Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Idea alert

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:50pm - 0 Comments

Michael Ignatieff throws out a suggestion.

On the second day of his summer-long cross-country tour, Ignatieff told people at a town hall meeting in Kingston that international experience is not something that should be frowned upon. It’s a direct rebuttal to the Conservative party’s efforts to paint Ignatieff — who spent more than two decades living and working in Britain and the United States — as someone who’s just visiting Canada.

“I don’t want Canadians to think the only good Canadian is someone who’s never left these shores,” Ignatieff said. He envisions a program in which the federal government would provide subsidized placements with Canadian institutions or partners overseas to “internationalize” an entire generation of young people.

Tags: education, Kingston, Michael Ignatieff, Universities, university

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

I like that one.

'to “internationalize” an entire generation of young people.'

Yes indeed, I like it very much.
Olaf

How exactly is it the government's job to "internationalize" people? College-age kids have been travelling overseas for years on their own dime, working, partying, or what have you. Is there some reason that tax payers should now subsidize that effort?

I'm pretty tired of the notion that because something is "good" (and I do think traveling overseas is generally a 'good thing') the government should start paying for it (i.e., spread the costs amongs both people who travel overseas and those who don't). If you want to go to Europe, well God speed, but why should I chip in?

Emily

Because this country needs it.

We are entering a globalized world, and we can't do it with people who've never been 5 miles from home.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Emily…you really are a kool-aid drinker. If travelling the world being an intellectual, hob knobbing with the rich and famous, writing books, hosting TV shows etc is what is needed to be a good politician why then is Ignatieff blowing it? Inquiring minds what to know.

Emily

Kool-aid is a rightwing thing, and I'm not rightwing.

Don't distort what he said.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

You're right Emily – they drink chemicals called cool aid, we drink real stuff, beer, whine and booze

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Emily…..are you going to make it a rule that any person who participates in this program must come back and run for parliament. Once again why is Ignatieff failing if he is the poster boy for those who lived and worked outside the country. He is failing miserably and even Jim Travers acknowledges he will lose the next election. He being one of the bosterious of Liberal shills besides yourself of course.

Emily

What does it have to do with Parliament? Or being a politician?

They can come back with international experience to work in business, or teach at university, or a thousand other things!

I don't like any of our parties I'm afraid, so we're wasting your time on the usual accusations.

http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

Too many white males?
Emily

Too many morons. Take it any way you like.
Pat

Heh.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

I guess the righties never heard of exchange students.

Richard_S_Argent

Here's the key point:

"He envisions a program in which the federal government would provide subsidized placements with Canadian institutions or partners overseas"

You're conflating pleasure travel with working overseas. But that's just a coincidence I'm sure.

Olaf

No I'm not. I included "work" in my description of what Canadian youth do overseas, in direct reference to the "placement" part of the comment. But if our goal is to "internationalize" Canadians, and to make sure every last one of them have "left these shores", it wouldn't much make a difference whether they were working or merely trotting around. Hell, if you really want to internationalize them, you probably wouldn't want them stuck working for a single institution in a single place for the entire time, you'd want them to move around like a backpacker, no?

I'm still waiting to hear why I should help someone pay for them traveling, when they're perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

Emily

Why should you pay for anything? For the good of the country and the future….which is the govts main job.

But YOU could live in a cabin in the woods and go back to the 1700s if you like.

Olaf

Yes, the future of Canada depends on sending kids, who otherwise would have paid to travel themselves, overseas for a stint, and spreading the cost evenly among tax payers. That makes perfect sense.
Emily

The future of Canada depends on globalization.

We are discussing Canadians gaining international experience in schools, businesses and the like.
Olaf

Which I agree is a good thing, but that's not the point. Many do this already without asking their fellow citizens to pay for it. Again, that something is 'good' does not mean that the government should necessarily pay for it.
Emily

Why no, we can chuck health and education and all out the window, and only fund the military.
Olaf

I don't think any reasonable person would put some vague notion of "internationalizing" a human being on the same priority list with providing health care and K-12 education, would they? Can one not support some government spending without supporting every proposal for government spending?
Emily

Well since it's vital to our national interests and economic well-being, I'd say it's just as important.
Olaf

Vital to our national interests and economic well-being? That Canadian youth get jobs overseas (more than currently do, that is)? Would it require the participation of all youthful Canadians, or might our country survive if only a percentage of Canadian youth went on a government paid junket to Europe?
Emily

Canada was founded on trade. We live on trade. We depend on trade.

Without trade we'd be North Korea.

And now, with globalization, we can trade world-wide.

Sending the future citizens of our country overseas to gain work experience and global knowledge is vital to our national interests and well being.
Olaf

Miraculously, Canada has managed to trade internationally for sometime now without government sponsored trips overseas to work in the mail room at a Canadian embassy. Incidentally, the kind of policies that actually increase Canada's trade with other countries (free trade agreements) are the types of policies that many left-wing types oppose vociferously for any number of reasons. But I'm glad you're on board.
Emily

We've been sponsoring overseas travel for a very long time, and in the 21st century there'll be even more of it. Peaceful this time though.

Since I'm not remotely left-wing, it's not surprising I'd be pro-trade.
Olaf

We've been sponsoring overseas travel for a very long time, and in the 21st century there'll be even more of it. Peaceful this time though.

Yea, you would like that, wouldn't you, Taliban Emily? :)

Anyway, I don't know what you are, you're a mystery to me. But I shouldn't have assumed, apologies.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Without agreeing/disagreeing, do you know or suspect that the direct beneficiaries of this plan would travel regardless of the subsidy?
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Emily….typical Liberal response. The government is not responsible for this kind of crap. Their job is to provide the economic environment to help business and individuals prosper from their own efforts. This damn thing about the nanny state is tiresome to put it kindly. Are you watching what is happening in the States. There is going to be a rebellion with this President who thinks it is the job of the government to be all things to all people. Its failed in Europe and it will fail here.
Emily

Please dump the silly partisan stuff.

