Time To Put a Stop to Unskilled Guest Workers in Canada

The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer.

"According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, there were 57,843 temporary foreign workers in Alberta by the end of 2008, a 55 per cent jump from 2007 and more than four times the number residing here five years ago. By contrast, permanent immigration has been relatively stagnant, with fewer than 25,000 immigrants coming to Alberta last year from outside the country, only a few thousand people higher than in 2004.

Alberta is not the only the province to import workers. In raw numbers, Ontario has the highest number at 91,733. B.C. has about the same number as Alberta. Quebec has many fewer at only 26,085."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/640224

Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour. Canada is lucky in so far as most Canadians see new immigrants as one of us. The Conservative policy will change this though. If the situation is allowed to continue, an increasing number of Canadians will see new immigrants, and most people are not going to make the distinction between guest worker and permanent resident, as someone brought in by employers to undercut wages.

The number of unskilled workers Canada lets in should be 0.

Conservative Ads: Some Thoughts

Yes the Conservatives were able to pass off Dion as a wimp, but given his slouch, his accent and at times his high pitched voice Dion was easy pickings.

The Conservative ads attacking Ignatieff are a conceptual mess. It is hard to nail down just what the Conservatives are after. Ads that leave people confused will not work.

Worse, the most damaging bit is Ignatieff referring to himself as American and the Conservatives can not run far in this direction without these quotes coming up.

1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”

2) Stephen Harper "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"

3) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”

4) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country”

5) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettos and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”

At least the Conservatives had the good sense not to bring up Ignatieff's support for the Iraq war --- because the rejoiner to that is pretty obvious.

If the NDP had half a brain, they will run ads in the next election juxtaposing Ignatieff's pronoun problem with Harper's serial Canada bashing and pronounce themselves the alternative.

Stephen Harper: Long Record of Standing up for Canada

1) Stephen Harper: “Any country with Canada’s insecure smugness and resentment can be dangerous.”

2) "Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"


3) Stephen Harper: “Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."

4) Stephen Harper: “Canada is a Northern Welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.”

5) Stephen Harper: “I delivered [speeches] everywhere I went … about the spirit of defeatism in the country” National Post, May 31 2002

6) Stephen Harper: “west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”

My Strange Encouter was a Fashion Fascist

On Sunday I rented a tuxedo. I am going to wedding. A woman was doing the fitting for me. She first gave me a 48 jacket. It was snug in the shoulders and so she gave me a 50 to try on. This did fit in shoulders. However, the 48 was much too big in the waist and 50 was just ridiculous. The head cheese was watching all of this and I could tell he was not pleased. He said I really needed to try on a 46 or smaller. I told him the 48 was snug, but he was persistent. So I tried on a 46 to appease him. Remember I am the one renting the tuxedo. Anyway, the thing was as tight as wet suit. The woman that was helping me earlier was trying to see if there was any slake in the arms. There was not any. It fit like a muscle shirt. The guy said "this is better". I decided then that enough was enough. I said no it not better. I can not move. I did not want to be in the same position as the bride, viz, having to have someone assist me just so could get in and out of my jacket. So we compromised on the 48, but only after I acknowledged in, get this, writing that 48 was too big in the waist. He was similarly displeased with the shirt. It was roomy to say the least, but by this time his assistant was tried of being treated like she did not have a clue and said in response to his queries about a smaller size that "nothing else fit him in the neck. The top button would not do up." That shut him up.

All and all it was strangest retail experience I have ever had. Now, note to any Tuxedo makers who might be reading this. In defense of the fashion fascist, not every guy wearing a larger jacket size is big in the waist. Indeed, considering that majority of guys who rent these things are probably no older than their early 30s, I would say they might actually be in the majority. A moo moo is not a good look.

Wayne Easter on the Gun Registry

Wayne Easter:

"a number of factors really. One of the big ones, which was a catalyst to us losing a lot of constituencies in rural Canda, was actually the gun control bill, the long-gun registry.
"It just seemed to be a catalyst that provoked a reaction that the Liberals didn't identify with rural Canadians."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009/05/rethinking_the_gun_registry.html

I would like to now just what seats he is talking about and why he talking about a long-gun registry when there is but one gun registry.

The evidence that the gun registry hurt the Liberals is just not there. First of all West of Ontario there were no safe rural Liberal seats to loose.

The Liberals were shut out in Alberta in 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988. As for those seats that went Liberal in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, they were not rural seats --- they were in Edmonton -- nor where they safe. “Landslide” Anne McLellan was good case in point.

The situation in Saskatchewan was similar. The Liberals were shut out there in 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1988. As for seats the Liberals won there in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008, there has proven to be but one safe seat and Ralph Goodale still holds it. Moreover, the Wascana is not a rural seat.

The situation is not nearly as bleak for the Liberals in Manitoba. However, the Liberals took only one rural seat in 1993, and 1997 and Provencher (MP Vic Toews) could never be described as a safe Liberal seat. It was not a Liberal stronghold prior to 1993 and the Liberals owed their success there more to a spilt in the conservative vote than anything else. Combined the PC and Reform was much greater than Liberals in both 1993 and 1997 elections.

