Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Pleas for Liberal principles in the news.

It looks like the Liberal grassroots and bloggers aren’t the only ones who take issue with the Nervous Nellies in the Liberal caucus over their fear of going to an election. It’s also taking root in our traditional allies – witness this quote in the paper over the proposed changes to the Immigration Act and the Liberals decision not to bring the government down over it (the changes are within the Budget Implementation Act):

“How can this party portray itself as the party of immigration, the Trudeau era of multiculturalism, and here you have this dangerous piece of legislation and you might let it pass because you’re not organized enough or your leader isn’t charismatic enough to go in an election?” he said. “People would be more supportive of a gutsy party who will go . . . on a principled position than a party that will stay there until they’re in better shape.”

You’re preaching to the choir on that, at least in this corner, and quite a few others.

16 comments to Pleas for Liberal principles in the news.

  • Joseph

    I’m not disappointed at all, actually. I think my response(s) were an instant reaction to feeling as if I was being pigeon-holed, and I responded in same by painting your opinion with a broad, negative brush.

    My first comment was truly a joke. I, of course, recognize that Canada has a long and illustrious history, of which I am proud. But in seemed one appropriate response as we are talking about me still running around in diapers – or at least pajamas with feet at that point in history ; ). My mistake was thinking you were simply wanting to freeze Canada at that time, which is just as bizarre an implication as implying that people – even Liberals ; ) – don’t recognize the long history of the Canadian experience.

    My real issue on this “discussion” of immigration is that it is NOT a discussion of immigration. It is a vague direction of powers and authority without any context, being snuck through in a BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION BILL!

    If Stephen Harper wants to address immigration, then he needs to show LEADERSHIP and do just that.

    And on those grounds, I flatly reject the approach and reiterate that the Liberals – supposedly the Opposition – should do so as well.

  • Joseph

    I’m not disappointed at all, actually. I think my response(s) were an instant reaction to feeling as if I was being pigeon-holed, and I responded in same by painting your opinion with a broad, negative brush.

    My first comment was truly a joke. I, of course, recognize that Canada has a long and illustrious history, of which I am proud. But in seemed one appropriate response as we are talking about me still running around in diapers – or at least pajamas with feet at that point in history ; ). My mistake was thinking you were simply wanting to freeze Canada at that time, which is just as bizarre an implication as implying that people – even Liberals ; ) – don’t recognize the long history of the Canadian experience.

    My real issue on this “discussion” of immigration is that it is NOT a discussion of immigration. It is a vague direction of powers and authority without any context, being snuck through in a BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION BILL!

    If Stephen Harper wants to address immigration, then he needs to show LEADERSHIP and do just that.

    And on those grounds, I flatly reject the approach and reiterate that the Liberals – supposedly the Opposition – should do so as well.

  • kursk

    Joseph, i will respond to your points..

    1..Good for you..Canada is much older and did exist pre ‘you’ coming to this earth.Unfortunately, like most Liberals you subscribe to the notion that as far as you are concerned, the concept of Canada as a nation begins in 1968, any other time period or political way of thought be damned.

    I reject that in whole, and i will see you and raise you with a Trudeau systematically setting out to dismantle and rebuild Canada into his socialist image.We are paying for that still, and will continue to pay for that in the future.

    2/3/4.

    Canada has no intention to stop immigration.In fact since the Conservatives have come to power, they have actually raised the amount of immigrants allowed to come to Canada, halved Liberal introduced immigration fees and started to implement control over a system that fell apart under previous grit govts, to a point where at any one time, there was a 500,000+ person backlog in the case files of new immigrants.

    What is interesting is that this ‘new idea’ of ministerial control is being objected to!..do you suggest we have no major oversite of the system, and leave it to the whims of the civil service to create and enforce their own policies? Rather than the policies of the govt of the day? I should hope not!

    5. An influx of immigrants is never a bad idea in a growing country.The idea that Canada was to be changed through social engineering by introducing massive influxes of (atypical at that point) immigrants from non western countries, can only be seen in the light of Liberals reinforcing their image of what Canada was to become.

