Canadians do not share their PM stance, yet still divide (polls)

thankyougrandma

reborncareerist wrote:

Yes and no ... I'd agree with you more strongly if he actually put some legislative muscle behind what he has been saying, in terms of foreign policy changes. And its not like he's saying things that are THAT radically out-of-sync with how many Canadians feel about the situation. What was that last poll stat again? Maybe its because I agree with him more than some of you guys do ... What exactly is so terrible about what he actually said? I agree that he should have put a stronger emphasis on Israel's misguided killings of Lebanese civilians. A huge error of omission, granted.

well, then i guess it depends on the level of interest of each individuals on the Israel-Lebanon situation, but it's an error to take this "radical" solid stance in this conflict in my opinion. I'll leave it at "the PM have responsabilities".

I agree with you and Surferdude, the impact is equal to none on the policy and on the world stage opinion (i mean look at how everyone forget to add Canada when talking about the support to Israel). But i think he'll get defeated at first occasion in the parliament, get geared up for an election if Harper puts a confidence vote ahead...

rebornFixer

thankyougrandma wrote:

well, then i guess it depends on the level of interest of each individuals on the Israel-Lebanon situation, but it's an error to take this "radical" solid stance in this conflict in my opinion. I'll leave it at "the PM have responsabilities".

I agree with you and Surferdude, the impact is equal to none on the policy and on the world stage opinion (i mean look at how everyone forget to add Canada when talking about the support to Israel). But i think he'll get defeated at first occasion in the parliament, get geared up for an election if Harper puts a confidence vote ahead...

Maybe, but this is not necessarily a good thing. I do not want another fucking election, so much so that I am willing to swear to make the point.

thankyougrandma

surferdude wrote:

Well said.

One thing I'd like to see implemented is the losing of Canadian citizenship if you have dual citizenship and are out of the country for too long while not paying taxes. Too many people use a Canadian passport and citizenship for reasons of convenience. It has nothing to due with their life situation, allegiance or loyalty for too many.

I believe there is a two year residency rule required for Canadian citizenship. I think conversely if you hold dual citizenship you should lose Canadian citizenship and passport priviledges after two years out of the country and not paying Canadian taxes.

That would be a major reform, probably unpopular one. I'd agree with an immigration reform, not that i want less or more, just to make it up to date with the 21st century.

No change to refugees though, i want Canada to be even more open arms to refugees.

surferdude

thankyougrandma wrote:

That would be a major reform, probably unpopular one. I'd agree with an immigration reform, not that i want less or more, just to make it up to date with the 21st century.

No change to refugees though, i want Canada to be even more open arms to refugees.

I want less refugees, more highly skilled immigrants.

Regarding refugees I'd rather Canada had a bigger presence on the world stage both as a peace keeper and providing aid and education. With the result that there'd be less real refugees period.

My opinion is that the majority of refugees aren't real refugees but economic refugees. They look to Canada just as place to make more money for their family. I feel no need to let this type of "refugee" in, all it does is leave less space for real refugees. Those fleeing war zones and political oppression.

rebornFixer

surferdude wrote:

I want less refugees, more highly skilled immigrants.

Regarding refugees I'd rather Canada had a bigger presence on the world stage both as a peace keeper and providing aid and education. With the result that there'd be less real refugees period.

My opinion is that the majority of refugees aren't real refugees but economic refugees. They look to Canada just as place to make more money for their family. I feel no need to let this type of "refugee" in, all it does is leave less space for real refugees. Those fleeing war zones and political oppression.

Pretty close to agreeing with you, except I'd want to see some stats on economic vs. political refugees.

sourdough

I think Canada should do more to accomodate refugees as well. Perhaps we have to come up with a better screening system to decide which refugees are most in need.

surferdude

reborncareerist wrote:

Pretty close to agreeing with you, except I'd want to see some stats on economic vs. political refugees.

So would I, my remarks come close to being a bit red-neck without meaning to.

rebornFixer

sourdough wrote:

Perhaps we have to come up with a better screening system to decide which refugees are most in need.

This would seem like a step in the right direction ...

thankyougrandma

sourdough wrote:

I think Canada should do more to accomodate refugees as well. Perhaps we have to come up with a better screening system to decide which refugees are most in need.

sounds good, and having more peace keeping presences could help to reduce that number of refugees "worldwide".

