Opposition To Vote Against Human Smuggling Bill

[Shwa]

Considering the CPC has broken pretty much every promise it has ever made on everything but the GST, the fact that you're question the Liberals here is hilarious.

OK, can you list every promise the CPC has made? Can't? Didn't think so.

Look Nicky, I might not be able to stomach the CPC or Liberals or NDP 'at their word' but don't think I am so cynical that I don't take you at your word. If you are going to throw out crap like that, then fair is fair. I am no apologist for the CPC, so don't get your bloomers in a bundle.

Furthermore, who says this isn't the Liberals standing up for what they believe in? They clearly really don't like certain provisions in the bill so why not oppose it? Why not kill it now and do it better when in government?

When the Liberals are in government next you mean? So in other words, don't do anything, kill any efforts to do anything by anyone else and cross your fingers at the next election. It is this exact do-nothing, say-nothing attitude that has blessed us with the two CPC minorities we have gone through thus far.

Another thing I wouldn't be exactly trumpeting. Rather than actually coming up with a program the last go around, the CPC decided to spend their war chest and attack ads. With their poll numbers sinking they had to release a couple of clumsy documents to appease the calls of why the election is necessary and where is Harper's platform?

Harper is working on his platform, it is called 'government.'

As for the Liberals, the platform is there. They just don't want to put it out due to fears that the CPC will run countless attack ads against it. It's a reasonable political calculation. I don't agree with it. The CPC will for sure attack, but that will just make them look even more like the vindictive bullies the Conservatives really are.

There are brilliant minds in the LPC, don't you think they can weather any attack ads the CPC throw at them? Like I said, it doesn't matter how clever they think they were in the back rooms with no audience. If they can't weather supposed CPC attack ads, then that doesn't boost confidence for them weathering a real crisis like the economic downturns, terrorism, fractionalism, etc., now does it? If they have no balls now, no one is going to think they are going to suddenly grow a pair when an election is called.

This is a matter of leadership and the LPC has no leadership. Maybe Ignatieff can borrow Duceppes balls.

Riiiiiiiiight.

You are ignoring the reality for your notion. Don't shop with that attitude you will go broke fast.

You're living in a dream world. This is a government that only ever takes input when it's in trouble. They took consultations on EI over the summer because they were afraid of an election. They implemented stimulus because of the coalition threat. The rest? They disrupt parliament and parliamentary committees everywhere they can. Last year during the torture hearings none of the CPC members of the committee would attend so the meetings had to be cancelled. A parliamentary motion passed to restore the census. The government ignored it. A motion was passed for the opposition to see documents. The government ignored it until they were censured by the Speaker of the House. They even suspended parliament over it. They suspended parliament so they could avoid a confidence vote.

Well this latest bit of legislation is not a dream now is it? And here you are telling me that the Liberals are too afraid to make their platform known because of the potential CPC attack ads against it.

How can you give input to a body that willfully ignores it?

So you are saying that this legislation, that is being put through due process is because the CPC is ignoring Parliament?

Hahahahaha. You're kidding right? The next time you come around with your righteous indignation, please, read this article first.

Oh an morality opinion from a political wag from MacLeans trumps realities. Right. More Liberal do-nothing white-knuckle top-of-the-heap wishful thinking.

Your problem here Nicky is that you assume too much. When we have a party that cannot withstand the honest and free criticism from within, in order to maintain an abstract and false appearance on the outside. Then they treat their own critics as an enemy, as a CPC. You come off like an apologetic idealogue that supports the status quo no matter what. In other words the old school Liberal attitude of underserved privledge. Same old, tired Liberals.

The people will always go with the devil they know over the devil they don't. And Harper today, is the devil they know. Ignatieff can do nothing but oppose because he has no other skills; he picked up the ball and just stands there. He is the last guy a liberal like me would want as Prime Minister, that's for sure.

[bloodyminded]

This is a matter of leadership and the LPC has no leadership. Maybe Ignatieff can borrow Duceppes balls.

Ignatieff could use an entire makeover.. a real one, I mean, not a cosmetic one.

Hell, the guy was sold to the Party in large part because he's supposed to be a thinker.

