 (that is, a country with more immigrants than native born citizens).

Looking back, it seems obvious at this point that some level of actual nationalism is necessary for the well being of a country. You don't need to go full colonial era france with forced assimilation (or residential schools like Canada itself) but equating nationalism with xenophobia while importing a lot of people who are still very much nationalistic vis-à-vis their native culture/country was inevitably going to lead to the dual loyalty related issues currently shaking the canadian parliarment. And it's gonna get worse with stuff like Israel/Palestine.

The "melting pot vs salad bowl" narrative is a massive load of crap invented by Canadians to feel good about ourselves. It is not based on anything resembling a fact. Are we really supposed to believe that immigrants to the US don't bring their culture and integrate it into the broader American culture? Really? So why then is Miami the cultural capital of Latin America? Why then is the global perception of Mexican culture largely shaped by the Mexican-descendent culture of the American Southwest? Why is it that the Jewish diaspora in American cities like NYC the most culturally relevant Jewish diaspora to have ever existed? Hell, even boring old white Americans haven't melted into one unrecognizable blob, it's basically a running joke among Europeans that Americans will cling on to random European nationalities that their great-great-great-great grandfather belonged to before the invention of sliced bread, and yet we're supposed to believe that immigrants land on American shores and are expected to lose all cultural identity immediately?

In reality, Canada and the US approach multiculturalism in a very similar way. There's a certain expectation of cultural assimilation, in the sense of learning the language*, respecting the customs, etc. This seeks to prevent the formation of parallel societies within the country that could lead to conflict between various groups. However, there's not really a broad social expectation that immigrants give up their cultures entirely in either country.

Obviously, social attitudes will differ based on local context. Yes, an immigrant is probably much more likely to hear "go back to where you came from" in rural Mississippi than downtown Toronto. And by the same token, cultural diversity is probably more accepted in midtown Manhattan than some village in Quebec called Saint-Louis-de-Chicouquébouac. This is the liberal nationalist playbook, to contrast Canada to, not even America as a whole, but a caricature of America informed largely by red states. Yeah, and if I compare myself to a midget, I would look like an NBA player. It's not an honest apples-to-apples comparison.

Anyway, aside from that whole rant, I think a lot of the pre-Covid narrative on immigration in Canada was just the predominant elite narrative of the time, it was never really a broad societal thing. The idea of celebrating Canada not really being a nation (a notion I strongly disagree with, but I digress), or saying that multiculturalism is the only thing that defines Canada, it's the kind of thing that was fashionable in elite circles, but you didn't really hear ordinary Canadians talking like that. It's just that there was no reason for the average, politically moderate Canadian to care about that. Things were going well, there was no real reason or argument to cut immigration. Many Canadians still wanted to do so, as polls from the time show, there was a huge disconnect between public opinion (where very few Canadians wanted to actually increase immigration, generally it was a split between maintain and reduce) and government policy. But this hadn't been politicized because pre-COVID, there didn't seem to be any reason to do so. Post-COVID though, people are starting to see the broader downsides, and now there's actual political capital behind reducing immigration.

*Btw, on the "learning the language" thing, in many parts of the US you don't even really need to speak English if you speak Spanish. Most large US companies offer services in both English and Spanish, and unlike federally regulated Canadian companies, there's no legal requirement to do so, they just do it because it makes business sense. America will inevitably become a more de facto bilingual country than Canada, if it isn't already.

[gerritcole]

TY for all the well thought out responses; do you all think this recent turn against immigration is due to housing constraints or perhaps cultural differences with primarily indian immigrants/poor behavior on their part or something else?

[Upper Canada Tory]

Man, opinion on stuff like immigration and integration are so different from the pre covid era. I remember reading a thread on reddit in which some canadians were proudly claiming that there is "no canadian culture". Even when confronted, they would just say that their culture is "multiculturalism", every immigrant just comes and brings in their own culture into the wider salad bowl (as opposed to the melting pot of the US). Some were even enthusiastically proclaiming how Canada will be the first immigrant majority country by 2040 (that is, a country with more immigrants than native born citizens).

Looking back, it seems obvious at this point that some level of actual nationalism is necessary for the well being of a country. You don't need to go full colonial era france with forced assimilation (or residential schools like Canada itself) but equating nationalism with xenophobia while importing a lot of people who are still very much nationalistic vis-à-vis their native culture/country was inevitably going to lead to the dual loyalty related issues currently shaking the canadian parliarment. And it's gonna get worse with stuff like Israel/Palestine.