The Liberal popular support in Manitoba is concentrated in Winnipeg. Going back all the way to world war two you can on one hand the number of seats the Liberals have won outside of Winnipeg Edmonton, and Ralph Goodale’s seat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The Liberals faired just as poorly in rural BC during this time, but again Liberal troubles in rural BC long predated the gun registry. The Liberals won but 1 seat in 1979, 1984 and 1988 and were shut out in 1980.

As for Ontario, the Liberals share of the popular vote and seats was stable between 1993 and 2000 and when the Liberal vote did drop significantly in 2004, it was not to the Conservatives’ benefit when it came to the popular vote. Indeed, the combined PC and Reform vote in each of the three subsequent elections was 37%. In 2004 the Conservatives took only 31% of popular vote. If I am not mistaken, this represents the lowest share of the popular vote by a united Conservative party ever. Even in 2006 the Conservative share of the province’s popular vote was below the combined right wing vote between 1993 and 2000. Moving from the Liberals to the NDP is a strange way to protest your displeasure with the gun registry and that is what happened in Ontario in 2004.

Only in the Martimes is the notion that the gun registry hurt the Liberals consistent with record. However, three things should be noted in this regard. 1) The Liberals have faired very well in Maritimes during this time. 2) The Conservatives have not gained that much. In 2004 the Conservative vote totals were below the combined vote totals for the two right parties in every election since Mulroney and that includes 1993. 3) The unpopularity of EI reforms hurt the Liberals in the 1997.

Results in seat rich Quebec are consistent with gun registry helping in Quebec.

Now, what is implicit in what Easter is saying is that somehow there is gains to be made in rural Canada and that somehow the Liberals have maxed out in major cities. This is simply not true. Looking strictly at the numbers, it is easy to see that all the low hanging fruit for the Liberals is suburban Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The gun registry is winner in these seats.

The Idiocy of weighting OMOV: Part 2

Giving 5 % of the Liberal party supporters the same if not more power than the other 95% is not going to make the Liberals popular in regions where they have never been popular. Saying that by having to appeal to the small group of Crowfoot Liberals, for example, the Liberals will become more acceptable to people of Crowfoot is strange reasoning indeed. I think it is safe to say that Crowfoot Liberals are not represenative. Furthermore, it is going to alienate its base of supporters and that is far bigger issue than branching out into Liberal no man's land. If the Liberals are ever going to match the Conservatives in terms of fund rising, telling, say, the legions of Liberals in Toronto proper ridings that they matter less in a leadership race than Liberals in a province, Alberta, that has never voted Liberal is not going to help. Weighting the vote will also lead to strange calcus when it comes to leadership campaigns. Indeed, why do all the leg work of signing up hundreds of new members in various Toronto ridings to help swing the vote their when signing up a few more members in Crowfoot will accomplish the same?

The Idiocy of weighting OMOV

Save for the passing of WOMOV, the Seinfeld convention lived up to its name. Not much of substance was said or accomplished. Still it was a lot of fun.

As for WOMOV, I am a strong backer of OMOV. However I hate the weighted portion. The hinterlands are already grossly over represented in the House of Commons and Canada's major cities in particular get screwed. The Liberals apparently decided that a mountain of salt needed to be poured on this wound. It is grossly undemocratic to give, for example, Crow Foot Liberals the same voting clout as Vaughn Liberals, but alas when it comes to the party base reward your detractors and punish your supporters is the Liberal way. In the upside down world of Liberal insider politics, Alberta Liberals have more clout than Liberals in Toronto proper. Ignatieff must be starting to believe his own rhetoric about rural Canada.

Some Convention Notes

My desire to say something controversial rises in direct portion to level of mushy feel good group think there is a room. By the end of Social Justice: Social Policy and Multiculturalism Policy forum I was doing all I could to contain myself. With the exception of Ruby Dhalla, the problem was not the panelists per say, but the unwillingness of those asking the questions to move beyond boiler plate and the mundane. One delegate especially irked me. He said that he was tried of the Liberals taking women and people of colour for granted. This a common refrain, but it is unfair.

Nowhere is there more foreign born Canadians than Toronto and nowhere have the Liberals been more successful than in Toronto. One of the reasons that the Liberals GTA MPs are not as diverse as the Toronto population is that the population there has changed faster than its MPs have. A better measure of how responsive the Liberals have been is how representative the new blood is and it is representive. Furthermore, judging by the composition of today's young Liberals, future Liberal mps will be a diverse lot. Yes I know a huge percentage of young Liberals are policy sci majors who have plans to go to law school, but ethnically and racially they are a diverse lot.

As for women, fear not. A sea change is coming. If you look at income distribution men still earn more than women. However, if one breaks it down by age group, there is no difference between young women and young men. Moreover, women are surging ahead of males in every level of education. Pick a high status profession (e.g., lawyers, doctors) and there are more women coming into the field than men. For that reason a alone there should be higher percentage of women mps. After all, these are the types of careers that help solidify nominations. Just an aside high levels of education are positively correlated with higher levels of income. What has until recently kept young males at an even keel was commodity and construction related industries. With the downturn in those kinds of industries, young males have been hit disportionately hard and I would not be surprised to see that young males have fallen behind young females.

