The Next Conservative Leader

[The Bread Guy]

http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/

Hmm?

That was their best guess five months ago - seen any more recent estimates with that short a timeline?  The most recent I've seen (Friday past) says the government may not even see a report recommending next steps until November.  I'd bet a loonie all the steps needed for this to happen won't be done by 31 Dec 2017.

I'm for at least decriminalization of marijuana, but even I can see a whooooooooooooooole mess of stuff to be done to make that happen across Canada (given provincial fingers in the pie, too).  Just sayin' don't count those massive tax revenues before they're hatched.

 

[Good2Golf]

http://globalnews.ca/news/2650706/canada-to-introduce-pot-legalization-legislation-in-2017/

Hmm?

....and they'll hold an open competition for the future fighter in 2016, etc....  :blah:

More of the same.

tic tock

 

[OldSolduer]

So what about Kelly Leitch's proposal that immigrants be screened for "anti Canadian values"?

Just what would be considered an "anti Canadian value"?

 

[PuckChaser]

Anything contrary to the Charter of Rights? I think that's a good start. It was also just a survey question with no plan behind it yet, once she provides details it'll clear a lot up.

 

[OldSolduer]

Anything contrary to the Charter of Rights? I think that's a good start. It was also just a survey question with no plan behind it yet, once she provides details it'll clear a lot up.

The DCO and I had a discussion on this. He's not for it at all. Mind you he does like JT.

Thus far just about every potential Conservative leader has pretty much said its a non starter.


To my way of thinking, I didn't serve 35+ years to "tolerate" honour killings, mutilation, Sharia law etc.

 

[PuckChaser]

100% agree with you. I think there's a way to do it properly, within the context of the citizenship process in an interview. If we're going to screen refugees, it'd have to be very basic questions directly relating to rule of law (murder and abuse never justified, etc).

 

[Altair]

A feel good exercise at its best. People will learn what questions they need to lie about right quick.

 

[Kirkhill]

How about having all interviews conducted by well-dressed young ladies, extending their hand for a handshake and saying "Welcome to Canada"?

Monitor reaction.

 

[PuckChaser]

How about having all interviews conducted by well-dressed young ladies, extending their hand for a handshake and saying "Welcome to Canada"?

Monitor reaction.

Probably the best way to do it.

 

[Altair]

How about having all interviews conducted by well-dressed young ladies, extending their hand for a handshake and saying "Welcome to Canada"?

Monitor reaction.

What reaction would be appropriate?

Must maintain eye contact?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Anything contrary to the Charter of Rights? I think that's a good start. It was also just a survey question with no plan behind it yet, once she provides details it'll clear a lot up.

The problem is determining what we define as "Canadian values". Using the charter of rights is fine, but it's interpretation is troublesome. Look at the debates about gay marriage or the wearing of burkha's/burkini's/religious articles of clothing.

That's why I think her proposal is illogical... we can't define or come to a consensus as a society on what our values are so how can we apply them to people coming in?

Finally, applying values tests are a slippery slope. If we expect immigrants to live by our values than what's to say we can't apply a similar test to individual Canadian citizens? Because I can list a whole hockey sock of people in each part of the country I've lived in whose beliefs are against the charter. People complain about the "thought police" and then jump on band wagons to enhance thought police...

 

[dapaterson]

Canadian values: Poutine,  hockey, Timmys and beer.

 

[Jed]

The problem is determining what we define as "Canadian values". Using the charter of rights is fine, but it's interpretation is troublesome. Look at the debates about gay marriage or the wearing of burkha's/burkini's/religious articles of clothing.

That's why I think her proposal is illogical... we can't define or come to a consensus as a society on what our values are so how can we apply them to people coming in?

Finally, applying values tests are a slippery slope. If we expect immigrants to live by our values than what's to say we can't apply a similar test to individual Canadian citizens? Because I can list a whole hockey sock of people in each part of the country I've lived in whose beliefs are against the charter. People complain about the "thought police" and then jump on band wagons to enhance thought police...

So therefore, we should just look the other way without making any attempt at vetting immigrants for appropriate Canadian lawful intent?  Sounds like you support the appeasement laisser faire approach that has worked so well in Europe.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So therefore, we should just look the other way without making any attempt at vetting immigrants for appropriate Canadian lawful intent?  Sounds like you support the appeasement laisser faire approach that has worked so well in Europe.

First... it's "laissez-faire" not "laisser faire"

Second.... not at all. There needs to be entrance standards and there has been entry standards that have provided a reasonable level of "vetting". Adding an arbitrary "values-based" checklist is different than basic vetting for criminal record, etc etc. The values based vetting is just there to make people feel better and will have no real impact on who comes in.

Just because I think Leitsch's proposal is illogical and has no real value doesn't mean I dont support vetting. Just vet based on actual, tangible things not someone's perceived "values".

 

[dapaterson]

Perhaps the better question: what can you say about current vetting, and what is wrong with that process?  Or am I asking for facts to get in the way of a good rant?

 

[Altair]

Perhaps the better question: what can you say about current vetting, and what is wrong with that process?  Or am I asking for facts to get in the way of a good rant?

feels>facts.

Just look down south.

 

[PuckChaser]

Or look at Europe, and what unscreened migration is doing to countries there. 99% of immigrants or refugees won't be the issue, keeping the 1% out who want a passport of convenience/hold extremist views is what we should aim for.

 

[McG]

Or look at Europe, and what unscreened migration is doing to countries there.

So, this is not Europe and there is screening here.  The discussion is not an examination of values screening verses no screening, it should be an examination of what values screening adds to current screening (or more appropriately, what is current screening lacking that values screening would correct).  Honour kills and mutilation are already things that we don't tolerate, so in this conversation they are red herrings at best.

There is also the question of practical implementation.

 

[jollyjacktar]

An overwhelming majority of Canadians like the idea of screening, even amongst the left.  (sorry, can't find the story easily on phone)  Survey approval ratings % were in the mid 80s, IIRC.

 

[Jed]

First... it's "laissez-faire" not "laisser faire"

Second.... not at all. There needs to be entrance standards and there has been entry standards that have provided a reasonable level of "vetting". Adding an arbitrary "values-based" checklist is different than basic vetting for criminal record, etc etc. The values based vetting is just there to make people feel better and will have no real impact on who comes in.

Just because I think Leitsch's proposal is illogical and has no real value doesn't mean I dont support vetting. Just vet based on actual, tangible things not someone's perceived "values".

Sounds like we agree on this point.  Nothing wrong with some wordsmithing a Commander's Intent, though.  At least in my opinion, anyway.