I don't like any of our parties or leaders.

The govt looks after the economy….yes.

And trade and globalization is the biggest part of that for us.
Marion

Funny you should bring up the US, since they have had such a program for almost 50 years: http://www.peacecorps.gov/
Emily

We also have CUSO.
Marion

Cool. I didn't know about that.
Also, Katimaavik is a good program. Canada is a big country, and people should see more of it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Katimavik was great, until a Conservative government cancelled it. Luckily, it came back.

Unluckily, the current Harper government seems to be leaning in the same direction as Mulroney did.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Marion…….yes the peacecorps appeals to the rich. If it is so successful broadly speaking why do most American young people know little about the world around them.

However, let me say that if Ignatieff and the Liberals come up with this kind of stuff during an election campaign they will no longer be the official opposition…the Bloc will be.

Once again for the benefit of Liberals. It is the bread and butter issues that are going to cause Canadians to vote for one party over the other. Ignatieff does not understand economics so he does not talk about it. He would rather talk about what the elitists want. Internationalize our kids?
brooster

You're finding Liberals behind every comment to which you object. Workin' for Steve, are ya'?
Marion

I don't know about the US, but my mom took part in the German version of the program (Entwicklungshelfer) in the 60s, and she was by no means rich. She was born during the war and lost her dad at 13.

Maybe they should be advertising it more?
Pat

"If it is so successful broadly speaking why do most American young people know little about the world around them."

I am not sure this is any more true about Americans than it is about anyone else. When I was travelling overseas, the Americans I met were well rounded, knowledgable individuals. The problem is not with the people who travel, it is with the people who stayed home.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Nope, you're still doing it – you're trying to portray this as simply a plan to give scruffy-faced backpackers government money to go find themselves. You just threw in "work" there to keep up the pretense that you're trying to discuss in good faith.

Standing By

Actually, I'd support a plan to give scruffy-faced backpackers government money to go learn about other parts of the world.

Usually it's mostly the well-off that get to do that. I think it would be money well-spent to support children of the less wealthy in this way.
Olaf

If someone disagrees with you that doesn't mean they're arguing in bad faith. I said that when youth currently go overseas, they do so to work and/or party. Is this untrue?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Nope, I've had plenty of discussions with people I disagree with. And they've often been quite fruitful, but for that to happen, the poster must be arguing in good faith. Your schtick, this whole "Well I personally don't have a horse in this race, but if you ask me, I think blah blah blah" (and the blah blah blah looks suspiciously like fancied up right wing talking points) has been done. You're not fooling anyone.

When you say things like this:

"I'm still waiting to hear why I should help someone pay for them traveling, when they're perfectly capable of doing it themselves."

You're deliberately trying to obscure the proposal with the hackneyed image of young backpackers traversing Europe. I guess it's just convenient that your caricature also serves to undercut the validity of a proposal that is worth exploring.

What's next? Insisting that all you really are saying is something trivial that nobody could possibly disagree with? Oh, I see you already did:

"I said that when youth currently go overseas, they do so to work and/or party. Is this untrue?"

That's not what you're saying. If that's all you were saying you'd be the Captain of the Obvious Brigade.
Olaf

I might sound right wing, and that's because I am conservative (fiscal, not social). I'm on the libertarian side of spectrum, generally speaking. Would it not be natural for me to oppose this sort of program?

You're deliberately trying to obscure the proposal with the hackneyed image of young backpackers traversing Europe

I used the word "partying" once in my original post, in describing one of things that Canadian youth currently do overseas without having it paid for by their fellow citizens. Since then, you haven't shut up about scruffy-faced backpackers traversing Europe. Who's drawing the caricature again?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Well actually you've used the word "partying" twice, and have continually belittled the concept of helping "travellers" instead of "work force".

But yes, I can see now, I'm the one caricaturing the proposal that I think is potentially worthwhile.
Olaf

I used the word "partying" once in my initial post directly beside the word "working" in the process of stating a fact, from which you managed to divine that what I was actually criticizing was the government subsidizing scruffy-faced backpackers cashing government cheques. I think your imagination can get away from you sometimes.

Well actually you've used the word "partying" twice, and have continually belittled the concept of helping "travellers" instead of "work force".

Isn't thewhole point of the project to travel? People can get "job experience" in Canada. That's not my understanding of what Ignatieff wants. He want's people to become "internationalized" and 'leave our shores', isn't that what he said? My position remains that if people want to become internationalized, they're perfectly capable of doing so without asking every other Canadian to chip in.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Well no, the point isn't to travel. It's to work overseas. I though that was pretty obvious, what with the headline being "Ignatieff touts plan for Canadians to WORK abroad" and all.

"Travelling" connotes "vacationing". I stand by my assertion that you are trying very dilligently to push that notion.
Olaf

"Ignatieff touts plan for Canadians to work ABROAD" I can use caps lock too you know! Very tech saavy over here.

How will working overseas "internationalize" someone, and inculcate the notion that 'good Canadians' may have left our shores at some ponit or another without becoming bad? It's the going overseas that will certainly accomplish leaving our shores, and possibly accomplish the full scale "internationalization" of our collective psyche. The working is incidental to the goals that Ignatieff himself sets out for the program. At least I'm reading what he's actually saying and forming opinions on that basis.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Well, to WORK overseas, means you have to LIVE overseas. The employee will eventually return home with a better understanding of the world, and will have done so not by being a leech on society but by helping to make a Canadian firm stronger. That, I assume, is the thinking behind the proposal (which isn't even a proposal yet, but only a seed of one)

You keep framing this as a pleasure jaunt, a "Grande Tour" if you will, a government sponsored "booze cruise". It's disingenuous.

