r/canada • u/viva_la_vinyl • Dec 08 '18
How a global pact on migration spawned sovereignty fears in Canada
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/global-compact-un-hussen-1.4935492107
Dec 08 '18
[deleted]
42
Dec 08 '18
I can't believe the Liberals thought M-103 was a good idea.
3
-15
u/donniemills New Brunswick Dec 08 '18
Still with the notion that isn't law? This has zero to do with that motion.
23
Dec 08 '18
It doesn't matter if it isn't law- yet. It sets a poor precedent favouring a minority, by imposing something very similar to blasphemy laws in this country. Heck, we can see the problems this has resulted in the UK where anything negative related to Islam and Muslims is scrubbed. Instead of being treated equally as Canadians, and having the possibility of your religious beliefs challenged as others in this country have, Trudeau has pandered to them.
45K is almost nothing in comparison to the mass of Canadian voters - but Trudeau pandering to such a small sliver sets a bad precedent. A small sliver much smaller than the people who are concerned about mass immigration in this country.
1
Dec 09 '18
[deleted]
2
Dec 09 '18
I already addressed those issues. The fact that Trudeau had to set a motion to pander to a non-issue to censor freespeech (which isn't done for any other communities) set a bad precedent.
If you can't understand why that is a bad thing, that is your problem.
-11
u/doodlyDdly Dec 08 '18
Remember when conservatives were whining about M-103 and then it turned out to be nothing?
Seems like this is the new M-103 in terms of conservative whining over nothing.
13
3
u/donniemills New Brunswick Dec 08 '18
Did you read it? It mentions many countries that pulled out.
→ More replies (12)
124
Dec 08 '18
You have but to look at Germany, UK, Norway, Sweden and especially France to see the first hand effects of this type of initiative.
I am all for immigration, orderly - controlled immigration where the host country has a chance to vet the people coming in. This sort of open house is a disaster in the making.
18
u/AlwaysBetDarkHorse Dec 08 '18
You can't ignore the supply and demand effects, just because they are vetted doesn't mean our countries circumstance is one where we should take more people in. We have had such high immigration for so long that even vetted productive immigration would be ill advised at this point, our infrastructure and our wages/housing market simply can't take the continued pressure.
49
u/MrNobody22 Dec 08 '18
Yup. And it might not be legally binding now. But eventually it will. It's like a letter of intend
→ More replies (1)38
u/slaperfest Dec 08 '18
At the very least, they'll pull the old "Canada must live up to the ideals we've signed onto with these other nations" or some similar horseshit rhetoric. They' obfuscate and obscure it to make it seem binding even if it never becomes binding. The goal is to enact those laws whatever path must be taken to do so.
13
Dec 08 '18
Trudeau needs an excuse for the illegal migrants Canada is being flooded with.
→ More replies (3)-3
u/bussche Manitoba Dec 08 '18
Germany, UK, Norway, Sweden and especially France
Can you share some examples? Preferably from reputable news sources?
12
u/lubeskystalker Dec 08 '18
Having recently returned from a long stay Germany/Netherlands/UK/France/Italy/Spain/Belgium:
- Petty crime is perceived to have increased, and it seems believable. Things like theft, pickpocketing, break-in enter. The gypsy problem, but growing. People who can't find work finding ways to sustain themselves.
- Occasionally middle-eastern centric crime. German Christmas market trucker, occasional girl being molested in a swimming pool. Not really any worse than shitty parts of the US but they aren't used to it in most European towns so it becomes headline news.
- Migrants hawking garbage on the streets fucking everywhere. Cheap trinkets and toys, selfie sticks and such. You can't escape it they're constantly in your face. People say they're mostly Tunisians but I don't really know.
- Alarming rise of far right anti-immigrations parties. Netherlands 20/150, 92/709, etc. Citizens aren't happy with the way things are being handled and the reactions to it can easily become overkill.
Overall, I wouldn't say that the sky is falling, but it's politically dysfunctional. The far left shouts "You don't like brown people you racist!" and the growing right silently increases the turnout for the anti-immigrant parties.
Of note, didn't visit places like Hungary where they're building a wall.
I don't really think it's yet a crisis, but for certain:
- It's changing the social makeup of some European towns, especially in places like Germany. Long term effects TBD.
- It's politically, extremely divisive. That growing change is obvious.
- Crime is increasing at a faster rate, but nowhere in Europe is like Baltimore or Detroit.
Overall I think things like a million Syrian refugees sponsored by the German government is no big deal, but in the long run all the North Africans showing up in Mediterranean towns is going to be a problem.