As for affirmative action generally, it is pure poison, but I will save that subject for another day. What I want to add is that as a means of leveling the economic playing field it is not very effective when it comes to minorities and often represents just a token effort and a distraction. Affirmative action is no substitute for universal health care, better funded schools, affordable post secondary education,and that is what African Americans were given in the wake of gaining their civil rights. Slavery and Jim Crow had condemned them to poverty and the lack of social safety net and the war on drugs help keep them there. There is no better way of impeding social mobility than a criminal record.

Liberals to Delegates: Suckers

The Liberal party has gone out of its way to insure there will be polite Q and A discussions about “priority” policies. These discussions will, of course, lead nowhere and the only newsworthy thing to come out of convention is that it was indeed as boring and pointless as everyone says it was going to be. At least in the past the party did not control what motions were tabled and there were motions about hot button issues that drew the media's attention.

So the question I want to ask delegates is something Johnny Rotten once mused about.

"Do you ever feel like you've been cheated?"

Jason Kenney Playing the Conservative base for Suckers

Jason Kenney

"There continue to be acute labour market shortages in certain businesses, certain industries and certain regions. And our government believes that the worst thing we could do during this time of economic difficulty is to starve those employers, who are growing, of the labour that they need fuel their prosperity in these difficult times."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/15/cgy-mexicans-kenney-immigration.html

Let there be no mistake about what the Conservatives are doing.

The number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power and whereas the typical guest worker was once an American transferred to a branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type with poor language skills. The Conservatives have not done this directly. They have turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid through the noise to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about such provincial programs bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. All that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.

It takes a great deal of chutzpah to Kenney to talk about wanting to avoid “the kind of ethnic enclaves or parallel communities that exist in some European countries” and then go about encouraging the very thing that led to the creation of these communities in Europe, viz., importing gobs of unskilled guest labour.

Jason Kenney

"That would indicate to me that the vast majority — something like 90 per cent of these claimants — are actually trying to immigrate to Canada through the back door of the refugee system and I think that's unacceptable. That's basically queue jumping."

This is just a lot of hot air designed to play to a Conservative base that does not read a lot and so does not know when it is being pandered too. The National Post Chris Selley nailed it. http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=1431668

I can't say I'm totally sure what he's talking about. As designed, the system is pretty much incapable of being abused or violated. Its guiding principle is: get your feet on Canadian soil and you can claim refugee status-period, no exceptions. Forget not-so-badly-off Mexicans and Colombians. If George Galloway had been allowed into Canada, he could have claimed asylum. Britney Spears could have thrown herself on our mercy after her show in Montreal last week. President Barack Obama, during his visit to Ottawa. Alexander Ovechkin, when he played in Toronto on Tuesday. Anyone, no matter their means, where they came from or how they got here, can claim refugee status in Canada, and they can pretty safely count on being here long enough to make the threat of eventual deportation worthwhile. If nothing else, any children born while they're here would automatically be Canadian citizens. That's a lot of reward for not much risk.

Selley also alluded to the elephant in Kenney living room. Namely, the biggest hurdle to reforming the refugee system is insuring that refugees are processed quickly, that they cannot delay deportation with endless appeals and that there is mechanisms in place to insure they leave the country when they are ordered out. Regardless of the merits of their case, the longer refugees remain in country the greater the likelihood that they will stay. Under the Conservatives things have gotten worse much worse. It now takes a refugee claimant a year and half to 2 years to get a hearing. Under the Liberals that number was one year. The problem is that the Conservatives have failed to fill vacancies on the immigration and refugee board at a time when more claims were pouring in than ever. If Kenney was truly serious about reforming the system he would see to it that such hearings happen in a manner of months, limit or eliminate appeals and ensure that there is a system set up to sure that failed claimants have left the country. However I would not hold my breath. The Conservatives flatly refuse to do the one thing that is not the least bit politically controversial and that would arguably help speed up the process the most. That is, they have ruled out increasing the size of the board to insure that refugees are processed faster.

The Politics of Pot: it is time to question orthodox opinion

It is often said that legalizing marijuana is not politically possible. It is high time this orthodoxy be challenged.

Legalization is not supported by the public.

This is simply not true. The last 5 polls that I have seen on the subject show that a majority of Canada’s support legalization and by a fairly large margin. Moreover, it is something that is particularly popular with the Liberal base. According a 2007 poll, for which the complete breakdown is available, support is 55-41 nationally and is favoured by Liberal supporters 68-29 and by NDP supporters 71 -27.
http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2007.06.27%20Drugs%20Press%20Release.pdf

Legalization would have no political payoff

Not only is legalization popular with the public, it is easy to see how it would indeed be a winner. Lining up behind the Liberals would be legions of academics, pundits, and celebrities. Canada would again be cool. Lining up behind Conservatives would be legions of social conservatives. Such a move would fracture the Conservative ranks like no other issue can. Red Tories and libertarians will balk at Charles McVety and James Dobson and the government so closely aligned.