Frankly the lengths you guys are going to in order to undercut a wholly worthwhile and not even remotely controversial proposal is mind-boggling.
Olaf

Well, to WORK overseas, means you have to LIVE overseas.

Right, the only word you used twice was "overseas". That seems to be the point. And you don't need to WORK overseas to LIVE overseas, you really just need to BE overseas. That's the point of the policy. I don't know how you're not grasping this. I started to respond to your other arguments but we're talking past each other at this point so I bid you a good day.
Olaf

And I'm saying that if you actually want to "internationalize" someone (let alone an entire generation), you'd prefer them to be a scruffy-faced backpacker moving from country to country than someone stuck in a 9 to 5 job in a single place overseas the whole time. I get that this program as Ignatieff describes it will entail having a job overseas, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point is that many youth do this now, through programs like SWAP and countless others (type 'Canada work abroad' into google), and do so without asking everyone else to chip in for their enjoyable experience (sorry, for their gruelling work position).

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Richard_S_Argent…..why then must the taxpayers' pay for it. Let the institutions or partners overseas pay for it.

We all know only 30% of the kids go to university. Unfortunatley most of todays kids will end up in dead end jobs. So this type of approach will not have much broad appeal. In fact it will cause some people to reject the Liberal party because they see it as a tax and spend party.

Standing By

Oh, the horror. God forbid anyone should advocate a benefit for young people, lest they be branded as a tax and spend party.

In truth, I think any program that helped young people travel and study and work abroad would likely poll quite well with Canadians.

Emily

Yes, I agree. Great thing for the country, and the young people that will soon run it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Olaf…..nobody is saying it is wrong to see the world and experience all it has to offer. However, it needs to be done on their own dime not on the taxpayers' dime. Once again this is elitist stuff that will not go over with the vast majority of Canadians. I fully agree with you sentiments.

Ignatieff doesn't get it. You can travel the world, be an intellectual etc. etc. However, it is another thing to live outside the country and come back after 34 years and expect to be PM. It oozes of arrogance and elitiism. Of course that is the Liberal way of doing things.

Emily

Again you're getting off on distortions. This doesn't help a discussion.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Emily…….no it is the Liberals who can't understand what Canadians really want. You and the rest of your cohorts are out of touch. You think we are still in the 60s and people want the government do everything for them. Those days are gone and your party would be better off announcing policies that connect with the vast majority of Canadians rather than this elitst, going nowhere stuff.

Emily

Okay, if you can't dump the flags/balloons/pom-poms/campaigining et al, and discuss an idea as an idea….I can't be bothered talking to you.

Ciao.

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Actually he is not Emily, Ignatieff needs to convince us why he is the best choice to be PM and this is not helping his cause!

Emily

Sorry…no batons and vuvuzelas for you either.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Man, maybe next time : ) There I thumb you up!
Dee

Why do I get the impression that no matter what Ignatieff does he won't win your vote for PM, Claudia? You are starting to sound like a broken record…
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

I might sound like a broken record, but you will see when the next election comes, no matter what Ignatieff does at this point, he is done ! And that's not because I say so or I don't like him (which I actually do!), to change peoples mind about him will take more than a bus tour, but I guess we'll see if I am right!

Standing By

Hollinm isn't here to help the discussions. The cons are just a bit off-kilter because they are trying to figure out how to oppose a program that would likely be well received by most Canadians.

Emily

Good point.

Hard to counter a suggestion like Iggy's.

'Stay home and shut up' just doesn't have the same ring. LOL
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

OK, how about BECAUSE WE ARE EFFING BROKE???!!!!!????

This is a dumb idea even if we are flush with cash, because a country is far better off when it is not populated by helpless creatures with no personal initiative until some gift from Ottawa contains cash and instructions on how to spend it.

It is beyond dumb when Ottawa doesn't even have the cash.

Does that help your discussion, any?
Standing By

Good try, madyoulook, but if we were broke (and we aren't, our finances are just fine, actually) then we wouldn't be blowing billions on security for international conferences, would we?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

You mean we aren't broke? You've got a plan to kill all off our seniors before they draw too heavily on their pensions and health care costs? Or do you have several hundred billion in a vault somewhere you've been keeping from us in order not to ruin the surprise?

Being a smaller basket than many other basket cases around the world is a curious way to assert that our finances are fine.

You can even believe that our debt position is not a sobering hunk of a mess, and still you have ignored the *cough* wisdom *cough* of rendering us blubbering helpless dopes who wouldn't know what to do with our lives until GOVERNMENT just happens to come along to nudge us in the right direction with a thirty-five-thousand dollar grant, a passport and a Canada Direct phone card.
Emily

Yes, cuz we'll never earn a nickel again. Everything will remain as it is right now, except that seniors will retire en masse.

Or…we could get our youth educated and travelled.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

No doubt you will show that outrage for this "broke" government that found 2.6 billion $ a day or so ago to build new frigates or ships or whatever for the next 30 years?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Only if it is not the best way to respect its responsibilities of (whipping out that pesky Constitution thing) the defence of the nation. Oh, look! That's actually one of the few things Ottawa is SUPPOSED to do!

I have heard enough pro and con about whether these particular supply ships make sense. At the moment I am getting more and more persuaded by those against them. But at least the naval defence of the nation's interests and security is actually one of the federal government's mandates. You can look it up.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Hollinm is on every site, every article spewing this limited thinking. Must have lots of time on his hands.