    What is wrong with a multicultural Canada? I suppose nothing if you are part of the new order that enjoys the benefits of being preferred clientel.Unfortunately, multiculturalism was sold to Canadians as bigger and better pavillions at folkfest, not the watering down of an already strong national identity to suit the tastes of PET.

    If one were to come to Canada, and want to participate in the Canadian experience, that would be great.Again, this has not happened as the Liberals encouraged the newcomers to identify with the mother country, and not Canada.

    Ethnic ghettos, not in Canada you say? You do realize that a ghetto can be created without the squalor? ..though to be sure there are places in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver that meet this criteria.

    I will turn your last point back to you..perhaps you believe that no one can be a true Canadian unless they adhere to the notion that all that was anglo and Saxon was bad and needed to be replaced in this atificial construct that is multiculturalism?

    Have i disappointed you by not implying ‘they’ should all go home? I think you must remember, that conservatives want a strong country built in part through a strong and effectively controlled immigration system.Having seen the mess created by Liberals in regards to their scattergun approach to unchecked immigration, it should be a worry even to you..

  • Joseph

    last line should have read . . . “they probably don’t understand the true nature of “leadership” like the current minority government.”

    The point is someone should grow a pair – either the conservative government in stating their actual intentions and objectives or the liberals in joining the other opposition parties in calling them on their sleight of hand tactics.

    Which, bringing it back to Scott’s original premise, is that the liberals need to stop sitting when bad law (either by intentions or just poor form) gets shuffled through parliament.

  • Joseph

    Furthermore, here is a link outlining the evolution and changes to Canada Immigration law – http://www.canadiana.org/citm/specifique/immigration_e.html.

    It’s a good read, actually, and pretty comprehensive unbiased statement of facts.

    Interestingly enough, the evolution of immigration law in Canada has tended to be rooted in actual parliamentary laws passed with names like “Immigration Act of XXXX.” I didn’t see a single one entitled, “small scribbling of vague guidelines on pages 58 and 59 of the budget implementation bill of 19XX”

    So sounds like those devious governments in years passed actually put forth changes to laws in parliament and passed them. How novel!

    But then, they probably understand the true nature of “leadership” like the current minority government.

  • Joseph

    Ok, Kursk, let’s play. I call your bullshit and raise you one.

    1. For me, pretty much no. I would have been a toddler at the time so Canada pretty much started in the late 60s.

    2. I’m talking about comments from Conservative party leaders in the last 2 years, not 2 generations ago.

    3. Were changes to immigration processes made in a sub-set of budget code or were there actual parliamentary measures to adapt immigration measures?

    4. Are the conservatives actually being so bold as to say they are going to close down immigration? Well, no, the basic line is this will “improve” the current immigration system and the changes are really no big deal. Yet, strangely, you’ve gotten the impression that they are going to shut down that horrid rule-based system and replace it with the whims of a single governmental minister. Interesting to say the least.

    5. Has the influx of immigrants been a bad thing? Want to expound upon that instead of dancing around the edges? What exactly is wrong with a multi-cultural Canada? Come on, let’s hear it.

    6. Where are these ethnic “ghettos”? I’m hard-pressed to find any ghettos in Canada, though in Vancouver I can find a few places in the downtown east that aren’t so good. But that’s not so much an ethnic crowd as a down and out, in many cases mentally disturbed or drug-addicted group of souls. So please tell us about the squalid apartheid areas in your neck of the woods so we can all be enlightened.

    Or are you one of those who doesn’t believe anyone can be Canadian unless they can trace their roots back to confederation (in English-speaking Canada only)?

  • kursk

    Joseph..i think you have it backwards..it was the Liberals, starting under Trudeau that began the incremental changes to change the face of Canada..it was the Liberal party who opened up immigration to create ethnic ghettos with loyal voting blocs..any change to increase ministerial control over a Liberal biased immigration system , run by sympathetic Liberal civil servants can only be a good thing!!

    Or are you one of those who believe there was no Canada before 1968?

  • mushroom

    The problem is that the Canadian Arab Federation no longer supports the Liberals.

