Canada Election 2015

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Entirely taking over is just rhetoric.

"...all UN-referred refugees would require approval from the Prime Minister".

Please tell me how that's not "entirely taking over".

Sometimes it takes an outside perspective to recognize and understand systemic problems. The PMO is as much on the line as the Immigration department. Again, if a refugee turned out to be an ISIS serial killer that murdered Canadians, would you not be blaming Harper for the process failure? Honest question.

I would. I would also expect Harper to take the credit should a Syrian refugee turn out to be a Nobel Prize winner.

And that's not the point. The point is that the government and civil service is set up so that there are departments that are versed and experienced in a specific subject matter. That's why we have things called "departments" and people called "ministers". We don't have a system whereby everything is controlled by one person's office, and that's what everybody's pissed off about.

This isn't about giving an outside perspective. It's about ignoring the people who actually have experience. It's a common theme for the Harper government, where they either shut down departments or muzzle experts in the field, and try to run everything through the PMO. This is just the latest example of the attempt to run everything through the PMO.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by geotag277

But if your entire defence of your own wacko comments is that "well, your wackos are worse"...

This is why you're a troll. It is quite clear from my post that I have done no such thing.

You're not interested in a conversation, you're just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and you don't address the comments being made honestly or coherently.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I would.

That's pretty much the end of the discussion. The rest is just partisan rhetoric specifically designed to attack.

If you start from the assumption that "Harper is a fascist pig", yes, all your comments make sense. And at the same time, if Trudeau demanded more oversight of the refugee process if he was in office, you might think it is entirely sensible, simply because you don't start from the basic assumption that "Trudeau is a fascist pig".

There are certainly arguments for the PMO to not be involved, and there certainly are open questions as to the extent they should be involved, and certainly there are privacy concerns that we perhaps should address through additional legislation (if there is motivation to pass said legislation at all), but there is zero justification for the fury beyond partisanship.

By all accounts we should be able to have a conversation about what is the rational extent of the PMO's involvement in a refugee program which has ties to terrorist controlled territory considering the PMO is the institution at the top who would shoulder the burden if there was a process failure. That conversation is not possible to have in election time, or with a partisan bias.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I think it's a mix of both, and regardless even if terrorists are terrorizing other regions, do people really think Canada should just butt out and not get involved?

Canada has the incidental safety of natural borders. We live in a cushy bubble that has no land connection to any form of terrorism in the middle east. We can all stick our fingers in our ears and say terrorism doesn't exist and we don't care if ISIS takes over the middle east because, hey, not our problem!

Do you also think we should not have been involved in WW2? Do you also think Truman's policy of containment was fool hardy and we should have just let the Soviet Union take over the entire world?

Yes, the concept of blowback is real. We bomb our enemies, they use it as a propaganda tool against us. That doesn't mean we should do nothing at anytime when people of the world around us are under attack.

So much to go from here, so many hilarious things have been typed I don't even know where to start. Flar pretty much said what I was going to say though.

Comparing WW2 to Isis is pathetic, they have Zero, Nada, Zilch in common with each other. At least you get the concept that bombing our supposed enemies will result in a negative view of our nation and turn us into a possible target. We are no safer now then before Harper decided to join this war that the U.S created. In fact as a Canadian traveling abroad you are probably much less safe now then ever. Thanks Harper!

Hate breeds hate, bombing the middle east over and over solves nothing as history has shown. Sure Isis is terrible and evil but what do you think created them?

Another funny statement made: "Dead wrong. Our prominent religion of Christianity & our way of life that has made us a target."

No it didn't, it may be used as one of the reasons to propagate their anger at the west, but it's not the root cause. I'm curious if you even know how many Iraqi's have died since the first Gulf War and the second unjust war? Can't blame some of those people for not loving the west.

And if you want to talk about Isis using Propaganda it's nothing compared to Harper's propaganda about the Muslim world. Seems to have worked with you.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by rousseau

This is why you're a troll. It is quite clear from my post that I have done no such thing.

You're not interested in a conversation, you're just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and you don't address the comments being made honestly or coherently.

If you want to have a conversation, fine, address the relevant conversation.

The topic of this discussion is the PMO's involvement in the refugee program, and it serves as a descent microcosm for the PMO's involvement in everything.

You start from a partisan perspective: being anti-Harper, and proceed to interpret the actions of the PMO from that perspective.

The PMO defunding the science department is the same as Harper being anti-science.

The PMO defunding women's programs is the same as Harper being anti-women.

The PMO being involved in overseeing the refugee program is the same as Harper being a fascist dictator who has overstepped his authority, despite the fact that you would be blaming Harper if there were any process failures.

I don't deny that there are legitimate nuggets of criticism buried in some of these attacks, but the way they are framed in this thread is exactly the same way as the Sun news comments are framed. Harper is a fascist pig, therefore, this is the narrative and it isn't open for discussion.