I sometimes read the comments sections just to see what people are saying – he's always on them.

Either he's paid by Harper or he needs to get a life

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Actually, Ignatieff needs to talk about CANADA and all of the benefits that this wonderful country has to offer, because of his background and lack of connection with most Canadians that's not what he should be focusing on, talk about leaving for other countries should not even enter his mind right now, it does surprise me that for someone who is supposed to be so smart, doesn't get it !

You are right Hollinm, he is out of touch with Canadians !

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Claudia Lemire…..This whole magical mystery bus tour is suppose to be about connecting with Canadians. Yet all he does is talk about Harper. How does that help those that he is meeting to understand him or what the Liberals are all about. There is no election campaign on. Somebody should tell the Count because he thinks he is in one.

He has not said one word about himself or the Liberal party that would cause anybody to change their minds about him or the party. It will be just seen as more ranting and raving by an arrogant elitist who doesn't think we have the ability to think for ourselves. Right. He is going to bring politics back to Canadians. What in the h.ll does that mean. Even he doesn't know.

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

I agree.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Of course you do Claudia.. you're a Conservative supporter.. I've seen nothing from you on here to indicate otherwise.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

100%, first time in my life that I voted Conservative, I have been a Liberal my whole life, but the party needs a new leader, he is killing it!

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Whereas I believe the government has a place in investing in innovation and learning, I think Ignatieff's idea is a decent one. Not fully thought out, mind you, but interesting in concept.

It is our manufacturers and resource industries – oil & gas, forestry, farming, fishing – who could benefit the most from working with organizations abroad and learning what technologies are out there to make business more efficient and effective. These are industries choc full of people who don't always earn a great deal of money, and who don't often come from backgrounds where international opportunities to go and learn are on the table. So setting up such programs, perhaps not subsidizing, but a work exchange, maybe, might be worth looking into.

Amateur Hour

Agreed. For example, Canadian oil, gas and mining companies are active in 38 countries on the African continent alone. Investment has skyrocketed there since 1996.

Yet how many Canadians making decisions about exploration, infrastructure, risk management, environmental assessments or venture capital, financing, portfolio management, etc. have ANY applied experience in such environments? How many Canadians depending on these industries — for their jobs and investments — have the experience needed to understand political and regulatory realities where these major Canadian projects are happening?

Not enough.

Olaf

Ok, are you suggesting that Ignatieff's plan (or a suitable alternative) would be some version of taking people currently working in certain industries and sending them overseas to where their companies operate so they could really get a feel for things? Do you think that massive resource extraction companies don't send their employees overseas? Don't ensure that they have a good understanding of political and regulatory realities? Aren't able to do so without the government paying for it (insert oil industry subsidy joke here)?

I guess I don't know what you're saying. Can you clarify?
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

They do, all the time!

Wascally Wabbit

Er – hello Mr. Ignatieff…then who are these kids who pop up all over the world carrying rucksacks with the Maple Leaf sewn to them? Are they all Americans?

Emily

Well that's kind of a 60s thing, but bumming around Europe, sleeping in hostels, visiting museums, smoking pot….isn't the same as living and working around the world, and then bringing that knowledge and experience and the connections back to Canada.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Being an "international intern", which means working low level jobs for low pay, isnt what Iggy has proposed.

That kind of thing might be useful but requires a little more thought than just saying we will give government earned Aeroplan points to people. The policy as we have heard it so far sounds more like the backpacker thing.

The government setting up an intern program in conjunction with business is another matter altogether…..but once again remember who would be able to take advantage of that kind of program….and it isnt the disenfranchised.

I think there is a seed of an idea here, but it isnt really thought through yet.

Emily

It wasn't presented as a policy paper, it was part of a discussion Iggy was having at a bus stop.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

So it really is just an off the cuff thing after all.

Tells you something about how much people are looking for signs of brain stem activity in the Liberal party when a bus stop discussion passes for policy.

Anyway, nice to know we can safely ignore then.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Well apparently we are too embarassed to do that now…..at least according to a Liberal ad last year.
Standing By

We know who those "kids" are. They are mostly the children of high income families. I think any sensible plan would allow young people from families of lesser means to have the same experience, to their benefit, and the benefit of Canada.

One of the things that made the Liberals successful in days of old was that they stole good ideas raised by other parties. The cons seem determined to attack any and all ideas that don't come from the PM himself, or at least from right-wing US blogs.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

So who here was complaining about the G20 meeting and saying couldnt they meet by videoconference?

Just sayin…..
hosertohoosier

I think the key question isn't whether international experience is beneficial to somebody, it is whether it is a public good. Lets assume that international experience improves the value of a worker (I think this is generally a dubious prospect, by the way). That worker will be able to reap most of the advantages of this experience in the form of higher wages, or a better chance of getting a job themselves. In other words, Ignatieff wants the public purse to fund the private gains of a subset of workers. Moreover, since workers would already reap the benefits of international service (if there are any), the subsidies would actually encourage over-investment in international service (much like our generous subsidies for post-secondary education produce credential inflation).

Why would Ignatieff do this? Because the workers likely to take part in this program tend to come from the industries that are the mainstay of the Liberal party. This bill is not about the creation of wealth, it is about the redistribution of wealth.

Emily

Those better-educated, well-travelled 'workers' pay taxes, and bring in business.

In case you haven't noticed we aren't in the industrial age anymore.
Standing By

Hosertohoosier's argument could be used to argue against public education in general, including all publicly-funded job training.

Fortunately, most Canadians strongly support these kind of social investments. I think they'd react quite favourably to anything that promoted the "internationalization" of our future workforce. This is potentially a good policy direction for the liberals.

