Politics in 2018

[Bird_Gunner45]

Canada’s Immigration & Refugee Numbers Should Be Decided In A National Referendum

Politics Spencer Fernando April 3, 2018

Unfortunately, this debate often gets messed up because of political correctness. Despite repeated polls showing Canadians want reduced immigration and reduced refugee numbers, politicians are afraid to say that. As a result, the debate over immigration and refugee policy happens in a very narrow range, often leaving out the views of a majority of Canadians.

That’s why the time has come for a totally different approach to immigration and refugee policy:

Every 5 or 10 years, Canada’s immigration and refugee numbers should be decided in a national referendum.

The reason for this is clear: Because immigration and refugee policy has such wide-ranging and long-term ramifications for the future of our nation, it’s not acceptable for it to be left to the whim of whichever government happens to be in power.

After all, an Angus Reid poll from 2017 showed that 57% Canadians believe “Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.” Yet, the Trudeau government is going in the opposite direction, planning a massive increase compared to the numbers under the previous Harper government.

Why should the government be allowed to go against what the people want? Why aren’t we allowed to vote on it directly?

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/04/03/report-after-trudeau-blocks-testimony-scheer-accepts-national-security-briefing-on-atwal-scandal/

One interesting point worth discussion- why should the government be allowed to go against what the people want?

It raises the question on whether or not there should be a referendum or plebiscite for every issue, which goes against our system of parliamentary government. In theory, the election of a party to a majority position bequeaths the right to speak on behalf of more than 50% of the nations ridings (not necessarily people), which in theory, should represent the interests of the people.

the next question raised would be should all issues and matter of policy be voted on, and if not, than what issues should explicitly be voted upon? When election reform was being considered, the CPC was big on the need for a referendum to make it law, though there's no legal requirement and they certainly didn't go to a referendum when they added more seats to the commons. If we say its matter's of national importance than should issues like marijuana, pipelines, and voting age changes also be subjected to referendum vice direct vote in the HoC? Legitimate debate points as it seems like people only think it should be a national referendum when the party in power is not "their" party and not doing what they feel should be done.

Finally- many on here consistently talk about polls being wrong all the time. So, how do we know the Angus Reid poll is correct? the article linked states that only 38.4% of people felt there were too many immigrants, 41.1% said there were the right number, and 10.4% that felt there weren't enough. So which poll is right? That's the problem- there's always a stat to prove your side (on both sides of the aisle). 39% of people still think that Global warming is fake.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/justin-trudeau-rolls-the-dice-on-immigration/article36805629/

 

[jollyjacktar]

BG45 I've told you twice now.  DILLIGAF about your mil points deductions to my posts?  I don't.  So spare yourself the effort.  That's why you're on my ignore list.  It's all a matter of mind over matter.  I don't mind and you don't matter.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

BG45 I've told you twice now.  DILLIGAF about your mil points deductions to my posts?  I don't.  So spare yourself the effort.  That's why you're on my ignore list.  It's all a matter of mind over matter.  I don't mind and you don't matter.

Modified for tone.

You made an asinine comment that added nothing to any discussion so I docked points for trolling, which is how I viewed it. As for the rest - it's an Internet message board. No need to be so emotional. Just make better comments.

 

[mariomike]

DILLIGAF about your mil points deductions to my posts?

Thank-you, Urban Dictionary. 
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DILLIGAF

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Thank-you, Urban Dictionary. 
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DILLIGAF

Tbh, I had to look it up too.

 

[FJAG]

Tbh, I had to look it up too.

Me twice.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tbh

;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

BG45 I've told you twice now.  DILLIGAF about your mil points deductions to my posts?  I don't.  So spare yourself the effort.  That's why you're on my ignore list.  It's all a matter of mind over matter.  I don't mind and you don't matter.

BG actually gave you 300 :rofl:

 

[Jed]

I suppose all you liberal apologists will jump in there and start doing point deductions because I have not added to the conversation, but I sure see that you are very touchy about minor things. Very immature behaviour in my opinion. I suppose you are taking the lead from our Prime Minister. What is good for the Goose is Good for the Gander, what?

