New HarperPAC

[Argus]

So your opinion is we have too much funding into healthcare and new equipment, latest procedure development, and specialist attraction is unneeded. You thought 6% was too caviar a system......gotcha.

My opinion is that an increase is not a cut. And that anyone who isn't capable of understanding that shouldn't be allowed to tie their shoes alone, much less vote.

[Bob Macadoo]

My opinion is that an increase is not a cut. And that anyone who isn't capable of understanding that shouldn't be allowed to tie their shoes alone, much less vote.

Well I hope your semantical roof keeps the rain out......the reduction in inflationary funding will have an adverse affect on the quality of healthcare, especially for those provinces relying on decreasing royalty revenues and no sales taxes.

[cybercoma]

What's the difference?

WWWTT

The difference is that absolute equality hurts as much as massive inequality.

[cybercoma]

Definition of Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

You don't have to support a specific party to be partisan.

I'll let you read over your own post again.

[Keepitsimple]

I'll let you read over your own post again.

In case it went over your head - Unions are a "faction or a cause".......if you disagree with the definition, there's nothing further I can say to educate you.

[eyeball]

Definition of Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

You don't have to support a specific party to be partisan. Clearly, the financial impetus behind Engage Canada is the Unions. Their mission? To make the Conservative Party unelectable. That's where the partisanship lies. Clear enough for you?

I guess I'd rather see unions going toe to toe with corporations directly too, with no government getting between them or interfering in the settlement of their issues.

That said, perhaps if enough Canadians elect to do so their government could start representing workers at a negotiating table as opposed to catering to corporations in a back room.

[cybercoma]

In case it went over your head - Unions are a "faction or a cause".......if you disagree with the definition, there's nothing further I can say to educate you.

We're talking about an election and you're throwing around the word partisan to mean "faction or cause."

[marcus]

Nope. Nope. They say they will increase immigration to 350,000 people per year. And a direct quote is:

Promoting the reunification of families as the main priority of the Canadian immigration policy

That in no way suggests a moderate increase to family reunification. That instead suggest they will raise it to something closer to 200,000. Else how can it be the "Main priority" of Canada's immigration policy?

The 350,000 is the overall increase in immigration from 285,000 which is in place now. This includes economic class (skilled workers, canadian experience class, skilled trades, provincial nominee), spousal sponsorship, parents sponsorship, investor, etc. They are not increasing family class to 350K.

I'm hoping that you're going to comprehend how immigration works so you're not so quick to jump into conclusions based on confusion of the procedure.

I'm a little confused about the point you're trying to make here. The noted fact you seem to be missing is that the vast number of newcomers are from the third world. Even where they arrive under the skills program that is virtually always the husband who qualifies. Women in the third world are generally much less likely to have any kind of western job skills than men. In many of the countries where we recruit women do not typically even work outside the home. They are far more likely to be illiterate in their own language, much less ours. So I fail to see how bringing grandpa and grandma over are going to help mom get a job.

Once again you are letting your bigoted brain get in the way of facts and the real world. An overwhelming majority of people who come to Canada are highly educated. Rarely do you see a highly educated principal applicant with a spouse who has low education.

I'm willing to bet that majority of people who immigrate to Canada, both the principal applicant and the spouse have a higher education than you. It's certain that they have more class than you.

What it will do is make us pay for grandpa and grandma's health care, and as they are already seniors chances are that will amount to a big fat pile of cash.

In 2013, only 18,000 parents/grandparents came into Canada as permanent residents. This is a drop in the bucket and has very very little effect on healthcare. Quit your shrieking and fear mongering.

Furthermore, the NDP have also specifically stated their definition of 'family' will be wide ranging and will allow people to bring in relatives who do not presently qualify under the terms of 'family class', a second cousin, say. And if that second cousin is an illiterate goat herder, well, then we get to pay for his upkeep (including housing, clothes, food, heat, hydro, etc., and health care) for the next forty or fifty years or so.

You know... It's very difficult to have a debate with someone who is a full-on racist and a bigot. Especially one who does not base any of his opinion on facts.

Edited June 29, 2015 by marcus

[On Guard for Thee]

Well Marcus I suspect we may well have a quorum on that conclusion.

[Keepitsimple]

We're talking about an election and you're throwing around the word partisan to mean "faction or cause."

Clearly, you've forgotten why I helped you understand the term......you asked:

"Since they're partisan, tell me which party they're supporting"

To which I replied that you didn't need to be a political party to be partisan - Union money is the driving force behind Engage Canada - unions are not a party (yet) - but a very influential - and partisan - faction. Not that hard to understand.