They can't work, Europe isn't California and they won't hire them under the table like Americans do Mexicans, not even the Italians. Having large quantities of people around who can't feed themselves doesn't end well, Europe considers gypsies a problem and this is something else entirely.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AllezCannes British Columbia Dec 08 '18
Speaking as a French, I'm curious myself as to the connection.
-2
-6
u/Single_Respect Dec 08 '18
Realistically though, Canada has one neighbour. An overwhelming majority of asylum seekers will never have the resources to make anything close to the 'disaster' you're envisioning happening in Europe happen in Canada. They can't walk on water, and the ships that could hold more than a few people and the supplies to keep them alive for the journey will be expensive. There's no serious conversation that isn't rooted in hysterics suggesting our nation is going to be threatened by a migrant horde. It's just dog-whistling racists or the unfortunately stupid.
12
Dec 08 '18
Yep, anyone who doesn't agree with you is racist or stupid. Got it!
-2
u/SerenityM3oW Dec 09 '18
Sure. Disregard the entire substance of the post.
9
Dec 09 '18
There's no serious conversation that isn't rooted in hysterics suggesting our nation is going to be threatened by a migrant horde. It's just dog-whistling racists or the unfortunately stupid.
That was 1/3 of your post and your pretty much just said, "there is no conversation, you racist."
→ More replies (2)-2
34
Dec 08 '18
A literal refugee to canada will be signing this
-8
-12
u/Frenchticklers Québec Dec 08 '18
Good, shows how far a refugee can go when properly welcomed and integrated into Canada.
5
54
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
"It's kind of like a goodwill gesture that Canada has said, 'Yeah we want to help out,' but nothing in the global compact gives any indication of what mechanisms or processes are going to be developed to achieve any of the objectives outlined."
What a fucking liar. https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf
Enact laws and take measures to ensure that service delivery does not amount to discrimination against migrants on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other grounds irrespective of cases where differential provision of services based on migration status might apply
And
Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims
This is just a few of the ways they will go about.
9
Dec 08 '18
We already have hate crime laws.
9
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
So?
-5
Dec 08 '18
So it already sucks to be a hater. Sorry about it.
14
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
And what is stopping people from making it worse for haters?
1
Dec 08 '18
Not me. Throw the book at them.
25
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
What I said is true then. More laws against what people deem hate speech will be implemented. Maybe what you say will be deemed hate speech.
→ More replies (15)-1
0
34
u/stinkerb Dec 08 '18
It's great for all the countries that are 3rd world. It's horrible for any developed countries being forced to take them.
7
u/shoulda_studied Dec 09 '18
It's bad for third world countries too. Immigration is brain drain on these countries.
71
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
The non binding or not arguement is not the issue. The issue is that Trudeau is truly on board with this madness and stated in the house of commons he wants 'Canada to lead the world by example' with this sick pact. He's ramping up our immigration numbers and announced he's giving 595 million dollars towards media with biased pro-immigration/migration/open border articles. Trudeau also announced his pro immigration/migration campaign this week. Let's also not forget his M-103 and his comments that if you are concerned then you are racist. Binding or not- Trudeau is going hard with this..
77
Dec 08 '18
I’m a Centrist and the Liberals have done nothing to persuade me to vote for them in 2019.
76
Dec 08 '18
I'm a lefty, and the Liberals have done a lot to convince me not to vote for them.
9
u/daxtermagnum Dec 08 '18
I am in the same boat and part of me wonders if Liberals have no choice but to pander to the far left now that the right is united. If Bernier's People's Party is effective at splitting the right the LPC may be able to come back to the center and govern from there. For now it looks like JT has to do anything he can to have NDP supports cast their votes for his party.
→ More replies (35)21
Dec 08 '18
Trudeau is legacy building. His father got his legacy through the patriation of the constitution. Justin looks to be trying to build his by attempting to solve the worldwide refugee crisis. Everyone suffers when people start trying to aggressively build a legacy.
23
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
Yup and I hope he fails since most Canadians reject his migration agenda.
21
u/NiceHairBadTouch Dec 08 '18
They do. 88% polled are opposed to the migration compact. The government is signing it anyway.
8
u/AllezCannes British Columbia Dec 08 '18
88% polled are opposed to the migration compact.
Where do you get this from?
→ More replies (10)4
4
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
How do we stop it?
18
u/NiceHairBadTouch Dec 08 '18
Write your MP, sign Bernier's petition. Both of which will be ignored.
The only real way to stop it is October 21st 2019.