Legalization is also one of those rare issues that the public likes to talk about and has the wherewithal to talk about. What is left of the reefer madness arguments will be quickly tore asunder. The process of debate will lead to an up surge in support while at the same time leaving the Conservatives badly mauled.

The Americans would Never Let it happen

If Canada were legalize marijuana the US would be engulfed in debate. Not only would Canadian boldness flame US domestic debate, most notably on the west coast, but should Canada have the guts to go through with such a move various European countries (e.g., Spain, Portugal, Italy and the Netherlands) Australia and most important of all Mexico would soon follow Canada's led. There is no question Mexico is seriously considering legalizing marijuana as it is. They have moved beyond outright denials to non denials coupled with comments about it being a "debate that needs to be taken seriously" Watch this interview with the Mexican Ambassador to the US. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/apr/14/ The international dominos would start falling one by one. This in turn would further embolden domestic proponents, especially those in California.

Politically, Obama's ability to push back would be limited. His hands are tied in ways another leader hands would not be. He freely admits to having marijuana in the past ("I inhaled frequently. That was the point") and his marijuana use is not a part of some redemption narrative, a la George Bush. It was a path he choice not to continue going down. Drug use was never presented as a demon he had to overcome yet alone one he still struggles with the way an alcoholic does with drink. This would leave him open to the charge of hypocrisy. Far more importantly though, the war and drugs, especially with regard to marijuana, has had a profound impact on the African American community in the States. If Obama was to toe the standard line in the face of Canada promising to end the war on drugs, he would be in a world of hurt politically. The African American community would not, of course, abandon him, but they would be unhappy and their unhappiness would have the potential to throw his whole presidency out of whack politically. His whole message of being the candidate of change would be called into question. Finally, the war on drugs is expensive and already there are plenty of calls in the US to end prohibition on the grounds of saving money. Take what is happening now with regard to the fiscal cost of the drug war and magnify that by a thousand.

Obama’s recent comments notwithstanding there are indications that Obama is sympathetic to the cause. Obama promised to stop raiding medical marijuana dispensaries during the lead up to the election and he made good on it. This is big. In the month and bit since Obama took announcement 10 states are debating medical marijuana provisions. Once the number of States with medical marijuana provisions (currently there are 13) reaches a critical mass, marijuana will have to be reclassified. It is currently classified as a schedule one drug, i.e., an illegal drug with no medical benefit. A federal show down as to what place marijuana has in US society is, in other words, already in the works.

It is also big for another reason. Unlike in Canada, in California, for example, one does not have to be afflicted with a particular aliment to be eligible. A doctor can proscribe marijuana for whatever they see fit. Needless to say, the Bush administration was right to see California's medical marijuana program as a Trojan horse and that is why they cracked down so heavily. The system is ripe for abuse and with medical marijuana users and dispensaries no longer being targeted the medical marijuana industry in California will eventually grow so large as to leave no alternative but legalization.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/11/AR2009041100767.html?hpid%3Dsec-health

Mexico and the Legalization of Marijuana

There is no question Mexico is seriously considering legalizing marijuana. They have moved beyond outright denials to non denials coupled with comments about it being a "debate that needs to be taken seriously" Watch this interview with the Mexican Ambassador to the US. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/apr/14/

The US, of course, stands in the way.

But even in the US things are improving. California’s has by far the most liberal marijuana laws on the continent and with the feds all but out of the picture an industry is all but taken root there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/11/AR2009041100767.html?hpid%3Dsec-health Only in Canada are things moving backwards and fast. The Conservatives are revamping the drug war and Canada’s so called Liberal party is going right along for the ride. Only Keith Martin rails against the tide and even he is afraid to say the L word.

The Down Turn: Europe and the US

Yes Yanks do not have the pension liabilities that the Europeans do and generous social programs leave Europe vulnerable if tax revenues go down.

However, far from being hindrance to recovery generous unemployment benefits in Europe help protect European real estate and credit markets, serves as an economic stimulus and generally prevents things from snowballing out of control. Specifically such payments insure that those most unlikely to default on their loans, mortgages for example, do not and serves as an economic stimulus by putting money into hands of those most likely to spend. Europe’s social safety net also means that Europeans are better positioned to weather the storm in other ways. Indeed, not only has such a safety net resulted in European families having more savings, fewer debts and fewer expenses than American families, because the state provides many services that employers provide in the US, Europeans that lose their job do not face rising costs -- health care being the most notable -- associated with unemployment in States.

Coom Baa ya Liberalism will be Alive and well in Vancouver

Coronations are not interesting. So I had hoped that at least the policies debated at the upcoming convention would be. Alas, that was just not to be. The list is out and it is hard to imagine it being more timid, conventional and boring. This is odd. You would think that a party starved for money and coming off its worst electoral showing ever would want to change things up. Instead we get a rehashing of the same tired rhetoric and policies that the party ran with and lost with during the last two elections. There is plenty of talk about global warming, childcare and poverty, but not a single policy that stands out as new yet alone bold.