[PIK]

18000 parents and grandparents will have no effect on health care, are you kidding?

[Argus]

Well I hope your semantical roof keeps the rain out......the reduction in inflationary funding will have an adverse affect on the quality of healthcare, especially for those provinces relying on decreasing royalty revenues and no sales taxes.

This is the kind of bullshit argument the Left always puts forth. About ALL funding. Because let's face it, everything which is funded is designed to help something or someone.

A six percent annual increase is not sustainable, which is why the program was not made permanent by the Liberals. It was designed to play catchup wo the gap in funding caused by the Liberal cuts in the nineties.

I would embrace clear thinking into how to reform health care with an eye on our aging population, but we've seen none of that from the politicians. All we get from the Libs and NDP is "MORE MONEY!" without, by the way, the slightest hint of how they might pay for it.

We have an appallingly inefficient system right across the board, and parochial interests and ideologues prevent us from instituting, or even talking about the major reforms needed to prevent its continuing deterioration.

[cybercoma]

Clearly, you've forgotten why I helped you understand the term......you asked:

"Since they're partisan, tell me which party they're supporting"

To which I replied that you didn't need to be a political party to be partisan - Union money is the driving force behind Engage Canada - unions are not a party (yet) - but a very influential - and partisan - faction. Not that hard to understand.

Unions are all but dead. Your fear mongering about unions is only surpassed by your fear mongering about terrorists. Both entirely overblown concerns. More importantly, unions are nothing more than a way for labour to negotiate the terms of their employment. You're all for free association and people negotiating the terms of their employment contracts, aren't you? That's the free market and free association is guaranteed in the Charter. Then again, we've seen the disdain Conservatives have for the Charter, so maybe you don't believe in freedom and rights.

[cybercoma]

You know... It's very difficult to have a debate with someone who is a full-on racist and a bigot. Especially one who does not base any of his opinion on facts.

Argus just blocks people who present facts that get in the way of his biased narratives. Edited June 29, 2015 by cybercoma

[Argus]

The 350,000 is the overall increase in immigration from 285,000 which is in place now.

Without any economic justification whatsoever, and designed to appeal to ethnic voters.

This includes economic class (skilled workers, canadian experience class, skilled trades, provincial nominee),

spousal sponsorship, parents sponsorship, investor, etc. They are not increasing family class to 350K.

You have this from Mulcair directly? I'd like to see the letter he sent you, please. Because otherwise it sounds like you're simply spewing out your own idea of what might make this sound even slightly more appealing than the truth. Then again, honesty has never played any part in your obnoxious diatribes before.

In 2015 Canada will accept up to 68,000 immigrants under the family reunification program. How can any honest interpretation of the NDP policy believe that accepting 68,000 out of 350,000 would fall into line with Promoting the reunification of families as the main priority of the Canadian immigration policy?

Of course, honest interpretation is not something you're very good at.

Once again you are letting your bigoted brain get in the way of facts and the real world. An overwhelming majority of people who come to Canada are highly educated.

Statistics show that of immigrants who come to Canada who have a university degree, two thirds wind up in jobs much lower than their degree qualifications. There are multiple factors for this, but the largest ones are the markedly lower quality of education in most third world universities as compared to Canada, the lack of integrity checks in many third world universities, where cheating and bribery are often endemic to the local culture, and the lack of communications skills required for the Canadian market. So the fact someone has a degree from some Nigerian or Russian university in no way indicates they are educated enough to compare with their Canadian counterparts.

This has nothing to do with bigotry, but with fact. But again, I understand that facts are generally irrelevant to your world view.

I'm willing to bet that majority of people who immigrate to Canada, both the principal applicant and the spouse have a higher education than you.

Having an education from a fifth rate university, and there are scads of them out there, does not qualify one to work in Canada. That is why even immigrants with 'degrees' are performing worse in every yearly study of the Canadian labour market. Their unemployment rates are much higher, their wages lower.

My wages, meanwhile, are in the top 0.5% of Canadians. How about you? Or are you even employed?

It's certain that they have more class than you.

I take it as something of a compliment that a far left anti-Semitic zealot doesn't think much of me.

And I assure you, whatever you think of me, I think even less of you.

In 2013, only 18,000 parents/grandparents came into Canada as permanent residents. This is a drop in the bucket and has very very little effect on healthcare. Quit your shrieking and fear mongering.

Yet only 68,000 family class immigrants entered Canada. Mulcair plans to more than triple that figure, possibly even quadruople it. So adding in 70,000 grandparents PER YEAR will add significantly to health care costs.

