Martin Chriton

Options for Harper seem to be: 1.) Don't go anywhere while prime minister (4-8 years with no vacations) [unreasonable] 2.) Pay personally for all RCMP costs, etc w/ protecting him. [unreasonable] 3.) Do what the Liberals did and use government aircraft as your own 4.) Pay the same price you would if you weren't prime minister #4 seems extremely fair and big improvement from #3. The fake outrage over this just makes the CPC look better. I'm surprised he is going #4 -- good for him. It's about time someone in Ottawa got it.

I'll give him an A. He had some missteps but faced a lot of real problems caused by the former government, e.g.: near end of the Kyoto timeline and a Liberal gov. that did nothing to help meet the targets. In terms of climate change he did the correct thing by keeping Canada out of any binding treaties that the real polluters also weren't in. I think minorities are hard. It's hard to see things going much better.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-caplan/can-americans-be-saved-from-themselves/article1870946/ Discuss. Illogical left wing rant that I was surprised to see on the G&M. " Of course the total depend on one’s definition of a mental disorder. Take the following facts, for example. According to a 2010 poll: ... » 38 per cent of Republicans (20 per cent overall) say Mr. Obama is “doing many of the things that Hitler did; ... Does this make them a) surprisingly shrewd, supremely ignorant, c) paranoid, or d) off their rockers? Choose one." I'm sure the Democrats or Liberals wouldn't say the same thing about Bush/Harper, not.

If the bill fails they can spin it to the rural folks they tried but the NDP/Liberal parties of Toronto are out of touch. If the registry is killed they face potential backlash from those in larger cities. From what I see it's in the Conservatives best interest for it to fail. Thoughts?

I'll agree w/ this comment. We've innovated in so many different areas in the past century it's laughable to see some people arguing that some part of our current system is necessary because that's how it was done in the past. This kind of attitude is why some countries still have kings of queens. It's laughable and pathetic.

I wonder if anyone in the LPC or NDP have ever had some connection drugs? This hole thing appears to be really silly. I suppose if it's true she might be a prime candidate for NDP if the CPC gives her the boot.

1. Sure, letting some under-skilled folks in seems like it might not be a bad. However, the original topic is about letting in folks that have education and they end up getting *no* job. The intention of letting them is because their university degree is supposedly worth something. If they can't pass an interview then letting them in was a bad idea. Unless of course they fully planned on driving a taxi but that should've been clear to everyone at the start. It would good to break out immigration into at least three categories: <a> skilled <b> low skill / taxi drivers <c> charity cases 2. "Besides, why would you trust politicians and bureaucrats to accurately predict the needs of the job market over a 20+ yr period?" I don't trust them. Obviously the current system doesn't work where they look at the points on paper and decide whether they'll make it. Let the market decide and force them to get a job upfront. "Bringing an immigrant in isn't like importing a temporary worker; you can't send them away when labour priorities shift." For sure, that's why it's all the more important the people that are brought in are employable. Being able to get a job is huge test of that. It doesn't mean that they might never be unemployed but they stand a much better chance than someone who doesn't have a job / never had a job in that country. "More importantly, immigration isn't just about filling immediate holes in the job market. It's also a critical pillar in the building of society. " If it's not for short and long term jobs what pillar are you taking about? If you're talkign about charity lets be careful to clearly label how many folks we are bringing in for charity and clearly understand the cost.

What do you mean by this? If it isn't for those immigrants to have jobs and be productive members of society than it's for charity and should be clearly labeled as such. For those immigrants that aren't charity cases we should be careful to only let in those are the most employable and the best way to decide that is if they are have job offers or even better in Canada working on a work visa. Why risk accepting someone that doesn't have an offer when there are people waiting with job offers.

H1-B is a temporary work visa. The common immigration process for H1-B folks is through the greencard process. My question was % of employer sponsored of immigration in US vs. that of Canada. Your response doesn't answer that. Greencards have to be employer sponsored AFAIK (or through marriage). The other mechanisms might also be employer sponsored or not. My point about mentioning H1-B earlier is that for greencard is that I'm a US tax payer and I *still* don't have a greencard. Seems like a much better system to have people paying taxes before you even consider them. As other folks have been saying, it seems like a much better system to have people get jobs first and have employers back their immigration rather than hoping they can get employed. Degrees mean very little if you can't get a job. I don't fully know what the US is doing but the greencard process has tons of talented folks waiting to get a greencard and they already have jobs and they already are paying taxes. It seems silly to let folks in w/ out jobs when there are folks waiting and already have jobs. However, in that case maybe the US has room to improve too.