Olaf

Fortunately, most Canadians strongly support these kind of social investments

So why don't those Canadians who "strongly support these kind of social investments" set up a "send kids overseas to work" charity and contribute to it generously, and spare the people who think 18-22 year olds can make it overseas all by their big selves.

Standing By

I'm sure we could find a way to target it, if we wanted, but I like the idea of making this kind of program open to everyone who wants to do it. It's a good investment in our future.

Olaf

The hypothetical charitable program will be open to everyone. It just would only be funded by those people who support it. Fortunately, that's "most Canadians", who will have no problem using a chunk of their monthly paychecks for such a good investment in our future.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Who supplies your water?
Olaf

Everyone uses water. This isn't a "government shouldn't do anthing" argument, it's a "government shouldn't do everything" argument. The question is where to draw the line and I think there's a good argument to be made that the answer is 'before a trip to work overseas'.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

It's sad that you have to keep making that same point to people who can type. Keep up the good fight, Olaf.

But, hey, everyone, look on the bright side. I guess we have to find SOMETHING to do for all these newly minted-at-have-provinces-expense Québec babies born to infertile couples. Might as well pay for their work experience international co-op program, too.

The insanity, it seems knows no limits.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

No kidding. This is by far the most hair-brained scheme the Liberals have ever come up with. I would have expected something ridiculous like this from the NDP, but I guess this is a sign that we aren't to take the Liberals seriously anymore either.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Whoops…I thought you meant "What are you drinking?", but you actually meant "Who supplies your water?" ;-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Heh, no, I'd raise a glass of water or anything else with Olaf anytime. I just don't agree with him. :)
Olaf

See, everyone entertains the notion that having a drink with me might be borderline pleasant. But the evening always ends up with me 22 oz. deep into a bottle of Alberta Premium yelling at whoever will listen that they are personally spending my hard earned money on their "hippy feel-goodery Marxist spending schemes". I've made my mother cry on numerous occasions. It's not pretty.
Halo_Override

No worries, I'm a lightweight, I'll be passed out long before that spectacle.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Wow….hippy feel-goodery and Marxist, not just one or the other…that's really bad! ;-)

Emily

Okay, and you people who want to fund the military can hold a bake sale.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

If ever you or Ignatieff trip over the Canadian Constitution, perhaps one could share it with the other.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

You're seriously equating national defense with sending college kids to party? A new low, even for you.

hosertohoosier

There are lots of public goods to public education that do not exist for traveling abroad.
1. Education makes people better citizens/increases civic knowledge and is the foundation of democracy.
2. I think there is a vastly stronger case, dollar for dollar, that education increases worker productivity. I do not see how going abroad increases worker productivity all that much. At best, it may give a worker contacts with others in another country and/or additional knowledge of how business operates in another country (though point that you guys are making that "we live in a global economy" undercuts this advantage, since corporations are becoming more and more alike). These assets will not yield tangible results for the vast majority of workers. Maybe if somebody becomes a manager, a diplomat, or something like that they will – but we are talking about a tiny percentage of the workforce.
3. In addition, these are not very general skills and – in a fast-changing marketplace – they may also become obsolete quickly. However, it may take Joey intern 4 years to complete his B comm, another few for experience, and then 3 for the MBA. By that time it is not clear the connections will be of very much value.
4. Moreover secondary spending is much more equitable, since it goes towards every child – not just a subset of the Canadian population that is already affluent and well-connected.

The bottom line is that this is like forcing people to take an introductory language course (one of the dumbest university requirements out there). To really get anything out of a language, you need to specialize. Similarly, the people who will benefit from placement abroad are people who will ultimately specialize in another country in some respect. This is a tiny proportion of the population – and I guarantee most of those going abroad will be people that want a vacation and life experience. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with taxpayers paying for it.

bergkamp

"He envisions a program in which the federal government would provide subsidized placements with Canadian institutions or partners overseas to “internationalize” an entire generation of young people."

Iggy's big idea is to send university aged kids abroad for a vacation? I wonder how many people want to subsidize middle class kids so they can become internationalized, whatever that means.

Shouldn't we be bringing people here to become internationalized, rather than other way around.

Emily

a) it's not a vacation

b) it's not just for the middle-class

c) we already have a lot of people here from elsewhere, it's time we did the same.

hosertohoosier

Regarding c), wouldn't that suggest that Canadians are pretty internationalized already? For instance, I grew up in Toronto, which is the most diverse city in the world. Since going abroad, I have lived in a place with LESS diversity, and probably learned less about other cultures than I would have in Toronto. Why go abroad, when Canada is already a multicultural mecca?

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Because Toronto, being so multicultural, is a city vibe all its own. Even other cities in Canada have completely different vibes and localisms, and heck, small-town Canada can feel like a different planet sometimes – other countries are like other worlds, with their own laws, traditions, and languages.

When you experience culture being immersed in it, having to speak the language in order to get around, having to navigate life and work in a completely foreign environment, and step outside your comfort zone, that's when you learn so much about yourself and what you're capable of. An exchange program, even if it's not subsidized and just managed by the Federal Government, is certainly an idea worth debating, as we're doing here.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

I know enough recent Canadian grads looking for Canadian work experience in their field. Perhaps a more robust program to encourage recent and underemployed grads to work in parts of Canada where such skills are in higher demand would be an easier sell than sending them overseas. An international experience is nice and all, but encouraging people to gain valuable work experience while learning more about the country is a stronger win-win in my opinion.

Standing By

I don't see why one precludes the other.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

It's not about precluding… I just like my idea more : )
hosertohoosier

Well for one, the cost of internships at home are much much lower, so you can benefit far more people.