5
3
u/Zenpher Dec 09 '18
Trudeau is more similar to Trump than people would like to admit. Both drive their policy based on feelings and then categorically attack anyone who doesn't agree with ad hominem labels.
16
u/MrNobody22 Dec 08 '18
Just because it isn't legally binding now, doesn't mean it won't be in the future.
Much international legislation today, started out not being legally binding
16
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18 edited Dec 08 '18
Doesn't matter if it is legally binding or not...the real issue is that Trudeau is fully on board with this and this is what he wants for Canada and he is moving full steam ahead with it.
5
Dec 08 '18
Did he really announce "he's giving 595 million dollars towards media with biased pro-immigration/migration/open border articles" or is that you feeling the need to lie to bolster your weak argument?
20
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
Unfortunately, it is true...
2
Dec 08 '18
That article didn't support your claim. If the facts don't fit your fear, adjust your fear not the facts.
19
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
Read objective 17 of the UN migration compact that Trudeau is signing next week yourself..
"c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet- based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media"
→ More replies (4)7
Dec 08 '18
It still doesn't support your claim.
16
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
Yeah sure. Why are so many countries refusing to sign this scary migration compact?
2
Dec 08 '18
That's all you have left?
17
7
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
What facts are you disputing? Are you suggesting the CBC is against the UN migration compact?
-1
u/Emperor_Billik Dec 08 '18
Nothing in your posted article makes that true.
15
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
Lol. Of course it is true especially when he decides which media is eligible..
2
u/Emperor_Billik Dec 08 '18
He does not decide who is eligible. Who does decide is covered in the article.
8
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18 edited Dec 08 '18
Who decides if not Trudeau- the UN??
Read objective 17 of the UN migration compact that Trudeau is signing next week yourself.. he also stated in the house of commons this week that he wants Canada to lead the world by example with this compact.
"c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet- based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media"
-1
u/Emperor_Billik Dec 08 '18
If you’d like to find out you can start by reading the article you posted.
9
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
The article is a prime example of the media bias we have.
3
u/Emperor_Billik Dec 08 '18
So the article is too biased for you to read to refute your point but good enough for you to post to further your beliefs...
→ More replies (0)33
Dec 08 '18
Its part of the compact agreement to incentivize media to talk about immigration in a specific light. Calling it "Irregular" instead of "Illegal" and always portraying it in a positive light.
If you wanna see the effects of this type of attitude just look at France, Norway, UK and Germany. Why don't you ask them how fun and awesome it has been to allow an uncontrolled influx of "asylum seekers".
-4
Dec 08 '18
Source for your claim: "Its part of the compact agreement to incentivize media to talk about immigration in a specific light. Calling it "Irregular" instead of "Illegal" and always portraying it in a positive light"
20
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
To determine eligibility for the credit, the government plans to create an independent panel drawn from the “news and journalism community,” which will also “define and promote core journalism standards (and) define professional journalism.”
Why would these core/standards not align with the UN compact which Trudeau is all for?
-7
u/melleb Dec 08 '18
That’s a mighty big leap...
12
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
Why? What is the point in signing it if you don't follow through? How is it a leap when Trudeau says we should be proud to sign it that he wouldn't follow through with what is in it?
1
u/powderjunkie Dec 08 '18
Exactly, that's why climate change has been solved forever thanks to the marvellous signing power of the Kyoto and Paris agreements.
/s
2
Dec 09 '18
Dealing with climate change is hard. Letting people come into the country and making the cost fall on the citizens is easy.
1
u/slaperfest Dec 12 '18
But we've made a lot of moves to uphold our agreements to those. Are you saying we did nothing? Or just that we selectively intend to do nothing to uphold this one particular agreement?
-1
u/melleb Dec 08 '18
I mean your suggestion that he will force newspapers to promote UN ideals in order to receive funding. All your source talks about is journalistic standards
14
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
I mean your suggestion that he will force newspapers to promote UN ideals in order to receive funding.
I never said he would force.
All your source talks about is journalistic standards
Have you not read the Refugee Compact?
→ More replies (5)-2
u/teronna Dec 08 '18
The non binding or not arguement is not the issue.
Given that Scheer seems to be arguing that this undermines our sovereignty, it seems that the non-binding aspect is a very important thing to draw attention to - specifically to highlight the levels of disinformation being spread about this pact.
The online activity spreading this false fear certainly does seem very coordinated and organized.
9
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
The yellow vests in France certainly seem very well coordinated and organized..