[Argus]

Of course they do. Most don't however. To think all do, as you put it so elegantly is a bunch of and wringing nonsense. Don't destroy the system because a few take advantage of it. It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

A few? My impression is the majority of refugees are simply queue jumpers who would not qualify under the regular immigration stream. They fabricate stories, often under the coaching of unscrupulous immigration lawyers, consultants and smugglers, even though most wouldn't qualify in any other country on the planet.

And it is these immigration consultants, lawyers and smugglers who the Liberals are responding to, who are beholden to, who are obedient to. This is a decision at odds with what the public wants, but it isn't the public the Liberals pay attention to on immigration issues. They long ago set up a system of local ethnic satraps who were responsible for herding their various groups to the polls to vote Liberal every election. A great many of these people are associated with the immigration industry, and it is to them the Liberals look whenever the topic of immigration comes up. And make no mistake, their interests have nothing whatever to do with what is best for Canada.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Argus

[scribblet]

A few? My impression is the majority of refugees are simply queue jumpers who would not qualify under the regular immigration stream. They fabricate stories, often under the coaching of unscrupulous immigration lawyers, consultants and smugglers, even though most wouldn't qualify in any other country on the planet.

And it is these immigration consultants, lawyers and smugglers who the Liberals are responding to, who are beholden to, who are obedient to. This is a decision at odds with what the public wants, but it isn't the public the Liberals pay attention to on immigration issues. They long ago set up a system of local ethnic straps who were responsible for herding their various groups to the polls to vote Liberal every election. A great many of these people are associated with the immigration industry, and it is to them the Liberals look whenever the topic of immigration comes up. And make no mistake, their interests have nothing whatever to do with what is best for Canada.

Right on. The Liberals won't get support from the public on this one, the majority want something done about queue jumpers pretending to be genuine refugees.

[The_Squid]

http://www.torontosu...8/16035881.html

IRB statistics released Monday show 9,100 refugee claimants were accepted by Canadian authorities from January to September of 2010, while another 9,800 were rejected. Those totals include cases from previous years.

During the same time period, 3,300 cases were withdrawn and 1,174 claimants failed to show up for hearings.

13% don't show up for their refugee hearing. This is alarming to me.

Even more alarming:

Enforcement officials said there are 15,000 failed claimants awaiting deportation and 38,000 unsuccessful applicants whose whereabouts are unknown.

Enough with the BS partisanship.... and enough with the "queue jumpers" rhetoric, cuz that's all it is. The more people say it, the more ignorant and uninformed they sound.

I don't like the party who forms government and didn't vote for them, BUT this is the first time in decades that a solution has actually been proposed in legislation.

HOWEVER, if putting potential refugees into a lock-up is not a solution to the above problem, then let's hear what is. Or, if you don't think that 38,000 people not accounted for is not a problem, then be upfront about it.

But opposing a solution just for the sake of opposing is assinine.

Edited December 2, 2010 by The_Squid

[M.Dancer]

and enough with the "queue jumpers" rhetoric, cuz that's all it is.

And how would you better describe people who not really qualified as refugees, manipulate the refugee claims process rather than wait and be processed like everyone else?

Motivated Migrants?

[The_Squid]

And how would you better describe people who not really qualified as refugees, manipulate the refugee claims process rather than wait and be processed like everyone else?

Motivated Migrants?

Call them failed applicants who need to be deported.

When you use rhetoric like "queue jumpers" it automatically assumes that anyone who is denied refugee status is doing something illegal or immoral... It paints everyone with the same intolerant brush.

This is simply not the case. One could have a terrible life, only wanting to make a better life for one's family and still be denied refugee status. This person has done nothing wrong, per se, but should be sent back because they don't meet the criteria.

Rhetoric doesn't do the honest debate any good. It turns it from a debate about ideas into partisan bickering. That is usually how it goes on an internet forum, but, if we are trying to actually have an honest debate (are you?) then we should strive to do a bit better.

[M.Dancer]

Call them failed applicants who need to be deported.

When you use rhetoric like "queue jumpers" it automatically assumes that anyone who is denied refugee status is doing something illegal or immoral...