Emily

Working abroad would give them a wider, more experienced, resume.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Cool. Nobody's stopping them. Honestly, do you even get that it's the obliging-all-taxpayers-to-foot-the-bill thing that is the problem, here?

Standing By

I think both initiatives would have merit.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Is this different from Paul Martin's Canada Corps idea? Is it more like a scholarship program? Because I thought we had that already.

Also, Ignatieff pretending that the only qualification for PM is that you're a "good Canadian" is a bit silly. I'm sure some people do attack his goodness and patriotism, but the core point is that he wouldn't make a good PM because he doesn't have enough experience with Canada and its poltical debates.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I see the purpose of that argument against Ignatieff, but it's a slippery slope from that to saying that in order to be PM, you have to be a career politician.

Which, historically speaking, is false. And no, I have no intention of digging up my "where were they before they sat to the right of the GG" rant.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

It seems like a pretty long slope from "a good PM should have a deep, practical grasp of Canadian politics and issues" to "the PM must be a career politician".

Steve M

Join the Cdn Armed Forces and see the world! :-)

But seriously, this may be a "rebuttal", but it's hardly a "direct rebuttal". The issue is his lack of domestic experience. Whether he spent all those decades abroad, in space, or in cryogenic suspension is beside the point, which is that he hadn't spent much time living in Canada.

Emily

Which, judging by some of these replies, is a good thing!
Amateur Hour

Okay, let's get serious then: The Ignatieffs & Grants have long, proud Canadian histories. His dad was a career Canadian diplomat and his mom comes from a long line of Canadian ministers and teachers.

As for Iggy's "domestic experience":
He was born in Toronto.
He went to High School in Toronto.
He graduated from the University of Toronto.
He worked part-time at the Globe & Mail.
(FYI: all of the above are in Canada)

He left to study at Oxford and Harvard.
(You may have heard of these schools in movies or on Masterpiece Theatre.)

He returned to Canada to teach at the University of British Columbia.
(That's in Canada, too).

He was so good at teaching and writing and reporting that he was able to do those things in the UK, Israel and the USA for many years.

In 2005, he returned to Canada intending to take up a position at the University of Toronto.
An election was called in 2006 and he instead stood for election as an MP in Etobicoke (also in Canada, BTW).
In 2008 he ran again as an MP from Etobicoke.
Now he's Leader of the Official Opposition … also in Canada.

Can we please now move away from the absurd notion that a Canadian man, educated in Canada, who worked in Canada AND abroad, and who has twice won his riding as an MP in the Canadian House of Commons is anything but a Canadian?

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

He is just one lousy politician!

Amateur Hour

That may be the case … but lying about or defaming him is simply unacceptable.
It's unacceptable to the many hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work or live abroad.
It's unacceptable to the millions of Canadians who were born abroad.

"He is just one lousy politician!" … once upon a time, that would have been a compliment in Conservative circles.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

He's still not lived in Canada long enough for most Canadians to be comfortable with the idea of him as PM.

Emily

Yes, most countries would be tickled their leader had such credentials.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

How about we make sure Canadian youth are Canadian first, by teaching them Canadian history, civics, and love of country. Then we can worry about "internationalizing" them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

More compulsory Cdn History classes? Yep Yep! That would be AMAZING.

Doesn't have any bearing on this idea though.
Out There

The schools already teach Canadian history.

I don't think love of country can be taught – you either have it or you don't. And I'm not sure how a school could teach this sort of thing.

But I think you do have a point about ensuring that young people are taught Canadian civics. If students are given a good grounding in how the Westminster system of government works, they won't be fooled by politicians who claim that a coalition government is equivalent to a coup.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"The schools already teach Canadian history."

No they don't; they teach a pablum version of history that largely focuses on the politically popular causes of our day: pacifism, leftism, and feminism. Teaching actual Canadian history requires a lot of emphasis on military accomplishments (including some at the expense of the French – oo la la), a predominance of white male historical characters, and the slaughter of large numbers of cute furry animals. Not good.

"I don't think love of country can be taught – you either have it or you don't. And I'm not sure how a school could teach this sort of thing. "

I was referring to parents, not schools. It may be debatable whether virtue can be taught at all, but it's pretty clear that it can't be taught in the schools.

Emily

Well, we now know your era and level of education.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I'll have you know that I am a proud graduate of kindergarten. Senior kindergarten.
Emily

Oooh wow. LOL
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Best not to make assumptions. I suspect Gaunilon is younger than you'd guess, and highly educated.
Emily

It's not a matter of age, it's a matter of attitude.

I've known lots of young fogeys, and also lots of progressive elderly people
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Well that can't be right…. conservatives hate higher education in any form. Everyone knows that.
Crit_Reasoning

True enough. Everyone knows that conservatives are intellectually deficient troglodytes. And don't get me started on religious conservatives. Morons, all of them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

absolutely, positively, one million percent incorrect.

Sorry, as a future Canadian History teacher I can assure you, that the cartoonish image you just gave is completely false.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

As someone who went to school in Canada, so can I.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

My experience taking History in high school was that it was indeed cartoonish, and that if I wanted any depth to my learning experience, I'd have to go through archives and books beyond the textbook – which was quite literally cartoonish – and find it myself. I learned more about history from my music classes (Railway Trilogy, One Tin Soldier) than I did in the course proper.

This besides, it did tend to focus on what continues to be socially salient today: the roles of women, the roles of minorities, how combining cultures has made the fabric of Canadian society richer, et cetera. It skipped over residential schools. It skipped over the head tax. It skipped over our contributions to peacekeeping in Cyprus and Rwanda, and missed just about every single public policy achievement beginning in 1929.