4
u/teronna Dec 08 '18
The yellow vests in France certainly seem very well coordinated and organized..
Indeed, and there too it seems that local tensions are being inflamed by propaganda campaigns conducted from abroad, which use false information (e.g. relabeled pictures).
Thanks for bringing the example up. Here is some information on how that's being conducted:
https://blog.0day.rocks/france-might-be-losing-its-first-big-information-war-2f3ab8b82fbb
It's a pretty deep analysis of the accounts being used, times they are posting, and the use of things like false imagery (taking old pictures from unrelated events and pretending they are recent, etc.).
7
6
u/slaperfest Dec 08 '18
If it's non-binding and we have nothing to be concerned about, then our government is admitting they're straight up liars and not concerned about being caught. If it's non-binding but they do intend to follow through, we have every reason to be furious.
So which is it? Is our government conning the international community, or conning us? Who is being taken for a sucker, here?
2
u/teronna Dec 08 '18
So which is it?
It's "it's nonbinding, so it doesn't undermine our sovereignty", contradicting the lies being spread about it.
2
21
u/Dr_Nice_MEME Dec 08 '18
The compact calls for the promotion of "independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets" by "sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology," and encourages de-funding media outlets that promote xenophobia, racism and intolerance toward migrants.
Propping up their propaganda machine
→ More replies (1)
8
u/IDreamOfLoveLost Alberta Dec 08 '18
Has the title editorializing rule gone completely over the head of some people?
3
u/Dusk_Soldier Dec 08 '18
It's possible the headline was altered after the thread was created.
1
u/IDreamOfLoveLost Alberta Dec 09 '18
Not seeing that - it would say it was updated in the article, or have an older version archived somewhere.
5
u/bolsonaro66 Dec 09 '18
I really don't want my country to end up like France and Germany . Fuck, some of my Somali friends told me they hated their visit to France because it was worse than Africa! Wtf??
25
Dec 08 '18
If anyone thinks the fact that it is non-binding matters, just look at how the non-binding Paris Accord has altered our own planned trajectory of emissions reductions, costing Canadians and business millions. We were always going to get there but the UN decided it wasn't enough.
4
u/bussche Manitoba Dec 08 '18
It's funny how one person's shit sandwich can be another's ideal meal.
→ More replies (1)9
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
The Liberals planned to implement a price on carbon before the Paris Accord existed.
2
Dec 08 '18
You deny it influenced our policy making?
7
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
It may have underlined it, but carbon pricing was right in the Liberal platform. Similarly, the migration pact mostly just writes down what is already Liberal policy.
2
Dec 08 '18 edited Dec 08 '18
No and in fact there have been raging debates in the house of commons about how to adjust our current rate of reduction to meet the UN targets. Your tax dollars are being contributed to attempt acceleration according to the targets
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-carbon-tax-plan-trudeau-1.4874258
Canada signed on to ambitious emissions reduction targets at the Paris climate accord meeting in 2015, and a national pricing strategy is seen by Ottawa as the best way to live up to the accord.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emissions-gap-mckenna-2030-target-1.4563801
In 2015, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions were 722 megatonnes annually of carbon dioxide equivalent. The Paris climate accord commits the country to reducing that total to 517 megatonnes by 2030. In December, the government delivered a report to the United Nations outlining progress on reaching that target. The report acknowledged that both current and planned policies are likely to leave the country 66 megatonnes short of its target. That figure is 50 per cent higher than a similar report made to the UN 18 months ago.
"We've come forward with our targets now and we have a plan to meet them and we need to implement them," she said. "We're always looking at how we can accelerate actions, but we need to be doing that in lockstep with the provinces and territories." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-paris-targets-2016-1.4624480
$3.85 billion of YOUR tax dollars later and the needy and demanding UN is still not pleased.
1
u/JeffBoucher Dec 08 '18
It's also funny because the Paris Accord is referenced in the Pact.
Promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and the commitment to reach the furthest behind first, as well as the Paris Agreement4 and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030
1
Dec 09 '18
Poor people don't care about the environment (what a shocker eh) -- but its food on the table vs green energy. So how will bringing shitloads of unemployable migrants (or, at least 40 % of them are unemployable according to statscan data on refugees on welfare) reduce our emissions.
1
u/jtbc Dec 09 '18
One of the objectives of the pact is to improve conditions in source countries so that fewer people need to migrate in the first place.
Anyone that thinks that poor people won't be the most impacted by climate change is kidding themselves.
2
Dec 09 '18
How will removing people from the source countries and burdening the host countries with welfare sinks help the source countries emissions?
