Rudyard Griffiths: A long-needed change to citizenship laws
National Post
Posted: April 16, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor
Tomorrow, April 17, an important change to our citizenship laws comes into effect, one that will strengthen what it means to be Canadian in new and positive ways.
From this point forward, any person born abroad to Canadian parents will be a Canadian only if their father or mother was born in Canada, or if one or more of their parents became a citizen by immigrating to this country.
At long last, the absurd practice of allowing hundreds of thousands of citizens who have no real connection to Canada pass on the remarkable benefits of Canadian citizenship to their descendants, in perpetuity, has come to an end.
This simple reform embodies what was best in the ideals of our countrys founders, who believed that full citizenship was attained through the act of physical settlement in their time, the backbreaking working of the land and by contributing to the social betterment of your local community.
In our own time, it represents a first step toward correcting a long-standing slight against newcomers who settle in Canada permanently.
Specifically, by bestowing on citizens of convenience the generous bundle of privileges of full citizenship everything from subsidized education to public health-care to full consular services without asking anything in return, we devalue the commitment of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who choose to stay in Canada permanently, raise their families, learn French or English, pay taxes and generally help build a better country.
I would argue that the lack of a clearly defined set of benefits that accrue only to citizens who form a lifelong attachment to Canada is largely responsible for our dismal retention of newcomers. With an ageing (and shrinking) workforce, Canada can ill afford having, as we do today, 40% of skilled and professional male immigrants leaving the country permanently within 10 years.
More policy changes may be on the way soon: On Tuesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney declared that the federal government will modify Canadas citizenship program to include greater emphasis on Canadian values. Lets hope that this weeks rule change and those envisioned by Mr. Kenney represents the start of an overhaul of our citizenship laws aimed at drawing a sharper set of distinctions between Canadians who demonstrate an active commitment to their country and those who dont.
For instance, why shouldnt we follow the U.S. example by taxing our two-million-plus non-resident citizens on their world-wide earnings? The goal of attaching a monetary price to Canadian citizenship is not to fill government coffers. Rather, it is to advance an important principle: Non-residents should not enjoy a free ride when it comes to sustaining the benefits of the citizenship they enjoy.
Also, surely the time has come to re-examine the practice of dual citizenship, especially among those fortunate enough to be Canadian-born.
Today, there are as many as 2.5-million Canadian dual citizens living in Canada and abroad. Of this group, fully 750,000 are Canadian-born persons who have formally acquired the citizenship of another country.
The practice of dual citizenship, especially among the Canadian-born, does a disservice to a country that gives us so much and asks for little in return. It needlessly conflicts our loyalties, weakens whatever sense of common purpose we have in this diverse nation of ours, and perpetuates a minimalist vision of what we owe each other and Canada as fellow citizens.
For all these reasons, the federal government should consider adopting a modified version of the pre-1977 practice of revoking the citizenship of Canadian adults who voluntarily acquire a second nationality. In our era, such a law would apply immediately to the Canadian-born but exempt newcomers who often require a second passport to enter their birth country and who bring to Canada global business linkages and know-how.
For second-generation Canadians, whether they are born in Canada or abroad, the realities of such a reform would be clear: If being Canadian alone isnt good enough for you, then you risk losing forever the rights and privileges of one of the worlds great citizenships.
National Post
Rudyard Griffiths is the co-founder of the Dominion Institute, and the author of Who We Are: A Citizens Manifesto (Douglas & McIntyre).
AddThis Social Bookmark Button [] Comments (52) [] Send to a friend [] Permalink
[]
52 Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment
Click here to post a comment
[]
by zen88888
Apr 16 2009
8:43 AM
Its about time-I applaud Jason Kenny and the Conservatives for these changes!
[]
by Martin P
Apr 16 2009
9:05 AM
Good first steps……the immigration / refugee business in Canada really needs a serious overhaul. Glad to see Mr. Kenney noticed that too.
[]
by Logicool
Apr 16 2009
9:12 AM
Revoking Canadian citizenship for those who gain dual citizen is ridiculous. What is the point? Ensure that they never come back to Canada?
What about the benefit to business for those who want to travel and work globally?
