[Lone Primate]

Under Liberal & Conservatives Canada admitted ~300k immigrants a year, 1% of population. The vast majority of Canadians including me see enormous value in that.

I'm personally chuffed to hear that. I'm glad.

This habit of calling Conservatives (or Republicans) racist is divisive and dangerous.

Hold it, hold it, hold it. This is to suggest we're not supposed to call people out on things like this. Now, it's not the fault of other people, or other parties, if particular ones seem to attract, aim sly rhetorical devices at, and suggest tailoring certain policies and programs at, such people. I mean, be honest here. Who's screaming "Build that wall!"? It's not the kind of people who vote the way I do.

We walk a fine line here. If the stink is on the fish, and that gets called out, then maybe some people will go 'say, it does,' and go buy chicken instead. And then maybe the fishmonger will clean up his stall. Nothing will change, though, if we stop pointing out the flies that infest one place but not another and question what makes the difference. That said, I don't want to hear these things coming out of parties I'm more apt to identify with, either, and I'm not going to make excuses for them if/when I do. I want those days behind us.

The other group using the term 'racist' are virtue-signaling whites trying to demonstrate they morally superior to lower class whites.

What does it have to do with class? A xenophobe who doesn't want people in our country who don't look like him/her is the same whether he/she has ten bucks in the pocket or ten million in the bank.

 

[Lone Primate]

So are you saying Conservative voters are racist? Im confused. If so, I like to engage you on that point.

Not per se. But let's not get too twee here. The Grits, the NDP, the Greens aren't the ones sweating defection of their base to Herr Bernier. Is there anyone here who honestly believes that, though he'd start small, Bernier wouldn't take this country back to the 'northwest Europeans only, sprinkled with some Italians' immigration policy of the 1950s if we just gave him enough rope? Honestly, now. And there are Canadians who'd be happy to see that, and, sadly, they have a poster child now. And Tories have the choice of joining him, or browbeating their party to move in that direction to head off the deluge. [Another choice they have is to move somewhat closer to the centre, suffer defections of people they're better off without, and let Bernier's movement dry up and blow away.] Let's not kid ourselves; this is a problem for conservatives. Or an opportunity, if indeed they DO harbour such attitudes. And I'm sorry, but that bears both discussion and being pointed out. Are all Conservatives racist? Hardly. I was a Tory myself before I grew up and knew better. But racism is more a problem for the Tories than any other party, and we fail our country's best interests if can't be frank about that.

 

[jje1000]

Canada has been giving foreign aid since WWII and likely before. I often find comments like this stem from a disagreement with the cause being funded. At least an 'I'm against all foreign aid - period' is a consistent position.

I personally think that the scatter-shot approach to aid ends up having less of an impact and is often insufficient in addressing the core issues that countries face- ending up being more like a temporary band-aid.

I'm not convinced the current government's position is much different from any which has gone before, except perhaps with a little bit more enthusiasm. Some matter being litigated were litigated a hundred years ago. It will, in fact, never end. The First Nations are not a monolithic block. They are all against Trans Mountain, except the ones are are on board and have signed on to be partners.

Of course, but I'm particularly concerned about Jody Wilson-Raybould's moves towards the end of her tenure. Likewise, similar comments from JWR regarding jury selection after the Gerald Stanley verdict risk undermining impartial justice. There was also the ridiculous MMIWG inquiry which Trudeau ended up endorsing, opening up Canada to genocide allegations despite huge flaws in the inquiry.

The directive encourages out-of-court problem-solving and insists that combative legal contests in front of judges should be pursued only reluctantly, as a “last resort.” It’s all about reaching negotiated settlements instead of habitually fighting interminable lawsuits.

Under the Wilson-Raybould directive, when talks fail, the Crown is instructed to take the most “constructive” approach possible in resolving the dispute.

Testimony involving Indigenous oral history, for example, is no longer to be argued against as inherently unreliable and inadmissible in principle; instead, it should be accepted as valid evidence, and only its “weight” — the degree of its significance in resolving the dispute — should be open to negotiation.

The directive awaits proper public scrutiny by Indigenous nations and their legal teams, government officials and independent experts. For example, it’s fair to ask if there is a risk of federal lawyers becoming too hamstrung by the new guidelines and thus failing to vigorously defend a government position in the national interest.

Boswell: Jody Wilson-Raybould's last act as justice minister a big step in Indigenous litigation reform

A dry-sounding document on civil law and Indigenous Peoples may well be remembered as a key part of her legacy, and one especially close to her heart.

ottawacitizen.com

But the story of Wilson-Raybould’s final achievement as justice minister is more complicated than her text message to Butts suggests. While the principles that inform the Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples have been applauded by many lawyers working in Aboriginal law, the directive has not been universally embraced within the justice department — even leading to concerns that the Liberals’ desire to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples has impeded Crown lawyers trying to defend the government in court.