Now, the curriculum may be different, and you may yet prove to be a better history teacher than I had, but this is what my graduating class dealt with.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I just finished up my placement which lasted from January to Victoria Day Weekend. And by the time I left we had only just finished WWII. If anything, I'd say that history has swung a bit too far back to the World Wars variety (the whole Granatstein "Who Killed Canadian History" thing). Of course there is lots of room for teachers to put a little focus on their pet interests, but really what ends up happening is that you have to zip through 1945 to 2010. If anything, the history courses in Ontario are basically designed to present a far more, well, conservative narrative than anything else. You just don't have the time to get too in depth with any topic. If you do, others will suffer.

There absolutely should be a 2nd compulsory Cdn History course. It would allow for a far more varied approach to our history. Say in Gr 10 you go from Confederation to the Great Depression and in Grade 11 you go from WWII – Present Day.

I'd be over to moon if that happened :)
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

That's one idea. Really, the concern that I have is that the fun stuff of history is in the details – that's where people get hooked and find something to identify with. And as you say, so much time is spent on one section of the curriculum, and the curriculum requires so much regurgitation, that the students don't really have enough time to engage with the material. And when you don't engage in history, you'll come to Maclean's and do the Canada Day Citizenship quiz fifteen years later and you'll fail, miserably, and be one of those statistics of people who don't know enough about Canada to pass a basic citizenship test.

Out There

Teaching actual Canadian history requires a lot of emphasis on military accomplishments (including some at the expense of the French – oo la la), a predominance of white male historical characters, and the slaughter of large numbers of cute furry animals.

History is more than memorizing dates and reading about battles: it's learning how people lived in times past. This includes both men and women.

Unfortunately, most historical records concentrate on important battles and political leaders. There is often very little historical record of how ordinary people lived – but that's often the most interesting part of history.

I, for one, didn't become interested in 20th century history until I read George Orwell's description of how coal miners lived and worked (in The Road To Wigan Pier).
Pat

Well I have a minor in Canadian history, and I really do not know what on earth you are talking about. It seems to me you are the one suggesting we should pick and choose what we teach about our own history.
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/josephius Joseph

Not sure where you got this impression of Canadian history classes. When I did grade 10 history, we were taught everything about how important the fur trade was, how Wolfe died in the battle for New France, the Upper and Lower Canada Rebellions, the Louis Riel controversy, Reciprocity, U.S. Manifest Destiny, the War of 1812, Charlottetown, Chinese railroad workers, Vimy Ridge as one of the defining moments in Canadian history, the Conscription Crisis, WWII and the first , the Korean war, the Avro Arrow, and plenty of old white male historical characters from Jacques Chartier and Samuel de Champlain, to Sir Arthur Currie, Robert Borden, Mackenzie King, Lester B. Pearson, Trudeau, and Mulroney.

Of course, all that was way back in 2001-2002, so maybe things have changed…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

That sounds very, very good. If you don't mind saying, what province was that in?
Joseph

That was in Ontario (Halton District School Board). Though I'd like to also add that my history teacher was awesome (hence why I remember so much from the class). It seemed like she sincerely thought that what she was teaching was important for making us better and more engaged Canadian citizens (she was a bit of a nationalist if I recall).
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/josephius Joseph

Woops, forgot to login…

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Or both.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Of course we'd have to see a finalized version of this proposal, but I'm assuming its purpose would be to give a small subsidy to internationally situated Canadian firms (like, say, a Bombardier) for hiring Canadians in their overseas offices on contracts.

But if we have a problem with corporate subsidies now, then there's a mighty long list of perks we should start slashing eh?

Emily

Lots of places Canadian youth could work overseas, universities, companies, foreign govts. We have people here gaining experience all the time.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

But if we have a problem with corporate subsidies now, then there's a mighty long list of perks we should start slashing eh?

You're catching on.

Bob

Um, we already have this program, in the form of dozens, no hundreds, of other programs. They're called EXCHANGE programs, graduate/postgraduate fellowships, and, um, vacation.

Emily

Not what he's talking about.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Your right. An exchange program works both ways. What Iggy is proposing is that the federal government subsidize Canadian employment if foreign countries. Not only does that leave the foreign country with an extra person to compete for work with, the foreigner has a competitive advantage. Which I think is a terrible idea. Exchange Programs however, I think are a very good thing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

While we're at it, we should do away with ALL subsidies and perks for companies to hire Canadians.

I am pretty sure you meant that as an absurdity. And that your point is really that a federal government (or the unionized civil servant in its employ) is in a far better and wise position to deploy the society's wealth towards business decisions such as hiring, firing, producing, marketing, importing, exporting, etc., than is the business itself. As if the country should be grateful that said wealth was sucked out of the society so that government in its infinite wisdom could deploy it with gretaer efficiency and less risk. As if Bombardier (business model: swipe as much cash as you can from any level of government until they catch on) is actually of some net benefit for this country. As if the only way a Canadian can possibly get hired is if the taxpayers bribe the employer to hire the Canadian.

Why do you have such a dim view of the productivity of the Canadian worker?

Emily

Canada's 'productivity' is pretty much non-existent.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Then get government bribery of employers out of the game. Taxpayer-propped positions of futility, that would not exist except for the propping by the taxpayer, are no way to help an economy prosper.

Emily

That has nothing to do with either productivity or the topic.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

If you think government meddling in the private business decisions of private businesses is NOT a drain on productivity, well, my dear Emily (can I call you my dear?), I cannot help you much further.

As to the topic: let's suppose the program is wildly popular (Woo-hoo! Party with the Aussies in Italy, Spain and Greece for a year! Sweet!). You think paying people to NOT participate in the nation's economy, by sucking wealth from those who ARE participating in the nation's economy, is a wise way to tinker with the nation's economy? Alas, yet again, I cannot help you much further.
Emily

If you think tea party nonsense is going to work, you're sadly mistaken.