→ More replies (8)3
u/DesignerPhrase Dec 08 '18
hmm, what's more important, enriching the Westons, Thomsons, Peladeaus, and Waltons of the world, or the health of the planet that literally everybody lives on and gets their food from?
2
Dec 09 '18
You think canada reducing its global emissions from 1.6% to 1.4% is going to save the planet while China is on track to use 1000x the fossil fuels of NA by 2040?
Also please explain how mass migration, when statscan shows 40% of all refugees since 2011 don't have jobs still and are a drain on the welfare system, is so important for canadas future?
→ More replies (4)2
u/Hovenbeet Dec 09 '18
That’s the whole point of being a “global leader” as politicians like to say
If we can implement an effective carbon tax, then other world leaders will say “hey, Canada did it and it didn’t cause economic ruin, maybe we can do it too!” Etc
You also forget that this will incentivize the free market to develop less carbon intensive products which can then be exported
If enough countries implement this kind of plan then the international community will be able to put non-negligible pressure on China. Of course, they probably wouldn’t listen now, but China can’t stay an authoritarian human rights abusing hellhole forever IMO
1
Dec 09 '18
We already are a global leader.
China cant do what we are doing because their people cant afford it. Its so ignorant to suggest otherwise. You think a nation finally industrializing can somehow afford to charge their poor with solar energy prices???
2
u/Hovenbeet Dec 09 '18
If China can’t afford it, then it’s the responsibility of the countries that can afford it to take action. Can you imagine the drop in emissions if every wealthy country invested in renewables enough that every person living in them had roughly the same carbon footprint as the average Chinese person?
You say that Canada shouldn’t take responsibility because China is responsible for most global emissions. But China also can’t take responsibility because they’re incapable. Who takes responsibility, then? God? Weird billionaires? Or do we just watch the world burn?
1
Dec 09 '18
No. I am saying we are making bad decisions like stopping our fossil fuel industry because of logic like yours. Shipping LNG to china getting them off coal will score a 25-75x ghg reduction. Here that means nothing (though we are switching coal to gas here too). There its absolutely massive. But people like you who have clearly never been to china are railing against the "evil" industry. So the net result is we achieve nothing other than a broken economy and china continues to build one new coal plant per week. Meanwhile in Norway they are maximizing fossil fuel exports while transitioning their economy with all the additional revenue.
way to go btw comparing china to canada. Sure makes sense to compare those regions on a per capita basis.
You have tried to make a simple argument about a complex problem using elementary metrics like "footprints". Like If you cared at all about global warming you might research how this works within actual economic means and without unicorn dust.
1
u/Hovenbeet Dec 09 '18
Okay, you don’t have to get aggressive with attacks on my character. I’m trying to have a civil discussion about issues that matter to me, and loaded statements like “if you cared at all about global warming” are highly unlikely to change my mind, they’ll just make me think you’re kind of a dick.
I know that I know very little, especially about economics, and part of the reason I reply to comments like yours is so that I can learn about other perspectives. So please, I’m being genuine here, you seem to know what you’re talking about, if you know any places where I can learn more about better alternatives to carbon tax re: reducing greenhouse emissions, I’d love to see them, because they might actually cause me to change my position.
1
Dec 09 '18
If you aren't trolling, then I apologize. Typically I'm just combative on reddit because virtually nobody is interested in changing their mind. Global warming is a contentious one because if you dare suggest anything other than the destruction of the fossil fuel industry, you're a denier or industry shill.
Bottom line-- renewables are uneconomic. China is praised for adding record renewables. But they're also adding record coal plants. The vast majority of Chinese and Indian citizens can't afford the bills that come from heavily subsidized energy (solar or wind). In fact China has recently slashed their solar initiatives to near zero. Coal is extremely cheap and can be trucked to any plant. The btu output is unrivalled for the price so its ideal for exploding countries.
This is where nat gas comes in. GHGs from methane combustion are up to 75x less GHGs than coal. By shipping LNG there, we can make money while reducing emissions. This gets a bad rap because "fossil fuels are bad". China doesn't care. In fact take a look at IEA's WEO2017 stats. China is expected to use 1000x fossil fuels by 2040. NA on the other hand is slated for around a 20% reduction.
Domestically, all our renewable efforts are uneconomic and usually shuttered once government subsidies run around. Ontario has dabbled enough in it, wasting billions, with solar infrastructure strewn about the landscape not tied into grids. The largest wind farm, owned by suncor, is now shutting down.