“Everyone would be happy to see disputes between the Crown and First Nations that are currently in litigation be settled by negotiation instead. That would seem consistent with a constructive approach to reconciliation. Generally, however, that is not happening, and DOJ’s path to reconciliation might instead be characterized as instructing its lawyers to ‘litigate badly,’” the memo reads. “This approach decreases the likelihood of Canada mounting a successful defense to litigation or even ensuring that necessary legal issues are fully canvassed in court; while this might seem like a ‘back door’ approach to amiable settlement with Indigenous plaintiffs, such an approach might be argued to be inconsistent with democratic values and the public trust. It certainly seems to be inconsistent with upholding the rule of law, which is generally recognized as the fundamental responsibility of an Attorney General.”

Jody Wilson-Raybould's last act as justice minister described as ‘inconsistent with democratic values’

The Post has obtained an internal critique of a directive intended to reform the way the government conducts itself in court cases involving Indigenous peoples

nationalpost.com

Another thing I'm rather uncomfortable with is the Trudeau government's actions on China.The CPC is ultimately all about power perception, and Trudeau's weak voice after their unilateral trade actions/detainments show that the Liberals are wavering- demonstrating that in their eyes, we are a nation fearful of rocking the economic boat (which the CPC will use to their maximum advantage). Furthermore there's the recent appointment of Dominic Barton, plus Trudeau's historical comments on the CPC and the whole John Mccallum kerfuffle (which only showed that he was compromised and ended up undermining Canada's position).

Article linked below:

Countdown to 2047: The Death of Hong Kong?

Hmm, the Brookings Institute (which Barton is part of) usually pushes for engagement with China- which indicates that Trudeau and co. are still pushing for further economic appeasement- concerning, but not surprising. Dominic Barton named Canada's next ambassador to China Katie Simpson...

urbantoronto.ca

He also recently dodged a question regarding the approval of Chinese steel for the BC LNG projects:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1167187673934651405

 

[adma]

I detest Bernier, and will be voting Conservative this year after having voted Liberal last election. Bernier's presence will make it harder for Conservatives to win.

Well, at least the anti-Conservative left isn't the only camp hung up over their side "splitting". What's good for the goose is good for the gander--there's nothing more boring than when elections get whittled down to dumb "binaries"...

 

[Lone Primate]

Another thing I'm rather uncomfortable with is the Trudeau government's actions on China.The CPC is ultimately all about power perception, and Trudeau's weak voice after their unilateral trade actions/detainments show that the Liberals are wavering- demonstrating that in their eyes, we are a nation fearful of rocking the economic boat (which the CPC will use to their maximum advantage)

Everyone would love to be John Wayne. Alone, aloof, independent of everything but God and oxygen. But that's not reality. We—and now most countries—are deeply interconnected. We bootstrap one another to heights none of us would achieve alone. We're in a position to warn China, caution China, politely criticize China. We could survive if China really decided to isolate us from themselves, but God, it would not be pretty, and none of us would like it, AT ALL. So what are we to do? Elect someone mouthy who's going to end up putting us exactly in that position, where at least we'll have pride with pride sauce for breakfast, lunch, and supper, and pride pudding for dessert? I hope not.

What I would like is someone I know is going to stand up for us, make the observations that need to be made, say what ought to be said, but keep it civil enough that the wheels stay on. We can't change China. We're not that strong. What we can do is criticize what we think wicked, praise what we see as progressive, speak out in favour of people who only want to breathe free. In the long run, that worked with the Soviet Union and the East Bloc. I believe it's the only realistic shot we have with China. Meanwhile, we do what Trudeau and, yes, Harper have been doing: strengthen our bilateral trade elsewhere. Keep NAFTA open. Build on CETA now that we have it. We'll never not need China, but we can try our best to limit our dependence on them.

Heroes who chew bubble gum and kick ass make for great movies. But in reality, the real heroes are the diplomats who make life possible... literally, in the nuclear age.

 

[Lone Primate]

He also recently dodged a question regarding the approval of Chinese steel for the BC LNG projects:

Dodged? Seriously? Were you listening? The answer he gave was a barely soft-peddled poke at the Yankees for screwing us over; looking them straight in the eye and, politely but pointedly, reminding them that we have other options and that we can and will use them. Isn't that exactly what you were just advocating in practically the same breath, just sentences earlier? Someone who's going to stand up for us and not knuckle under?

The only question that remains for me is, why were we using foreign steel? Is the project beyond the available domestic capacity? Is it cheaper to move it across the Pacific than across the Prairies? What was the reason?

