The study found higher departure rates among immigrants who were admitted in the business and skilled-worker classes, noting that the global labour market makes their mobility easier.
Refugee claimants had the lowest departure rates.
Newcomers from the United States and Hong Kong were most likely to leave Canada, with about half leaving within 10 years. Newcomers from Europe or the Caribbean, in contrast, were about half as likely to leave.
Language was also a factor. Bilingual immigrants and those fluent in French had 25 per cent shorter stays. Married immigrants stayed 25 per cent longer than single immigrants.
by Doug Nesbitt
August, 2005
Confederation in 1867 was the result of many intersecting interests from several different sections of the Canadian ruling class. Ryerson describes two main pressures, first from the rising industrial bourgeoisie, and secondly from imperial interests in Great Britain. Regarding the former, Ryerson describes the industrial bourgeoisie as "[r]equiring a state of their own, under their control, capable of providing a favorable framework for the home market and for securing terms for borrowing abroad..." [25]
Protection had already been sought by industrialists, beginning with agitation in the 1840s. By 1858, Isaac Buchanan, a leading Canadian capitalist, had organized the Association for the Promotion of Canadian Industry, and had helped bring about a protective tariff in that same year. When tariffs were reduced in 1866, Buchanan's organization met again. John A. MacDonald was already praising protection in 1861, and make tariff protection a key plank in his campaigns for Prime Minister.[26]
The second pressure, British interest in confederation, appears to be contradict their own imperial interests. However, the British desired a colony capable of withstanding a naval blockade and isolation. This entailed a diversified, self-sufficient economy, and was a strategic, long-term goal beginning in the 1790s, and accelerating in the aftermath of the War of 1812. At the height of the American Civil War, British military and strategic concerns were raised again, and therefore, no serious objection was made to Canadian confederation.
The merchants themselves had declined in importance by the time of Confederation, contrary to the claims of left nationalist historians. As previously mentioned, the 1850s railway boom was the last bid for continued economic power by the merchant class. Its power had been crumbling for over a decade prior.
The two rebellions in 1837-8 led to a decade of British intervention and pressure to dismantle the political system which had entrenched mercantile interests.[27] The 1840s also marked the end of Britain's mercantile system that had protected Canada's staple export market. South of the border, the American economy was unified by an earlier railway boom and industrialization threatened the interests of merchant class, especially those in Montreal. The merchants began to panic.
The same year that Hincks introduced the Guarantees Act, a group of leading merchants based in Lower Canada published the Annexationist Manifesto calling on the US to annex Canada.[28] The movement gained little popular support, and disappeared as economic prospects improved in 1850. In the following years, the merchant class, heavily invested in the transport industry, began to rely on the home market and the power of the state in order to survive. This necessitated the protection of the home market and a more powerful state.
After several years of serious negotiations, Confederation came into being in 1867 in order to meet the interests of merchants, industrialists and imperialists. The first task of the new Canadian state was to complete the Intercolonial Railway, tying New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to Quebec and Ontario. It also called for a rapid westward expansion and a railway that reached the Pacific Ocean. This would satisfy both merchants and industrialists. The other task was the protection of industry through tariffs. Prime Minister MacDonald's 1879 "National Policy" was the first explicit strategic policy of the Canadian state and called for two courses of action: railways and tariffs. Both courses of action were already well underway by the time it was articulated in MacDonald's campaign policies.
It did not take long for the actions of the new Canadian state to reflect its nature. The railway proved a potent weapon capable of shipping troops with great speed to Manitoba and Saskatchewan in order to conquer the Métis in 1885. Aboriginals were quickly rounded up and imprisoned in reserves. The formation of the the North West Mounted Police served the role as the armed wing of the state in the west, and continues today as one of the state's key forces of repression and violence.
One constant remained during the economic and political upheavals of the 19th century: the oppression of Quebec. Quebec was systematically denied self-determination as domestic and British ruling classes kept the feudal system in place until 1854, despite several disastrous crop failures, soil exhaustion and a bloody rebellion.[29] Even before Confederation, it was clear that national oppression coincided with interests of the domestic ruling classes. National oppression retarded Quebec's economic growth as Ontario became the economic centre by the 1860s.
Through the development of a home market, and the growth of industry, Canada also witnessed the rapid growth of a modern urban working class, ushering in a new age of class conflict.
Cdns should support vital Afghan mission: Harper
But Harper said the previous government made the commitment to Afghanistan, and his party has every intention of following through on it. "This is a critical mission," Harper said. "It's important for global security. The party I lead strongly supported the previous government in its commitment and we believe that the success of this mission is important not just in terms of Canada's objectives but important in terms of the contribution we are making to the world community and global security."