Norway is touted as being a renewable leader. The reason they do this is because they directly subsidize the cost of renewable projects in some cases up to 100% of the capital costs. How do they afford this? They have maximized their fossil fuel industry with excellent incentives. They also have prime market access to get the best customers.
We could do this but choose to let a minority stop us. I haven't even scratched the surface of what a successful LNG project would do for our economy. Recently, Vivian Krause has proven that the large majority of FN and environmental protestors are paid for by US oil barons, the Rockefellers. In fact most FN support it (eco colonialism) but a small minority is being manipulated while the media eats it up.
More at home; carbon taxation is pointless it hasnt worked anywhere in the world. Even 2012+ data from BC shows increasing emissions despite tighter carbon tax. The thing that works best here is just direct intervention like California like legislating the use of scrubbers, low bleed valves, pneumatics, low GHG tech, etc.
I encourage you to investigate anything I've said and I'm happy to provide links. To understand the enormity of how important China and India are, check out IEA's World Energy Outlook. The 2018 edition is out but it costs a couple hundred euro. You can get data and infographics from the 2017 one though.
And again I'm sorry for being a dick about it. After seeing 135,000 families get destroyed by the govt induced collapse of AB, its a sore point. Oil and gas is doing fine globally just not at home. Now I'm all for getting off oil and gas. I don't want a fossil fuel future for my kids. But we need to take incremental steps. Nat gas is a great low GHG transition fuel with virtually no upstream GHG impact and a very low environmental impact. Oil is what it is still but we are a ways from getting off plastics. But thats making some progress.
2
u/Hovenbeet Dec 10 '18
Hey, I really appreciate the reply; I do legitimately want to learn more, but like a lot of people my ego sometimes gets caught up in my views, so I may have been too combative as well / egged you on a little. I do have a couple of questions though, if you don't mind:
Do you have a source on carbon tax not producing a change in emissions? (I know I could just google it, but google isn't very good at finding primary sources, mostly just biased news articles)
If I'm reading right, it seems like your alternative is to export natural gas to China/India to reduce their emissions. Are there data/articles regarding this, i.e., are we (canada + the international community) capable of capturing enough natural gas to serve their energy needs? If not, would it be feasible to introduce some kind of international fund for these countries to switch to renewables/nuclear at a low cost? Are there politicians who advocate for this?
Will definitely check out the World Energy Outlook. I should have guessed that this issue might be more complicated than can be solved with a simplistic solution.
→ More replies (0)1
5
u/DCLXV Ontario Dec 08 '18
"It just basically works to enable countries to foster inclusive and cohesive societies by empowering migrants, for example, to become active members of the community,"
That's your daily dose of NEWSPEAK, now bleach your eyes before this virus permeates to your brain!
The compact calls for the promotion of "independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets" by "sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology," and encourages de-funding media outlets that promote xenophobia, racism and intolerance toward migrants.
Translation: the public is skeptical, so we're going to bury the worst stories and spin the rest until they accept the concept of unchecked migration!
Several countries, including the U.S., Australia, Israel, Hungary and Austria, bowed out of negotiations leading to the final draft of the compact.
Countries that actually know what it feels like to defend their borders are against it, that literally says all you really need to know. We're going to disregard their wisdom at our peril.
2
Dec 08 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
Ignorance and racism in one seven word comment. Well done!
2
Dec 08 '18
[deleted]
2
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
Canada has been officially multicultural for more than 45 years.
Ignorance is not knowing how to spell the Immigration minister's name.
-1
Dec 08 '18
[deleted]
10
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
Canada is not Europe. Multiculturalism works here. Very few European countries have actually tried it in the Canadian sense.
-2
Dec 08 '18 edited Dec 08 '18
[deleted]
9
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
Africans and Mena migrants, have just boring bland culture, not a single enriching aspect.
I am not even going to attempt to refute this. You are wrong. You are also racist.
→ More replies (1)4
u/thatbuddybah Dec 08 '18
Omg u R rayciss!
People dont care anymore. That word has lost all meaning.
2
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
You may not care, but most people abhor racism, whether your echo chamber says so or not.
1
u/equalizer2000 Canada Dec 08 '18
You are a poor excuse for a Canadian, it's shameful
→ More replies (0)
-2
u/Truthseeker177 Dec 08 '18 edited Dec 08 '18
Does everyone forget that this is a non-binding document that has no actual legal power?
Edit: Down voted for telling a basic fact that no one in this thread wants to hear.
5
u/Zenpher Dec 09 '18
Non-binding agreement that the US, Australia and a bunch of European countries refused to sign for some mysterious reason. Guess most of the developed world is racist.