I happen to think, trying to circumvent normal immigration procedures while not immoral, it's rude, selfish, arrogant and assumes that everyone else who waits paitiently is an asshole.

But if it makes you less sad, how about we call them "suspected buttinskis"

[Evening Star]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have info re what specific aspects of the bill would violate which parts of the Charter, according to the Opposition? And what the govt's response is?

[Shakeyhands]

But opposing a solution just for the sake of opposing is assinine.

That pesky Charter is in the way here, not just the forward non-alarmist thinkers.

[The_Squid]

That pesky Charter is in the way here, not just the forward non-alarmist thinkers.

Is it? I don't recall any Supreme Court judgements on the matter... Can you point to any?

Do you think that there is a problem when 38,000 people are unaccounted for? What would your solution be to ensuring that people don't take off before their status is determined?

I happen to think, trying to circumvent normal immigration procedures while not immoral, it's rude, selfish, arrogant and assumes that everyone else who waits paitiently is an asshole.

So a potential refugee should already know that he/she will be approved before ever trying to apply for refugee status? And if refused then he/she is an asshole? Interesting opinion... I happen to think that nearly all of them are trying to make a better life out of a shitty one and if they don't meet our criteria that they should be sent back... no rhetoric... no hair on fire or name calling... just the facts ma'am. And we accomplish the same thing, but I don't need to get all fired up over it with false rhetoric and misplaced nationalism.

Edited December 2, 2010 by The_Squid

[eyeball]

Anti immigrant sentiment, my ass..these cue jumpers aren't immigrants. Immigrants stand in line....

Yeah, that's probably what the folks ahead of your folks once said too. Some people are just kinda funny that way.

[Saipan]

Call them failed applicants who need to be deported.

They didn't apply, they just came.

Also some 50,000 are nowhere to be found. They simply failed to come to the hearing and decided to stay here.

One could have a terrible life, only wanting to make a better life for one's family and still be denied refugee status. This person has done nothing wrong, per se, but should be sent back because they don't meet the criteria.

Because they failed to apply. Entering a country without valid visa is a crimnal offence. Everywhere. With the exeption when one leaves a coutry that doesn't allow citizens to leave, for example Communist country.

[The_Squid]

They didn't apply, they just came.

You really have nothing of worth to contribute to the conversation. Your ignorance shines like a beacon with your every post. Here is why your statement above is completely absurd:

Canada has obliged itself to protect genuine refugees, that is, not to send them back to persecution. People who get to Canada on their own can claim refugee protection at any border point, or inside Canada, at a Canadian Immigration Visa Office.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-immigration-refugee-status.html

[DrGreenthumb]

I just think its pretty lame for the Libs to complain about not believing in mandatory minimums now when they voted to pass S-10. They should try to be consistant.

[guyser]

Entering a country without valid visa is a crimnal offence. Everywhere.

Really ? everytime I cross into the USA i've never had a Visa.

And all my friends from....

Andorra

Antigua and Barbuda

Australia

Austria

Bahamas

Barbados

Belgium

Botswana

Brunei

Croatia

Cyprus

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

No to mention....

Japan

Korea, Republic of

Latvia, Republic of

Lithuania

Liechtenstein

Luxembourg

Malta

Monaco

Namibia

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Papua New Guinea

Poland

Portugal

St. Kitts and Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent

San Marino

Singapore

Slovakia

Solomon Islands

Spain

Swaziland

Sweden

Slovenia

Switzerland

can come here without one.

....SSoS I see.

Yes, everyone needs...

Edited December 3, 2010 by guyser

[AngusThermopyle]

Entering a country without valid visa is a crimnal offence. Everywhere.

What about American Express or Mastercard? How about Discover card.?

[Battletoads]

If the bill wouldn't survive a charter challenge it would seem the liberal saved a significant amount of time and money by voting it down.

Maybe the Conservatives can do their job now and get to work drafting up some legislation that isn't in conflict with the charter.

[Evening Star]

That's why I asked my question upthread. It seems like the most pertinent issue here.

