Will Bernier start new party?

[Centerpiece]

In spite of Conservatives replying overwhelmingly to a Globe & Mail Survey - saying that they would not join a Bernier-led party - G&M says that "the survey left some question marks". What questions could possibly remain? A teeny bit of biased muck raking....just maybe?

Quote

 

The results of an e-mail survey of the entire Conservative caucus show overwhelming opposition toward Mr. Bernier’s plan, as 92 of 96 MPs said they will not join the proposed party. But the survey left some question marks: Four MPs did not say whether they would consider joining the new party, even after follow-up phone calls....................................

The Globe and Mail sent a question to all Conservative MPs asking whether they would join Mr. Bernier’s new party, offering three potential answers: Yes, No or Maybe.

Former party leadership contestant Kellie Leitch, who was at the Conservative convention in Halifax while the survey elicited numerous responses among caucus, did not answer. On Tuesday, an employee at her Ottawa office said the MP and pediatric surgeon – who decided not to run in the next election after facing a nomination challenge in her Ontario riding – is out of the country......................

The other MPs who did not respond were Ontario’s Scott Reid, Dave MacKenzie and Peter Van Loan. Mr. Van Loan has announced that he will retire from politics in September.

Link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-overwhelming-majority-of-tory-mps-have-no-intention-of-joining-bernier/

 

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

LMAO. He thinks that Scheer will keep the floodgates open?

Harper did. In fact, Harper increased immigration. Why wouldn't Scheer?

Quote

Keep giving hundreds of million$ to foreign countries?

Pick fights with Trump, India and Saudi Arabia?

Pay off terrorists?

Kill the energy sector?

Drive away investment and cater to stupid Hollywood hypocrites?

Stop fighting terrorism?

Etc, etc, etc.

Bernier is one stupid piece of crap if he thinks anyone else would play his game.

The rest of what you say is correct. Scheer would be a huge improvement over Trudeau. But if you think he's going to cut back on immigration, as opposed to tightening up the rules, perhaps, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Remember that it was the Mulroney Tories who tripled immigration in the 1980s, not the Liberals.

As far as the border goes, there's a lot that can be done to discourage the illegal migrants. I don't know that Scheer will have the balls to do it, though. They have thus far refused to say what they would do other than try to negotiate with Trump and get him to keep his third world migrants there. Fat chance of that succeeding.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Argus

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Harper did. In fact, Harper increased immigration. Why wouldn't Scheer?

The rest of what you say is correct. Scheer would be a huge improvement over Trudeau. But if you think he's going to cut back on immigration, as opposed to tightening up the rules, perhaps, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Remember that it was the Mulroney Tories who tripled immigration in the 1980s, not the Liberals.

As far as the border goes, there's a lot that can be done to discourage the illegal migrants. I don't know that Scheer will have the balls to do it, though. They have thus far refused to say what they would do other than try to negotiate with Trump and get him to keep his third world migrants there. Fat chance of that succeeding.

 

I don’t think immigration is a bad thing, but obviously we need some control. 

[-1=e^ipi]

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Would you honestly rather screw the country than do the sensible thing

The sensible thing to do is to get rid of the Dairy Cartel.

[OftenWrong]

13 hours ago, Argus said:

What is socially conservative about the conservative party?

Not much today it seems, but this was the criticism levelled against them when the party first formed.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The sensible thing to do is to get rid of the Dairy Cartel.

Totally. But, two things spring to mind: 1) that's priority #16, because putting an end to the various facets of Trudeau's strategy to de-Canadianize and bankrupt this country occupy the top 15 priorities and 2) it seems like pressure from Donald Trump will do more for this country than our own government. I was going to end that sentence with "on that front" but I just realized that the sentence is more accurate without it.

[taxme]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Totally. But, two things spring to mind: 1) that's priority #16, because putting an end to the various facets of Trudeau's strategy to de-Canadianize and bankrupt this country occupy the top 15 priorities and 2) it seems like pressure from Donald Trump will do more for this country than our own government. I was going to end that sentence with "on that front" but I just realized that the sentence is more accurate without it.

Do Canadian politicians really know how to run a country? So far it would appear as though they all are pretty much clueless when it comes to running a country. They appear to be always running this country on empty. Indeed, Trump will do more for Canada then these bunch of misfits that are running Canada now. The only way Canada can ever be great again is for Canadians to demand that we get rid of everything that the Trudeau duo has put their signature too. 