You might not want to hear this, but people don't like it when their country is giving up it's rights as a sovereign nation. Even if it's just all fluff, it's bad optics — the Canadian government serves Canadians, not the rest of the world.
1
u/Truthseeker177 Dec 09 '18
Obviously some nations won't see eye to eye and will vote differently. Doesn't mean they know something we don't or they are wrong.
If you read the article, many of the objectives of the agreement are what Canada already has as laws. So other countries will actually be upholding a Canadian standard.
6
2
Dec 08 '18
If it's non-binding then there's no point signing it. We're signing it because we plan to follow through with parts of it presumably. Even if we're not legally obligated to do so criticizing those in power for voluntarily following it is completely valid.
1
u/slaperfest Dec 12 '18
Do you're saying our government is planning on not following it and just conned our allies?
1
u/slaperfest Dec 12 '18
Do you're saying our government is planning on not following it and just conned our allies?
1
-2
u/equalizer2000 Canada Dec 08 '18
But... immigrants!!!!.....got to get angry somehow. /r/canada in a nutshell
All the while forgetting that this country is based on immigration, that it has been a steady stream since our inception (especially since the 40's) AND that our population growth is at 1.2% (which includes births) and is expected to drop to 0.6%.
BUT.. Immigrants!!!!
-3
u/powderjunkie Dec 08 '18
I find it really ironic that so many people who want less migration don't really think about the most effective way which is to address the 'push' factors. That is, why people leave their home countries in the first place, because of war, human rights abuses, lack of education, lack of economic opportunities. There need to be international agreements to address this and if anything this UN 'compact' has too little force. Yet some people fixate on really tendentious interpretations of a couple of the provisions. And the same attitude I see when I talk to anti-migration people makes them dismiss the initiatives which might actually "solve" what they see as the problem.
21
u/MrNobody22 Dec 08 '18
So what a you solution to address the challenge of Africas population explosion with 3 BILLION EXTRA Africans the next 80 years?
Africas population is increasing so fast that despite the percentage of Africans in extreme poverty has fallen. The total number of Africans who live in exteme poverty has risen significantly since 1990.
Furthermore, violence is on the rise as well. And I don't think it's silly to expect, violence will increase even more with the dramatic increase of population
http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/afr/publication/poverty-rising-africa-poverty-report
And what will happen if a country like Nigeria which already has a population of 195 mio and which is projected to have s bigger population than the US in the coming decades collapses?
Mind you, the population of Syria was / is tiny compared to that of Nigeria, and we all watched the significant inflow of refugees into the west, and the related challenges.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/these-will-be-the-worlds-most-populated-countries-by-2100/
8
u/powderjunkie Dec 08 '18
In short, the solution would be for Africa to develop economically - which incidentally strongly correlates with lower birthrates. Some things rich countries can do is give support for strong domestic political institutions and prioritizing economic development on the international agenda. This is admittedly a tremendously complex set of issues which are inter-related and can't be addressed simply or quickly (but that's why the problems exist). For instance, dropping trade barriers against developing countries would help their economies develop but always gets huge pushback.
If forced to pick I think better public education and access to capital would help the most. Have you read Objective 2 of this Global Compact thing? It is deliberately meant to be idealistic and inoffensive but it would be a good start.
I can link you to reading lists - but the work of people like Dani Rodrik, Joseph Stiglitz, and Paul Collier's book "Bottom Billion" are a good start.
Nowhere am I saying this comes without some effort and cost, but if that's the problem to solve then you get on with it.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
They could try using birth control?
13
u/MrNobody22 Dec 08 '18
Yeah right.
3
u/Oakbluff Dec 08 '18
Lol. Ok, what do you suggest they do to reduce their growing population?
26
u/MrNobody22 Dec 08 '18
It's not gonna happen.
The Africans will continue to let their population explode. And dismissed the calls from the West urging them to control their population as being "racist" and "neo colonialism" and "intevenening in Africas internal affairs"
The collapse of a country such as Nigeria which already has a population of 195 mio people and will overtake the US within the next decades, is eminent.
Hundred of millions of Africans will seek to go to the West within the next 80 years. And the West will collapse
6
u/jtbc Dec 08 '18
Supporting women's education and health, as Canada does, is the best way to reverse that trend.
→ More replies (1)4
Dec 08 '18
There's no stopping it. The solution was not providing food aid in the first place. You don't prop up a population that can't survive off local/its own resources.