CCLA also seems to think the bill violates both the Charter and the Convention on the Status of Refugees: http://ccla.org/our-work/focus-areas/bill-c-49/#legal

as does the Canadian Council for Refugees: http://ccrweb.ca/en/bill-c49-faq

At least one lawyer predicted a large number of charter challenges: http://www.chaudharylaw.com/site/cms/on-bill-c-49-and-greedy-immigration-lawyers/

I just read the relevant portions of the legislative summary of the bill and the Charter. While I'm not a lawyer and can't say much for sure, I can see how the bill itself could be challenged or could lead to an excessive number of challenges of particular arrests or detentions.

[nicky10013]

OK, can you list every promise the CPC has made? Can't? Didn't think so.

Look Nicky, I might not be able to stomach the CPC or Liberals or NDP 'at their word' but don't think I am so cynical that I don't take you at your word. If you are going to throw out crap like that, then fair is fair. I am no apologist for the CPC, so don't get your bloomers in a bundle.

Taxation of income trusts

Saying there wouldn't be a recession

Saying there was no need for stimulus

Afghan extension

When the Liberals are in government next you mean? So in other words, don't do anything, kill any efforts to do anything by anyone else and cross your fingers at the next election. It is this exact do-nothing, say-nothing attitude that has blessed us with the two CPC minorities we have gone through thus far.

That was the modus operandi of the CPC while they were in the opposition. Yet, for them, it wasn't being weak. It was being strong - they had to oppose after all, they were the opposition! Now, it's just cowardice dontcha know!

Harper is working on his platform, it is called 'government.'

Since when is being in government a platform at all? Your platform becomes the government's agenda when in power. Government itself isn't an agenda. I'm not surprised you're confused, though. Afterall, it's not like the Conservatives have really promised to do much at all in the past 4 years. Even then as I've mentioned, they've failed to live up to most of it.

There are brilliant minds in the LPC, don't you think they can weather any attack ads the CPC throw at them? Like I said, it doesn't matter how clever they think they were in the back rooms with no audience. If they can't weather supposed CPC attack ads, then that doesn't boost confidence for them weathering a real crisis like the economic downturns, terrorism, fractionalism, etc., now does it? If they have no balls now, no one is going to think they are going to suddenly grow a pair when an election is called.

Depends on what your definition of balls are. I think they should put the platform out there but it's a political calculation. Not unlike Harper suspending parliament, or Harper refusing to answer unscripted questions, or refusing to let comittees do their work.

This is a matter of leadership and the LPC has no leadership. Maybe Ignatieff can borrow Duceppes balls.

Funny, Harper not working with Liberals while they were in government was strong. Now Ignatieff not working with the opposition is poor leadership. Funny, when they were working with Harper, it was poor leadership. I smell an overtly political double standard here.

You are ignoring the reality for your notion. Don't shop with that attitude you will go broke fast.

No, I seem to be the one that is actually in touch with reality. Politics is politics and with certain things you have to play politics. For the LPC, this is one of them. I'm not the one pretending my guy is above the fray. Yet people of the CPC persuasion are still under the spell that somehow their guy has the "balls" you think Ignatieff is missing, that somehow Harper is morally superior when both sides play the exact same game. Harper if anything plays that game even harder. So please, don't tell me that I'm the one out of touch with reality here. I'm one of the only truly pragmatic people here. I may be wrong on certain issues, I'll freely admit it, but at least I'm not dogmatic.

Well this latest bit of legislation is not a dream now is it? And here you are telling me that the Liberals are too afraid to make their platform known because of the potential CPC attack ads against it.

The entire platform, yes. This, they've clearly pointed out where they stand. We're for cracking down on human smugglers and not their victims. How hard is that to understand?

So you are saying that this legislation, that is being put through due process is because the CPC is ignoring Parliament?

No, what I'm saying is that the Conservatives only ever work with the Liberals when they're in trouble. Why in god's name would the CPC even think to cooperate? How do you know the Liberals didn't reach out and say we can work with you on this if you drop this certain provision? To me, that makes the most sense since the bill actually did pass first reading. Just because it isn't made public doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It happens all the time.

Oh an morality opinion from a political wag from MacLeans trumps realities. Right. More Liberal do-nothing white-knuckle top-of-the-heap wishful thinking.