[turningrite]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

1.) Scheer would be a huge improvement over Trudeau. But if you think he's going to cut back on immigration, as opposed to tightening up the rules, perhaps, you're engaging in wishful thinking. Remember that it was the Mulroney Tories who tripled immigration in the 1980s, not the Liberals.

2.) As far as the border goes, there's a lot that can be done to discourage the illegal migrants. I don't know that Scheer will have the balls to do it, though. They have thus far refused to say what they would do other than try to negotiate with Trump and get him to keep his third world migrants there. Fat chance of that succeeding.

 

1.) Absolutely correct. I think the role of the Mulroney government in this fiasco is seldom fully acknowledged. Trudeau, if left to his own devices, will make the situation so much worse and the CPC apparently says little other than that they'll consult on the matter, which to many of us out here means they'll likely do little but tinker around the edges if they come to power.

2.) Of course, there are things that can be done. As a law professor who's written a couple articles on the matter, which have been published in the National Post, has argued, the Trudeau government is exaggerating Canada's obligations where the illegal/irregular migrants are concerned. It simply takes political will to properly address this. Trudeau's government doesn't have the kind of backbone and resolve required and I suspect Scheer's approach might be equally as anemic.

[turningrite]

On 8/30/2018 at 8:48 AM, OftenWrong said:

Not much today it seems, but this was the criticism levelled against them when the party first formed.

I think there's lots of evidence that social conservatives still exert strong influence within the CPC. The abortion motion at the Halifax convention, which sought to reopen the debate in Canada, was only narrowly defeated. See link to CBC article below. Also, as the CBC article notes: "The social conservative wing of the party holds a lot of sway; Andrew Scheer, who has identified with this branch in the past, likely wouldn't be leader without them, and they represent a not-insignificant number of the party's total membership."

As an economic conservative (or neoliberal, as it were) but mainly social liberal, at least on so-called "morality" issues, the current iteration the CPC doesn't have a lot to offer voters like me. I'd rather have an unabashedly economically conservative party in power that challenges monopolies and oligopolies, eschews corporate subsidies and unfunded individual entitlements and permits rational analysis and open debate on matters like immigration and open-ended multiculturalism.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-conservative-policy-convention-1.4798918

Edited September 4, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 8:48 AM, OftenWrong said:

Not much today it seems, but this was the criticism levelled against them when the party first formed.

I disagree. When it was first formed the protest was that it was the Reform party come again, that it and its social conservatives had destroyed the 'progressive' conservatives. It hasn't been that way. Hesitant leadership, and I include Harper in there, unwilling to challenge the agreed-upon narrative of the liberal press and other parties, has gradually moved the party further and further left. Counting on their votes  but ignoring small c conservatives who had and have nowhere else to go, Harper and Scheer have focused their efforts on more centrist voters and tailored their policies accordingly.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I disagree. When it was first formed the protest was that it was the Reform party come again, that it and its social conservatives had destroyed the 'progressive' conservatives. It hasn't been that way. Hesitant leadership, and I include Harper in there, unwilling to challenge the agreed-upon narrative of the liberal press and other parties, has gradually moved the party further and further left. Counting on their votes  but ignoring small c conservatives who had and have nowhere else to go, Harper and Scheer have focused their efforts on more centrist voters and tailored their policies accordingly.

Actually what you are saying is exactly what I've said. I see nothing to disagree with. What I said is they were initially perceived as being anti-progressives in principle, re-open old debates etc. but in fact what's happened is quite the opposite. Yes, they are drifting more towards the 'left' if we need to call it that. Therefore we now have Bernier. Depending on how he positions himself, he might just get some significant support. Well, that's based on what I'm hearing from people around me, who generally aren't the most political types. To put it simply, people are getting fed up with what we now have. Given the previous set of options, we could only go from horrible to terrible, to fucking scary. Now there'sa possible 4th option. Maybe we should be saying thank you, Maxime!