Why should that benefit only be allowed for recent immigrants?
[]
by om5
Apr 16 2009
9:57 AM
Forgotten here is the area of the world most blatant for using Canadians , why?
[]
by hycento
Apr 16 2009
9:58 AM
Revoking Canadian citizenship for native born Canadians only is absolute nonsense! All that does is to create 2 classes of citizenship.
And of what use is the term “divided” loyalties? Have we forgotten so quickly how even Canadian-born of Japanese ancestry were interned during the Second World War despite having a single nationality?
Regardless of how many bibles or holy books one may swear on when taking the Oath of Citizenship, ones perceived alllegiance will always be questioned when one looks different from the majority.
I think it makes more sense to demand that all Canadians pay income taxes whether they live in Canada or not.
[]
by sailbad
Apr 16 2009
10:21 AM
Revoking my Canadian citizenship because I may in the future have the possibility of becoming a dual citizen, mainly because of work.
It would seem that I dont fit into the modern day description of a good Canadian Citizen.
Born in Canada to Canadian parents with family history back to 1720.
Served in Canadian Military for 26 years, all 3 sons serving in CAF.
Yes I am just your typical “born in Canada” 2nd class citizen.
[]
by IndependentObserver
Apr 16 2009
10:25 AM
Thank you for an interesting article. Citizenship is a prized possession and any attempts by the government of the day to modify it should be closely scrutinized.
It is interesting to note that S. 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, gives Mobility rights to citizens, but does not define what a citizen is.
laws.justice.gc.ca/…/charter
The fact that the definition of citizenship is subject to the whim of the government, is a strong argument for placing the definition of Canadian citizenship beyond the grasp of a group of temporarily elected individuals. The definition of Canadian citizenship needs a constitutional definition.
That said, I have a few comments about your article.
First, you suggest that the lack of, to use your words:
a clearly defined set of benefits that accrue only to citizens who form a lifelong attachment to Canada is largely responsible for our dismal retention of newcomers. With an ageing (and shrinking) workforce, Canada can ill afford having, as we do today, 40% of skilled and professional male immigrants leaving the country permanently within 10 years.
This is confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps this phenomenon can be better explained by the fact that many of these professional male immigrants are prohibited from practicing their professions once they arrive in Canada? This seems to me to be a much better explanation. Talk to the doctors and lawyers delivering pizza.
Second, to use your words:
the federal government should consider adopting a modified version of the pre-1977 practice of revoking the citizenship of Canadian adults who voluntarily acquire a second nationality. In our era, such a law would apply immediately to the Canadian-born but exempt newcomers who often require a second passport to enter their birth country and who bring to Canada global business linkages and know-how.
In other words, you advocate discriminating against citizens born in Canada. You advocate giving immigrants who become Canadian citizens a benefit (dual citizenship) that native born Canadians should not have. Not only is this unfair, but in all probability violates S. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Equality Rights Section of the Charter).
Third, lets look at your proposal to tax Canadian citizens regardless of where they reside. In your words:
The goal of attaching a monetary price to Canadian citizenship is not to fill government coffers. Rather, it is to advance an important principle: Non-residents should not enjoy a free ride when it comes to sustaining the benefits of the citizenship they enjoy.
Well, since it is not to fill government coffers and because nobody should get a free ride, then wouldnt it be better to just invent a new tax? Lets call it the Canadian Citizenship tax. This would be a poll tax not an income tax. In other words, every citizen must pay it. Rich, poor, etc. Lets call it for what it is.
The time has come to include a definition of Canadian Citizenship in the Constitution of Canada!
[]
by Francesco51
Apr 16 2009
10:26 AM
I applaud mr griffiths writings on the topic of immigration reform..but in an era where the world is getting smaller and yes, the realism is people do have connections to different countries what is the point of not allowing people(s) to have a second citizenship …especially is for example someone marries a foreigner – a U.S. citizen or french citizen and they choose to live in canada should not their kids have the right to either parents or both parents citizenship status…..why should they not be allowed the chance..canada is a stronger country for allowing citizens to have maintain sense of where they came from and for the vast majority their loyalities lie with Canada!!!! i would have to argue that mr griffiths arguements are themselves weak….dual citizenship does not weaken our country's fabric but represents a reality of the world we live in!!!!!!!!