By the way, I completely agree with you regarding Harper's stance on science and transparency. I think he's done more harm than good for the oil sands in particular through his behaviour and his relationship with allies including Obama. I see the perspective of Harper that federally funded science should be strongly correlated with the economy and economic progress, but he did go too far in poisoning our relationships with our neighbours and the lack of pipeline progress speaks to that failure. I didn't respond to your point about science because I largely agree, except insofar as I don't see the federal government defunding science as necessarily being equivalent to the federal government being anti-science. Sometimes the federal government should turn off the taps, and sometimes it just makes sense to do it.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Comparing WW2 to Isis is pathetic

Tone down the rhetoric. If you look at my posts I am not calling anyone pathetic or embarrassing. I am presenting a point of view to discuss which is contrary to yours. Perhaps you can act like an adult and have that conversation.

It is about having a rational perspective on when Canada should be involved in world wide crimes against humanity. Yes, WW2 eclipses ISIS in extent, but not in kind. By all accounts ISIS is committing genocide and mass murders of civilians. It is a legitimate question to ask whether we should ignore it and sacrifice the human capital in the world at the feet of ISIS, or intervene, and potentially make enemies by attacking these regions that by some interpretations we have no business being in.

I don't find that open question to be embarrassing or pathetic in the least. And it is certainly no where near as black and white as you are pretending by saying if we bomb them they'll attack us, so we shouldn't be involved.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Andy6

For myself, I have always voted Conservative but this time was really willing and eager to switch. Unfortunately nothing I saw gave me any real confidence in the other parties -- one with a sophomoric leader and one with a plausible leader but no team. At this point I'm reluctantly edging back to the Conservatives, or more likely to not bothering to show up to vote (which I know means I can't complain for the next few years -- likely not a bad thing).

I think it was a stroke of genius to have such a long campaign -- whatever freshness and newness the two opposition leaders had has largely dissipated by now. It has come down to a "least bad" choice for most voters and in that sort of contest Harper has a chance because you can vote for him without having to pretend to like him.

This is exactly the position I find myself in. I was hoping the Liberals would offer a palatable fiscal platform with an intelligent leader as I am tiring of the recurrent scandals and poor decisions such as ending the long form census. Having said that, the government has a solid track record on major fiscal and economic items such as lowering the corporate tax rate (which has not had a material impact on corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP), reducing the financial obligation to the civil service, and negotiating trade agreements. The strategic importance of CETA and TPP for Canada's future cannot be overstated.

If the Liberals win, I can live with their platform as they are in line with the Tories on most major items (the only gripe I have is with the TFSA reduction).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd say the Zehaf-Bibeau and Couture-Rouleau cases are kind of half-and-half.

They were definitely homegrown wackos but they were driven off their rocker by events and movements in the Middle East that inspired them.

There are plenty of potential wackos out there... as long as they're not pushed over the edge, we can't really do anything about it. So what does push them over that edge is actually pretty important. In a parallel universe without Islam and without the Middle East, MCR and MZB wouldn't have done what they did, and we'd have two more CF personnel alive now. That's the point.

The world is always evolving and changing, it makes no sense to have our definitions be static in time. Seems obvious that ISIS has managed to "attack" Canada already, and it's resulted in actual Canadian deaths on Canadian territory, even if there hasn't been a formal declaration of war with another recognized country and two armies fighting each other, with everyone in an identical uniform and standardized weapons and equipment, etc. like in the good old days.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Migs

How do you know the PMO & his close military & intelligence advisors have no competence in this area? Be thankful there haven't been many terrorist attacks in the country, perhaps it could be that the proactive approach is working. (Ie Toronto 18 plot)

Believe me, I know (this latest report is just one of a long line of PMO interference and lack of transparency in matters bureaucratic). There's a reason PMO staff are know as the boys in short pants. Partisan amateurs farming out the review of individual files (outrageous in itself) to unknown partisan "experts" makes absolutely no sense when the standard procedure already involves all the professional expertise that Canada can bring to the matter, including the RCMP and CSIS. I note that the information available does not suggest any actual value added in the PMO inserting itself into the process. I am aware of no suggestion that Canada's refugee processing disregards the need to ensure domestic security. Yet again the Harper government is left looking secretive, paranoid, and contemptuous.

This will probably play out as yet another partisan matter that's quickly forgotten, but it's the kind of thing that makes me worry for the health of our democracy (along with many others). The PMO needs to be reined in, whoever is in power.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Very ironic this type of rhetoric coming from you who just recently lambasted conservatives for massaged biased messages into fury.

Regardless, let's take a step back. If a Syrian refugee turned into a Canadian serial killer, who would be blamed? Do you honestly believe that no one would blame the PMO/Harper for that happening under his watch as leader of the country?

If you have the sense to recognize that Harper would indeed be blamed in part for that failure, you can recognize the motivation for the PMO to be involved in ensuring the screening process for refugees is sound.

The article alludes to a litany of other issues, including privacy concerns. If there were privacy concerns and the PMO broke the law, of course they should be held accountable.