The "melting pot vs salad bowl" narrative is a massive load of crap invented by Canadians to feel good about ourselves. It is not based on anything resembling a fact. Are we really supposed to believe that immigrants to the US don't bring their culture and integrate it into the broader American culture? Really? So why then is Miami the cultural capital of Latin America? Why then is the global perception of Mexican culture largely shaped by the Mexican-descendent culture of the American Southwest? Why is it that the Jewish diaspora in American cities like NYC the most culturally relevant Jewish diaspora to have ever existed? Hell, even boring old white Americans haven't melted into one unrecognizable blob, it's basically a running joke among Europeans that Americans will cling on to random European nationalities that their great-great-great-great grandfather belonged to before the invention of sliced bread, and yet we're supposed to believe that immigrants land on American shores and are expected to lose all cultural identity immediately?

In reality, Canada and the US approach multiculturalism in a very similar way. There's a certain expectation of cultural assimilation, in the sense of learning the language*, respecting the customs, etc. This seeks to prevent the formation of parallel societies within the country that could lead to conflict between various groups. However, there's not really a broad social expectation that immigrants give up their cultures entirely in either country.

Obviously, social attitudes will differ based on local context. Yes, an immigrant is probably much more likely to hear "go back to where you came from" in rural Mississippi than downtown Toronto. And by the same token, cultural diversity is probably more accepted in midtown Manhattan than some village in Quebec called Saint-Louis-de-Chicouquébouac. This is the liberal nationalist playbook, to contrast Canada to, not even America as a whole, but a caricature of America informed largely by red states. Yeah, and if I compare myself to a midget, I would look like an NBA player. It's not an honest apples-to-apples comparison.

Anyway, aside from that whole rant, I think a lot of the pre-Covid narrative on immigration in Canada was just the predominant elite narrative of the time, it was never really a broad societal thing. The idea of celebrating Canada not really being a nation (a notion I strongly disagree with, but I digress), or saying that multiculturalism is the only thing that defines Canada, it's the kind of thing that was fashionable in elite circles, but you didn't really hear ordinary Canadians talking like that. It's just that there was no reason for the average, politically moderate Canadian to care about that. Things were going well, there was no real reason or argument to cut immigration. Many Canadians still wanted to do so, as polls from the time show, there was a huge disconnect between public opinion (where very few Canadians wanted to actually increase immigration, generally it was a split between maintain and reduce) and government policy. But this hadn't been politicized because pre-COVID, there didn't seem to be any reason to do so. Post-COVID though, people are starting to see the broader downsides, and now there's actual political capital behind reducing immigration.

*Btw, on the "learning the language" thing, in many parts of the US you don't even really need to speak English if you speak Spanish. Most large US companies offer services in both English and Spanish, and unlike federally regulated Canadian companies, there's no legal requirement to do so, they just do it because it makes business sense. America will inevitably become a more de facto bilingual country than Canada, if it isn't already.

This. The 'melting pot vs mosaic/salad bowl fallacy' or whatever isn't real, it's just a virtue signalling slogan. As I pointed out before, Canadians are actually more likely than Americans to want immigrants to assimilate, according to polls. Somewhat ironically, Canadian policy re:immigration and cultural diversity is actually slightly more assimilationist than US policy in some cases.


Arguably, Canada's points-based immigration system is more 'assimilationist' than the US one - the points system gives preference for people who can speak English or French to enter the country (as in, ones that are easier to assimilate), while no similar policy that gives preference to people with English language ability exists in the US immigration system afaik.


In addition to that, the US' approach to religious minorities is actually probably a bit more 'multicultural' and accommodating than that of Canada - schools in cities like NYC close down for Jewish and Muslim holidays, which are officially recognized. In Canadian cities like Toronto, Jewish and Muslim holidays aren't recognized in schools, so students have to request a day off for these holidays.

Quebec is even more demanding of local language knowledge and less accommodating of religious minorities than English speaking Canada, but I don't think I have to mention that because that's well known.

Generally speaking however, I agree with what you said, that the the melting pot vs mosaic fallacy isn't real, and both countries generally approach ethnic diversity in a similar way.

[King of Kensington]

I like that quote from PET.

[Upper Canada Tory]

TY for all the well thought out responses; do you all think this recent turn against immigration is due to housing constraints or perhaps cultural differences with primarily indian immigrants/poor behavior on their part or something else?

A bit of everything, really.

A very big part of it is due to the impact on housing that resulted from the population growth. However, much of it is also the general economic impact of the expansion of the temporary programs - the temporary foreign worker program allows dodgy employers to hire low skilled workers to depress wages, the fact that there are so many scams in the international students program, etc. A lot of people are rightfully angry that the temporary visa programs have just been a way to exploit people and to sell out the interests of Canadians to help some dodgy businesses.