True, I'm basing what I know of US immigration and Canadian immigration based on my personal experience. From what I've seen most folks in the US go through H1-B and then through the greencard process. To get a greencard in most cases you need a sponsoring employer. You can also get a greencard by marrying a citizen of the US but those are probably a minority. I don't have any stats to compare employer sponsors immigration in US vs. Canadian but my guess is the US is a lot higher. If someone has time to dig up that information it would be interesting to see it.

As I mentioned at http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16181&view=findpost&p=530698 -- A requirement should be that you were accepted for a Canadian job and have a sponsoring employer. If you can't get a job offer before you come, it's not likely you can get one after. Canada could learn from the US on this one.

Wow, you keep missing the point! It's not about the piece of paper that someone holds. If they can't get a job than the degree isn't worth the piece of paper it's printed on. The way the US system works is you need a *job* acceptance and a sponsoring employer to let you in the country. In Canada they can get in without being accepted for a job! And shock, surprise, a lot end up not getting jobs! I'm a Canadian working in Silicon Valley under the H1-B program. In my company we interview tons from India for potential jobs. Only a tiny fraction that have degrees ever get offers. Only the very best get brought over and when they're brought over they have a job waiting for them. The degree means very little to us, everyone can get a university degree. Experience and how well they do answering the interview question is much much more important. As someone that has lived in both countries and seen the immigration systems the US one is by far superior. I'm currently applying for a green card in the USA and it's going to take probably another 3-4 years (I've been here 3-4 years already), and I have a high paying 6-figure salary and a stable job.

I agree with your sentiment -- at the end of the day these public sector employees still have the same employer. However, to nitpick, in the private sector if a business is bought out stock options become fully vested (in a lot of cases -- all?). If the business I work at were to become purchased I'd be better off financially. As it is, I have a 5 year vesting period (for the most recent options) to deter me from jumping ship.

Yeah, for some people saddling their children with debt is good policy... I suppose. Some would say the US is too socialist already.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/nation-vote.html You obviously don't keep up with news (at least economic news ). Europe is doing terrible right now w/ it's debt crisis. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_financial_crisis Using economies whose wealth literally flows from does not make them good managers of money. Hah. Do you have any idea what the standard of living is in China vs. Canada? China is becoming a less terrible place to live. Good job

Quebec is among most highly indebted industrial economies in the world. Article is at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/quebec-among-most-highly-indebted-industrial-economies-in-the-world/article1484107/ Quebec ranks only below Japan, Italy, Greece and Iceland in terms of public debt as a percentage of GDP. That's pretty disastrous. With the level of debt of socialist nations spiraling out of control, why are people still supporting parties such as the NDP (and to a lesser degree the Liberals)?

Uh oh, the only "real" conservative government scandal has nothing to do with the CPC. Their poll numbers are going to drop in record time.

Maybe, but with what we've seen in the past strong public opinion against even studying two tier health care systems, I'm skeptical. Imagine if a party announced they were going to modernize, i.e.: cut, retiree benefits, ughh.

What *I* would do and what a political party could get away with are two completely different things.

It's a pyramid scheme. How do you expect to payout for all the retirees if there is no one paying into the system?

That's an interesting spin From the poll those with university and college degrees Conservatives are still the #1 choice for those w/ education: University or higher Conservative 32.9% Liberal 30.6% NDP 18.2% It would be interesting to look a bit deeper and see how those with lesser degrees line up against more advanced degrees. My guess is the difference would be even more pronounced. The "High school or less" poll is another matter. My intuition tells me that has a lot to do rural voters. As I said before, a successful farmer undoubtedly has more intelligence than some of those schmucks which graduate university these days.

NDP voters intelligent? Seems unlikely. Educated? That's subjective. From my experience the more successful you are the more you care about the outrageous tax rates in the upper brackets, which is why you tend to go right rather then left. When you're in the lower tax bracket you tend to want to go the other way to have others pay for your shortcomings. The right has a good mix of highly successful people and also rural people. My guess is that rural folks would bring the Conservative's average down in whatever poll you read. However, I wouldn't say a farmer who runs a successful business is less intelligent then some pot smoking arts major with a bachelors degree that makes less then 40-80k a year.

Seems like a better investment then things we've done in the past for that kind of money, like the long gun registry. But as others have pointed out that we're out within a year.

He was a proud American under Bush no less. Anyways, this isn't the reason why I don't think Iggy would make a good PM. I've lived in the US for some years now and have nothing against Americans. I just find it humorous to point out the hypocrisy to those that who get scared w/ some American adviser and yet support someone else for PM that claimed he was American. It's all the more sweet coming years after being told Harper's values were too American and not "Canadian values" by folks like Paul Martin. The Liberal's need to get over there ignorant fears of the USA. (Not that I see this happening anytime soon.)

? Your age is showing. Harper and the rest of the Conservatives (and Reform before them) were blasted as being too American for years. The hypocrisy is that of the Liberals for being anti-American and getting someone like Ignatieff.