Resolution 69, Making Poverty History at Home and Abroad, encapsulates the Liberals unwillingness to move beyond were they are now in terms of policy. Yes you got that right. The party feels that debating the whether the Liberals should aim to make poverty history at home and abroad is a “priority”.

The Liberals have proved again to be the party that fun forgot.

Jason Kenney, Multiculturalism and Integration

Canada has been able to avoid some of the problems other countries have had into integrating immigrant ethnic minorities into the fabric of their societies. One reason for Canada’s success in this regard was the Official Multiculturalism. By stating that the State did not favour a founding narrative about what it means to be Canadian, Official Multiculturalism helped reduce what it means to be Canadian to its bare essence. In English Canada, with the notable exception of the Aboriginal Canadians who are legally and stupidly defined as other, being a Canadian means having Canadian citizenship and no more than that. Without such a founding narrative or definitive sense of who we are, any attempt to distinguish between true Canadians from fake ones falls still born from its author’s mouth. The lack of rigid identity or founding narrative, so often lamented, is actually a strength. It has helped paved the way for integration.

That said, having helped establish Canadian identity as a becoming and only definable in retrospect, Official Multiculturalism can now be retired with a pat on the back for a job well done. We should feel free to drop the pretence that encouraging immigrants to try to embalm their respective cultures --- that will invariably diverge greatly from their parent cultures ---, is anything other than perverse. Jason Kenney is right. "We don't need the state to promote diversity”. The government was right to cease funding heritage language classes for example and I think most Canadians would agree with sentiments he said with regard to this manner. "I think it's really neat that a fifth-generation Ukrainian Canadian can speak Ukrainian -- but pay for it yourself.”

As I said countless times before, Kenney is also right about language. "Someone who has been here for 15 years and can't speak English or French is basically locking themselves out of the vast majority of jobs and is isolating themselves socially, and that is a tragedy."

However, Kenney has gone off the rails in talking about how "Canada isn't a hotel” and need for immigrants to integrate. Pace Jason Kenney, integration is not something that is accomplished by mere force of will. It is not a choice ---- or if you read the Conservative subtext, a compulsion that immigrants will feel once the multicultural “option” is off the table. Having the government foster a narrative about how immigrants need to become just like “us” not only demonstrates a lack of understanding as to why the legacy of Official Multiculturalism is largely positive, such actions are enormously counterproductive. Forced integration is an oxymoron and the damage it does is directly proportional to just how strongly it is felt.

Now, I believe it was Brian Mulroney who once said that integration is a job. He was not far off. Integration is a social economic by-product. So long as the economy is not racially segmented, national identity too rigidly defined and social mobility blocked, integration is inevitable for those that speak English. Race, ethnicity and even religion are not formidable barriers to friendship and hormones certainly do not care about such things. Put a group of kids from similar social economic backgrounds together in the same place and whether one is jock or nerd will be far more relevant to them then whether they were born in Cairo or Toronto or whether they wear a turban as opposed to ball cap.

So the kicker is this. When it comes to providing social services to immigrants, and encouraging social mobility generally, the Conservatives fail miserably. In other words, they fail to promote integration.

Drug warrior marijuana Talking Points: Quick Rebuttals

Gateway Drug

Researchers have rightly noted that people who have try marijuana are statistically more likely try other illicit drugs. This gave raise to the theory that there was something about marijuana that encouraged drug experimentation. Marijuana, it was alleged, is a gateway drug. This, in turn, was given as one more reason to keep the drug illegal.However, the gateway drug theory has until recently fallen on hard times for lack of an intelligible mechanism. The problem was that there was no coherent explanation for why marijuana would lead people to experiment with other drugs. Without this explanation doubt was cast relationship being more than mere correlation.That said, in recent years researchers have breathed new life into the theory, albeit with a sociological twist. According to the new version, it is not marijuana's pharmacological properties that serve as a gateway, but rather marijuana's illegal status. Specifically in the process of illegally procuring marijuana, users are introduced to the criminal elements with access to other illicit drugs and hence it is the forged blackmarket relationship between dealer and buyer that serves as gateway. Ironically the gateway drug theory has been turned on its head and used as reason for legalizing the drug. The Canadian Senate employed the new and improved version of the gateway argument as a reason for legalizing the drug.

In this context it should be noted that when the Dutch partially legalized the sale of marijuana, heroin and cocaine use went down despite an initial increase in marijuana use. Dutch use of hard drugs remains well below the European average.



Potent Pot

Potent pot is more is more myth than reality.

However, even if one assumes that potent pot is a reality it is certainly nothing to be concerned about. Indeed, saying that potent pot is reason for keeping marijuana illegal is akin to saying that alcohol should be banned because gin has higher alcohol content than beer. It makes no sense. The pharmacological affects of consuming 1 "chemically supercharged" joint, as various US attorneys like to say, versus x number of "dad's joints" would be no different if the amount of THC consumed is the same. As for consumption, just as people do not drink the same volume of gin as beer, the higher the THC level in pot the less people consume. Hence, ironically more potent pot may be a welcome development. After all, one of the most prominent health effect related to marijuana, if not the most, is that it is usually smoked. The more potent the pot, the less people have to smoke to achieve the same high. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School concurs, so does Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California and so does UCLA's Mark Kleiman.