Some of it is due to cultural differences and lack of integration and adequate behaviour - the immigrants who came to Canada recently through the temporary foreign workers and international student program have had trouble adjusting to Canadian society and standards of behaviour, while immigrants who came in previous years via the points system (where the standards were more stringent) didn't have as many difficulties adjusting to Canadian society.

IMO, the issue isn't inherently with Indian immigrants or any ethnicity of immigrants, it's the immigrants that are selected to come here. The ones that come through the programs with more stringent standards (point based system through Express Entry or PNP) have a much easier time integrating into society and contributing to the economy, while the immigrants that come through the dodgy programs that the Trudeau government has expanded (temporary foreign workers, etc), have a much harder time doing so.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1798696379587633256
I'm convinced my six year old nephew would do a better job than whoever is handling LPC comms.

Jennifer O'Connell says her quote was taken out of context and I'm inclined to believe her given my lack of trust with the media.

She says she was referring to the specific thing the Conservatives were trying to do in the House at the time that the Speaker had said they could not do, and not on the general question involved.

I obviously haven't looked into this in detail, but it's clear McConnell's quote is also consistent with that. So, almost certainly McConnell may be guilty of cheap partisan behaviour in the House of Commons, but that's sadly expected of M.Ps and it's unlikely she's saying to people who want the names of the M.Ps and Senators made public to 'get over it.'

In this case, I don't think the media narrative here goes anything beyond sensationalism but I wouldn't rank Mercedes Stephenson/Global News as policy wonks.

https://twitter.com/JenOConnell_/status/1798738352453345529

This isn't politically related, but I think I've just seen the worst possible example of a false media narrative. It was related to this whole debate over 'are the Edmonton Oilers Canada's team now?"

There's no real 'debate' any individual can root for whoever they want. As far as I know, no city/province outside of Edmonton has spent any public money to support the Oilers. This isn't like Danielle Smith winning a bet with the Governor of Texas by 'making' him eat Alberta beef paid for entirely by the people of Alberta (including the shipping apparently.)

The Vancouver sports media especially (Sportsnet 650) is all in on rooting for the Florida Panthers, as are a number of hardcore hockey fans and they've all been saying that real fans of Canadian hockey teams would never root for the Edmonton Oilers.

So, it must have been a shock for them when an Ipsos poll came out showing 57% of Canadians are rooting for the Edmonton Oilers and only 9% for the Florida Panthers. From what I've heard about this, the numbers are slightly closer in British Columbia and slightly closer yet for Vancouver Canucks fans, but still by about a 3 or 4 to one margin even Vancouver Canucks fans are rooting for the Edmonton Oilers and not the Florida Panthers.

Yet, the local Global News ran a story after this that said how 'most Vancouver Canucks fans don't want the Oilers to win' (which I suppose is correct when counting those who don't have a preference, but that's also an example of a narrative being pushed by a half truth) and only quoted fans 'on the street' who were rooting for the Florida Panthers.

I assume in this case what happened is the local Global News reporter had this story done waiting only to add the results of the poll, maybe relying on the Sportsnet 650 hosts who would have assured him that 'of course most Canucks fans are rooting for Florida' and then, after the actual poll came out, Global News said 'run it anyway, this is the narrative we're promoting.'

The great thing about the internet is that many source documents are actually available. I really don't know why anybody looks to the mainstream media anymore.

[CumbrianLefty]

This isn't like Danielle Smith winning a bet with the Governor of Texas by 'making' him eat Alberta beef paid for entirely by the people of Alberta (including the shipping apparently

Now that's one that I had never heard before!

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

This isn't like Danielle Smith winning a bet with the Governor of Texas by 'making' him eat Alberta beef paid for entirely by the people of Alberta (including the shipping apparently

Now that's one that I had never heard before!

https://twitter.com/GiantBlueRing/status/1799467879336952081

[Flyersfan232]

Premier smith offer Ron desantis a bet on the Stanley cup but I doubt Ron desantis will take considering he like a lighting fan

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Look, Oilers are Canada's team now for the duration of this series, there's no debate to be had. Canucks fans may disagree but they're all a buncha godless hippies anyway.

But speaking of godless hippies, does anyone know why Edmonton Strathcona is as safe NDP as it is? Like, it makes sense that a riding like Strathcona would vote NDP, but demographically it doesn't feel like it should be as strongly NDP as it is. They won it by a bigger margin than any seat in BC in 2021, including Vancouver East which feels like it should be more NDP. Anyone know why?