Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Azure

Given the insanity, the only reason I can go with is they are naive enough to think all those immigrants are going to vote Liberal.

Can't think of another reason why they wouldn't you know, stop it?

I believe it is happening all over the world. Also it's like a runaway train, that once it gets going, it's hard to stop.

Personally though, knowing how they operate, they are probably slow to react because of the perceived voting advantage.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I was actually gonna post the same thing but then I thought I guess it really depends on whether or not he is actually wearing more makeup than her.

What I would give to have every sitting MP not run again in the next election so the country could just start fresh with some people who may actually try to govern for the people instead of their own parties.

We should definitely have term limits, imo. Dead fish, houseguests, and politicians all have a shelf life...

[#-3]

I believe the plurality of evidence, especially in Canada with our 'merit' based immigration qualifications, is that immigrants outpace native born citizens in terms of productivity and earnings. Meaning they would be a net positive for the economy.

Where you would see issues of increase demand pressures (especially on things like housing), is temporary workers and students, which they are trying to crack down on a little bit (probably not enough). Cracking down on both of these does bring some problems. Such as the need to increase funding in order to maintain our quality of education, or let education suffer and hurting our productive capacity 20 years from now. Or in the case of workers, creating temporary shortages of workers or goods and inflationary pressure (which probably would have been terrible a year ago, but there could be worse things right now, such as housing shortages).

In an ideal world to attack the problem we are currently facing, you would probably put pretty strict quotas on new foreign students in the coming years, and increase funding to post secondary to ensure there is not a service drop. While strengthening laws that say companies have to do x level of searching domestically before applying to accept a foreign worker, then create a regulatory arm that just makes it a little bit painful to prove they did, before they even ask for a foreign worker.

It really is fairly close to what the Liberals are currently doing, it is just a weak and tepid response that isn't big enough to have a noteworthy impact on a short timeframe (as is the Trudeau governments nature, correct policy underwhelming implementation)

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.4231628




Kinda humorous, but seems to be the norm in the HOC recently.

All just a ploy to stay away from the actual issues.

PP does the same thing, but mostly because he doesn't even need to offer any policy at this point, and just let the Liberal dumpster fire elect him.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe it is happening all over the world. Also it's like a runaway train, that once it gets going, it's hard to stop.

Personally though, knowing how they operate, they are probably slow to react because of the perceived voting advantage.

Well it kinda makes less sense each month that goes by because the Conservatives are far ahead in the polls and likely we might see a bloodbath come election time.

Just honestly don't understand why they are insisting on continuing with status quo.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I was actually gonna post the same thing but then I thought I guess it really depends on whether or not he is actually wearing more makeup than her.

PP may or may not be wearing more makeup than Freeland, but he certainly isn’t wearing close to the amount of makeup that Justin wears (from time to time).

[Harry Lime]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10519355/...p-bill-canada/

Under the new legislation, Canadian parents must show they have spent at least three years in Canada before the birth or adoption of their child to be eligible.

“I think it’s a reasonable limit to what is a substantial connection to Canada,” said Miller. “This is a reasonable approach to something that was unreasonable.”

The supreme court found that the old rule was unconstitutional as written. It didn't mean that the idea behind the rule was wrong.

Someone can live in Canada for 3 years, move back, and now their kids are automatically Canadians and recieve all the protections of a Canadian. That seems nuts. Ramp that 3 years up to 20, and we would be good, yeah?

[opendoor]

I don't know, the intent behind the old rule was kind of stupid in that it didn't allow carve outs for people who spent significant time in Canada.

By my understanding, if a person took a temporary job in the US and had a kid while there, moved back and that kid grew up in Canada as a Canadian citizen, and then that kid had their own kid while abroad (say studying or working), then their child couldn't be a citizen without a lengthy immigration process. And if they're born in a place that doesn't confer citizenship to children of non-permanent residents, then that kid is now stateless. How does that make any sense?

[Harry Lime]

Totally. I think that the time interval was the issue. Three years is tourist level, and they could simply change to something more reasonable.

[PepsiFree]

I too live in a country for three years as a form of tourism.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I too live in a country for three years as a form of tourism.

I know you're trying, but 3 years isn't that long. Living in tourist towns, you see it quite a bit.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Totally. I think that the time interval was the issue. Three years is tourist level, and they could simply change to something more reasonable.

But the point isn't to make it onerous for children of Canadian citizens to get citizenship. It's just to prevent people with zero ties to Canada from passing on citizenship generation after generation, to avoid a situation where you might have several generations in a lineage who are all citizens but have never set foot in Canada.

If someone is born in the US to Canadian parents, moves to Canada as a young adult and lives here for 5 years, and then has a kid outside the country, why shouldn't that kid be a Canadian citizen?