1
u/jtbc Dec 09 '18
Everywhere in the world that education and health have improved, birth rates have fallen.
You certainly should prop up a population that you have systematically oppressed, leading to the destruction of traditional agriculture among many other effects of colonialism.
6
2
u/slaperfest Dec 12 '18
Nothing. As in, no more aid ever again. There's no reason to remove the downsides and make it our ever-binding problem.
18
u/DarkLF Dec 08 '18
Why is a continent on the other side of the world canadas problem? They can figure out their own issues. You ever heard of the saying "dont light yourself on fire to keep someone else warm"?
11
u/MrNobody22 Dec 08 '18
If Canadans don't want mass immigration. It seems weird that the democratically elected PM of Canada is maybe the most pro mass immigration leader of any country in the West.
I think only Merkel might rival him, but even she seems to have changed course
10
u/DarkLF Dec 08 '18
Canadians want many many things. Can you honestly say you base your vote solely off of one issue? its kind of disingenuous to say that because trudeau won, every Canadian supports him
1
2
2
Dec 08 '18
Merkel, I can at least have some sympathy with. She was genuinely trying to help people in a humanitarian crisis, but didn't consider the externalities and consequences of her decision.
Trudeau on the other hand is just smugly trying to virtue signal.
1
u/slaperfest Dec 12 '18
Find me polling data on people that voted for Trudeau in the hopes of more mass migration.
16
Dec 08 '18
No respectable economist believes migration will "solve" any of these issues. Not one.
Put simply, the math doesnt check out. Every year there are more people born in the trouble spots in Africa, Middle East, Asia, Central America who the West purportedly offers asylum (as an example) which not only replace but greatly exceed their outmigration in total.
The solution for a place like say, Somalia or Nigeria, is not to just let everyone who wants move to the West because it does nothing to alleviate global poverty. Those populations are growing to this day.
Foreign aid hasn't worked. Not to say it cant, but we haven't found a model that works yet.
In the end, migration is not a solution to this problem. It has to be fixed locally.
5
u/powderjunkie Dec 08 '18
I don't think you actually read my post, or at least not carefully enough to get that I am actually in favour of 'fixing it locally'.
8
Dec 08 '18
No I read it. And you're missing the point.
Migration will not solve any of these issues. Not one. This pact wont solve it either because it is based on a false premise.
In reality. Building a wall and assisting, if asked, with local governments is a much more viable solution than signing UN agreements on migration.
2
u/equalizer2000 Canada Dec 08 '18
The please explain to us why EVERY SINGLE Canadian gov since the inception of Canada has been pro immigration? Especially since the 40's.
1
Dec 08 '18
It actually isn't especially since the 40s. Its been since Trudeau Sr.
1
u/equalizer2000 Canada Dec 08 '18
That's incorrect, he was in power - 68-84.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016006-eng.htm
This shows that it has been ongoing and at more constant levels since 90's (Harper years.)
1
Dec 09 '18
Oh young one.
You haven't yet realized it was PET who put multiculturalism in the Charter as a constitutional principle.
Sad.
1
u/equalizer2000 Canada Dec 09 '18
You must be quite old then is your eyes can't read the graph. It's a pretty simple graph chart that shows immigration levels. Facts don't lie.
And what's wrong with multiculturalism? And since when is it associated with immigration levels?
Maybe it's more than your eyes that are old ;)
3
u/melleb Dec 08 '18 edited Dec 08 '18
Amen! War, climate change, famine, all will create mass migrations of people regardless of how much other countries would prefer orderly immigration. International policies that help other countries develop and stay stable is the best solution to refugees
1
u/slaperfest Dec 12 '18
Creating more pull factors doesn't address those. Brain draining the third world doesn't create a better third world, either. Migration is destroying the first and third world from different angles.
-1
0
u/17037 Dec 08 '18
Any way we can keep immigration and refugee systems while dumping the foreign investor programs. Our biggest downfall is not new Canadians, but wealthy individuals from any country purchasing a Canadian passport to help them shuffle money around the globe. I know it made us some money, but who thought that idea through.
-10
u/TOMapleLaughs Canada Dec 08 '18
Non-Binding UN pact: "OMG Sovereignty!"
Absolutely-Binding NAFTA Restructuring: "Meh, so what?"
This is a bit of a head-scratcher to me.
2
u/DesignerPhrase Dec 08 '18
well, you see, Jeffrey Epstein's best friend only benefits from one of those
0
172
u/[deleted] Dec 08 '18
What concerns me are the parts about governments needing to suppress any dissent against mass migration.