That said, if potency is the concern, then it should be legalized. After all, the only way to regulate the potency of pot is to legalize it. Moreover, so long as the drug is illegal, producers will seek to increase potency. The higher the potency the smaller the package the smaller the package the less likely they will get caught.

Finally, the attempt to scare parents that have grown up on marijuana by distinguishing between potent pot and “your dad's marijuana” is too clever by half. After all, it begs the following question. If today's marijuana is truly different in kind from "dads marijuana", would it be ok to legalize "dad's marijuana", i.e., low potency pot?

Schizophrenia Marijuana

Epidemiological studies have consistently failed to show a positive correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia and there is no causation without correlation. Specifically, should there be a causal link between marijuana and schizophrenia, there should be a positive correlation between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia, but such a correlation is conspicuous by its absence. Despite a massive increase in the number of Australians consuming the drug since the 1960s, Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland found no increase in the number of cases of schizophrenia in Australia. Mitch Earleywine of the University of Southern California similarly found the same with regard to the US population and Oxford's Leslie Iversen found the same regard to the population in the UK. According to Dr. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University,

"If anything, the studies seem to show a possible decline in schizophrenia from the '40s and the ‘ 50,"

Much of the evidence linking marijuana to schizophrenia suggests not that it causes schizophrenia but rather that it may cause the earlier onset of symptoms in people who would sooner or later develop schizophrenia. Much to Gordan Brown's dismay, this is opinion of Dr Iddon.

Dr Iddon, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs misuse [Britain], said the study did not convince him it was time to return cannabis to class B. "I don't think the causal link has been proved. I think cannabis might - possibly for genetic reasons - trigger psychosis at an earlier age." The MP, who is also a member of the science and technology select committee, said there was a danger of criminalising "hundreds of thousands of young people" if the status of the drug was changed. "If Gordon Brown changes the class of the drug, it won't be evidence-based but for political reasons," he said.

Treatment Numbers

Most people in drug treatment in Ontario are there because they abuse hard drugs. Only a small percentage, 13% in 2005, are there because of marijuana. Furthermore, those that are there for marijuana differ from other people in treatment, in so far as they are much more likely to be there because of outside pressure. Not surprisingly the typical person in "treatment" for marijuana use in Ontario is a single teenage male who is still in high school.

Ontario is not unique. Despite the fact that number of marijuana users in Western world positively dwarfs of the number of people using hard drugs, in most Western countries the vast majority of people in drug treatment are there because they abuse hard drugs. The notable exception is the US. The vast majority of people in drug treatment in the US are there because they purportedly abuse marijuana. Why the difference? Well, the majority (70%) of those in treatment for marijuana, including many casual users and even some first to users, are there because they have been given a choice, "treatment" or jail. In fact, the rise in the number of admissions for treatment correlates perfectly with a rise in the number of arrests for possession. In true Orwellian fashion, the former Drug Czar cited these figures as evidence that other countries need to get tough on drugs.

Conservatives do not Practice what they Preach on Immigration

Jason Kenney has been saying some sensible things about our immigration system. Most notably, he has said that Canada needs to place more emphasis on language skills. As studies have shown, the best predictor of how well an immigrant will do financially is how well they speak French or English. It is neither in our national interest to have immigrants lag behind economically or in the interests of the immigrants themselves. As Kenney said "Someone who has been here for 15 years and can't speak English or French is basically locking themselves out of the vast majority of jobs and is isolating themselves socially, and that is a tragedy."

The problem is that Conservatives do not practice what they preach. Indeed, while there is ample evidence (e.g., Turkish guest workers in Germany) that armies of disenfranchised workers, whether they be illegal or guest, are a recipe of disaster, the number of guest workers allowed in has exploded since the Conservatives came to power. Moreover whereas the typical guest worker was once American transferred to branch office in Canada, the fastest growing category of guest worker is now the unskilled type. The problem is that Conservatives have, in true Conservative fashion, turned over a greater percentage of the immigration file to the provinces and Western provinces in particular have used the program to undercut labour. The Canadian tax payer has paid to have cheap labour sent in from other countries for the sole purpose of cutting wages of the Canadian tax payer. Forget Conservative talk about bringing in much needed skilled workers, this was the kind of positions Alberta was hoping to fill through its guest worker programs this summer: Front desk clerk, short order cook, baker, maid, assembly line worker, server, buser, bellhop, valet, and cafeteria worker, laundry attendant, pet groomer, general labourer, and hair dresser. And every time to Kenney gives lip service to importance of language, someone should remind him that all that is required of such would be immigrants is that they score 4 or 24 on the language assessment. In other words, they can still be functionally illiterate and still get it in.