[]
by DRDon
Apr 16 2009
10:35 AM
How dare you imply that, I as Canadian born would be a second class citizen to someone born outside the country.
You suggest I can't keep a second passport, but someone naturalized can keep their second passport to enable them to flow freely back and forth to their homeland?
How about, deny them the rights and priviledges as a Canadian until such time as they sever all ties with homeland.
As for you insistence that I pay taxes to Canada as an expat who consumes no resources in Canada – that is just a tax grab – nothing more.
[]
by maths1
Apr 16 2009
10:38 AM
Endorsing hycento above, and adding:
An anecdote comes to mind, of one whose passport fell through the cracks by his trusting the crack-pot Ontario judicial system with wife,
children, and the lives of associates: RIP Hobson, Tyas and Parry.
A Canadian mathematician and WW2 veteran (Air Force navigator, Brussels to Berlin after RCAF Rivers Manitoba, and Comox B.C. 1944).
Contracted repeatedly by the federal government after repeatedly writing sixty-page reports of fraud in public spending* (now at the half century/$7.1 billions recoverable in the records* I maintain)*:
1. Had his Canadian passport revoked in 1985 by External Affairs.
2. Is repeatedly refused assistance by Paul Dewar MP ” this affair is too old”,
and 3: has had it replaced free for life by the United Kingdom and the European Community
* Canadian judicial Council file 05-0626, corruptly obsructed from process.
Arnold Guetta, mathematician
aguetta@rogers.com
[]
by crocodile dundee
Apr 16 2009
11:05 AM
Francesco51, why bother coming to Canada if you want to 'maintain a sense of where you came from'?? And why do you need a foreign passport to do 'maintain this sense'? You can live, work and get married in Canada as a permanent resident without ever having to become a Canadian citizen…but then this would mean that you would have to travel on your passport from your native country, rather than the nice, safe Canadian passport.
[]
by crocodile dundee
Apr 16 2009
11:20 AM
This is a good start. Now the next step is to stop the idiotic policy of granting Canadian citizenship to anyone that happens to be born here regardless of where their parents are from. Thousands of babies are born here every year from women who come to Canada to give birth but who aren't Canadian citizens and have no attachment to this country…but they know they will be looked after and their child will automatically be granted citizenship which can be used later on to sponsor their parents, grandparents, etc.
[]
by Anonymous66
Apr 16 2009
11:34 AM
“For all these reasons, the federal government should consider adopting a modified version of the pre-1977 practice of revoking the citizenship of Canadian adults who voluntarily acquire a second nationality.”
I wonder if they've considered how many people who are part of the “brain drain” to the US this might affect. It's pretty silly to say a naturalized citizen can keep both passports, but any canadian-born citizen who moves abroad for work has to cut ties to canada.
Specifically, I wonder if this is timed to coincide with the projected spike in scientists moving south to follow the R&D funding Obama has set up? Perhaps the CPC and their friends at the Post should come up with some complementary catchphrases on this issue. Something like “We don't need no steeenkin' intellectuals” for the government, and the Post could use “And Stay Out!”.
[]
by therose2004
Apr 16 2009
11:36 AM
You certainly have insulted every Canadian, that can attest to being in this country since the 1700s. The ones that not only work hard, but faced many dangers once arriving. Let's not forget the hungry and lean times with very little support either from British or French officials. To said that our citizenship can be revoke on the whims of the standing government is pure poppycock. As far as I am concern, I earned my stripes in Canadian citizenship through the generations of both the sides of my mother and father. I can even lay claim that my family line has, two direct descendants were part of the Fathers of Confederation. Can you? No you cannot, and if you could – you would never even come up with that suggestion.
What you are advocating is discrimination based on the opinions of the ruling elite.
As for your suggestion to tax non-residents that live and work in other countries is really stupid based on your reasons that their should not have a free ride.What free ride! Since when does the current government look after the best interests of any Canadian citizen. So unlike the Americans, where whatever trouble they get into – the American government is there to help their American citizens.