[turningrite]

20 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Actually what you are saying is exactly what I've said. I see nothing to disagree with. What I said is they were initially perceived as being anti-progressives in principle, re-open old debates etc. but in fact what's happened is quite the opposite. Yes, they are drifting more towards the 'left' if we need to call it that. Therefore we now have Bernier. Depending on how he positions himself, he might just get some significant support. Well, that's based on what I'm hearing from people around me, who generally aren't the most political types. To put it simply, people are getting fed up with what we now have. Given the previous set of options, we could only go from horrible to terrible, to fucking scary. Now there'sa possible 4th option. Maybe we should be saying thank you, Maxime!

I think the problem has been that the CPC has gravitated to what is considered the "centre" in Canadian politics. Historically, this mushy ground has been home base for the shape shifting Lib party, which has famously campaigned from the left and governed from the right, according to its critics. Trudeau is, no doubt, a corporate globalist although his domestic policies veer in the direction of the oppressively redistributive nanny state. Whether he can maintain this balance is anybody's guess but I think a lot of Canadians are getting tired of paying for it. Trudeau's redistributive agenda leaves no room for the pitiable NDP, which has become irrelevant, but what does Scheer's CPC have to offer on the other hand? According to Bernier, not much more than Trudeau-lite, apparently. The thing about the CPC that most bothers me is that it, like the LPC, now plays the identity politics and special interests game. When you have three mainstream parties that are for the most part singing from the same song sheet, it seems to me that Bernier's proposed party might well offer a valid and attractive alternative. I'm waiting to see the party formed and to read its platform, hoping to be pleasantly surprised. If I'm impressed, I will no doubt contribute to and vote for it.

[taxme]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:46 AM, turningrite said:

I think there's lots of evidence that social conservatives still exert strong influence within the CPC. The abortion motion at the Halifax convention, which sought to reopen the debate in Canada, was only narrowly defeated. See link to CBC article below. Also, as the CBC article notes: "The social conservative wing of the party holds a lot of sway; Andrew Scheer, who has identified with this branch in the past, likely wouldn't be leader without them, and they represent a not-insignificant number of the party's total membership."

As an economic conservative (or neoliberal, as it were) but mainly social liberal, at least on so-called "morality" issues, the current iteration the CPC doesn't have a lot to offer voters like me. I'd rather have an unabashedly economically conservative party in power that challenges monopolies and oligopolies, eschews corporate subsidies and unfunded individual entitlements and permits rational analysis and open debate on matters like immigration and open-ended multiculturalism.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-conservative-policy-convention-1.4798918

The abortion debate is being handled and controlled by special interest minority groups or a political party's ideology only. It is not being asked of we the people as to whether Canadians want to allow abortions or abolish abortions. Exceptions can be made for incest or rape or if the mother's life is in danger. It is just like multiculturalism, metric,  bilingualism, foreign aid, massive third world immigration, capital punishment and abortion itself. Political correctness is killing this country. Speaking political incorrectness can get one in trouble these days. I do not recall where Canadians were ever asked as to whether they wanted to give up their rights to freedom of speech or not or be constantly told as to what they can say or do? As far as I am concerned I do not believe that Scheer believes in freedom of speech himself. Scheer appears to be more like a politically correct puppet on a string politician just like our prime mistake appears also.

Canadians were never asked their views or opinions as to whether those programs and agendas should have been implemented or not. And the majority of Canadians were never going to be allowed to have a say or a referendum on any of those I mentioned above. All those mentioned above were all creations of the liberal/socialist/red conservative governments of Canada that still are and have always been running Canada for umpteen decades now, and who still believe that the majority of Canadians should not have an opinion on anything or have a right to vote on anything that the government says that we must all have and adhere too.

I would like to vote for a real conservative party who believe in majority rule and has the taxpayer's interest and concerns at heart. It is we the people that are suppose to be running this country and not politicians or special interest minority groups. When the minority is allowed to constantly rule over the majority that is not what one would call democracy but that is more like dictatorship. Politicians are getting away with forcing their liberal and socialist programs and agendas that in most cases have not done one thing good for Canada or Canadians. All we get from our dear leaders is more taxes, more government, and less freedom, and I do not see or hear Scheer talk about any of those concerns too we the people called Canadians.

C'mon, face it. There is no real conservative party in Canada anymore. Conservatism in Canada was abolished decades ago. Sad but so true.