And no, I am not your 'dear'.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

what tea party nonsense did he mention? His argument is 100% valid, you have none.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

(Woo-hoo! Party with the Aussies in Italy, Spain and Greece for a year! Sweet!).

sigh….
Emily

Tea-partiers don't speak English.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Neither do Marxists.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

(Oh cripes, he heard me) I-I-I-I mean, on weekends only! Yeah, that's it! Just me and my Aussie buddies, Friday ~~mornings~~ evenings to ~~Monday~~ Sunday afternoons. Yup. Just a little social international educational development after a long intense but educational European week of work. Glad I could clear that up. And thanks for the cheque, Mr. Igno-something-or-other!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Painful. Just painful

Standing By

Don't know if you noticed, but the discussion here is about an idea that Iggy raised. Your usual anti-Iggy talking points aren't relevant or interesting in this discussion.

Steve M

"It’s a direct rebuttal to the Conservative party’s efforts to paint Ignatieff…"

I'm sorry. I thought this was the appropriate forum to comment on an actual statement contained in the blog post.

And in case YOU didn't notice, I DID make a (tongue-in-cheek) reference to the idea Iggy raised in my very first line.

madeyoulook

From 17 hours ago, responding to an online news item that dared NOT to talk about a bus or a pig in Kingston (my comment posted in Aaron's "Medium and message" post):

"Spending time outside Canada ain't so bad." A fine argument.

"Spending time outside Canada is sooooo important I'm committing your future tax dollars to sending folks abroad." A pathetic attempt to use OUR MONEY to turn your "just visiting" negative into a positive.

Keep this up, and I'll head over and unscrew a few bolts on that bus myself.

Emily

Okay, if the bus comes to grief again, we'll know where to look.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Haha. It's like the timing of the UofT article as well. "You think I'm too academic to be PM, well wait till you see what the U of T has planned for me!"

David

We have a government funded program which allows for a subsidized education and world travel. Its been around for 100 years and it is called the Canadian Navy http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/0/0_eng.asp

Emily

Sorry….wrong era.

David

It has sent me around the world and I am not old.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Nicely put.
Out There

What about an exchange program? Send young Canadians to work in a foreign country, and bring an equivalent number of foreign nationals to work here. This type of program would be close (or closer) to revenue-neutral, and would provide the international perspective that Ignatieff is looking for.

(Equivalent programs that operate inside Canada would also be a good idea.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

They certainly already run within schools – I've had friends go on exchanges to France or Germany and go to school there while a student there learns in Canada for a few months. They learn to speak one anothers' languages, cultures, et cetera.

If it can work as a student program, why not a work program, too?

Emily

Sums it all up. It would be a major benefit to all aspects of Canadian life to have experience, contacts and knowledge of the world.
brooster

Actually, on thinking about Iggy's idea, I'd rather pony up even a fraction of a billion tax dollars to finance the international education of youth, than pay a small army of cops double overtime (or whatever) to "kettle'', harass and detain youth by the hundreds so that Harper and his retinue of minions can host and indulge in their own tax-funded international junkets.
Olaf

You seem to be utilizing a very specific lack of niche expertise (on the ground training regarding the internal political situation of, say, Angola, as it relates to resource extraction), and using it to justify a policy that appears to have no such purpose. If Ignatieff had said "through a thorough analysis I have observed that our resource companies don't have the information they need in order to properly conduct business in country X as it relates to cutting deals with state governors vs municipalities, and as such, I suggest the government send a few youths out there to really wrap their heads around the situation and then join oil companies", I might be amenable to the idea. He didn't. He said he want's people to go overseas to become "internationalized". Defend that, svp.

Amateur Hour

You asked for me to clarify my example, and I did.

Changing your mind and asking me to generalize doesn't advance your argument, it makes you appear disingenuous.

Olaf

Incidentally, if you think that resource extraction companies make uninformed decisions to invest in operations in volatile countries, flying all the while by the seat of their collective pant, you've never worked for one. They are very careful about such things, and ask the right questions to the right people. If they don't have the information they need, they seek it out. It doesn't mean that they always make the right decisions (there's always risk, which some are more willing to take than others), it merely means it isn't for lack of information, certainly not information that can be gleaned by a 19 year old student who worked in a country for four months at an entry level job once upon a time.

Amateur Hour

"Incidentally, if you think that resource extraction companies make uninformed decisions to invest in operations in volatile countries, flying all the while by the seat of their collective pant, you've never worked for one. "

Yes I have (ExxonMobil and others). It does happen.

Gary

So, how will this questionable program help us to reduce our carbon footprint?
Oh yeah, we can just buy offsets to make us feel good!
Carry on with your brilliant ideas Iggy, Harper is loving every minute of it!
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Considering that Canada still has a relatively high unemployment rate compared to recent years, I think it would be a much better idea to subsidize employment in Canada. Especially when you consider that other western nations around the world are dealing with record setting unemployment, it might be looked down upon for the Canadian government to be subsidizing Canadian employment in foreign countries. There's also the chance that many of these youngsters would go to a foreign country and never come back, in which case we've paid for their education, paid for them to get a job, and then sent them off to some place without ever getting a dime back in return. This idea is full of holes.

Bob

We already subsidize employment in Canada – it's called the federal bureaucracy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Too true.

wilson

http://www.canada123go(.ca)
DFAIT has reciprocal arrangements with over 20 countries for youth exchange programs. More than 30,000 opportunities are
available per year for Canadian citizens between 18 and 30 years old who are living in Canada and looking to travel abroad.