P.S. And, by the way, for what it's worth... aren't you just a liiiiiittle wary of the slant implicit in styling oneself "Canadabuster"...?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I want a government that adequately funds and supports our military and other security infrasturcture to protect our national physical,social and economic integrity and sovereignty. Since none do, and treat such funding as discretionary, I stand to be perennially disappointed. 'We can't find [insert favourite program here] because we have to buy 'x' for the military, said no Canadian politician ever.

If we stop sending our military overseas to stop third world despots then we'll have the funds.

 

[Lone Primate]

If we stop sending our military overseas to stop third world despots then we'll have the funds.

We'll also be internationally superfluous because one of the things we've been principally renowned for in the past 70 years has been sending our military overseas to stop third world despots.

 

[jje1000]

Dodged? Seriously? Were you listening? The answer he gave was a barely soft-peddled poke at the Yankees for screwing us over; looking them straight in the eye and, politely but pointedly, reminding them that we have other options and that we can and will use them. Isn't that exactly what you were just advocating in practically the same breath, just sentences earlier? Someone who's going to stand up for us and not knuckle under?

The only question that remains for me is, why were we using foreign steel? Is the project beyond the available domestic capacity? Is it cheaper to move it across the Pacific than across the Prairies? What was the reason?

P.S. And, by the way, for what it's worth... aren't you just a liiiiiittle wary of the slant implicit in styling oneself "Canadabuster"...?

Regardless of the source- those are the words literally coming out of Trudeau's mouth.

The question wasn't about the United States- it was about the BC LNG projects being approved to use Chinese steel over domestic steel, A total deflection of the question, IMO.

This is essentially the government exempting an entity from its own tariffs!

A 2017 ruling by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal found that the dumping of some goods from China, Korea and Spain have had a negative impact on Canada’s economy.

As a result, anti-dumping fees were imposed on fabricated industrial steel components from those countries. These tariffs could reach up to 45.8 per cent.

Woodfibre and others argued that those tariffs were unfair, but in November 2018, the Canada Border Services Agency ruled the duties would apply to LNG modules as well.

Woodfibre and LNG Canada are now both protected from the tariffs.

JWN Energy

www.jwnenergy.com

Furthermore, as the LNG project is going to be built out of modules, this essentially means that the entire project will be assembled in China.

 

[Lone Primate]

Regardless of the source- those are the words literally coming out of Trudeau's mouth.

But were they ALL the words coming out of Trudeau's mouth, or just the ones that arm someone with an axe to grind...?

The question wasn't about the United States

But it turns out the answer was. Sometimes, administrators have reasons for the things they do that people with "clever" questions don't anticipate, or like when they hear them... Nevertheless, there they are.

A total deflection of the question, IMO.

And your opinion was wrong, and I just explained how it was wrong. That fact that you don't like the character of his reasoning or his motivation does not equate to a "total deflection of the question". It just means you don't like that he had a reason and didn't get caught favouring China because [insert nefarious reason X here].

This is essentially the government exempting an entity from its own tariffs!

And who else would be in a position to do that? If the country has a need for something, it's a little hard to stand on principle AND shoot yourself in the foot at the same time. He's not going to get votes from people like you, no matter what he does. He's not going to get votes from China. He's risking votes he MIGHT get from steel workers in the east. So ask yourself a grown-up, mature question. WHY would he do that? Why would make a decision like that, that's clearly not immediately in his or his party's interests? Is it JUST POSSIBLE that A) there is a greater national interest at stake here and B) that some people are principled enough to make that choice?

Again: the question to ask here is WHY foreign steel was needed in the first place. Once that's answered, WHY Chinese steel was preferred to, say, American steel (although I believe he addressed that). WHY the need was judged sufficient to buy Chinese steel when there are tariffs on it. What were the demonstrable or at least potential benefits to Canada in doing this? THOSE are the questions an adult asks.

 

[buildup]

I'm personally chuffed to hear that. I'm glad.



Hold it, hold it, hold it. This is to suggest we're not supposed to call people out on things like this. Now, it's not the fault of other people, or other parties, if particular ones seem to attract, aim sly rhetorical devices at, and suggest tailoring certain policies and programs at, such people. I mean, be honest here. Who's screaming "Build that wall!"? It's not the kind of people who vote the way I do.

We walk a fine line here. If the stink is on the fish, and that gets called out, then maybe some people will go 'say, it does,' and go buy chicken instead. And then maybe the fishmonger will clean up his stall. Nothing will change, though, if we stop pointing out the flies that infest one place but not another and question what makes the difference. That said, I don't want to hear these things coming out of parties I'm more apt to identify with, either, and I'm not going to make excuses for them if/when I do. I want those days behind us.



What does it have to do with class? A xenophobe who doesn't want people in our country who don't look like him/her is the same whether he/she has ten bucks in the pocket or ten million in the bank.

"Chuffed" You a Brit. Admit it.