 

[turningrite]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

I would like to vote for a real conservative party who believe in majority rule and has the taxpayer's interest and concerns at heart. It is we the people that are suppose to be running this country and not politicians or special interest minority groups. When the minority is allowed to constantly rule over the majority that is not what one would call democracy but that is more like dictatorship. Politicians are getting away with forcing their liberal and socialist programs and agendas that in most cases have not done one thing good for Canada or Canadians. All we get from our dear leaders is more taxes, more government, and less freedom, and I do not see or hear Scheer talk about any of those concerns too we the people called Canadians.

C'mon, face it. There is no real conservative party in Canada anymore. Conservatism in Canada was abolished decades ago. Sad but so true.

 

I, too, would like to see a system more governed by public input than is currently the case. I categorize our current party system as "managed" democracy because in many instances the purpose of political parties seems to be to prohibit or limit debate on specific issues in order to impose an elitist agenda. It wouldn't be so bad perhaps if we had distinct choices among the parties on offer but that's not generally been the case in recent decades. I'd like to see more direct democracy. I'd like to see a political system more responsive to public opinion and less focused on catering to special interests and/or identity-focused communities. I'm waiting to see if Bernier's proposed party will offer a chance to move beyond the tri-party system that now runs official Ottawa.

[turningrite]

Bernier apparently intends to announce the formation of his new party on Friday. In related news, he's rebuffed any explicit association with an anti-immigration group and re-iterated his position that the immigration level be reduced to 250,000, which I think in the view of many may still be too high. Let's hope that once his party is formed he opens the whole immigration and refugee quagmire up for broad public consultation and promotes objective, comprehensive and ongoing review of our immigration and refugee programs.

Edited September 12, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

Bernier apparently intends to announce the formation of his new party on Friday. In related news, he's rebuffed any explicit association with an anti-immigration group and re-iterated his position that the immigration level be reduced to 250,000, which I think in the view of many may still be too high. Let's hope that once his party is formed he opens the whole immigration and refugee quagmire up for broad public consultation and promotes objective, comprehensive and ongoing review of our immigration and refugee programs.

He's not going to get anywhere without a strong critique of immigration. What's he got to draw people? Anti-dairy cartel? How many people are going to get excitable about that? He's certainly not going to go social conservative, because that would kill him in Quebec. I think the dairy cartel is stupid, too but I wouldn't change my vote over it.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

He's not going to get anywhere without a strong critique of immigration. What's he got to draw people?

I suspect you're correct. Maybe he's holding his cards close to his vest in order to neutralize the pro-immigration crowd, who no doubt will cast him as, well, you know, if he focuses on immigration and refugee policy. Bernier's libertarian economic views likely appeal to some voters but as so few pay much attention to substantive economic policy matters it's difficult to imagine it a big vote winner. Remember the bizarre appeal of the "budget will balance itself" in 2015? Immigration reform is where support for a new political alternative likely rests. If Bernier presents a viable alternative to the status quo on immigration, he could well get 20 percent of the vote and hold Trudeau's Libs to a minority in 2019. If he sticks pretty much to the status quo, my guess is that he'll fade into obscurity and Trudeau will easily beat Scheer.

Edited September 13, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

17 hours ago, turningrite said:

I suspect you're correct. Maybe he's holding his cards close to his vest in order to neutralize the pro-immigration crowd, who no doubt will cast him as, well, you know, if he focuses on immigration and refugee policy. Bernier's libertarian economic views likely appeal to some voters but as so few pay much attention to substantive economic policy matters it's difficult to imagine it a big vote winner. Remember the bizarre appeal of the "budget will balance itself" in 2015? Immigration reform is where support for a new political alternative likely rests. If Bernier presents a viable alternative to the status quo on immigration, he could well get 20 percent of the vote and hold Trudeau's Libs to a minority in 2019. If he sticks pretty much to the status quo, my guess is that he'll fade into obscurity and Trudeau will easily beat Scheer.

If I was starting a new party I would make three things central to my plank. They are three things which the other parties won't do anything about, longstanding grievances that Canadians would want to see taken care of.

Immigration (and refugees)
Health care
Native affairs

I would also add judicial reform. It should not take three F'ing years between a charge and a trial.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

If I was starting a new party I would make three things central to my plank. They are three things which the other parties won't do anything about, longstanding grievances that Canadians would want to see taken care of.

Immigration (and refugees)
Health care
Native affairs

I would also add judicial reform. It should not take three F'ing years between a charge and a trial.

