Jump to content

Machjo

Members
  • Posts

    4,271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Machjo

  1. Higher wages at Tim Hortons will make Canada less attractive to skilled labour and the professional class too so they'll leave Canada too, so businesses will need to offer them higher wages too. The wage increase throughout the Canadian economy will undoubtedly affect exports.
  2. How much are you willing to pay for your timbit?
  3. I know of an Algonquin who converted to Islam if that's your concern. Do you propose a law against conversion? The Dark Ages all over again? And again, when testing for beliefs, litle prevents a person from lying and few CBSA officers have anywhere near the psychological qualifications for that kind of profiling.In fact, few psychiatrists do unless you're referring to in-depth analysis over an extended period and even then. Determining religious beliefs is not the same as diagnosing mental illness.
  4. Scrapping FPTP would strengthen the power of the party. I'd rather keep FPTP but remove party names ballots.
  5. A Liberal MP could vote pro life at any time. He'd just be cocked out of caucus and sit as an independent, that's all.
  6. But we're not a one-Party state so it doesn't matter.
  7. https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2019/5/27/1_4439682.html
  8. No law requires anyone to run under a party banner. Independents have run and been elected as independents before.
  9. The PM has no coercive power over them beyond removing them from caucus after which they become independents, at least not legally anyway. What? He'll hire a hit man?
  10. How did Russell Williams fall through the cracks? He made it to commandant of one of Canada's most important air bases. If they're testing competence and willingness to follow orders, that's one thing, but good luck testing fundamental beliefs. Totally separate playing field there.
  11. Have you ever read about freight ships? If businesses can't higher workers here, they'll just move to where they can. Or do you propose protectionism too? Free trade and immigration are more closely linked than some care to admit.
  12. I passed basic and completed most of infantry training before they realized I wasn't a good fit. I was physically healthier than most except for a few but struggled mentally with living with the training platoon 24/7. Are you suggesting a nearly-year-long personality test?
  13. Only as members of the Liberal caucus. The worst he can do is remove them from caucus.
  14. I breezed through a DND personality test when I shouldn't have. I was a pacifist at the time, DND was hiring only infantry, I mouthed off some Hollywood lines about wanting to serve my country, and off to training I went.
  15. Only within the Liberal caucus. No law prevents a Liberal MP to vote his conscience. At most, Trudeau can remove him from caucus but he still keeps his seat and his vote in the House. Also, no one is forced to run under the Liberal banner, So Trudeau's powers are limited in the matter.
  16. What I meant wss that each MP has a vote on national laws. I'd far rather a competent MP with a critical mind and willing to vote against his party than to vote for a party bobble head. Democracy demands this of us.
  17. I had takes a personality test of sorts and passed with flying colours. I was desperate to get a job away from home and applied for the armed forces. They were hiring only infantry at the time. Though I was a pacifist and world federalist at the time (and am still a world federalist) and wasn't even sure if I could shoot someone except strictly defensively, I just gave the Hollywood schpeel about wanting to serve my country and off to basic training I went. Worked like a charm.
  18. We don't vote for parties but candidate. We need to remove party names from ballots to clear that confusion.
  19. I vote on a totally different plane. I vote local candidate, not party, and hope that candidate can work with the other parties. Although I don't totally ID with the Conservative party. I'm extremely in favour of free trade and comparably more open borders so like the Libertarian Party on that front. Very socially conservative so lean Conservative or Christian Heritage on that front, but also favour paying the debt. Not a single party has taken a particularly tough stance on that. The Liberals and maybe NDP are just the worst of the bunch (though the NDP under Mulcair was quite fiscally conservative at least in its presentation. I want to see a party run on tough choices, a party not afraid to say it will make tough choices to pat the debt. Since no party truly fits the bill, I can hope for a competent local MP at least regardless of party. To vote even for a fool of a local MP just because he wears the colours of your favourite team is foolish.
  20. Don't underestimate Bernier. Though I favour much more open borders, Bernier's stances on free trade, corporate subsidies, and supply management impressed me. Given how many Canadian favour more open immigration but also favour protectionism, corporate subsidies, and supply management, I figure a vote for Bernier could help support for freer trade to catch up to immigration policy. Also, once trade deals are signed, it's harder to change them later so Bernier could impose freer trade on the next PM even if he ended up being a one-term PM, yet little could stop the next PM from then undoing Bernier's immigration policies. So even an advocate for more open borders who'swho'd looking at the long game could put his beliefs about immigration aside for one election so as to concentrate on free trade. Many factors could influence whom a voter elects. In my case, the vast of local candidates in my riding will play the biggest role. We'll see.