It may be an opinion piece, but it's the truth. If you deny that, you really aren't the non-partisan person you pretend to be. At least have the balls to admit it. If you don't, please don't preach about how other people should have something you don't. How hypocrtical.

Your problem here Nicky is that you assume too much. When we have a party that cannot withstand the honest and free criticism from within, in order to maintain an abstract and false appearance on the outside. Then they treat their own critics as an enemy, as a CPC. You come off like an apologetic idealogue that supports the status quo no matter what. In other words the old school Liberal attitude of underserved privledge. Same old, tired Liberals.

This is fresh. Considering the CPC treats anyone who doesn't agree with them like "Liberals." Anytime something comes out in the press unflattering to the CPC, there's a barrage of tired "liberal mainstream media elite" garbage. What about the "Toronto elites?" What about what happened to MacKay who has been shut out of decision making within caucus?

When has that happened in the LPC? Funny, CPC supporters seem to revel in the fact that Ignatieff isn't a leader, like you so eloquently stated in the same post. Now he's too authoritarian of a leader? Jee, again I'm smelling a political double standard here. If authoritarianism isn't good for Conservatives I wonder why Harper has power.

[qupote[The people will always go with the devil they know over the devil they don't. And Harper today, is the devil they know. Ignatieff can do nothing but oppose because he has no other skills; he picked up the ball and just stands there. He is the last guy a liberal like me would want as Prime Minister, that's for sure.

You do realize that this description fit Harper pefectly before he became PM, right? Ahhh short memories.

Edited December 4, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

I'm at a loss here. Do the Liberals oppose the legislation because they are against it or do they oppose it because they think it violates the charter? Seems to me that if they like the legislation but think it violates the charter, they should vote in favour of it and let it be challenged. Then we would find out if really does violate the charter instead of indulging in all this political bullshit.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Wilber

[Evening Star]

Not sure what you mean. Thinking that a proposed piece of legislation violates the Charter is a good reason to be against it, surely. Why waste time experimenting with potential challenges when you can defeat the bill and hope to come up with a better solution to the human smuggling problem?

[Wilber]

Not sure what you mean. Thinking that a proposed piece of legislation violates the Charter is a good reason to be against it, surely. Why waste time experimenting with potential challenges when you can defeat the bill and hope to come up with a better solution to the human smuggling problem?

Not really, the question to Iggy and friends should be, if the Charter didn't exist, would you be in favour of this legislation? In other words, stop hiding behind the Charter and be honest about what you believe.

[Smallc]

Not really, the question to Iggy and friends should be, if the Charter didn't exist, would you be in favour of this legislation?

OK....except that the Charter does exist. If you believe that members of the Commons should do something that they believe to be in violation of Canada's Constitution, then I guess you shouldn't hide behind some kind of fake choice that you're giving the Liberals. If they really believe that the legislation violates the Charter, then I would be (and you should be, quite frankly) appalled if they would vote in favour of the legislation. Constitutions exist for a reason.

[Shwa]

Taxation of income trusts

Saying there wouldn't be a recession

Saying there was no need for stimulus

Afghan extension

That's it? "All" their promises are just 4 of them??

That was the modus operandi of the CPC while they were in the opposition. Yet, for them, it wasn't being weak. It was being strong - they had to oppose after all, they were the opposition! Now, it's just cowardice dontcha know!

Right, I getchya, there is no difference between the BS tactics of the CPC or the LPC - and really, why should there? It's only "politics" after all. It all makes perfects sense now. And let's dare not show any spine because the CPC might - might! - start all these attack ads and well, you know, damned if the LPC could come up with any sort of coherent platform that could withstand the might of the potential CPC attack ads.

But better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Looks like another minority will be coming our way. And it won't be Liberal.

Since when is being in government a platform at all? Your platform becomes the government's agenda when in power. Government itself isn't an agenda. I'm not surprised you're confused, though. Afterall, it's not like the Conservatives have really promised to do much at all in the past 4 years. Even then as I've mentioned, they've failed to live up to most of it.