 

[jollyjacktar]

BG actually gave you 300 :rofl:

He felt l was trolling, I never said he was smart.

 

[Lumber]

Get pissed off conservatives
Vote Liberal to get rid of conservatives
Get pissed off at Liberals
Vote Conservative to get rid of Liberals

I'm sensing a pattern in this country.

Actually, maybe not. If it wasn't for the Sponsorship Scandal, how many more years would the Liberals have stayed in power under Paul Martin? Without a Sponsorship Scandal, would Chretian have stayed on as leader and lasted longer then Paul Martin did?

Conjecture I know,  but in my short life all I've seen is:

1. A long lasting Liberal government that fell because of a scandal and was replaced by the Conservatives;
2. A long lasting Conservative government that fell because no on liked them.

So far, it looks like the Liberals only lose when they get caught doing something majorly untoward (i.e. a scandal), while  the Conservative lose after a the few years it takes Canadians to say, "Oh right, we know this Starbucks coffee is better, but we kind of like being slaves to the national brand."

Apparently, no one cares about nepotism/partisanship as long as everything feels nice and pretty. "Hardly" anyone cares if Prime Minister Trudeau is an effective leader so long as the cowl he wraps around us is soft, warm, and covers our eyes.

Now back in line, sheep.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The reality about immigration in Canada is that it's less about numbers, than about the makeup of those numbers. Saying that you don't like the make up gets you automatically called racist, there is an element in Canadian society that wants to short circuit debate on the issue and that is their favorite weapon. For the health of the country, you need to have the majority of the immigrants from "safe" countries that can met a easier standard of entry. You then then have smaller quota from "at risk" that need a higher level of screening prior to entering, then a quota for refugees and a smaller sliver for special cases.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Only the gormless don't care about performance over appearances.

 

[Altair]

The reality about immigration in Canada is that it's less about numbers, than about the makeup of those numbers. Saying that you don't like the make up gets you automatically called racist, there is an element in Canadian society that wants to short circuit debate on the issue and that is their favorite weapon. For the health of the country, you need to have the majority of the immigrants from "safe" countries that can met a easier standard of entry. You then then have smaller quota from "at risk" that need a higher level of screening prior to entering, then a quota for refugees and a smaller sliver for special cases.

canada already has a merit based point system,  it's not that easy to make it into canada.

Its no surprise that trump points to canada as a model on immigration.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Exactly, Altair.  Which is what leads to the problem that all proportions considered, a lot of people try to circumvent the system by claiming refugee status. As I speak, I am listening to my local radio station (I live about 30 Kms from the US border in Quebec's Monteregie region) and they just indicated that the official RCMP numbers is that more than 500 people came over illegaly and claimed refugee status just this last long week-end, here at the now famous Quebec false crossing (where, to replace the army tents, the government has actually now built and installed semi-permanent construction site trailers - that is really working hard to stem the flow of illegals - much better than a wall /SARC OFF).

These people then stay in until all possible appeals have been exhausted - about four or five years - and in the meantime, give birth to one or two kids - who are automatically Canadians - and start to earn a living and make friends in the "bring-tons-of-refugees-in" crowd, who then spirit them away into some church somewhere as "sanctuary" and start long public campaigns to get them special "humanitarian" exemption from the Minister of Immigration to avoid deportation when their claim is finally denied. Etc. Etc.

Well, those "refugees" are basically stealing spots from legitimate immigrants seeking entry legally, upon completing the process, and having all the points required to do so.

 

[ModlrMike]

For the sake of comparison:

Immigration points-based systems compared

Points-based immigration system

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

He felt l was trolling, I never said he was smart.

or it was on purpose to see if you even looked. You're the one who went off on a rant without noticing what actually happened.

 

[Scott]

Enough.

Take it to PMs. If you have an issue, report it. End the bunfight.