In closing, I will not be told nor will my own children and their children what makes a proper Canadian citizen, especially by a bunch of 3rd or 4th generation Canadians who has no concept or even an inkling of what it takes to settle a new land, devoid of the trappings of society. No inkling of what it took to survive, because all recent immigrants and going back 4 generations or so all left countries that had the trappings, and came to Canada expecting the same trappings plus the extras.
How dare you to even suggest citizenship is bestowed by the ruling government, providing you follow the rules of the current administration.
Governments come and go, but its the people that makes Canada what it is, and not any government who is more intent on imposing values by force, with the threat of removal of citizenship! Government is there to serve the people, and not the other way around, where the people are to serve the government and their needs.
[]
by Anonymous66
Apr 16 2009
11:37 AM
Croc – good point. The practice of “anchor babies” should be dealt with at the same time as inheritance of citizenship. I think that may be at least as widespread a problem as people moving back to Lebanon or whatever and passing on citizenship for generation after generation.
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
11:51 AM
by Logicool “Why should that benefit only be allowed for recent immigrants?”
So we don't have ten generations of a family who have never stepped foot in canada or paid one penny in taxes suddenly showing up on our doorstep demanding social services they never paid for in a language other than english or frendh
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
11:52 AM
by Logicool “Why should that benefit only be allowed for recent immigrants?”
So we don't have ten generations of a family who have never stepped foot in canada or paid one penny in taxes suddenly showing up on our doorstep demanding social services they never paid for in a language other than english or french
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
11:52 AM
by Logicool “Why should that benefit only be allowed for recent immigrants?”
So we don't have ten generations of a family who have never stepped foot in canada or paid one penny in taxes suddenly showing up on our doorstep demanding social services they never paid for in a language other than english or french
[]
by patrol.one
Apr 16 2009
11:54 AM
I'm a little confused with the concern of loosing Canadian Citizenship when taking adopting a secondary Citizenship??
People can work abroad without adopting that nations citizenship…. People can reside in a second Country without becoming a Citizen of that nation (ex. snowbirds)…
So, why all the fuss about the loss of Canadian Citizenship if a person(s) clearly show their loyalties lie with a foreign County by adopting its Citizenship??
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
11:54 AM
by DRDon
“As for you insistence that I pay taxes to Canada as an expat who consumes no resources in Canada – that is just a tax grab – nothing more”
Fine, but you should have no entitlement to health care or social services since these are in effect insurance policies for which the premiums are paid by taxes. Ever made an insurance claim to a company to which you don't pay premiums?
[]
by Anonymous66
Apr 16 2009
12:08 PM
patrol – sure, you technically can work in, say, the US as a resident without actually pursuing citizenship, but they apply all sorts of extra hassles to discourage the practice. In the 'brain drain' case, the citizenship of convenience is the second one, not the first.
[]
by Dare_Balo
Apr 16 2009
12:23 PM
What is most annoying about these kinds of posts are the constant references to “benefits” which Canadians “enjoy.”
What is never mentioned, and should be, is that some other Canadian is being destroyed in order that others may “enjoy” these “benefits.” The xenophobes and welfare cases, believe it or not, are thus in the same boat. They are two sides of the same coin; two parts of a problem.
While citizenship is a serious matter and should not be granted lightly, the issue of “benefits” is a matter of justice. The solution is not to arbitrarily limit immigration, as this writer proposes and with which others agree, but to end welfare as we know it. *This*, the existence and perpetuation of non-defense government spending, is the source of all interest-group warfare in a society.
The principle involved may seem difficult to grasp, but in actual fact, while the xenophobes wish to limit immigration, they never touch welfare. In short, everyone wants to see the producer suffer, and as many are aware, there is no potential producer so powerful as the hardworking immigrant who leaves his native land for new horizons.
In this way, the xenophobe who seeks to limit the immigrant and the welfare-case who seeks to leech off the immigrant, even though they posture as opponents, are actually united in their hatred of the ambitious individual.
It is individual rights that both oppose, which is why a Pat Buchanan and an Eleanor Clift can laugh so heartily together on The McLaughlin Report.
