Even More Mid-Week Musings
1. It's a very complex blog.
2. BBG calls it "whack a Liberal day". First we get news that the Tories plan to sue the Liberals. I may be the only person in the Liberal Party who isn't a lawyer so I don't want to comment but I have a very hard time seeing how this lawsuit could possibly be successful. I guess if it keeps Adscam in the news, it certainly is a smart political move for the CPC (although one wonders about the timing, given this).
There's also a leaked copy of the AG's report on the gun registry floating around which has Sheila Fraser mad as hell. And, from my memory, Sheila Fraser is right up there with Bruce Banner, as people you wouldn't like when they're angry.
As for the report itself, it's certainly going to make the Liberals look bad. No denying that. But, at the same time, it's going to say that the program costs are now under control which should make it harder for Harper to kill the registry. Good.
3. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in polls right now, but after his incredible election night predictions, Nick Nanos has earned a few free links. The poll numbers pretty much show everyone right where'd you'd expect them to be.
4. Although it physically pains me to praise Joe Volpe and knock Monte Solberg, I was disappointed to see Monte talk about lowering Canada's immigration targets. There's a good article in the Globe today about declining birth rates and Canada's shifting demographics. With an aging population, dramatically increasing Canada's immigration totals should be a top priority for any government thinking about the long run.
2. BBG calls it "whack a Liberal day". First we get news that the Tories plan to sue the Liberals. I may be the only person in the Liberal Party who isn't a lawyer so I don't want to comment but I have a very hard time seeing how this lawsuit could possibly be successful. I guess if it keeps Adscam in the news, it certainly is a smart political move for the CPC (although one wonders about the timing, given this).
There's also a leaked copy of the AG's report on the gun registry floating around which has Sheila Fraser mad as hell. And, from my memory, Sheila Fraser is right up there with Bruce Banner, as people you wouldn't like when they're angry.
As for the report itself, it's certainly going to make the Liberals look bad. No denying that. But, at the same time, it's going to say that the program costs are now under control which should make it harder for Harper to kill the registry. Good.
3. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in polls right now, but after his incredible election night predictions, Nick Nanos has earned a few free links. The poll numbers pretty much show everyone right where'd you'd expect them to be.
4. Although it physically pains me to praise Joe Volpe and knock Monte Solberg, I was disappointed to see Monte talk about lowering Canada's immigration targets. There's a good article in the Globe today about declining birth rates and Canada's shifting demographics. With an aging population, dramatically increasing Canada's immigration totals should be a top priority for any government thinking about the long run.
posted by calgarygrit at
1:46 p.m.
16 Comments:
Haven't the courts already ruled that a political party can't be sued? For some strange reason a church can be held liable for things that happened a long time ago, but a political party can't be held responsible for anything. Going after individuals might be more a more viable option, but who has the missing millions?
By
nuna d. above, at 7:57 p.m.
And that Globe & Mail article is full of misinformation on the subject, as usual.
By
George, at 8:29 p.m.
While I'm all for immigration, and think it is great for Canada, I don't feel worried about scrapping the 300,000/year goal.
Two reasons for this:
1. We have a backlog of 800,000 would-be immigrants who we should really, in the interest of fairness, get their appliocations processed and allow into the country. Some of these people have been waiting for years.
2. Monte is not talking about restricting, or scaling back immigration - merely doing away with a fictional figure that we have never managed to hit.
By
Andrew, at 9:51 p.m.
Wouldn't allowing some of those 800,000 count as part of the total? If we let in 200,000 new ones and 100,000 from the "waiting list", doesn't that still mean 300,000 a year?
My personal preference would be to go above the 300,000 a year total. People have talked about a 1% target for a long time and I don't see any reason Canada can't hit. We have an aging population, and a labour shortage. I think the Canadian economy and society could easily handle 300,000 a year.
By
calgarygrit, at 10:20 p.m.
Re immigration.
We before-long-to-be-boomer-retirees need a vibrant energetic workforce.
But, and this will generate some controversy, at the expense of Canada becoming a branch office of China, Ethiopia, Croatia or Iran?
When the demographics of the population change, will this still be the same country? When the constitution and Charter are tossed in favour of the laws of another land, will this still be Canada? When cricket is more popular than hockey?