    This is no longer the organization once led by Omar Alghabra.  Boudjenane ran against Qaadri in Etobicoke North during the last Provincial election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Boudjenane.

    Another prominent Grit supporter lost as we drifted aimlessly in the last two years.

  • Joseph

    yeah, we shouldn’t blow all these beneath the radar changes out of proportion . . . despite the fact that conservatives how all but hailed "incrementalism" as the way they will change Canada so it won’t be recognized anymore.  That’s a pretty accurate blunt assessment of what they’ve said time and again.I’m not normally a "slippery slope" proponent, but when someone essentially tells you what they plan to do and then begin implementing it, shouldn’t you at least pay heed if not oppose it?

  • KC

    I think Boudjenane is stretching by saying that this legislation could be used to exclude "Arabs or Muslims" or any other "group" from Canada.  Discretion, even ministerial discretion has to be exercised in accordance with the Charter and racial profling like that would never pass constitutional muster.   Given the volume of immigrants Canada takes in, the Minister can’t inject him/herself into every decision.  It will probably be used through broad based instructions to bureacrats which could never be "no racial group x".  Ensuring that immigrants meet Canada’s labour market needs is a legitimate public policy goal.  Maybe this isnt the best way to accomplish that and it should be opposed (in fact I think it probably should be… since there are better ways of accomplishing this and I want an election to get it over with) but its not the end of the world and is born of legitimate policy goals.

    Im not saying this is good legislation, or that the Liberals should support it to stave off an election; I just think some are blowing its dangers WAY out of proportion. The Liberals could support it and still be the party of "immigration, [and] the Trudeau era of multiculturalism".

  • slg

    Ya, right – go ahead and risk a Harper majority – then the Liberals, NDP and Green will HAVE NO SAY in any legislatation.  Right, brilliant move to take a risk right now.

     

  • wilson

    The principled thing to do is make sure changes (which are badly needed)  to Immigration policy is done in committee.  IMO,  that is what a good government in waiting would do.
    Bringing down the government over ‘entitilements’ that people who are not yet, nor may never become , Canadian citizens, is …. irresponsible .

  • Scott… and the choir is nodding their heads in agreement. This is getting crazy, and how you have Dion being quoted in the Globe as saying that they will go when the "odds" are in their favour, and that people usually don’t like to have elections. This is getting sadder and sadder by the day.

    By the way, i’m down in Columbus, OH right now, and have some interesting stories about people I’m meeting. Good stories I don’t have to wait for the memoires to tell them πŸ˜‰

  • Whooee! Here comes JimBobby, the broken record.

    Greens protest changes to Immigration Act NEW GLASGOW – The Green Party is denouncing the Harper government’s attempt to push through a major change to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by hiding it in the Budget Implementation Act. The amendment to Subsection 11 of the Act will mean that immigrants wishing to enter Canada can still be refused a visa or other necessary documents despite satisfying immigration officers and meeting other requirements of the Act. "This amendment essentially gives the government discretionary power over who gets in and who is left out," said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. "The Harper government is changing an immigration system ruled by law to one ruled by lottery. This amendment means that qualified immigrants may never be accepted into Canada and lose the $550 application fee." Ms. May said the government’s attempt to sneak in this drastic change by concealing it in the Budget Implementation Act is underhanded and dishonest. "This is a major alteration of the Act. Before any action is taken the Citizenship and Immigration Committee should hold public hearings and report to Parliament on this issue." she said.

    Like I keep sayin’, if you’re lookin’ fer a party of peace that stands up for socially progressive policies, you’ve got 2 choices: the Greens and the NDP. I’d prefer that disgruntled Liberals choose the Greens but as long as they quit enabling the Cons by voting LPC, I’ll be happy. The Liberals are more interested in preserving their current seat count than in actually representing the voters who elected them to those seats. How many more Canadians must die in a senseless war so that Dion doesn’t have to face the voters? JB

  • Joseph

    That Annie, always ready to help out with a snide remark and a smirk ; ).Good post!  It’s time to pull the plug.

  • I would be nevous too, if I knew at the time, that Quebec nomintations are not doing too well….way behind.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.