I'm sure we could settle Canada up from this Message board, someone call Harper and tell him we don't need him anymore...

thankyougrandma

surferdude wrote:

So would I, my remarks come close to being a bit red-neck without meaning to.

yeah i feel like the line is very thin myself, it's hard to talk about this, that's why a reform is not likely to happen soon, in my opinion. Plus government would just go too far and would piss everyone off, as usual... hehe.

rebornFixer

thankyougrandma wrote:

yeah i feel like the line is very thin myself, it's hard to talk about this, that's why a reform is not likely to happen soon, in my opinion. Plus government would just go too far and would piss everyone off, as usual... hehe.

Its hard to talk about because we've made ourselves so politically correct that absolutely any kind of stance on an issue can be taken as "-ist" by someone. Sad state of affairs.

thankyougrandma

reborncareerist wrote:

Its hard to talk about because we've made ourselves so politically correct that absolutely any kind of stance on an issue can be taken as "-ist" by someone. Sad state of affairs.

Redneckist!!!!!

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

I don't know, dude ... I was geared up to hate Harper if he did things like put our social programs in serious danger, send troops to Iraq, implement draconian Patriot Act-type legislation, etc. While I don't agree with everything he has done to date (e.g., ignore the environment, much like previous Liberal PMs), I think he's done an alright job of NOT turning us into America junior.

he is in a minority position and yet he's taken us out of kyoto, he's spat in the face of accountability, he has killed our child care program and he sold us out on softwood lumber ...

what decisions has he made that aren't the same ideology as bush? ... he wants to reopen same sex marriage in the fall when the mp's gather again ...

surferdude

polaris wrote:

he is in a minority position and yet he's taken us out of kyoto, he's spat in the face of accountability, he has killed our child care program and he sold us out on softwood lumber ...

what decisions has he made that aren't the same ideology as bush? ... he wants to reopen same sex marriage in the fall when the mp's gather again ...

But you failed to mention that "he has killed our child care program" was a good move and he got us a softwood lumber deal that is up to industry to approve.

polaris

surferdude wrote:

But you failed to mention that "he has killed our child care program" was a good move and he got us a softwood lumber deal that is up to industry to approve.

not to the majority of canadians ...

as for softwood lumber - he threatened the industry saying it was this deal or nothing ... why do you think all the provinces are griping? ... industry hates the deal ...

polaris

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/31/emerson-softwood.html

he just threatens everyone when he doesn't get his way ... if you don't support it - i'll call an election ... if you don't get an equalization deal - i'll make one up ...

thankyougrandma

we have the Childcare program in Québec... hehe

lumber deal is a screwjob, they changed some of the points in the final text (not talking about the billion that we gave them for screwing us), i don't know if they were hoping that the industry wouldn't notice, but how stupid to do, of course the industry is angry, but as Polaris said, it's this deal or nothing, so they'll probably take it, and it will be seen as a win from Harper...

rebornFixer

I've said it many times before, but here goes again ... Kyoto is ineffectual, and therefore breaking our association with that accord is not a bad thing.

As for softwood lumber ... Dare I say that how that turned out was probably the best we were going to get from the Americans? Believe it or not, I wouldn't not have criticized another PM on that particular issue.

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

I've said it many times before, but here goes again ... Kyoto is ineffectual, and therefore breaking our association with that accord is not a bad thing.

As for softwood lumber ... Dare I say that how that turned out was probably the best we were going to get from the Americans? Believe it or not, I wouldn't not have criticized another PM on that particular issue.

and i've rebutted each time that the targets of kyoto are a joke ... germany is 17.5% below their 1990 levels ... but when you placate alberta and the oil industry - of course it is ineffective ... secondary to that - not having a plan at all to address climate change is as backwards as it gets this day and age - it puts us with guess who? ... yup the americans ...

we had that deal a year ago - and emerson turned it down then - for very good reason ... if that is the best deal out there - then we are pretty much saying america can dictate its own laws which essentially makes us america jr ...

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

and i've rebutted each time that the targets of kyoto are a joke ... germany is 17.5% below their 1990 levels ... but when you placate alberta and the oil industry - of course it is ineffective ... secondary to that - not having a plan at all to address climate change is as backwards as it gets this day and age - it puts us with guess who? ... yup the americans ...

we had that deal a year ago - and emerson turned it down then - for very good reason ... if that is the best deal out there - then we are pretty much saying america can dictate its own laws which essentially makes us america jr ...

Well, it pisses me off, but America does have a lot of economic clout with us. On an even broader scale, did NAFTA actually result in a lot of benefit for us Canadians? When has the U.S. not called the economic shots on this continent? I am not defending this status quo, by the way. I just choose to view it as a reality of being on this continent, and having a much, much smaller population than our next door neighbor. We rely too much on the Americans for defense matters, too, IMO, yet most America-bashers don't agree with the notion of increased military spending.