Is Mark Carney sliding towards Fascism?

[Ronning's Ghost]

... it speeds up their assimilation into our value and belief system.

People are allowed to have different beliefs. It's called freedom of religion.

Many immigrant cultures have stronger family values than Western culture, yet they should assimilate into our value system?

We're not the Borg, you know.

If they value their culture and beliefs from their homeland more than they value Canadian law and culture, then they should have stayed where they were.

We have Muslim immigrants pushing hard in some areas of Canada for the recognition of Shariah Law.

The conversation was about values and beliefs, not the law.

Obviously all citizens and PRs need to follow Canada's laws.

Canadian law allows for a process whereby people persuade governments to change laws. Unsurprisingly, people want laws that reflect their beliefs and values.

So the point of desiring cultural assimilation (broadly -- we still enjoy having a variety of food options) is that none of the newcomers should want to change Canadian law to match what they left behind. This is not exclusively a white nativist opinion. Order of Canada recipient and Trinidadian-Canadian immigrant Neil Bissoondath is a famous critic of multi-culturalism on exactly that basis: immigrants came from all over the world to get what we have in Canada, and -- he argues -- it is doing them a disservice to change Canada to something closer to what they deliberately left.

[Ronning's Ghost]

...he hasn't opened the doors to actually generate money.

I disagree. He has (as of this budget) changed a lot of the rules around taxation and investing in an effort to increase private investment in Canada. He has also worked to promote alternative trade partners.

His list of projects to be fast tracked are projects that the private sector doesn't want to touch because they aren't enticing.

They weren't enticing before because they faced complex regulatory hurdles. The point of the "nation-building" project status is to help fast-track these.

Canada has a lot of complex economic problems, some of which originate with preferences of the domestic investment community. Previous governments have tried various combinations of carrots and sticks to entice/cudgel private money into investments that will help to grow the Canadian economy, with mixed success. I don't know that Carney's plans will do any better, but his qualifications and experience give me hope that they will stand a chance. Certainly, they were the best set of plans we heard in this election campaign.

[JelloPuddingPop]

... it speeds up their assimilation into our value and belief system.

People are allowed to have different beliefs. It's called freedom of religion.

Many immigrant cultures have stronger family values than Western culture, yet they should assimilate into our value system?

We're not the Borg, you know.

If they value their culture and beliefs from their homeland more than they value Canadian law and culture, then they should have stayed where they were.

We have Muslim immigrants pushing hard in some areas of Canada for the recognition of Shariah Law.

You are painting an entire religion based on one tiny group of people Mëds. One could do the same for white people born in Canada - there is a group of them that believe in White Supremacy and the eradication of all others. Should use that same brush you are using?

There are bad apples everywhere, it doesn't mean we shouldn't allow a specific group to immigrate. Sometimes you have to take the overwhelming good they bring, along with the tiny amount of bad.

[Tciso]

So, what has he done differently to steer the ship?

I guess this where our discussion ends.

What has Carney done differently than Trudeau...

If you don't see a difference, not sure I can take those off those blinders. Trudeau was, in my opinion the worst PM in Canadian history.

Carney hasn't even come close to the SNC Lavalin, blackface, Wecharity etc.

The spending Carney has proposed has been long neglected by both sides of our government. What do you think trying to meet our military spending with an aging infrastructure would cost?

Housing, military, while reigning in Gov. Employees. Not Trudeau-esque.

In my opinion.

He is the same, with a twist. No scandals have yet appeared, but, he shows the same disregard for public money. And the evidence is mounting that he is directing billions into companies he still owns, while pretending our privacy screen was designed for an exception like his wealth and share ownership.

Housing issues are much easier fixed by reducing the number of immigrants, as compared to still bringing them in too fast at a slightly lower number. Reducing res tape and government fees (about 1/3 of the cost) is another good step. Instead, he chooses to spend money on a few liberal friendly companies to make modular homes, and touts it like he invented the idea. Picking winners with tax payer money.

The military spending is definitely needed, but instead of streamlining procurement, he builds another layer of bureaucracy.

He has publicly lied about the gun buyback not being both mandatory, and confiscation. Instead, he pushed the date back which prevents legal challenges to his word salad.

Relating to morals and ethics, why is Freeland still an MP? She is now also the special envoy to Ukraine. Which job is she not doing but still getting paid for? And, so far, all of the projects fastracked have been leaked days in advance? Which Liberals had time to invest before the public was informed? We still don't know what all companies are involved.

BTW, if he was really interested in being a strong NATO ally, he would fast track all pipelines, mining and manufacturing projects to supply Europe. Instead, the world is continuing to be forced to rely on enemy states for energy, resources and equipment.

I know i have a strong person bias against individuals with weak moral character and poor ethics, but Carney had done nothing to change my perceptions about the Liberals.

[5thhorseman]

Canadian law allows for a process whereby people persuade governments to change laws. Unsurprisingly, people want laws that reflect their beliefs and values.