But the PMO simply getting involved in a sensitive immigration/refugee issue does not ipso facto justify the kind of partisan rage being demonstrated in this thread. It is exactly the kind of BS that you talked about in Sun news comments.

It should not be a partisan issue at all. All Canadians should be disturbed by the federal government playing fast and loose with our system of governance. We have growing problems with our democracy and we can't keep turning our collective heads away from issues that need a national conversation.


Imagine a healthy system where, in response to a PMO request for sensitive personal files that they have no legal mandate to request or to see, the responsible bureaucrats politely reply "up yours". PMO then goes to Chris Alexander (in this case), who, having seen the bureaucratic response, replies "up yours with a wire brush - you want it, see you in court!". One can only dream!

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The PMO operates at the highest level of leadership in Canada and thus are responsible and accountable for the performance of all departments.

Whether you are concerned about terrorism or not, Canadians across the country are concerned as ISIS has made repeated threats to us and to Canada specifically.

ISIS has infiltrated Canada on Twitter, Facebook, and other avenues, we already have several documented cases of Canadians leaving to ISIS territory to fight with them.

That's just a fact.

If there were any problems, or any issues with immigration from Syria, who would be blamed? The immigration department? Do you think if there were one or two cases of refugee gunman coming from Syria that killed Canadians we'd all point fingers at the immigration department and Harper would escape all blame?

No, we'd all be pointing the fingers at Harper and blaming him for the deficiencies and problems with the immigration/refugee process. It is his fault as the leader and accountable person in charge of making sure the immigration/refugee department is doing it's job.
Sometimes mock outraged reporting about each and every thing the PMO office possibly does sounds more like throwing spaghetti at a wall and seeing what sticks to, as rousseau so elegantly put, massage a biased message into partisan fury.

Thank you. Well said and a great non-partisan response. I wish all comments on this forum were held to a similar standard.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

Thank you. Well said and a great non-partisan response. I wish all comments on this forum were held to a similar standard.

Except in the Canadian system, it would be Minister Alexander who would be held accountable, not the PM. The PM's accountability would relate to the competence of the people he appoints and on that, well, what can you say other than that Harpers incompetence in that regard is rather obvious.

[SignalHillHiker]

Fantastic news

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.ht...first-past-the-post-by-the-next-election

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Except in the Canadian system, it would be Minister Alexander who would be held accountable, not the PM.

Generally, "gross incompetence" by an underling in a chain of command triggers accountability all over the chain, from the guilty position up.

The PM is the one who put Minister Alexander there. They'd both be partly responsible for any mess caused by lower-ranking people under Mr Alexander.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I live by a reserve that's doing great and have business dealing with them daily. From here, I don't see where you're coming from.

I didn't mean to say anything negative about aboriginals or reserves. I was just saying that we both live cities where aboriginal people make up about 10% of the population. And there are many more who are here on a temporary basis for school and other reasons. We both live among aboriginals unlike many of the people who comment on here thinking they know better.

In Northern Ontario, there are First Nations that are doing very well and others that aren't at all. One good example is Fort Albany and Kashechewan. They are both First Nations located across the Albany River from each other along James Bay. Fort Albany looks nice, is well organized and has fewer social issues. Kashechewan across the river is a disaster with terrible leadership with no action plans, almost annual flooding, major social problems and the place is very depressing with a dyke built around much of it.

First Nations and aboriginals are very diverse themselves.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Fantastic news

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.ht...first-past-the-post-by-the-next-election

That totally reminds me of why people voted for Harper over the Chrétien/Martin era Liberals.

Are we going to get fooled twice? Shame on us if we do

[*Stardust*]

Let's say we get rid of FPTP and go to a ranked ballot system. What would future election results look like, and who would benefit/lose from a ranked ballot system? I'm assuming it would benefit the Libs most since they are the ones proposing it?

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Let's say we get rid of FPTP and go to a ranked ballot system. What would future election results look like, and who would benefit/lose from a ranked ballot system? I'm assuming it would benefit the Libs most since they are the ones proposing it?

Would likely benefit smaller parties.

With a ranked ballot system, people could put a smaller party first with no fear of splitting votes or wasting a vote. There are probably a lot of people out there who would consider voting for say the Green party or Libertarian party, but end up voting for one of the big three federal parties instead.

A ranked ballot system would also benefit more centrist parties. It strikes me that NDP voters would be more likely to rank the Liberals as second choice than the Conservatives, and by the same logic, most Conservative voters would probably rank the Liberals ahead of the NDP.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Let's say we get rid of FPTP and go to a ranked ballot system. What would future election results look like, and who would benefit/lose from a ranked ballot system? I'm assuming it would benefit the Libs most since they are the ones proposing it?

It would absolutely advantage the Liberals over the Conservatives. Of that there is no question.

Justin seeks to institutionalize the Natural Governing Party. The only way to the trough will be through the Liberal Party of Canada.

And all will be right with the universe again.

[ainvan]

CBC

Go Libs!