  21. And you expect all CBSA interviewers to possess the intellectual acumen to concuct such a nuanced test in a competent manner? I have no doubt that some CBSA officers are highly competent; but from my experiences at airports, I can say that the CBSA struggles to attract enough sufficiently competent officers just to conduct standard airport security; so how are they going to now find enough competent officers for more complex staff. Additionally, how do you protect against the biases of the CBSA officer himself? What if he's a religiious fanatic interviewing another religious fanatic or an atheist libertine? Of course he could try to put his biases aside; but for a task that sensitive that it touches on a person's belief system, even subconscious biases are bound to come through. How do you prevent against that? Will we screen the CBSA interviewers for 'Canadian values' too? And what about person hiring the interviewers? To test a person's knowledge of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and his beliefs concerning respect for the laws of the state are one thing, since they involve objective and verifiable knowledge. To beat around the bush to try to figure out a person's core beliefs about things requires a subtlely that the vast majority of CBSA officers would simply not qualify for, and this when the CBSA is already struggling to find sufficiently competent staff for the tasks that are already being asked of them.
  22. In my riding, the Liberal candidate will probably glide to victory, so my only hope is to try to persuade her to think more independently and not to blindly tow the party line. We'll see.
  23. I would abandon quotas altogether and replace them with a test instead. For example, as a long-term strategy, I could imagine Canada reuiwing anyone born more than one year after the new law is passed to obtain one of three 5-year language passports to enter Canada: An English-language passport (ELP), A French-language passport (PLF), and An Esperanto Passport (EP). To obtain any of these passports, the person would have to: 1. Be under age fifteen or over age seventy, 2. Obtain a compassionate exemption, with the reason for the exemption detailed in the passport and the passport expiring after the time that the person is expected to need it for the compassionate grounds, or 3. Pass a test proving mastery of the language of the passport. Additionally, he might have to sign a self-exclusion form to exclude himself from casinos for the duratin of the passport good measure. He'd have to pay the market price for the passport including emergency medical coverage included in the passport (so it would be somewhat expensive but then he could be exempted from other fees or taxes to compensate should he end up working in Canada. He might also need to upload a will and testament that would limit his burial in a grave to a maximum of fifteen years (enough to let the body rot to the bones) and then have the bones transfered to an ossuary. This would be to help manage land use. Oh, and the above would just be to enter the country whether to transit through Canada on a change of flights, visit, or whatever. Since Esperanto is extremely easy to learn, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem to obtain that passport but then we wouldn't need to spend so much money on police, court, medical, and other interpreters and translators since all visitors to Canada with few exceptions would know either English, French, or at least Esperanto (which authorities could master in no time). So easier to manage overall. Then with such controls in place, we could even consider allowing a holder of any of these three passports to study, work, or do business in Canada visa-free if we wanted to. Essentially, we'd make it more difficult to come to Canada but easier to remain.
  24. Even in that case, firstly, a person can easily lie on the test (so what's the point of it). Secondly, given that our laws already ban vigilantyism, a simple knowledge test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms along with a commitment to uphold the laws of the land whatever they may be at any time should suffice. Again, once we foist beliefs onto the population, we start to cross into orwellian territory. I hold beliefs that some would find objectionable. For example, I sincerely support a heavy fine for fornication, with the fine doubling for each repetition of the offence, for a number of reasons. Among them, a deterrence against asault (since fornication is easier to prove) and deterrence against risky behaviour that can contribute to unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STIs. I'm also very favourable to more open borders and free trade. So, should the state ever force me to adopt a specific set of beliefs (such as protectionism, etc.) or only certain laws (e.g. don't try to smuggle something into the country to avoid paying the tariff)? Once you propose that the state force belierfs on me, I worry.
  25. Let's explore in practical terms how a 'Canadian-values' test would work. 1. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Hmmm... what did my teacher teach in class again? Oh yes, pro-choice. I'll still vote pro-life though as soon as I become a citizen. 2. Do you support gay marriage? Hmmm... What was the answer to that again? Oh yes, I do support gay marriage. I can't wait to vote that law down though. 3. Do you support the Separate Catholic and Protestant denominational-school system? Wait, what? Doesn't that conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. No I... Oh wait, that's in the Charter. I remember now, yes I do. Can't wait to vote for a party that supports voucher schools though. 4. Do you support compulsory French as a second language in English Canada and English as a second language in French Canada? Hmmm... Why couldn't a school or student choose a sign language or the local indigenous language instead. Besides, their success rates are dismal anyway. Oh yes, official bilingualism, two founding races and such nonsense. Yes, of course I support it. Yeah, a values test would work brilliantly methinks.
×
×
  • Create New...