So the point of desiring cultural assimilation (broadly -- we still enjoy having a variety of food options) is that none of the newcomers should want to change Canadian law to match what they left behind. This is not exclusively a white nativist opinion. Order of Canada recipient and Trinidadian-Canadian immigrant Neil Bissoondath is a famous critic of multi-culturalism on exactly that basis: immigrants came from all over the world to get what we have in Canada, and -- he argues -- it is doing them a disservice to change Canada to something closer to what they deliberately left.

I find this statement by Neil Bissoondath a bit strange. It's implying that immigrants want to change Canada into what they were fleeing? Is this really true? Usually immigrants are fleeing war, religious persecution/oppression, lack of opportunity, or poverty. Nobody wants this in Canada.

At it's heart I think "cultural assimilation" is derogatory to immigrant groups. Yes, you can come to our country but you have to drop your culture/beliefs/values (basically a large part of your identity) and become Western. Oh wait, you can keep your food, we like that part. Seriously?

Yes, there are touchpoints where immigrant culture/beliefs/values/religion come into conflict with our laws. Shariah law, head coverings, treatment of women/children, marriage traditions are examples. In such cases Canadian law should prevail, obviously. But the phrase "cultural assimilation" makes no distinction between these areas and the rest of immigrant culture which is not in conflict with our laws. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Let the Muslims be Muslims, but no sharia law. Let the Sikhs be Sikhs, but you can't carry a sword in public. Etc.

Ultimately, if we want to reap the benefits of immigration then we need to accept new cultures. That's the deal.

[Cornuck]

Yes, there are touchpoints where immigrant culture/beliefs/values/religion come into conflict with our laws. Shariah law, head coverings, treatment of women/children, marriage traditions are examples. In such cases Canadian law should must prevail, obviously.

[2Fingers]

What exactly is the scale of their impact on social services? Sponsors are required to financially support them for 20 years! There are medical restrictions to sponsorship so those who are likely to be a drain on health services will not even qualify. They can't collect EI. They can't collect CPP (unless they work). They may be able to collect OAS but only if they were sponsored before they were too old. I think it's a drop in the bucket.

Good question and I do not have any direct information but I used AI and they came up with the following. Of course there are many, many different factors/situations that would impact the numbers below. If someone moved here and then sponsored their parents to come here and assume the parents are in the early 40's, would they not obtain a PR card and then get OAS at 65? I have highlighted the section below which is what you said.

What the Research Shows

Fiscal Burden Estimates

One academic paper estimates that the parent / grandparent sponsorship program could cost Canadian governments more than CA$6 billion per year (across all levels of government) when factoring in both transfer payments (e.g., income support) and extra health-care costs.

In that same analysis, they estimate that health-care costs for sponsored elderly parents/grandparents might be billions more over their lifetimes because older people typically use more medical services.

The Fraser Institute, a think tank, argues that recent immigrants (including parents) impose a “fiscal burden” because, on average, they pay less in taxes than they receive in public services.

According to that report, the “fiscal transfers” to immigrants (on average) were estimated to be ~CA$6,000 per person (for some cohorts) in some years.

Income Sources for Elderly Immigrants

A government-research report (IRCC) shows that many elderly immigrants have relatively low incomes and rely more on government transfers.
Canada

That means their tax contributions are often limited, which increases their net fiscal cost to public finances (from a tax-pay-versus-service perspective).

Program Evaluation

According to IRCC’s own evaluation of its Family Reunification Program, a large share of family sponsorship is for “Parents & Grandparents” (PGP).
Canada

This same evaluation notes some social benefits (e.g., PGPs helping with child care for sponsors, enabling sponsors to work more) which offset some of the cost.

Critiques & Disagreements

Some argue the cost estimates are exaggerated. For example, a commentary on Fraser Institute work says that the Institute’s claims overstate costs and understate that some of the “burden” is borne by the sponsor for a while.

[5thhorseman]

Let's just vote for AI in the next election. It will do a cost benefit analysis and govern us accordingly

[Ronning's Ghost]

Canadian law allows for a process whereby people persuade governments to change laws...it is doing them a disservice to change Canada to something closer to what they deliberately left.

It's implying that immigrants want to change Canada into what they were fleeing? Is this really true?

See: "want Sharia law" above. Also, trying to bring in blasphemy laws under our hate speech laws by getting criticism of Islam classified as hate speech. (It didn't work, but we're talking about what they want.)

There appear to be many immigrants who want what they had back home, but with cleaner air and water, and more economic opportunity. Or just a place from which to organize the creation of Khalistan. Or confidence that a communist state won't nationalize their personal assets. I don't blame anyone for being expansive in what they want, but that's not something I'm prepared to offer, if we can talk the government out of it.

Seriously?

Clearly, we are in the process of a negotiation. As I said, some immigrants want to bring more of the old country with them. That's my counter-offer. But I'm not in charge, and official multi-culturalism is less demanding.