Yes, I agree with you. Immigration is an issue on which a federal government can act swiftly and decisively. The refugee issue may provide a greater dilemma both because of the complete mess that characterizes the current system as well as the obligation to adhere to international conventions.

Native affairs is a real toughie, though, and perhaps in the current political environment a no-win proposition. Surely Trudeau has figured out that indigenous concerns can't be resolved with mere platitudes?

And universal health care simply can't survive in its current form. As a person who has extensive first hand experience using the system over the past few years, I've concluded that it's running on fumes. I spent sleepless nights on emergency room gurneys as an "admitted" patient waiting for a room, spent months waiting for surgery and waited countless hours to see specialists when I've had scheduled appointments, etc. The system operates on a rationing basis and as demand for services keeps growing something will have to give.

Harper took a stab at some aspects of judicial reform, however this is another tough file. Without adequate staffing and clear timelines, charges linger for far too long without resolution in this country. That serious crimes are being thrown out of court due to long delays is a travesty both for the real victims and for society at large. How can it be that in the U.S., with its complex system of grand juries, high profile charges can be brought to trial and concluded apparently in a fraction of the time this takes in Canada? There's clearly something wrong.

Edited September 13, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

Yes, I agree with you. Immigration is an issue on which a federal government can act swiftly and decisively. The refugee issue may provide a greater dilemma both because of the complete mess that characterizes the current system as well as the obligation to adhere to international conventions.

Native affairs is a real toughie, though, and perhaps in the current political environment a no-win proposition. Surely Trudeau has figured out that indigenous concerns can't be resolved with mere platitudes?

No, like Singh, who I saw on TV earlier, he's likely to believe that it will be 'solved' - as in shut them up for the rest of the election cycle - by giving them more money.

That is not what is required. What is required is that they be self-supporting and that the people on the reserves have a purpose in life other than screwing, getting drunk and getting into fights.

Quote

And universal health care simply can't survive in its current form. As a person who has extensive first hand experience using the system over the past few years, I've concluded that it's running on fumes. I spent sleepless nights on emergency room gurneys as an "admitted" patient waiting for a room, spent months waiting for surgery and waited countless hours to see specialists when I've had scheduled appointments, etc. The system operates on a rationing basis and as demand for services keeps growing something will have to give.

And 20,000 fresh immigrant seniors a year isn't going to help!

We need to look at what the better systems of Europe are doing and do the same.

Quote

Harper took a stab at some aspects of judicial reform, however this is another tough file. Without adequate staffing and clear timelines, charges linger for far too long without resolution in this country. That serious crimes are being thrown out of court due to long delays is a travesty both for the real victims and for society at large. How can it be that in the U.S., with its complex system of grand juries, high profile charges can be brought to trial and concluded apparently in a fraction of the time this takes in Canada? There's clearly something wrong.

It isn't just the US. Trials take a fraction of the time in the UK too. I don't know what time they take in France or Germany but I doubt it takes years. I suspect our Charter has a lot to do with the delays, making everything much more complex and time-consuming.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

For all those who believe Bernier's party will automatically lead to a Trudeau majority next year, this week's election in New Brunswick suggests that strong third-party support could well ensure a minority government. I don't believe Scheer's CPC can get a majority, so a minority government, whether led by the Libs or CPC, is probably the best outcome we can hope for. Current polling without Bernier's party in the mix suggests a Lib majority. The NB math suggests that as long as third parties can scoop about 30 percent of the vote a majority is unlikely. I believe that because Bernier's proposed party has registered roughly 13 to 17 percent in straw polling and the NDP can likely muster at least 15 percent of the vote, our best hope to avoid another Trudeau majority is a strong showing by Bernier's group.

Edited September 26, 2018 by turningrite

[Machjo]

50 minutes ago, turningrite said:

For all those who believe Bernier's party will automatically lead to a Trudeau majority next year, this week's election in New Brunswick suggests that strong third-party support could well ensure a minority government. I don't believe Scheer's CPC can get a majority, so a minority government, whether led by the Libs or CPC, is probably the best outcome we can hope for. Current polling without Bernier's party in the mix suggests a Lib majority. The NB math suggests that as long as third parties can scoop about 30 percent of the vote a majority is unlikely. I believe that because Bernier's proposed party has registered roughly 13 to 17 percent in straw polling and the NDP can likely muster at least 15 percent of the vote, our best hope to avoid another Trudeau majority is a strong showing by Bernier's group.

