[kEiThZ]

Though that is historical - our immigration system has always been about attracting workers for jobs that are unattractive to locals (think from farmers/settlers to industrial/construction workers and now to service workers). The HQPs are an add on, not a default.

AoD

I think the question is one of needed vs. Unneeded work. Sure, being an Uber driver or fast food worker is unattractive work that Canadian won't do. And we should never look down on the people who come here and work hard in those jobs. But we should question whether we need those jobs and whether they are a net gain to society. What's the price of me getting cheaper food delivery and faster drive throughs (other than my waist line)? Are we as a society gaining by adding more low wage, low skilled and low productivity employment?

 

[kEiThZ]

The gall of some of this governments ministers can be rather unbelievable at times:

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland says Canada's commitment to Ukraine has been an important contribution to NATO's strength at a time when the United States has been "unable to step up" on aid to the embattled country.

Freeland was responding to a question about Canada's efforts to meet NATO's military spending target for member nations — two per cent of GDP — in an interview airing Saturday on CBC's The House ....

"In March, Canada sent $2 billion in urgent budget financing support to Ukraine at a time when the U.S. — and this is maybe something you could ask the U.S. ambassador about — at a time when the U.S. has been unable to step up and provide support for Ukraine. We were there to fill the gap," Freeland said, after being told U.S. Ambassador David Cohen would also appear on the program.

Cohen defended the U.S. contribution to Ukraine when asked about Freeland's comments.

"'I've no desire to debate Chrystia Freeland when she isn't even here," he said in a separate interview airing Saturday on The House.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7164585

Unbelievable.

 

[lenaitch]

I didn't know Ukraine was a NATO member. /s

This one thing that drives me nuts about politicians - of all stripes. When asked a question they don't want to answer (or don't have an answer) they simply spout off something they view as positive. At least her answer had some loose nexus to the question (military, Europe), often it isn't even close and I'm left wondering if I need a hearing aid since I obviously missed something (Q: What about our NATO spending? A: We spent $x million on housing.)

 

[kEiThZ]

I didn't know Ukraine was a NATO member. /s

This one thing that drives me nuts about politicians - of all stripes. When asked a question they don't want to answer (or don't have an answer) they simply spout off something they view as positive. At least her answer had some loose nexus to the question (military, Europe), often it isn't even close and I'm left wondering if I need a hearing aid since I obviously missed something (Q: What about our NATO spending? A: We spent $x million on housing.)

To be fair, NATO has said that aid to Ukraine will count towards NATO targets. What is unbelievably arrogant and galling is suggesting the US is unreliable and implicitly suggesting that our contribution is at an equivalent level. I get it. We're embarrassed by being the only country in NATO quadrant of shame (countries that don't meet 20% on new equipment and 2% of GDP on defence). But instead of just dodging the question she takes a gratuitous shot at the US. Incredible. I used to think she was one of the adults in this government. Antics like this have really turned me off.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I’m done with Trudeau. Where’s our promised balanced budget by 2019? I don’t believe that Pollivre will do any better, but I feel like someone needs a hurt real bad.

What is unbelievably arrogant and galling is suggesting the US is unreliable

The US is and has always been unreliable. Even if you have POTUS onside, Ukraine has to worry about Congress. It’s just how to US system works. Look at post-WW1, President Wilson leads the creation of the League of Nations, and the reconstitution of Poland, only to see the US abandon both between the wars. Any nation looking for longterm aid had better have a plan B.

 

[Brands]

I am done with Pierre Poilievre. I cannot vote for a guy who doesn't believe in climate change. All the Liberals have to do is implement their green investment tax credits and they have my vote.
A guy like Poilievre does good when things are bad, but when thing are good...

 

[kEiThZ]

I am done with Pierre Poilievre.

I don't think anybody was under the illusion that you were ever considering voting for him.

 

[kEiThZ]

The US is and has always been reliable. Even if you have POTUS onside, Ukraine has to worry about Congress. It’s just how to US system works. Look at post-WW1, President Wilson leads the creation of the League of Nations, and the reconstitution of Poland, only to see the US abandon both between the wars. Any nation looking for longterm aid had better have a plan B.

This is missing the point.

1) The US has done exponentially more for Ukraine than Canada has.

2) The galling immaturity of attacking our most important ally just to deflect from a difficult question about her government's policies.

I used to think they were redeemable. This incident convinced me otherwise.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I don't think anybody was under the illusion that you were ever considering voting for him.

Exactly, which means Poilievre needn’t campaign to @Brands wishes. IMO, it makes no sense to take oneself out of the game, out of contention as a voter. I’ve voted for both Rob Ford and Olivia Chow, for all three of (the local reps of) Harper, Trudeau and Singh, and provincially I’ve voted for the reps of Harris, McGuinty, Mother Wynne, Doug Ford and Horvath.

This coming federal election, my vote is open to whomever will support the ideas I think best benefit Canada. So far all the leaders are ticking some boxes. I refuse to take my vote out of contention before the election has even been called.

 

[DSC]

To be fair, NATO has said that aid to Ukraine will count towards NATO targets. What is unbelievably arrogant and galling is suggesting the US is unreliable and implicitly suggesting that our contribution is at an equivalent level. I get it. We're embarrassed by being the only country in NATO quadrant of shame (countries that don't meet 20% on new equipment and 2% of GDP on defence). But instead of just dodging the question she takes a gratuitous shot at the US. Incredible. I used to think she was one of the adults in this government. Antics like this have really turned me off.