Ok so why are we there?But Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not, and has never been, peacekeeping. Canada joined the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) coalition in 2001 "in order to destroy the Taliban shield that was protecting Al Qaeda's infrastructure in Afghanistan." And then, Canadians were being killed by American "friendly fire."
OEF underwent a name change to the International Security Assistance Force, whose mandate was to protect the Afghani interim government from its "enemies," but it was essentially the same old operation. Canada contributed to both OEF and ISAF.
More recently, the name has changed again -- this time at the insistence of the new Afghani government -- to the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). The term "Reconstruction" is blatantly inappropriate, however, as there is nothing in Afghanistan to be re-constructed.
For example, how many new universities, schools, libraries, hospitals, roads, factories, training centres, clean water plants, sewage treatment facilities, etc. are on the PRT agenda? And what plans has the PRT developed to help Afghani farmers switch from opium cultivation to more beneficial crops?
The U.S. bombed and invaded Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban government because the latter refused to hand over Al Qaeda leaders. Now Afghanistan has a president with no grass roots support in most of the country, and who barely controls even its capital city of Kabul. As a former American CEO, the only support Hamid Karzai gets is from Afghanis who can personally and materially benefit from his American connections.
Meanwhile, the Americans are leaving Afghanistan because there is no oil; because it is one of the poorest countries in the world; and because the Afghanis are a hard-headed people who fiercely resist foreign occupation -- they dug in their heels against the British and Russians and in the end demoralized them both. As well, the Americans believe that Al Qaeda's operations there have been sufficiently disrupted. But above all, America is not at all interested in the human development of Afghanis, not one bit.
Of course, many will remember an early spate of propaganda about invading Afghanistan to free "burqa-clad women cowering in their houses" and give them education and jobs, as well as vague promises to help starving children and train youth to find jobs instead of joining up with the Taliban. But none of this was ever achieved, or even seriously attempted, because there was simply no political will to push the U.S. into providing adequate resources. One in six Afghani women still dies in childbirth, and the female literacy rate is still a mere 14 per cent.
Yep no good reasons to be there.
There is nothing in the 1984 Canada Health Act or any of the subsequent policy directives from Ottawa that bans private clinics, provided they charge only the going Medicare rates and are paid by provincial plans.
Indeed, in Ottawa’s most stringent directive on the subject—the 1995 letter from former Liberal health minister Diane Marleau—provinces are allowed to pay for medically necessary work at private clinics as long as there is no separate facility fee charged by these clinics, or as long as the provincial plan picks up that tab as well.
The objective here is simply to eliminate any kind of user fee that might act as a bar to someone seeking service. So as long as Alberta hews to the policy on facility fees, it should be home free.
Unruffled Evans preferred to call it a search "for the middle ground, where we can build on our capacity to serve Albertans." She might also have mentioned that it's likely a matter of time before Canada's doctors challenge the restrictions placed on them by medicare. We have the only system in the world that dictates working conditions for supposedly self-employed physicians.
Her foes insist she's become reclusive from political life.
That's true, too.
Homebody Colleen Klein rarely travels on trade missions anymore and refused, for example, to attend the premiers' conference in Banff last summer until a Klein bodyguard offered to take care of her pooch.
Klein proved he was abusive in the most public way in the infamous incident with the unemployed at the homeless shelter. Drunk in charge He swore off drinking but that was temporary, typical alcoholic behaviour. Klein’s drinking habits have a long public history.
The stories of Klein and alcohol are endless. He drank openly as Mayor of Calgary in the 1980s. He made the St. Louis Hotel in
Harper said nothing stopped him from unilaterally creating an electoral process to have simultaneous elections for the Commons and Senate."While I obviously would like to see the co-operation of the provinces, it's a commitment our government has made to pursue Senate elections and that's something we believe we can do from Ottawa.'' Harper plans quick action on elected Senate
Yep he will impose his version of Senate reform on parliment in the grand tradition of that other English parlimentarian King Henry VIII. The fact is that the Senate itself is an elitist institution that denies youg or poor Canadians and renters the right to representation in the Red House. It is the very essence of the British Aristocracy the propertied rentier class.
Senators must be at least 30 years old, hold $4,000 in mortgage-free property. They earn more than $100,000 a year, plus pensions and benefits.
Real electoral reform would be to Abolish the Senate and expand the House of Commons through proportional representation.Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, who champions abolishing the Senate as fundamentally undemocratic, had a cautious reaction to the prime minister's announcement.
"Every Canadian knows that reform or abolition is needed and if Mr. Harper can come up with a scheme that addresses both the election of senators and the powers of the Senate, that would be a great contribution.''
"If he aims at just dealing with the elections, I'm not optimistic of the outcome.''
Harper said he did not need the provinces' OK to reform the upper house, but urged them to support his initiative.
The King is dead! Long Live the King!