 

[buildup]

Primates are nocturnal. A lot to catch up on here.
With regards comments suggesting racists hide in Conservative Party. You're giving cover to actual racists by grouping responsible people with them. Americans accept large number of immigrants. A border physical or otherwise to control the numbers of people who enter their sovereign country from a particular source is legitimate - and not racist. Similarity I strongly prefer a balance of immigrants to Canada. If the vast majority are coming from one genetically similar source it activates dormant genetic threat responses in humans. So far, I'm fine with the mix. If I were American Id be concerned about an uncontrolled wave from South of the border. That is not racist.
Your comments are comparable to calling out Marxist influences in Liberal or more so NDP. And Marxists are the most revolting, hypocritical, envious, hate-driven, anti-achievers anywhere. But I dont dwell on that.

 

[jje1000]

And your opinion was wrong, and I just explained how it was wrong. That fact that you don't like the character of his reasoning or his motivation does not equate to a "total deflection of the question". It just means you don't like that he had a reason and didn't get caught favouring China because [insert nefarious reason X here].

No, you're building up a strawman that I'm anti-Trudeau and claiming that I'm wrong while ignoring the actual question asked.

Literally at 15:30 from the most impartial source available:

CPAC

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau answers questions after an announcement in Surrey, B.C., with Premier John Horgan. Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer holds a media availability in Toronto. Both federal leaders respond to questions over Scheer’s position on same-sex marriage and abortion.

www.cpac.ca

Question: "Concerned members and US concerns about Chinese steel being dumped in Canada. Has Canada received clearance to use imported Asian steel for these LNG projects and, why not use domestic products instead of importing foreign products without duties?"

Trudeau: "We have been steadfast supporters of the Canadian steel and aluminum industries. We knew when the Americans brought in unfair 2-3-2 tariffs on steel and aluminum that we had to stand strong, and that's why we brought in dollar-for-dollar countermeasures that ended up being effective, and we got the Americans to lift their punitive tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel. We continue to support to support our industry, and we will always to continue to support our industry. We're working with the Americans to prevent transshipping, transshipment as well and we will always look to use Canadian steel wherever possible in big projects like these."


It is a deflection of the question of why Asian steel has been chosen over Canadian products for this particular project. It's not about the Americans, no matter how much you read into it. He didn't answer the question, and instead diverted onto platitudes and already-resolved US tariffs.

And who else would be in a position to do that? If the country has a need for something, it's a little hard to stand on principle AND shoot yourself in the foot at the same time. He's not going to get votes from people like you, no matter what he does. He's not going to get votes from China. He's risking votes he MIGHT get from steel workers in the east. So ask yourself a grown-up, mature question. WHY would he do that? Why would make a decision like that, that's clearly not immediately in his or his party's interests? Is it JUST POSSIBLE that A) there is a greater national interest at stake here and B) that some people are principled enough to make that choice?

Again: the question to ask here is WHY foreign steel was needed in the first place. Once that's answered, WHY Chinese steel was preferred to, say, American steel (although I believe I addressed that). WHY the need was judged sufficient to buy Chinese steel when there are tariffs on it. What were the demonstrable or at least potential benefits to Canada in doing this? THOSE are the questions an adults asks.

Why foreign steel was needed? And why Chinese steel? Because it's cheap and corporate and governmental interests are willing to forgo workers' oversight, wages and environmental protections in exchange for a cheaper product elsewhere.

That's it. The steelworkers' consortium has already stated that the excuses used that Canada lacked the technical expertise to create the modules were incorrect. That's literally the main reasons why we trade with China, because it's cheap and not because they have skillsets that we inherently lack- just look at how Quebec has been able to build up its advanced steel manufacturing industry.

There are no benefits to Canada beyond the corporate bottom line (basically a few temporary construction jobs), and these are the things that hurt us in the long run. Hewers of wood and drawers of water, indeed.

 

[buildup]

Can we use a darker font on urban Toronto - I can barely read what Im typing?

 

[Admiral Beez]

We'll also be internationally superfluous because one of the things we've been principally renowned for in the past 70 years has been sending our military overseas to stop third world despots.

If that keeps hundreds of our troops from being killed and maimed in Asia or Africa I'm fine with that.

Look at Afghanistan. Canada was there for thirteen years, sending more than 40,000 troops, with 158 soldiers killed. Although the Taliban were removed from power and the al-Qaeda network was disrupted, Canada and its allies failed to destroy either group, or to secure and stabilize Afghanistan. The entire mission was, as you say superfluous, but more importantly was very costly. But worst of all the focus on fighting Islamic states caused a material drain and redirect of strategy and resources for the CAF. Had we skipped the 13 year Afghan mission the CAF could have used the money to invest in the the navy or air force, instead of buying MBTs that we'll likely never deploy enmasse again.