[Harry Lime]

The problem that was trying to be solved originally was people moving to Canada, getting their citizenship, moving back to Lebanon immediately, and then Canada being responsible for their whole family once fighting broke out with Israel. It was calculated by the people that did it, and took everyone by surprise at what the scope became.

It's different than the example that you used, and there is likely a compromise to be reached that makes everyone happy. It's just not this government that will find it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I know you're trying, but 3 years isn't that long. Living in tourist towns, you see it quite a bit.

You mean you see people living and working there for three years. Not being tourists.

People live and work many places. It’s what we call… society.

[curves2000]

I am not opposed to the move but this also has the chance to be abused. I have relatives overseas who are going to be ecstatic when I mention this is a possibility if they qualify, which I think they would? My uncle came to Canada with my father in the 70's, both got citizenship. My father stayed, my uncle left 10 years later and had children overseas. I would assume that this would make my cousins potentially Canadian now?

There is nothing wrong with granting citizenship to "lost Canadians" but you need to have strong safeguards in place to limit abuse. I think far too often we are a little too naïve and worried about being classified as racist if we put policies in place or question certain tactics. We have issues with birth tourism, legit multimillionaires and even billionaires collecting government assistance and programs without qualifying and even more. A friends wife who is from the US and is technically here illegally on a tourist visa, somehow got an AB Health Card and had a baby recently. Seeing the requirements for getting a card she just does not qualify.

The old Russian saying, "Trust but verify" I think is prudent

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I am not opposed to the move but this also has the chance to be abused. I have relatives overseas who are going to be ecstatic when I mention this is a possibility if they qualify, which I think they would? My uncle came to Canada with my father in the 70's, both got citizenship. My father stayed, my uncle left 10 years later and had children overseas. I would assume that this would make my cousins potentially Canadian now?

There is nothing wrong with granting citizenship to "lost Canadians" but you need to have strong safeguards in place to limit abuse. I think far too often we are a little too naïve and worried about being classified as racist if we put policies in place or question certain tactics. We have issues with birth tourism, legit multimillionaires and even billionaires collecting government assistance and programs without qualifying and even more. A friends wife who is from the US and is technically here illegally on a tourist visa, somehow got an AB Health Card and had a baby recently. Seeing the requirements for getting a card she just does not qualify.

The old Russian saying, "Trust but verify" I think is prudent

It’s impressive that you always seem to know someone abusing every single system you weigh in on.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s impressive that you always seem to know someone abusing every single system you weigh in on.

This dudes posts are the oddest

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

We should definitely have term limits, imo. Dead fish, houseguests, and politicians all have a shelf life...

I think the only way you’d be able to get buy-in from the people in power to actually implement that would be something along the lines of from the date of your first election win something like a 12 year windows opens where you can run as many times as you’d like within that 12 years but in order to reset that clock you need to take 4 years away before running again. Not a perfect solution by any means but it would definitely reduce the number of crappy career politicians while not preventing voters from re-electing the actual decent ones(the unicorns).

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

The problem that was trying to be solved originally was people moving to Canada, getting their citizenship, moving back to Lebanon immediately, and then Canada being responsible for their whole family once fighting broke out with Israel. It was calculated by the people that did it, and took everyone by surprise at what the scope became.

It's different than the example that you used, and there is likely a compromise to be reached that makes everyone happy. It's just not this government that will find it.

But even under the most stringent rules enacted in response to that, people who did what you're saying (move to Canada, become citizens, and then move away) would still be citizens as would their children. The point was to stop citizenship from getting passed on infinitely through generations when those descendants have zero ties to Canada. The old rule was needlessly heavy handed because it deprived people of citizenship in the scenarios like I described, whereas the new one fixes that.

And 3 years residency requirement to pass on citizenship is basically in line with the US rules for their citizens (2 to 5 years depending on the situation and when you were born). And far stricter than a lot of other countries. I have a friend whose great-great-grandfather moved from Italy in the 1800s. He and his kids can still get Italian citizenship if they want it, even though they're 4-5 generations removed from any ancestor living in Italy and neither his parents or grandparents were ever Italian citizens.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think the only way you’d be able to get buy-in from the people in power to actually implement that would be something along the lines of from the date of your first election win something like a 12 year windows opens where you can run as many times as you’d like within that 12 years but in order to reset that clock you need to take 4 years away before running again. Not a perfect solution by any means but it would definitely reduce the number of crappy career politicians while not preventing voters from re-electing the actual decent ones(the unicorns).

This thinking essentially gives politicians a 16 year term depending how the election cycle works out. That opens the door to allow for a lot of career politicians.