So quit lying.

You know... It's very difficult to have a debate with someone who is a full-on racist and a bigot. Especially one who does not base any of his opinion on facts.

Yes, yes, I know. The generic accusation from the low intellect and knowledge free mind of the raging left wing zealot. Pretty typical when trying to discuss immigration.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Without any economic justification whatsoever, and designed to appeal to ethnic voters.

Let's just stop you there and point out that you're asking for "economic justification" to reunite families. Let's just think about that for a minute.

[marcus]

Statistics show...

We need immigrants Argus. There is no avoiding this simple fact.

We're not having enough children and the baby boomers are all retiring. We need and will need people in the work force to take over their jobs.

From Statistics Canada:

Immigration: soon to be Canada's only source of population growth

• Around 2030, deaths are expected to start outnumbering births. From that point forward, immigration would be the only growth factor for the Canadian population.

We're going to need people to pay for old, angry white men who live in the suburbs and who complain about immigrants and those paying for them will be immigrants.

Edited June 29, 2015 by marcus

[PIK]

Or make it more affordable for canadians to have kids.

[Argus]

We need immigrants Argus. There is no avoiding this simple fact.

A simple fact for simple minded people. The truth is there is no economic or demographic case to be made that supports our current immigration policy.

We're not having enough children and the baby boomers are all retiring. We need and will need people in the work force to take over their jobs.

Even were that true there's no argument to be made that the people we bring in should be from areas of the world where there are poor education systems, and where studies and statistics have shown produce immigrants who don't perform very well in Canada. Immigrants from west Asia, the middle east, and Africa have lower employment rates and the jobs they do get tend to be much lower paying. I don't think bringing in masses of unemployable people, as the NDP want to do, is going to do much to help our economy.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-606-x/2012006/ct008-eng.htm

Nor does it help immigrants much. The more immigrants you bring in, the less money they make

http://jobmarketmonitor.com/2014/02/13/canada-increases-in-immigration-level-bring-immigrants-real-wages-down/

We're going to need people to pay for old, angry white men who live in the suburbs and who complain about immigrants and those paying for them will be immigrants.

I paid $130,000 in income taxes last year. How about you? I don't think I need immigrants to pay for me. I also don't think I need to be paying for hundreds of thousands of old people from third world countries to come here and retire on the health care system I've been paying into for thirty five years.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Or make it more affordable for canadians to have kids.

There have been a lot of suggestions from demographers that a high immigrant rate discourages native population growth.

[marcus]

Or make it more affordable for canadians to have kids.

That's socialist talk.

[marcus]

A simple fact for simple minded people. The truth is there is no economic or demographic case to be made that supports our current immigration policy.

Stop trying to dance around the truth and the facts.

Canadians are not having enough children and soon the number of deaths will outnumber births. Therefore, we need to have new people through immigration to fill the jobs that will be vacant.

Even were that true there's no argument to be made that the people we bring in should be from areas of the world where there are poor education systems, and where studies and statistics have shown produce immigrants who don't perform very well in Canada. Immigrants from west Asia, the middle east, and Africa have lower employment rates and the jobs they do get tend to be much lower paying. I don't think bringing in masses of unemployable people, as the NDP want to do, is going to do much to help our economy.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-606-x/2012006/ct008-eng.htm

The problem is, as demonstrated from the above comment and your previous comments, is that you don't know the details of our immigration policy. For example, you have no clue that the immigration policy is continuously changing in order to respond to Canada's needs and to address issues such as employability. If you knew that the biggest immigration programs, such as Federal Skilled Worker and Canadian Experience Class, are set up in a way so that education, age and language become a big component of whether or not the person will be accepted, you wouldn't be posting the misinformation and assumptions you keep posting. As far as the family class program; If Canadians want to bring their spouses or parents to Canada, they should be allowed to. At the moment, the number of parents/grandparents applications accepted a year are minuscule (5000). Under the NDP and perhaps the Liberals, that number may be raised. Which may not be okay for xenophobes such as yourself, but that's okay. You're in the minority.

You continue to fill the void of facts and information with your bigoted assumptions.

I paid $130,000 in income taxes last year. How about you? I don't think I need immigrants to pay for me. I also don't think I need to be paying for hundreds of thousands of old people from third world countries to come here and retire on the health care system I've been paying into for thirty five years.

Yes you do. When you're old, crusty and even grumpier and still yelling at the immigrants, someone will have to pay for your healthcare, your roads, the transit system and hundreds of other programs that you will not be paying for.