Needless to say, despite the downturn there is no talk of reducing the number of guest workers from likes crony capitalists like Gordan Campbell. Indeed, the situation is such that even though the stated purpose of the stimulus plan is to get money following gain locally and to provide Canadians with jobs there is talk using guest workers (primarily Mexican) on the extension of the federally funded sky train extension; Canadian federal stimulus money could be flooding into Mexico.

Now Kenney’s talk of limiting the number of refugee mess is equally welcome, but just as with language skills Conservatives making things worse and not better. Yes Canada needs to dramatically reduce the number of refugees it accepts. I would personally like Canada to cap the number of refugees it accepts at 5,000 a year including dependents. However, fixing the problem goes far beyond drawing up tougher standards. The biggest hurdle to reforming the refugee system is insuring that refugees are processed quickly, that they cannot delay deportation with endless appeals and that there is mechanisms in place to insure they leave the country when they are ordered out. Regardless of the merits of their case, the longer refugees remain in country the greater the likelihood that they will stay. Under the Conservatives things have gotten much worse. It now takes a refugee claimant a year and half to get a hearing. Under the Liberals that number was one year. If Kenney was truly serious about reforming the system he would see to it that such hearings happen in a manner of months, limit or eliminate appeals and ensure that there is a system set up to sure that failed claimants have left the country. I am not going to hold my breath though.

Some thoughts on SSM and the 2006 Election

I always thought the Liberals straight man’s burden talking point disingenuous. The Liberal argument was that you cannot cherry pick rights and whether SSM was a cherry is really beside the point. I was told this position focus grouped far better than anything else.

However given what happened with the promise to ban using the notwithstanding cause, I doubt it moved anyone. Indeed, the reason SSM worked for the Liberals in places such as Vancouver had very little to do with what the Liberals were saying and much more to with what the Conservatives were saying, Reform party stereotypes, and ideological similarities between the Bush administration and Conservatives. In terms of likely voters the numbers may have been with the Conservatives, but the debate hurt the Conservatives more than issue helped. The arguments the Conservatives offered up were pathetic and worse some were down right silly. Paul Forseth’s flyer warning not only of ‘moral decay’ but economic decay as well was laughed at by the media. The same fate greeted Rob Anders ‘homosexual sex marriage’ flyer. If that was not enough, the SSM debate enabled Conservative opponents to draw a straight line from Harper to Rove and Bush.

By switching the debate from one about ‘homosexual sex marriage’, volumes of homophobic comments by Reform MPs, pictures of Stephen Harper dressed up to look like one of the Village People and prideful talk about Americans fleeing “Jesus Land” to something that was utterly abstract, the Liberals allowed the Conservatives to at once save themselves from themselves and to distance themselves from Bush.

Gun regristry, the god gays and gun crowd and Liberal Electoral fortunes

James Travers Toronto Star “With the possible exception of same-sex marriage, nothing alienated more Western, centre-right and rural voters (Gun registry) Once safe Liberal seats swung Conservative and haven't budged.”
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/607155

The evidence that the gun registry hurt the Liberals is just not there. West of Ontario there were no safe rural Liberal seats to loose (see below), and seat and popular vote totals there did not vary much between 1997 and 2004. The same goes for the Maritimes. As for Ontario, the Liberals share of the popular vote was stable between 1993 and 2000 and when the Liberal vote did drop significantly in 2004, it was not to the Conservatives’ benefit when it came to the popular vote. Indeed, the combined PC and Reform vote in each of the three subsequent elections was 37%. In 2004 the Conservatives took only 31% of popular vote. If I am not mistaken, this represents the lowest share of the popular vote by a united Conservative party ever. Even in 2006 the Conservative share of the province’s popular vote was below the combined right wing vote between 1993 and 2000. Moving from the Liberals to the NDP is a strange way to protest your displeasure with the gun registry and that is what happened in Ontario in 2004.

The numbers are more consistent with SSM having hurt the Liberals in Manitoba, Alberta, Eastern Ontario and outside of the Lowermainland in BC in 2006. However, the Liberal share of the popular vote dropped 6% nationally and the party was in the midst of scandal; so I would be hesitant before offering an opinion. One thing that should be noted is that even as the Liberal vote contracted nationally, the Liberal share of popular vote went up in ridings such as Vancouver South, North Vancouver, Vancouver Center, West Vancouver, Vancouver Kingsway, Burnaby Douglas, Burnaby New Westminister, and Newton-North Delta. I do not know of any other region of the country in 2006 where the Liberal share of popular vote held yet alone strengthened, albeit slightly. It is my opinion that the SSM issue helped the Liberals out in 2006 in Vancouver. Certainly with regard to my riding of North Vancouver, it is generally accepted by the local media and lay pundits alike that the SSM issue doomed Conservative candidate Cindy Silver.

The Liberals and rural Western Canada 1993 to 2006

The Liberals were shut out in Alberta in 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1988. As for those seats that went Liberal in 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, they were not rural seats --- they were in Edmonton -- nor where they safe. “Landslide” Anne McLellan was good case in point.