I'm not confused at all Nicky, I have close enough access to "government" to see how the CPC are transforming the bureaucracy with their "platform." Do you? Because if you did and were aware of the changes going on within the bureaucracy - the chief aparatus of party rule - I highly doubt you would have formed such a naive opinion.

Depends on what your definition of balls are. I think they should put the platform out there but it's a political calculation. Not unlike Harper suspending parliament, or Harper refusing to answer unscripted questions, or refusing to let comittees do their work.

So you are an apologist after all? And use the CPC as a scapegoat for such apology? Well done!

Funny, Harper not working with Liberals while they were in government was strong. Now Ignatieff not working with the opposition is poor leadership. Funny, when they were working with Harper, it was poor leadership. I smell an overtly political double standard here.

Whatever you smell, it likely isn't a pair of balls. All you are admitting here is that the LPC is just as bad as the CPC. And you know what? Tell Canadians something they didn't already know. Why do you think we have had two CPC minorities already? This is what I mean by the lack of leadership in the LPC. A situation that desperately calls for leadership and what do we get? An apology for being just as bad as the other guy. For shame!

No, I seem to be the one that is actually in touch with reality. Politics is politics and with certain things you have to play politics. For the LPC, this is one of them. I'm not the one pretending my guy is above the fray. Yet people of the CPC persuasion are still under the spell that somehow their guy has the "balls" you think Ignatieff is missing, that somehow Harper is morally superior when both sides play the exact same game. Harper if anything plays that game even harder. So please, don't tell me that I'm the one out of touch with reality here. I'm one of the only truly pragmatic people here. I may be wrong on certain issues, I'll freely admit it, but at least I'm not dogmatic.

You've already proven to be an apologist there's only a very thin line between dogmatism now. The LPC needs a leader who can rise above the current lowest denominator and show Canadians a vision of their future that they want. Instead all the LPC apologists can do is point out how equally bad the leadership is. But Harper loves hockey, so the LPC lose again. Duh. But oh, hey, that's "politics."

The entire platform, yes. This, they've clearly pointed out where they stand. We're for cracking down on human smugglers and not their victims. How hard is that to understand?

Oh, it is very easy to understand since it is the exact same sentiment the CPC has responded with. How hard is that to understand?

No, what I'm saying is that the Conservatives only ever work with the Liberals when they're in trouble. Why in god's name would the CPC even think to cooperate? How do you know the Liberals didn't reach out and say we can work with you on this if you drop this certain provision? To me, that makes the most sense since the bill actually did pass first reading. Just because it isn't made public doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It happens all the time.

"It happens all the time" and the Liberals don't admit to it this time? God, the LPC is in far worse shape than I thought!

It may be an opinion piece, but it's the truth. If you deny that, you really aren't the non-partisan person you pretend to be. At least have the balls to admit it. If you don't, please don't preach about how other people should have something you don't. How hypocrtical.

Here's the truth Nicky: the piece was a "morality opinion from a political wag from MacLeans" and nothing more. As for non-partisan, well, I'll decide that, thanks.

This is fresh. Considering the CPC treats anyone who doesn't agree with them like "Liberals." Anytime something comes out in the press unflattering to the CPC, there's a barrage of tired "liberal mainstream media elite" garbage. What about the "Toronto elites?" What about what happened to MacKay who has been shut out of decision making within caucus?

All you are doing here is saying the Liberals are no different than the CPC. Oh, now that's news.

When has that happened in the LPC? Funny, CPC supporters seem to revel in the fact that Ignatieff isn't a leader, like you so eloquently stated in the same post. Now he's too authoritarian of a leader? Jee, again I'm smelling a political double standard here. If authoritarianism isn't good for Conservatives I wonder why Harper has power.

You don't get that do you? All you are able to do is make comparisons that the Liberals are no worse than the CPC and then somehow think this is a good thing. If you want to see a crystal clear example of what is acutely wrong with the Liberals today, go look in the mirror.

You do realize that this description fit Harper pefectly before he became PM, right? Ahhh short memories.

With the exception that Harper has a genuine love of hockey and his life experience is rooted right here in Canada. And oh, he has been Prime Minister before.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Shwa