[Admiral Beez]

Lastly, the idea that students aren't economically valuable is nuts. But maybe that's just the techie in me. We live in a world where a substantial amount of new businesses are started by undergrad or grad students. That's exactly when we want them here. And attracting the best students and keeping them in the country, is a major part of why the US has been so successful at innovation. Educating them and sending them home to boost somebody else's economy would be nuts. It's no different that Waterloo grads fueling Silicon Valley. Does it really matter if that Waterloo grad is a Canadian or foreign student? Either way, it's a loss for us.

Good point, this. Okay, on the student visas, just make strategical choices that benefit Canadian innovation rather than cheap labour for unskilled work.

 

[kEiThZ]

Good point, this. Okay, on the student visas, just make strategical choices that benefit Canadian innovation rather than cheap labour for unskilled work.

This has been the problem. They abused a really good idea. We could have used the student visas to get some of the best minds in the world, and hopefully retain some of them. But they want to prop up housing and provide the corporate sector with cheap labour, so they turned what was a good idea, into a back door for unskilled labour. It was and is ridiculous.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This has been the problem. They abused a really good idea. We could have used the student visas to get some of the best minds in the world, and hopefully retain some of them. But they want to prop up housing and provide the corporate sector with cheap labour, so they turned what was a good idea, into a back door for unskilled labour. It was and is ridiculous.

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

 

[evandyk]

A lot of the most successful countries in the US were founded by people who moved there to study and stayed. I don’t think it should be automatic, but I think it should be pretty easy. My FIL is a professor who takes on grad students from around the world, and pretty much all of them would enrich Canada by staying. That said, this is not true of any of those fly-by-night career colleges.

 

[lenaitch]

This has been the problem. They abused a really good idea. We could have used the student visas to get some of the best minds in the world, and hopefully retain some of them. But they want to prop up housing and provide the corporate sector with cheap labour, so they turned what was a good idea, into a back door for unskilled labour. It was and is ridiculous.

Including the 'immigration consultants' who have conned the students and gamed the system into a de facto back door immigration path, along with the government and bureaucrats who have allowed it to happen.

 

[kEiThZ]

Including the 'immigration consultants' who have conned the students and gamed the system into a de facto back door immigration path, along with the government and bureaucrats who have allowed it to happen.

This whole industry would not exist if the government did enable it through regulation and a wilful blind eye. People forget, that it's not just strip mall colleges. A whole lot of public colleges built easy 1 yr programs to create a pathway to residency, so that they could make bank off would be immigrants. And as long as everybody was making money off this, the government was looking the other way.

 

[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.