The situation in Saskatchewan was similar. The Liberals were shut out there in 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1988. As for seats the Liberals won there in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008, there has proven to be but one safe seat and Ralph Goodale still holds it. Moreover, the Wascana is not a rural seat.

The situation is not nearly as bleak for the Liberals in Manitoba. However, the Liberals took only one rural seat in 1993, and 1997 and Provencher (MP Vic Toews) could never be described as a safe Liberal seat. It was not a Liberal stronghold prior to 1993 and the Liberals owed their success there more to a spilt in the conservative vote than anything else. Combined the PC and Reform was much greater than Liberals in both 1993 and 1997 elections. The Liberal popular support in Manitoba is concentrated in Winnipeg.

Going back all the way to world war two you can on one hand the number of seats the Liberals have won outside of Winnipeg Edmonton, and Ralph Goodale’s seat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The Liberals faired just as poorly in rural BC during this time, but again Liberal troubles in rural BC long predated the gun registry. The Liberals won but 1 seat in 1979, 1984 and 1988 and were shut out in 1980.

Now, the success the Liberals enjoyed in Vancouver 2004 and 2006 was not unheard of. Thanks to a strong NDP vote and presence of strong Social credit party, between 1962 and 1974, the Liberals actually took more seats in BC then the Progressive Conservatives, 46 to 34 to be precise. Compare this to situation in the other 3 western provinces during this time. PCs took 97 to the Liberals 5 in Alberta, in Saskatchewan PCs took 70 to the Liberals 7 and in Manitoba the PCs took 53 to the Liberals 13. 1968 was particularly bad year of the Tories in BC. They were shut out and took 19% of vote. Together with the Social Credit the right took only 25% of vote. 75% of the vote and all 23 seats went to the Liberals and NDP. Trudeau’s Omnibus Bill did not sink the party’s fortunes. Social liberalism sells here, just do not pander to Quebec or you will face electoral oblivion.

The Tim Geithner Disaster and why Americans should telling he bankers this: You screwed up. We own You. Your Fired

I will let a couple of Nobel Price winning economists, first Paul Krugman and then Joseph Stiglitz explain why Tim Geithner plan is a disaster and why nationalization is way to go.

Krugman

It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.

That’s what Sweden did in the early 1990s. It’s also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And there’s no reason we can’t do the same thing now.

But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the insistence that the bad assets on banks’ books are really worth much, much more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldn’t be in trouble.

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to “fair” levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, is to use “the expertise of the market” to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

STIGLITZ

the question isn’t just whether we hold them accountable; the question is: what do we get in return for the money that we’re giving them? At the end of his speech, he spent a lot of time talking about the deficit. And yet, if we don’t do things right—and we haven’t been doing them right—the deficit will be much larger. You know, whether you spend money well in the stimulus bill or whether you’re spending money well in the bank recapitalization, it’s important in everything that we do that we get the bang for the buck. And the fact is, the bank recovery bill, the way we’ve been spending the money on the bank recovery, has not been giving bang for the buck. We haven’t gotten anything out.

What we got in terms of preferred shares, relative to what we gave them, a congressional oversight panel calculated, was only sixty-seven cents on the dollar. And the preferred shares that we got have diminished in value since then. So we got cheated, to put it bluntly. What we don’t know is that—whether we will continue to get cheated. And that’s really at the core of much of what we’re talking about. Are we going to continue to get cheated?

Now, why that’s so important is, one way of thinking about this—end of the speech, he starts talking about a need of reforms in Social Security, put it—you know, there’s a deficit in Social Security. Well, a few years ago, when President Bush came to the American people and said there was a hole in Social Security, the size of the hole was $560 billion approximately. That meant that if we spent that amount of money, we would have guaranteed the—put on sound financial basis our Social Security system. We wouldn’t have to talk about all these issues. We would have provided security for retirement for hundreds of millions of Americans over the next seventy-five years. That’s less money than we spent in the bailouts of the banks, for which we have not been able to see any outcome. So it’s that kind of tradeoff that seems to me that we ought to begin to talk about.

....

AMY GOODMAN: So, you say Obama, too, has confused saving the banks with saving the bankers.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: Should the banks be nationalized?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Many of the banks clearly should be put into, you might say, conservatorship. Americans don’t like to use the word “nationalization.” We do it all the time. We do it every week.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain.

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, if banks don’t have enough capital so that they can meet the commitments they’ve made to the depositors, at the end of every week the FDIC looks at the balance sheet, and it says, “You don’t have enough capital. You’re not allowed to continue.” And then what they do is they either find some other bank to take it over and fill in the hole, or they take it into government control—it sounds terrible, to take it into government control—and then sell it.

And that’s what other countries have done when they faced this kind of problem—the countries that have done it well. One of the important lessons is this is the kind of thing can be done well, could be done badly. And the countries that have done badly have wound up paying to restructure the bank 20, 30, 40 percent, even 50 percent of GDP. We’re on our way to that kind of debacle. But that shows you how bad things can be, how costly it can be, if you don’t do it well.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/25/stieglitz

The bankers need to be told something. Say after me America. "You screwed up. We own you. Your fired."