[]
by Anonymous66
Apr 16 2009
12:47 PM
Dare – whatever. Go buy a private island or an abandoned oil rig (I hear Sealand has had some fire damage recently; you might be able to get a bargain) to live your libertarian-hermit dream on. The rest of us who aren't consumed by ideological extremism recognize that there are some things (like roads, schools, water systems) that make sense for governments to run.
[]
by trueword
Apr 16 2009
1:24 PM
” a country that gives us so much and asks for little in return.”
What a joke! A country that asks for your blood sweat and hard work to provide for the lazy, stupid moochers.
Anonymous66, why does it make sense for governments to run roads schools and water systems? Please explain.
[]
by crocodile dundee
Apr 16 2009
1:53 PM
Dare_Balo, I'm 100% in favour of cutting both immigration and the welfare system. There's way too much of both in Canada.
If, as you say, “there is no potential producer so powerful as the hardworking immigrant who leaves his native land for new horizons” why are something like 60% of immigrants on social assistance? If they are so hardworking, they would have jobs. What is actually happening is that Canada allows in way too many immigrants that can't contribute yet suck off the social benefits system. But we can't say this because that would mean we are 'racist', 'xenophobic','Islamaphobic'…. whatever.
In the last 9 months all we've heard are about job cuts, recession, tightening our belts, massive gov't deficits, taxes up, savings down….yet not one peep from any level of gov't or academic or 'expert' on reducing our immigration levels from their already too high levels. If people are currently losing their jobs, what the hell are we doing allowing a minimum of 250,000 new people into Canada???
[]
by Dare_Balo
Apr 16 2009
2:09 PM
crocodile dundee,
You're making the very mistake I pointed out: confusing the cause (welfare benefits) with the effect (immigrants seeking welfare).
Please re-read my last post carefully.
Yes, the Left will call all those who oppose immigration “racist,” and this can be unfair. But there's no doubt that there are some native-born Canadians (of European and “First Nations” descent among others) who think they have a right to a job. But, there is no such thing as a right to a job. You – nor the government – have no right to force any man or institution to hire you, for any reason. Rights are rights to action, not to things.
If you want to gain the moral high ground when it comes to immigration, activists on the Right should say:
“We are happy to welcome as many immigrants as can get into Canada, but we must end the welfare state. In the meantime, no new immigrant can receive welfare benefits of any kind, and as such, no new immigrant will be taxed for welfare benefits. Fair is fair. No man will be slave to another. End the welfare state now.”
[]
by Dare_Balo
Apr 16 2009
2:16 PM
@trueword,
You musn't take people like Anonymous66 seriously. Notice that he responds to my post with ad hominem, never once trying to refute the facts or logic of my argument.
A sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
[]
by Sassylassie
Apr 16 2009
2:29 PM
Steve wrote: Fine, but you should have no entitlement to health care or social services since these are in effect insurance policies for which the premiums are paid by taxes. Ever made an insurance claim to a company to which you don't pay premiums?
End quote: ————————
Bingo, very well rebutted Sir.
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
2:48 PM
by trueword “What a joke! A country that asks for your blood sweat and hard work to provide for the lazy, stupid moochers”
Why are you here then? For that matter why are so many people trying so desperately to get into this country. If this country is so awful to you then why is it that the first people who will resist immigration reform are the very immigrants who claim that coming here is so awful. Put your money where your mouth is. Stop coming or stop complaining. Nobody is forcing anybody to come here
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
2:49 PM
by Dare_Balo ” But, there is no such thing as a right to a job. You – nor the government – have no right to force any man or institution to hire you, for any reason. Rights are rights to action, not to things”
So what's your take on racial hiring quotas and school entrance quotas?
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
2:53 PM
by Dare_Balo ” The solution is not to arbitrarily limit immigration, as this writer proposes and with which others agree, but to end welfare as we know it. ……..while the xenophobes wish to limit immigration, they never touch welfare. ”
So yet again, when immigration conflicts with the way Canadians live it is Canada that must change to accomodate? This is a familiar tune.
Oh by the way…..stop equating the desire to limit immigration to suatainable levels with xenophobia because they are not the same thing as much as you would like to portray it that way.