 

[Loachman]

One comment at the end:

Roger Weigel · Works at Universal Ford

I can help the Liberals find the problem for well under $300000. A $10 mirror is all they need to use.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4123026/oil-and-gas-canada-falling-behind-study/

April 5, 2018 7:00 am 

Feds to spend $280k to study why Canada’s oil and gas sector is falling behind

By Monique Scotti  National Online Journalist, Politics  Global News

 

[jollyjacktar]

BONOKOSKI: Adieu once again, Prime Minister, nice of you to have stopped by

Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Mark Bonokoski
More from Mark Bonokoski
Published: April 5, 2018

Updated: April 5, 2018 2:15 PM EDT

Filed Under:

Toronto SUN News Canada
Share this story
Our prime minister, the restless soul that he is, obviously dislikes the thought of any moss growing under his stylishly-socked feet.


How long has he been home minding the store? Ten minutes?

Well, his Florida vacation is over, his Bollywood debut has seen its curtain fall with a resounding thump, and so he’s packing up his Louis Vuitton’s once again, firing up the government jet, and hitting the wild blue yonder next week for another eight days abroad

This time it’s Peru, then France, and finally Great Britain.

He’ll stop at Buck House to see the Queen, of course. That’s almost mandatory. After all, there is nothing quite like a photo-op with Her Royal Highness, particularly if there’s a hobbling Prince Philip at her side as he continues to recover from hip surgery.



This is monarchist gold. Wangling an invite to Prince Harry’s wedding to Meghan Markle while in her company would be icing on the cake.

This, of course, is right up Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau’s alley. It was the PM’s missus herself, remember, who purportedly bent the ear of the Aga Khan over the possibility of a Christmas vacation on his private island in the Caribbean, and to hell with conflict of interest breaches.

That didn’t work out so well.

Entitlement, as it turned out, was not an excuse in the eyes of Canada’s conflict of interest and ethics commissioner.

Canadians, in the meantime, are supposed to be rest assured that Justin Trudeau has everything well in hand for him to be able to jet off once again.

NAFTA must be a slam dunk, even though the eighth round of negotiations was called off on Thursday.  U.S. President Donald Trump must have found his blood-pressure meds, the Kinder Morgan pipeline must be inching its joyful way towards British Columbia tidewater, the embarrassing stuff over a convicted terrorist being invited to dinner in India must be no big deal anymore, and the budget that Trudeau claims can balance itself must be doing just that, even as billions more are piled onto the deficit.

Otherwise, what prime minister in his right mind would be leaving town if none of these political ducks were in proper alignment?

And why would he take along Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland at a time when NAFTA’s success should be top of mind?

All must be tickety-boo.

According to the PMO, Trudeau will be in Peru for the Summit of the Americas where he will “promote progressive trade that creates middle-class jobs, address climate change and ocean protection, the theme of democratic governance against corruption, and the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.”

But of course. When was the last time you walked by a water cooler and didn’t hear everyone talking about Canada’s relationship with Peru, and its role in providing middle-class jobs to Canadians?

Trudeau’s time in Paris is without any official summit. He will be meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, and sneak in a visit with former Canadian governor-general, Michaelle Jean, who he appointed to the International Organization of La Francophonie.

A quick address to the Assemblée Nationale, and a few remarks to the Paris Institute of Political Sciences, and he is off to see the Queen, and attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

This is where he shines.

One of the main themes throughout Trudeau’s travels will be gender equality, of course. After all, in the just-tabled budget delivered by Finance Minister Bill Morneau, there were 358 mentions of “gender.”

So, he will flog that mare until the cows come home.

You can bet the farm on that.

markbonokoski@gmail.com

http://torontosun.com/news/national/bonokoski-adieu-once-again-prime-minister-nice-of-you-to-have-stopped-by

 

[PPCLI Guy]

So attendance at Summit of the America's and the Commonwealth Heads of State is being fleshed out with other commitments to maximise the value of the travel by bundling it?

Shocking.

It's almost like he is the PM of a G7 nation, and one that is an inveterate "joiner of clubs" at that.

Imagine the hue and cry from some if he did not attend...