I don't know the answer. I think most new Canadians have integrated a little or a lot into our tolerant, moderate, peaceful, cold weather sport society. But what happens when these fatures are no longer the majority.
I have sat through international sports games against foreign countries, in Canada, where Canada is booed and Croatia, Greece and Italy are cheered.
By
Lemon, at 11:01 p.m.
I'm all for brining in more immigrants, because, obviously, this is a nation of immigrants, but with all its attendent costs both here and to the countries we recruit our immigrants from, why not put equal endorsments toward encouraging Canadians to have more kids.
Basically, if the government is going to be in the business of trying counter-act certain birth and demographic trends, why not support increasing the Canadian birth-rate?
By
Matthew, at 11:15 p.m.
More importantly: why don't we use our resources and efforts FIRST to integrate those already here?
I am thinking of:
- stepping up efforts to improve immigrants' language skills
- fixing that whole foreign credentials mess
- drawing immigrants into mainstream Canada and away from their groups and "ghettos"
By
George, at 11:18 p.m.
matt; I'm far from an expert on immigration but is there a way to "direct" new immigrants to places other than Toronto or Vancouver? Could we, for instance, encourage them to settle in the Maritimes? Or in Alberta where they need workers?
For the lawsuit, can you actually sue a party if it's only certain individuals in the party commiting fraud? If I found a crooked Tory riding President, I presume the entire CPC couldn't be sued. How widespread does something have to be to actually sue an entire party over it?
By
calgarygrit, at 12:14 a.m.
Since party is like any corporation, the whole party can be held liable for the actions of its officers. Simple as that. Look at Enron - the whole company was put out of its sorry existence.
By
George, at 1:16 a.m.
As ana immigrant myself I am all in favour of mantaining that 1% figure, and I think dealing with the backlog and 300,000 are two separate issues. You just need to hire lots of temp people to quickly process the backlog. But I also heard nowadays it takes upto 4 years for an application to be processed (such as for bringing a relative like parents, grandparents in).
By
mezba, at 6:50 a.m.
I'll back you on pushing for an overall higher number of immigrants accepted if you back me that we should be mandating that newcomers head to areas of the country outside of the Big Three (T.O., Montreal and Van-City, with Calgary started to make an argument for Big Four).
Our current immigration policies aren't helping as much as they should. I hate trying to tell someone where they can or cannot live, but at some point we've got to say that the smaller centers and rural Canada need people too.
By
The Hack, at 2:04 p.m.
hack; Deal. Although as Matt points out, there might be legal difficulties with that. And a place that really needs immigrants is Quebec and you might run into a hostile government on that. Still, you'd think there should be some sort of way to provide incentives for immigrants to settle outside the big 3 or 4 cities.
As for repaying the $$$, didn't the LPC repay the amount which the party actually received? I think the 40 million refers to cash which went to ad firms, etc.
By
calgarygrit, at 3:32 p.m.
I'm surprised that we haven't heard any musings regarding the scrapping of the IRB[Immigrations Review Board]which spends over a billion dollars of taxpayers' money every year. This was a solid policy plank for the Canadian Alliance/Reform party as they only saw it as a quasi-judicial organization populated by liberals rewarded for their loyal partisanship. As well, they did not support the board's ability to overturn deportation orders. A large reason, they believe, why the Canadian government is still ignorant to the whereabouts of over 27,000 such deportees.
But as of today, there has been no new appointments to the board or executive.
Could this be a sign?
By
scott, at 8:44 p.m.
As for repaying the $$$, didn't the LPC repay the amount which the party actually received?
How do YOU know what the Liberal party recieved?
Where is the cancelled cheque, for said re-payment?
Who and How did they decide, how much was stolen by the liberals?
Canadians want their money back and those responsible held to account...!
By
william, at 9:05 a.m.
"As for repaying the $$$, didn't the LPC repay the amount which the party actually received?"
I think at this point the LPC has repaid any money it received in donations, but part of the fraud was moving tax-payers money to private businesses and then using the money to hire LPC members who would work for the LPC while being paid by the tax-payer. Has this money been repaid?
By
nuna d. above, at 12:26 p.m.
michael kors bags
michael kors outlet
cheap nfl jerseys
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet online
cleveland cavaliers jerseys
oakley sunglasses
yeezy boost 350 white
mlb jerseys
atlanta falcons jerseys
By
raybanoutlet001, at 11:44 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home