[]
by trueword
Apr 16 2009
2:54 PM
Sassylassie don't be daft. This was DRDon's original comment:
“As for you insistence that I pay taxes to Canada as an expat who consumes no resources in Canada – that is just a tax grab – nothing more”
In case the obvious is not penetrating the cloud that is your mind, let me spell it out for you: he is an EXPAT WHO CONSUMES NO RESOURCES IN CANADA. So why would he worry about access to “healthcare” (if you can even call it that) and social services? He never makes such a claim.
[]
by trueword
Apr 16 2009
2:56 PM
Steve you really should try to put up a principled argument.
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
3:02 PM
by trueword “In case the obvious is not penetrating the cloud that is your mind, let me spell it out for you: he is an EXPAT WHO CONSUMES NO RESOURCES IN CANADA. So why would he worry about access to “healthcare” (if you can even call it that) and social services? He never makes such a claim”
But in far too many cases ex-pats and dual citizens do just that so it seemed fair to clarify his position. If he refuses to pay taxes in canada does he accept that he does not have access to any supports (health, consular, welfare, evacuation…….etc), and all the others services which are provided by tax dollars. If he states that he accepts that then I respect his decision. He should not however expect to draw on any resource that I have paid into and he has not.
[]
by Dare_Balo
Apr 16 2009
3:10 PM
Steve Richards: “So what's your take on racial hiring quotas and school entrance quotas?”
All these are evil. I am opposed to them with every fibre of my being.
But, the issue is not really what I am opposed to per se, but what is proper. And how does one know what is proper in a political context?
The guiding principle is the protection of individual rights. Once you grasp this principle, all political questions are ultimately solvable.
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
3:12 PM
by trueword
“Steve you really should try to put up a principled argument”
You mean like this comment of yours;
“What a joke! A country that asks for your blood sweat and hard work to provide for the lazy, stupid moochers”
I fear that a principled argument would be lost on you
[]
by phatti
Apr 16 2009
3:12 PM
Perhaps now the population will understand the natives frustration with the trans migration of Europeon settlers during the eighteen hundreds and the destruction of their way of life, I would suggest reservations for the whites where they can maintain their culture and identity.
[]
by buckmeister studio
Apr 16 2009
3:13 PM
How can this new law be anything but discrimination of the most blatant form.
For those of you who may not be familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our Constitution, paragraph 15. (1) states
“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
A law creating two classes of Canadian citizens, those born here and those like myself who have come here, (at the age of four I might add – over forty now and a Canadian since the age of twelve), clearly contravenes the Charter.
Rest assured it is only a matter of time before this law becomes a relic of the past.
If the government is so concerned about non-resident Canadians abusing our citizenship it should pass a law that requires all children born of non-resident Canadians regardless of whether those Canadians were native born or immigrants to apply for citzenship.
Anything else is discrimination pure and simple and will sooner hopefully rather than later be struck down by the courts.
[]
by Paganista
Apr 16 2009
3:20 PM
did I read that right – s a born in canada citizen I have less rights than a foreign-born “citizen”?
Ie no dual citizenship for me but for them? this whole editorial is crazy
[]
by Dare_Balo
Apr 16 2009
3:30 PM
Steve Richards writes:
“So yet again, when immigration conflicts with the way Canadians live it is Canada that must change to accomodate? This is a familiar tune.”
Immigration has been going on since men have existed. Canada is not even 300 years old. It seems to me that the onus of proof is on Canada to show why she should be
exempt from a right man has had and exercised since the dawn of civilization.
He continues:
“Oh by the way…..stop equating the desire to limit immigration to suatainable levels with xenophobia because they are not the same thing as much as you would like to portray it that way.”
Any talk of “sustainable levels” where rights (and immigration is a right, whether you like it or not) are concerned is xenophobia. I have already specified a proper method. Do not limit immigration; deny benefits to immigrants and exempt immigrants from taxes for benefits. Destroy the welfare state. Why are *you* opposed to destroying the welfare state?
P.S. Although immigration is a right, citizenship is not an automatic political right.