I think another determining factor will be the local candidate. I like some of Bernier's ideas, but that will not automatically translate to me voting for his local candidate in my riding just because he's link to the same Party as Bernier. I hope his party will have a strong vetting process in place to ensure quality candidates in each riding. I've voted for a candidate in the past even if I preferred another party leader just because I thought that candidate was the best candidate for the job.

[taxme]

On 9/12/2018 at 12:53 PM, turningrite said:

Bernier apparently intends to announce the formation of his new party on Friday. In related news, he's rebuffed any explicit association with an anti-immigration group and re-iterated his position that the immigration level be reduced to 250,000, which I think in the view of many may still be too high. Let's hope that once his party is formed he opens the whole immigration and refugee quagmire up for broad public consultation and promotes objective, comprehensive and ongoing review of our immigration and refugee programs.

I hope Ford does bring up immigration as all non-politically correct politicians should do. The topic of immigration has become a taboo and sacred cow in Canada where one should not in polite and proper circles dare to discuss or debate immigration. Immigration is now considered so passe these politically correct days in Canada that too bring immigration up is just plain blasphemy. One becomes a sinner if they do talk about immigration. 250,000 is still too high and more immigration is not needed when there are approx. 2 million Canadians unemployed. in Canada today. where is the common sense and logic to this? And with more technology being created many jobs will be disappearing in the near future which will be adding more Canadians to the unemployment lines. There is a big immigration and refugee problem in Canada today and it needs to be addressed today.   Preferably not by liberals or socialists. Those two political party's are the reasons why Canada is now in an immigration crises. LOL. 

[turningrite]

31 minutes ago, taxme said:

I hope Ford does bring up immigration as all non-politically correct politicians should do. The topic of immigration has become a taboo and sacred cow in Canada where one should not in polite and proper circles dare to discuss or debate immigration. Immigration is now considered so passe these politically correct days in Canada that too bring immigration up is just plain blasphemy. One becomes a sinner if they do talk about immigration. 250,000 is still too high and more immigration is not needed when there are approx. 2 million Canadians unemployed. in Canada today. where is the common sense and logic to this? And with more technology being created many jobs will be disappearing in the near future which will be adding more Canadians to the unemployment lines. There is a big immigration and refugee problem in Canada today and it needs to be addressed today.   Preferably not by liberals or socialists. Those two political party's are the reasons why Canada is now in an immigration crises. LOL. 

I take it you confused Ford with Bernier in your first sentence? In terms of temperament and qualifications, the two are miles apart. You're correct that debate on immigration is largely forbidden by the established mainstream parties. I, too, think immigration numbers remain too high and that 250 thousand is likely too generous a target at the current time. At least Bernier seems open to studying and debating the issue. And we need to drastically restrict the temp foreign workers program as well, particularly to prevent employers from using foreign workers to displace qualified and skilled Canadian workers. If we are so short of IT workers, for instance, why are tens of thousands of university graduates in STEM fields leaving the country each year? We need to make greater efforts to retain them as well as to keep experienced and skilled older workers in the workforce. And our education system needs to be calibrated to produce workers to meet current and future labour market needs. Further, we have to ensure that those who arrive under the immigration program are contributing economically. Otherwise, what's the point of immigration? The Libs, of course, are utterly beholden to immigration and refugee interests, but neither the CPC, which seems driven by business interests and propaganda (i.e. touting "labour shortages"), nor the feckless NDP seems interested in considering the interests of average Canadians.

Edited September 26, 2018 by turningrite

[taxme]

10 minutes ago, Machjo said:

I think another determining factor will be the local candidate. I like some of Bernier's ideas, but that will not automatically translate to me voting for his local candidate in my riding just because he's link to the same Party as Bernier. I hope his party will have a strong vetting process in place to ensure quality candidates in each riding. I've voted for a candidate in the past even if I preferred another party leader just because I thought that candidate was the best candidate for the job.

I think that is silly and ridiculous for wanting to support another candidate from another party just because you liked what he or she says or stands for. That does not help your party from maybe winning an election. Every vote counts for a political party at election time. If that person and their party you voted for loses the election well then what has that done for you now?  Their stand on whatever you liked will go nowhere. They lost the election.