I know it wasn't directed at me, but I'll bite
PolSciPof said:
Sir Thucy....There is another factor that caused Jim Flaherty to advise "We have to completely overhaul the system". It has something to do with foreign investments. We should allow foreign competition. Look at Singapore. 100% foreign equity. Singapore's per capita income is almost on par with USA.
assuming you can cite a source for this, how can you link the two seemingly unrelated topics.
Employers had a hard time recruting qualified employees because of too little supply. (If the demand is high and the supply is low, the wages are high [law of supply and demand]).
do you mean employers in Singapore were having a hard time, or where?
Back in the late 90s there were a shortage of programmers due to the need to fix the Y2K problem among other reasons, Government forces encouraged a flooding of the job market which has highly skilled programmers now making sub average wages post y2k compared to what they were lead to expect while in school. In addition due to the shortage local companies found they could outsource a lot of programming to foreign contract firms and still get acceptable production.
because of investment into foreign firms, programmers today earn a lot less than they would if 1. the government hadn't spent capital needlessly subsidizing students to become programmers, 2. had put some check in place to limit contracts to firms to do what was avalible here.
I'm not endorsing a tariff on foreign contracting, however I fail to see how firms investing in foreign interests drives local wages up.
Canadian activists would not complain of unemployment anymore.
there is a segment of the population that does not want to be employed, and feels no need to obtain material possesions, these people will always be seen as disadvantaged, and we will never be free of bleeding hearts that want to take my earnings and use it to help those that don't want help. Granted I don't mind helping those that really want help.
Even the Russians and Hongkong or China should be allowed.
I'm confused are we talking about local entities investing in foreign entities or vice versa? we already allow this, see the softwood companies that closed shop when the tarriffs went into effect, the ones from New Zealand closed shop as they weren't interested in investing additional capital to find a new customer base and our local workers suffered. Had it been owned locally I'm sure there would have been an attempt to break into the European markets where tree smuggling is a real problem.
Never mind the illogical excuse of 'Canada for Canadians only'.
in what way is that an excuse... it seems to be a statement of one's opinion to me, why in particular do you think this is false?
Competition would lower prices
in general yes
A massive pouring in of investments would raise revenues (hence more welfare, more employment).
why would Russia, Hong Kong, China, and others want to make massive investments in Canada? Other than raw materials, what do we have to offer that can't be obtained elsewhere for cheaper and closer to them? If we lower our prices to be competitive in some of those markets it would cause the reverse of what you claim.
Let the public decide. Even if they buy in the ALLEGED! Chinese front COSCO. COSCO is taxed anyway and provides employment to immigrants. Let the consumers decide. We have to objective and not swayed by leftist authors of books invoking CANADA ONLY FOR CANADIANS.
what does all of this have to do with the parliment shutdown until march?
rly:
We'll send a nice white painted box car around for him. 