[]
by Anonymous66
Apr 16 2009
3:32 PM
trueword – water systems make sense for the same reason as public roads. They're necessary resources that everyone uses, and government ownership prevents a single player from buying up all the access (i.e. water mains / surrounding roads) to high-value fixed assets like major office towers or apartments and charging extortionary rates to the inhabitants to access these necessary services. It's not like you can dig a new line across someone else' land to access a competing supplier. Quite frankly, maintaining half a dozen competing networks of sewers and electrical distribution grids (multi-billion-dollar investments) across a city for no reason beyond satisfying a mantra that the private sector is supreme in all things is utterly stupid. It's a waste of capital and real estate – let the private sector invest in other enterprises that aren't “natural monopolies”.
The reason why utilities are a natural monopoly is that competing grids would also cost consumers more, because the investor is still going to require their capital outlay to be paid for by operations. If five corporations build five redundant utility grids to serve a city, the same number of customers will have to pay for five times the infrastructure costs.
If you need the rationale for public education explained to you, I suggest googling it, since I've already spent far more time writing the previous answer than such a facetious question really deserved.
And Dare, it's not intellectual bankruptcy. I've just encountered way too many raving Ron Paul fanboi's to bother answering an argument that government shouldn't spend on anything except the army with respect. If you want reasoned, respectful replies, don't say unreasonable, extremist things.
[]
by Anonymous66
Apr 16 2009
3:32 PM
trueword – water systems make sense for the same reason as public roads. They're necessary resources that everyone uses, and government ownership prevents a single player from buying up all the access (i.e. water mains / surrounding roads) to high-value fixed assets like major office towers or apartments and charging extortionary rates to the inhabitants to access these necessary services. It's not like you can dig a new line across someone else' land to access a competing supplier. Quite frankly, maintaining half a dozen competing networks of sewers and electrical distribution grids (multi-billion-dollar investments) across a city for no reason beyond satisfying a mantra that the private sector is supreme in all things is utterly stupid. It's a waste of capital and real estate – let the private sector invest in other enterprises that aren't “natural monopolies”.
The reason why utilities are a natural monopoly is that competing grids would also cost consumers more, because the investor is still going to require their capital outlay to be paid for by operations. If five corporations build five redundant utility grids to serve a city, the same number of customers will have to pay for five times the infrastructure costs.
If you need the rationale for public education explained to you, I suggest googling it, since I've already spent far more time writing the previous answer than such a facetious question really deserved.
And Dare, it's not intellectual bankruptcy. I've just encountered way too many raving Ron Paul fanboi's to bother answering an argument that government shouldn't spend on anything except the army with respect. If you want reasoned, respectful replies, don't say unreasonable, extremist things.
[]
by Sassylassie
Apr 16 2009
3:51 PM
Oh Buck don't envoke the Charter, the Government has a long history of negating our “Charter Rights”. Because of Section 13 of the CHRC act Freedom of Expression is not an absolute. Also under said act Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Religion have been taken away from us to ensure no Canadian ever suffers from something that is “Likely to offend”. The Charter is a useless piece of lint, gawd knows the Feds don't respect our Chartered Rights.
Truewood lighten up on the coffee dude.
[]
by trueword
Apr 16 2009
3:52 PM
Steve writes:
You mean like this comment of yours;
“What a joke! A country that asks for your blood sweat and hard work to provide for the lazy, stupid moochers”
I fear that a principled argument would be lost on you
————————————————–
Dare_Balo already has clearly stated the principle upon which my statement rests: ” No man will be slave to another”
Still waiting to read those principles on which your “arguments” rest. It's easy to figure them out though. Here's one: there is no individual, only the collective. Therefore any talk of individual rights is “ideological extremism”.
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
4:42 PM
by phatti “Perhaps now the population will understand the natives frustration with the trans migration of Europeon settlers during the eighteen hundreds and the destruction of their way of life, I would suggest reservations for the whites where they can maintain their culture and identity”
Some white people committed crimes against native people before you and I were born and you use that as an excuse to perpetuate your own racial hate against us white people. This idiotic “white people did it to others so it's ok for it to happen to them” is one of the things that makes many canadians of european descent wish to limit the intake. Would you want to import people who beleive that you “have it coming to you”?