Yes, there are touchpoints where immigrant culture/beliefs/values/religion come into conflict with our laws. Shariah law, head coverings, treatment of women/children, marriage traditions are examples. In such cases Canadian law should prevail, obviously.

So, functionally not so far apart as our philosophical starting points.

Also, while I certainly don't expect anyone to forget the language(s) of their place(s) of origin, it would be really nice if they could learn English (and/or French) a lot faster.

Let the Muslims be Muslims, but no sharia law. Let the Sikhs be Sikhs, but you can't carry a sword in public. Etc.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of religion. I hope it is clear that I don't want to ditch that. Also the clause in public is key. I have no interest in even so much as influencing what people do in private, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights.

Ultimately, if we want to reap the benefits of immigration then we need to accept new cultures.

Not if we only accept immigrants from places with cultures broadly similar to our own. For example, we could take all our immigrants of South Asian ancestry from those elements of the Indian diaspora in England and Australia who didn't think they were getting a solid deal in those countries.

Nor if, as I suggested above, immigrants more enthusiastically seized on the Canadian way of doing things (in public).

Interestingly, I have the impression that refugees adopt more of that attitude than economic immigrants. Combined with the fact that I think Canada has a duty to provide refuge, I would like to see sponsored refugees make up a bigger proportion of Canada's immigrant intake.

That's the deal.

As I stated above, we are in the process of a negotiation. I would like Canada to change the deal as it has previously been presented. You feel differently, as do many new Canadians. We'll see how it shakes out.

[Ronning's Ghost]

Let's just vote for AI in the next election. It will do a cost benefit analysis and govern us accordingly

Ah, the authoritarian bargain. At least that brings us back around to the expressed topic of the thread. If you could actually find a competent AI, I think many Canadians would take that bargain -- at least for a while.

A limitation of both Trudeaus was failing to appreciate the extent to which Canadian voters hire a Prime Minister to steward the economy, with the social and legal issues that did fascinate them being much further down most people's list. To take an example of people at the pointy end of many Canadian social and legal issues, all the First Nations and Metis people I've read or heard express an opinion on the matter would take trade acknowledgements and apologies 10 for 1 on measures to reduce poverty and addiction, or even just clean drinking water.

The limitation of an AI government is we'd still be voting on at what relative values we wanted it to calculate cost/benefits ratios, and over what time period. And in the case of something like weighing environmental protection and economic development, I don't think you'd even get agreement on the quantities of the inputs to the calculation.

[2Fingers]

Let's just vote for AI in the next election. It will do a cost benefit analysis and govern us accordingly

I am afraid that AI is all that I have since the Canadian government does not provide this type of information, my point is that bringing in parents does cost the average tax payer money.

Also want to state that I do not know the costs sponsors pay but I doubt it covers the cost government has to pay.

[Ronning's Ghost]

So, what has he done differently to steer the ship?

I guess this where our discussion ends.... Not Trudeau-esque.

In my opinion.

Housing issues are much easier fixed by reducing the number of immigrants, as compared to still bringing them in too fast at a slightly lower number.

So you concede the number is reduced, you just don't think it's reduced enough? If you slam a valve shut too fast, you get water hammering.

The actual conservative perspective is that changes should be made slowly, with a careful eye on the actual effects of the changes as they become observable.

The military spending is definitely needed, but instead of streamlining procurement, he builds another layer of bureaucracy.

I think measures to source military equipment domestically, or from reliable allies, are prudent

why is Freeland still an MP?

Because the voters in her riding elected her.

She is now also the special envoy to Ukraine. Which job is she not doing but still getting paid for?

You mean like a cabinet minister?

Which Liberals had time to invest before the public was informed? We still don't know what all companies are involved.

So you're upset about the possibility of corruption for which you have, as yet, no specific evidence?

BTW, if he was really interested in being a strong NATO ally, he would fast track all pipelines, mining and manufacturing projects to supply Europe.

This is the line that actually moved me to reply.

In the first place, if you look at the fast-tracked projects, some of them are specifically directed towards developing strategic mineral resources.

And in the second place, the pipeline for which that [I'll spare the mods the need to edit] Smith has such a hard-on would be to supply China. If Alberta wants to supply Europe, or even Eastern Canada, the pipeline has to head east, to Churchill or Sault St. Marie. If she'd grow the brains to even raise the possibility, Albertans could note how much lower the political opposition (and construction costs) would be.

[Tciso]

I saw a good meme with one guy complaining about the arbitrary borders causing all the troubles around the world, as they split up religious and cultural groups. The response was to ask why they would want to come to another country with arbitrary borders. Turns out the real problem isn't the borders, just the hatred between the groups. And we continue to bring those intolerant groups into Canada.

[donlever]

Just fly a Palestinian flag at Parliament Hill or Westminster Abby.

All will be good then....

[JelloPuddingPop]

Just fly a Palestinian flag at Parliament Hill or Westminster Abby.

All will be good then....

Unironically - Went to Westminster Abby earlier in the year as I played tourist around London... and happened upon a copy of the Magna Carta.