[On Guard for Thee]

Stop trying to dance around the truth and the facts.

Canadians are not having enough children and soon the number of deaths will outnumber births. Therefore, we need to have new people through immigration to fill the jobs that will be vacant.

The problem is, as demonstrated from the above comment and your previous comments, is that you don't know the details of our immigration policy. For example, you have no clue that the immigration policy is continuously changing in order to respond to Canada's needs and to address issues such as employability. If you knew that the biggest immigration programs, such as Federal Skilled Worker and Canadian Experience Class, are set up in a way so that education, age and language become a big component of whether or not the person will be accepted, you wouldn't be posting the misinformation and assumptions you keep posting. As far as the family class program; If Canadians want to bring their spouses or parents to Canada, they should be allowed to. At the moment, the number of parents/grandparents applications accepted a year are minuscule (5000). Under the NDP and perhaps the Liberals, that number may be raised. Which may not be okay for xenophobes such as yourself, but that's okay. You're in the minority.

You continue to fill the void of facts and information with your bigoted assumptions.

Yes you do. When you're old, crusty and even grumpier and still yelling at the immigrants, someone will have to pay for your healthcare, your roads, the transit system and hundreds of other programs that you will not be paying for.

I believe portions of your post have already occurred.

[Argus]

Stop trying to dance around the truth and the facts.

You mean present the facts, don't you? Because they make you uncomfortable?

Canadians are not having enough children and soon the number of deaths will outnumber births.

Therefore, we need to have new people through immigration to fill the jobs that will be vacant.

No, we actually don't.

A second study in less than a week has concluded that there is no labour shortage in Canada, nor is one expected to arrive in the next few decades. A study published Friday by a University of Lethbridge professor echoes results of a report by the federal government’s Parliamentary Budget Office released Tuesday — both conclude there are more than enough workers on a national basis in Canada to fill available jobs.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Study+debunks+Canadian+labour+shortage/9674478/story.html

Dire warnings of a widespread Canadian labour crisis and a “lost generation” of young workers have been overblown, according to a market analysis by TD Economics. Deputy chief economist Derek Burleton says demographic and economic shifts may be hitting young workers particularly hard, but he doesn’t believe projections of across-the-board labour shortages and skills gaps.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/21/skills-gap-canada-labour-shortage_n_4138487.html

Our population would be stabilized with immigration at only 100,000

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007001/figures/4129879-eng.htm

Although higher immigration can mitigate the imminent slowing down and reversal in labour-force growth, and can certainly meet specific labour-market shortages, no conceivable amount of immigration with an age profile such as Canada currently experiences can significantly affect the coming shift in the ratio of older to working-age Canadians

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/backgrounder_96.pdf

With no evidence that any increase in immigration is necessary, Ottawa should consider holding the current immigration rate steady, and re-evaluate only when the business cycle warrants — possibly returning to the disused policy of increasing immigration rates in boom times, but lowering them during slower economic periods.

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/mcquillan-labour-shortages-final.pdf

The problem is, as demonstrated from the above comment and your previous comments, is that you don't know the details of our immigration policy.

For example, you have no clue that the immigration policy is continuously changing in order to respond to Canada's needs and to address issues such as

employability.

What a meaningless claim. All programs are continually being adjusted in hopes of improvement. That does not change the fact that

immigrants continue to perform badly in comparison to Canadians, and that their economic performance is deteriorating. Nor does it

change the incredible cost of immigration to Canada, which the Fraser Institute calculated at some $22 billion per year, nor does it

change the fact there is no economic or demographic study which supports these high levels of immigration. And if you think otherwise

I dare you to find one and post it.

If you knew that the biggest immigration programs, such as Federal Skilled Worker and Canadian Experience Class, are set up in a way so

Spare us. I've forgotten more about immigration than you will ever possibly know. And we are discussing, after all, the NDP's policy

document which calls for drastic cuts to that program in favour of drastic increases to the family reunification program.

Yes you do. When you're old, crusty and even grumpier and still yelling at the immigrants, someone will have to pay for your

healthcare, your roads, the transit system and hundreds of other programs that you will not be paying for.

Bringing over millions of immigrants to live life on welfare is going to pay for my healthcare? I fail to see the economic rational

behind that. Then again, economics, like facts, like honesty, like intelligent discussion, are all foreign concepts to you. Much as are, I suspect, employment and paying income taxes.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Argus

[marcus]

Bringing over millions of immigrants to live life on welfare

I am embarrassed for you.