Drop your own inexcusable racial hatred before lecturing others!
[]
by Steve Richards
Apr 16 2009
4:44 PM
by Dare_Balo “Any talk of “sustainable levels” where rights (and immigration is a right, whether you like it or not) are concerned is xenophobia”
Utter garbage. THis sort of race baiting nonsense is what stifles any intelligent debate on immigration. My issues for immigration reform are based on economics despite what you try to claim I base it on.
By the way, can you show me where in our charter it states that immigrating to canada is a right?
[]
by phatti
Apr 16 2009
4:47 PM
Stevie Richards where you been living, natives are still discriminated against to this day, they still live on reservations in squalid conditions, the up side is cheap booze and cigarettes.
[]
by phatti
Apr 16 2009
4:58 PM
Under kennys proposal Iggy will be deported for having spent thirty years out of the country, and using Canada as a convenience.
[]
by phatti
Apr 16 2009
5:03 PM
steve Richards
your own racial hate against us white people
I'm one of us.
[]
by Dare_Balo
Apr 16 2009
5:34 PM
“Utter garbage. THis sort of race baiting nonsense is what stifles any intelligent debate on immigration. My issues for immigration reform are based on economics despite what you try to claim I base it on.”
Don't get me wrong, Steve. I didn't call you xenophobic or racist. But I'll grant that I should have been more careful in my response. I answered your statement not as coming from Steve, but as coming from those who typically use “sustainable levels of X,” whether X be immigration, environmentalism, or whatever.
These people typically use “sustainable” to justify the unjustifiable (the violation of individual rights) for some abstract entity (the environment, the economy, society, whatever) conveniently sidestepping the flesh-and-blood individual. After all, what is an economy but the sum total of individuals producing and trading in a given geographical area? What is any group but a collection of individuals? Morality precedes economics, and there can be no economic justification for theft, murder, slavery, etc.
Think about it: why not have slavery, to “cut costs?” Or to solve “population density” issues, why not simply kill people?
It is in this vein I responded to you, so I'll be more patient this time.
Okay, tell me, in your own words, what do you mean by “sustainable?”
Steve: “By the way, can you show me where in our charter it states that immigrating to canada is a right?”
I don't know how much you know about the philosophy of law (or about philosophy in general), but I don't see how you can use the Charter (a piece of paper derived from more fundamental principles – and some very corrupt ones at that) to justify a more abstract policy such as we are discussing?
It was the discovery of man's (natural) rights in Western Civilization by the Stoics through John Locke that gave rise to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, like the Charter, is based on those principles and not vice versa, which is why the Charter/Constitution can be amended if found in violation of man's rights.
You asked the question sincerely, so I presume the problem is one of awareness. But, for your information, the fallacy being committed here is the fallacy of the stolen concept.
[]
by ezbeatz1986
Apr 16 2009
6:03 PM
“For all these reasons, the federal government should consider adopting a modified version of the pre-1977 practice of revoking the citizenship of Canadian adults who voluntarily acquire a second nationality. In our era, such a law would apply immediately to the Canadian-born but exempt newcomers who often require a second passport to enter their birth country and who bring to Canada global business linkages and know-how.”
So let me get this straight, as a proud Canadian born citizen who also holds EU citizenship, one of my citizenships should be revoked. But an EU immigrant to Canada is allowed to acquire dual citizenship. So immigrants can have dual citizenship but not native born Canadians? Logic Fail!
I thought Canada and Europe had common values like liberal democracy. They also share close economic and defense bonds. I can't see why Canadians can't hold dual citizenship with countries closely aligned to Canada like the US, Australia, N.Z, the U.K, and the E.U.
[]
by smartco
Apr 17 2009
10:17 AM
FINALLY!!! Someone who realized that we born canadian citizens were treated like third world country. Sorry I don't mean to offend anyone but yes some of us have had problems getting education, health care and even living accomodations and not because we couldn't afford but because we didn't qualify…but the immagrents can have access to all of that and more and we have to wait for it…. EXCUSE ME!!! help and feed your family first and then your neighbours, and I think they would respect us more. Thank you!
