exc911ence

Anyone else read Lowell Green's book, Mayday! Mayday!?

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, if so.

JimV8

Thow us a bone.

Christien

My MIL gave it to me a few weeks ago, eliciting a promise to read it. I'm trying, but it's just so poorly written, it's difficult. I'm only about 40 or 50 pages in. He continuously spouts facts and figures without getting to the point, though his point is easy to decipher. But whatever arguments he's putting forth are so easy to poke holes in, it's hard to take seriously. It reminds me of Bill O'Reilly, except at least O'Reilly shouts down his guests to the point of rendering argument and debate futile, and manages some kind of weak entertainment in the process. This is just boring. The only people that would read and enjoy this book (at least based on what I've read so far, which admittedly isn't the whole book) would be simple-minded folks who like their opinions canned and handed to them wholesale.

My disclaimer: I hate right vs. left dogmatic, rhetorical bashing. Make a valid, logical point or shut up. I'd feel the same way about a left-leaning book that put its argument out in the same manner.

Dale Gribble

+ 5.

But to address the OP's question, sorry, havn't read it yet.

Torontoworker

Isn't this the guy who had a radio show on CHML a few years back? I find the simple minded solutions to complex issues type of people who seem to feel that if they shout loud enough or long enough that this makes them right... sort of a waste of radio time. (tuning out and playing the Pink Floyd CD instead....)

exc911ence

The book definitely has the power to elicite strong opinion.

I borrowed it from my mother, who I believed to be the most open-minded and accepting Liberal-type I knew. She agreed with many, if not most of the ideas that Lowell Green offered and that took me by surprise. After that, I had to read it myself. The information contained inside did not shock me, but then I honestly believe that muticulturalism is a failed experiment anyway so you might say that the author was preaching to the converted with me.

I wasn't fully aware, however, of the huge numbers of immigrants that have been making their way into Canada lately and I found that quite appauling when the country is already suffering from high unemployment and over-stressed infrastructures in its major cities. One look at the crumbling infrastructure of Montreal should be enough for people to think that maybe the ~$20 million spent on processing the Tamil refugees that landed in Victoria last year might have been better utilized.

Canada is not the USA. We only have a few large cities to choose from, not hundreds, and anyone that lives in Vancouver or the GTA can tell you that both cities are filled to capacity already. I'm in Ottawa, which is much smaller than the two aformentioned cities, yet on average, most people spend 60-90 minutes commuting to and from work each day due to the amount of traffic on our few major roads. Ottawa, too, is full and cannot handle thousands of new residents every year without some serious investment in roads and transit. Unfortunately, there is no money for these things despite the fact that we are taxed higher than most developed countries in the world.

I don't agree with the American's idea of "Fortress America" with closed borders and limited trade, but at some point the politicians will have to realize that some times, you have to turn off the tap. This used to be the norm, and it made sense.

Anyway, I started this thread as I thought that it would start an interesting conversation on Canada's policies and what people think about them. I like hearing your thoughts so keep it up!

Christien

Several years ago I was talking with now-health-minister Deb Matthews (she's an old friend of the family, and I grew up with her kids). She had just gone back to UWO to do her PhD in demographics, and her thesis was on immigration and our current fertility rates in Canada. What she discovered was that population in Canada is growing solely due to immigration - more "native" Canadians are dying than are being born in a year. The result of this is that we NEED immigration to grow our population. Green is either unaware of this, or just neglects to mention it.

Just googled it, here's the thesis right here:
http://www.debmatthews.ca/pdf/PhD_Thesis.pdf

As for refugees, I've always felt that we need to accept them, no matter what state our country is in, because even in our worst economic, social, etc. times, it's so much better than where they're coming from it would be cruel to turn them away. And even Green admits that refugees amount to a small percentage of newcomers to our country. I can't remember exactly, but I think he mentioned numbers around 2000 per year.

exc911ence

Another interesting point is that French-Canadians have a culture and history that MUST be preserved, yet English-Canadians do not. It seems that the Quebecers are more aligned with the American way of thinking that dictates that newcomers must assimilate into the existing culture and in the case of the USA, let go of all loyalties to their country of origin. The rest of Canada must make multiculturalism work while Quebec sits by immune to it. Ironic that multiculturalism's biggest proponents (Trudeau, Mulroney, Cretien) were all born in Quebec.

I guess what troubles me is that I am a proud English Canadian and I think that every part of this country has a rich history and culture that we all can be proud of. Why the French culture is of higher importance, and the rest of the world's cultures are equal in the eyes of the government is baffling. Is this a case of the pendulum swinging too far the other way in the vein that white people cannot be proud of who they are without being labeled as "racists" and "white supremacists", while black people can have dedicated schools, television networks and award shows that feature only black people?

If all Canadians, new and old, are equal, why are the French considered more important?

MidnightCayman

I agree with this post 100% but I feel that the majority of the population are still biased towards those who are "different" solely by appearance.

Christien

Regarding the Quebecois, I think they're treated as "more important" simply because they've fought for such treatment. Feeling threatened as a cultural minority completely surrounded by a different, dominant culture, they've felt the need to put laws in place that preserve, as much as possible, what's unique about that culture. IMO, this has worked in many ways (particularly in the arts), however in other ways it's led to intolerance and even oppression, from things like Bill 101 to forced schooling.

And that touches on something Green talks about, but doesn't ever seem to face head-on. He praises the European immigrants of years past for building this country, and seems to have a longing for more European immigrants, while despairing over the marked increase in immigrants from the middle east and India and, moreso in BC, Japan and China. Frankly, I fail to see much difference. All are people that come here looking to make a better life, and the vast majority come with marketable skills (required for immigrants, as opposed to refugees). The fact that we won't accept their training as an accountant, lawyer or doctor and force them to drive cabs is OUR problem, not theirs.

JimV8

The special rights enjoyed by French Canada is enshrined in the British North America Act 1867. The document that made Canada.

duncan1437

some interesting reading here:

http://www.immigrationreform.ca/

in particular this one:

http://www.aims.ca/site/media/aims/M...llturalism.pdf