Frankly, the US is an unreliable partner. Their aid or support is VERY reliant on a dysfunctional Congress and a permanent state of election. Ask the Kurds who helped 'us' in Iraq and were abandoned, ask the Afghanis who were abandoned when the US 'fled' and ask the Ukrainians who are clearly in need of weapons right now. One can argue that none of these places 'deserved' US (or Canadian) support in the first place but once one starts it is unreasonable and unfair to suddenly stop. Oddly (??) enough, the US remains a reliable partner for Israel where the 'partner' is acting in a way that the US does not approve of and which will undoubtedly make the long-term situation WORSE. (This CNN article elaborates https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/05/middleeast/gaza-war-no-plan-israel-intl-cmd/index.html )

 

[DSC]

I’m done with Trudeau. Where’s our promised balanced budget by 2019? I don’t believe that Pollivre will do any better, but I feel like someone needs a hurt real bad.

The balanced budget was clearly not going to happen once COVID arrived but if you will not vote for Trudeau Liberals, who WILL you consider? The Pollievre Tories are slash and burn climate deniers and he seems like a very unpleasant person with zero 'vision'. The NDP seem well meaning but not ready to govern. It's a huge question, for many of us!

 

[kEiThZ]

The Pollievre Tories are slash and burn climate deniers and he seems like a very unpleasant person with zero 'vision'

I'll say what nobody is willing to say out loud. Canadians are past caring about the climate when the situation in the country is poor (as they perceive it). I say this as a climate hawk who supports carbon pricing. Maslow's hierarchy applied to political priorities. That's why you see the generation most impacted by climate change making the biggest change to the Tories.

The LPC has lost the argument on climate policy by failing to make the connection between climate policy and quality of life. This is especially true when we demand lots of sacrifice from individuals (as they perceive it, because the average person doesn't understand carbon pricing and rebates) and then have record population growth of a million per year driving up emissions while imposing very little control on industry (particularly the one responsible for over a quarter of the country's emissions).

Nor do they prioritize climate policy in routine decision-making. Where is the equivalent of GBA+ for climate impact? Instead, this government seems to prioritize social policy and particularly those ideas that result in direct transfers to individuals. Even their marquis climate policy is a form of wealth transfer, with the top 20% supposedly subsidizing the bottom 80%. Meanwhile, the sat on HFR for their whole first term, put in token unding in their second term and only started on definition work in earnest in their third term. This is for a project that has the potential to reduce flying and driving. Even transit capital funding at peak ($3B) will be less than 0.7% of the federal budget.

It's hard to not feel like climate change is an excuse for this government to implement other goals or simply a talking point to win votes. And tokenism is a harder sell when people are struggling.

You might argue that the Tories will be disastrous and revisionist. And I mostly agree. But in Canada, people don't vote in new governments. They vote out the old. Poilievre could kick puppies on live TV and still get elected. That's not because anybody thinks he offers a great alternative. It's a testament to how upset voters are with Trudeau's LPC.

 

[afransen]

The wild thing is that for most Canadians, the carbon price is actually not meaningfully contributing to the perceived affordability problem/inflation. It's mostly a housing and global commodity price phenomenon.

 

[DSC]

Another exmple of the fact that we do not (in general) have Canadian problems - we have the same problems as most of the 'developed' world.

New Zealand announced it has tightened its visa rules, introducing language and skill criteria and shortening work permit lengths in response to “unsustainable net migration.”

The changes to the Accredited Employer Worker Visa (AEWV) scheme have gone into immediate effect, and will mean that New Zealand is “better testing the local labor market and reducing the risks of putting New Zealanders out of work,” the country’s Minister of Immigration, Erica Stanford, announced on Sunday.

From: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/07/trav...rules-unsustainable-migration-intl/index.html

 

[Brands]

I don't think anybody was under the illusion that you were ever considering voting for him.

Trust me I tried.

I'll say what nobody is willing to say out loud. Canadians are past caring about the climate when the situation in the country is poor (as they perceive it). I say this as a climate hawk who supports carbon pricing. Maslow's hierarchy applied to political priorities. That's why you see the generation most impacted by climate change making the biggest change to the Tories.

The LPC has lost the argument on climate policy by failing to make the connection between climate policy and quality of life. This is especially true when we demand lots of sacrifice from individuals (as they perceive it, because the average person doesn't understand carbon pricing and rebates) and then have record population growth of a million per year driving up emissions while imposing very little control on industry (particularly the one responsible for over a quarter of the country's emissions).

Nor do they prioritize climate policy in routine decision-making. Where is the equivalent of GBA+ for climate impact? Instead, this government seems to prioritize social policy and particularly those ideas that result in direct transfers to individuals. Even their marquis climate policy is a form of wealth transfer, with the top 20% supposedly subsidizing the bottom 80%. Meanwhile, the sat on HFR for their whole first term, put in token unding in their second term and only started on definition work in earnest in their third term. This is for a project that has the potential to reduce flying and driving. Even transit capital funding at peak ($3B) will be less than 0.7% of the federal budget.

It's hard to not feel like climate change is an excuse for this government to implement other goals or simply a talking point to win votes. And tokenism is a harder sell when people are struggling.

You might argue that the Tories will be disastrous and revisionist. And I mostly agree. But in Canada, people don't vote in new governments. They vote out the old. Poilievre could kick puppies on live TV and still get elected. That's not because anybody thinks he offers a great alternative. It's a testament to how upset voters are with Trudeau's LPC.

Vote for the guy poilievre who build less housing when he was housing minister. You know high interest rates are a global problem?