Because It's 2016: Canadian Politics in Sunnier Days

Yes, you ought to have some kind of parameters governing immigration

No shit sherlock, we're talking about the details and how to go about doing it

No, immigrants don't steal our jobs.

Might want to work on that reading comprehension

Would you at least stop fucking calling them "illegal Mexicans"? Sorry your washout friends couldn't get good jobs, but: a ton of agricultural work in Canada is done by migrants (go to Niagara-on-the-Lake). Immigrants (including unskilled ones) tend to grow economies, and not by "selling whatever they do", and Canada just raised its immigration quota to 300,000 to help drive economic growth.

As was noted, Safe Third Country only bars asylees applying for status in the US from doing so in Canada. If removed, people would still need to get approved for entry.

You have no idea what you're talking about, legally or economically.

Comp sci friends who attended ubc and waterloo also left to the states for better opportunities

No need to repeat something so basic about safe third country agreement, but you can answer my question above about what happens to undocumented Mexicans of the US once they are admitted into Canada though

Unskilled immigrants grow economies that are diverse; where opening a small business is streamlined and a country that fosters innovation and entrepreneurship. Canada has none of these things

also if a tonne of agricultural work is already done by migrants how much more can that sector sustain?

as you suggest, undocumented immigrants in the us are overrepresented in farming occupations, and as well as in construction, but canada's economy is tiny

removing the safe third country agreement right now, with what's going on with trump, would cause a rise in refugee applicants. and sure, canada would just take forever to process each one and do it at a pace it can sustain, but gov't would be oversaturated with these applicants and would need to put in more time, effort, and resources into processing all of them, especially if wanting to do it in a timely manner. i think removing the agreement should be considered at another time when things are not so chaotic in the states

living in la, i notice that most undocumented immigrants, who tend to be of mexican origin, would rather work for themselves. you are assuming all immigrants into canada want to work in agriculture, though. what kind of economy does canada need to have to get these people to easily open their own businesses and can they successfully operate businesses that meet a demand in a largely english-speaking country? if not, then why not promote entrepreneurship and innovation more for starters? why shut down applicants by bright engineers, computer scientists, and entrepreneurs (see brain drain) living in toronto and vancouver and force them to flee to the us for better opportunities? because that is what is happening right now

this is highly contentious, so take it or leave it, but with this agreement lifted, i can totally see trump saying "fine. deny entry to all mexicans and let them all go to canada"

and yes, i have read the agreement in its entirety

im confused as to how you seem to think the immigration system in canada works.

wannabe immigrants or refugees just showing up at the border wouldn't be allowed in.

mexicans would generally not be able to claim refugee status. even if they could they would have to initiate the claim from outside the country, fill in a bunch of forms, be vetted etc. before years later being rejected or accepted.

for a low skilled mexican with no family in canada to get permanent residence is basically impossible under the current system. they could apply to work in canada through the temporary foreign worker scheme, but that would be their only option, and there is no pathway from their to permanent residence.

a huge number of low skilled jobs in canada are performed by temporary foreign workers. fast food jobs, low skilled manual labour, agricultural,etc. they're basically unfree labour, and are routinely misused by companies who claim the labour isnt available locally but are bullshitting because it is but they just want to keep costs down.

the canadian govenrment actively restricts numbers of refugee claimants at times whenever they are "swamped", so it's not really a huge issue for the effective working of the cic to receive high volumes

mexicans would generally not be able to claim refugee status. even if they could they would have to initiate the claim from outside the country, fill in a bunch of forms, be vetted etc. before years later being rejected or accepted.

― Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Sunday, January 29, 2017 10:36 PM (fourteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

do you have a source for that? the way the current agreement works is:

Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, persons seeking refugee protection must make a claim in the first country they arrive in (United States or Canada), unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/stca-etps-eng.html

what the petition is calling for, as it states on the page provided by sund4r, is to allow those deported under trump's gov't to use the safe third country agreement to go to canada and apply there if the us does not allow them entry (from sund4r's link: immigrants "fleeing violence and deportation from Trump’s America")

for a low skilled mexican with no family in canada to get permanent residence is basically impossible under the current system.

― Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Sunday, January 29, 2017 10:36 PM (fourteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

probably. but technically, by law, it is not impossible, as family connections is an exception to the safe third country agreement:

Family member exceptions

Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member in Canada who:

is a Canadian citizen;
is a permanent resident of Canada;
is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation;
has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), an independent organization;
has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds;
is the holder of a valid Canadian work permit;
is the holder of a valid Canadian study permit; or
is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/stca-etps-eng.html

if companies are misusing the system already wouldn't it be wiser to fix or somehow mitigate this before taking in more refugees that will be fleeing the us currently?

your last point is fair, i understand that

mexicans would generally not be able to claim refugee status. even if they could they would have to initiate the claim from outside the country, fill in a bunch of forms, be vetted etc. before years later being rejected or accepted.
― Islamic State of Mind (jim in vancouver), Sunday, January 29, 2017 10:36 PM (fourteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

nevermind, i found the answer:

Refugee claimant is found eligible

If the refugee claim is found to be eligible to be referred to the IRB:

the border services officer will provide the refugee claimant with a number of documents and an explanation of each document and its purpose;
the refugee claimant will be allowed to stay temporarily in Canada while waiting for a decision to be made by the IRB;
a removal order will be issued and will be conditional pending the decision by the IRB; or
if the refugee claimant is found not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection by the IRB, the removal order will immediately come into force and the claimant will be required to leave Canada.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/stca-etps-eng.html

all this actually happens at the border (hence "border services officer") so it can take hours per person, so no way is this an application process where you just sit and wait in your home country and it could very well put a strain on the people and time available to process apps and interview them

sorry, misread your family point, you're right

Refugees can apply for protection either within or outside of Canada. If within Canada you are allowed to remain within the country pending the determination of your claim; you don't have to wait at the border or in detention unless there are security/identity concerns.

interesting data here about the 7-country immigration ban:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-immigration-ban-canada/article33822491/

warm winds, see, i think there's confusion/ambiguity because see in this same article how the globe and mail words the safe third country agreement:

people turned away from the U.S. can’t come to Canada’s border or airports and ask to seek asylum there

this suggests that if the safe third country agreement was to be rescinded, they would be able to go to canada's borders or airports and ask to seek asylym there

i know some people who had to submit apps by going to the border, so this is why i'm curious about this, because it's not far-fetched

You use the word 'they' as if everyone should be able to know who you're talking about...

applicants

i don't really see why an undocumented mexican who is living in the U.S. on the DL would want to go to the canadian border and get fingerprinted and interviewed and the rest of it for a, likely to be failed, attempt at gaining asylum to canada.

i mean there is no visa requirement for mexicans to visit canada now, if we're going to get unauthorized migration or asylum claimants from mexico in significant numbers i imagine it will likely be mexicans arriving here by plane.

and of course the shooter in the quebec city mosque attack was a trump supporting, le pen loving, anti-feminist dickhole

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/visas-result.asp?country=MX&result=11&message=0&standard=2&q3=

“(Bissonnette) was not necessarily overtly racist or Islamophobic, but he had borderline misogynist, Islamophobic viewpoints,” said Vincent Boissonneault, a fellow Laval student."

I'd hate to see overt Islamophobia.

xp. those ETAs are a formality, basically automated, not like an actual visa application process - which until recently mexicans had to go through to visit canada

as a uk citizen i have to do the same thing to enter the US, you pay via credit card online and you print off a little slip, you show it at the border, you go through.

xp. yeah the hedging bets, waiting for more to come out, minimizing of bissonnette's ideology is sickening but to be expected.

also on fbook i was seeing people complaining about people bringing up the xenophobia of quebecois culture in light of the shooting. smh.

A Trump lover on my FB feed was talking about the (supposedly multiple) killers' 'Arabic heritage' and 'Moroccan descent' soon after the shooting.

Those actually were some of the initial reports (even CBC I think - I was watching tv switching channels) which is pretty messed up.

Oh, I know, but this guy was really making a point of it: "Two people of Arabic heritage - so NOW we know why the media hasn't been covering it". Eating crow now, hopefully.

jim

okay good to know

i need one if i wanted to visit canada as well (because i am a us lpr) so i decided not to go

Goddamn Fox: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/quebec-mosque-shooting:-fox-news-deletes-tweet/8233210

Good on Trudeau for saying this:

"Make no mistake, this was a terrorist attack,"

and fuck him on this

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-abandons-electoral-reform/article33855925/

god if the ndp had their shit together they're so much material to attack the grits from the left with

(I'm of the opinion that the ndp are not going to get anywhere near being the party of government for the indefinite future and should use their parliamentary platform as a sort of pressure group)

What I wrote on FB fwiw:

"We'll definitely replace the system but we have no idea with what" was never that inspiring of a promise tbf.

If I had ever actually thought "the Liberal Party of Canada is serious about keeping its promises", this would have been an alarming one: FPTP has its problems but it has at least been the basis for a functional democratic system for 150 years in Canada (and centuries longer in the UK). I'm in favour of reform but promising to replace the entire electoral system in a short time before even deciding on an alternative would have been pretty reckless if it were not an empty promise that every voter could interpret the way they wanted. Lots of alternatives could be worse.

I'd rather start by seeing more autonomy and less party discipline for MPs, since they're the only people we actually vote for, before changing the voting system. If we're going to reform the way we vote, I'd favour some sort of ranked ballot system. The way the Liberals went about this was definitely not the way to do it, though.

Ha, I see I said some of that a month ago.

my only real problem with FPP is that all the centre-left parties cannibalize each other's votes, so the voting system rarely spits out the outcome I want. If Canada had one monolithic lefty party and three conservative parties fighting over the same group of votes, I would love FPP.

A ranked ballot system (STV or AV) would address the vote-splitting issue.

Did you like FPTP in the 90s? The issues that I have with the system now are the same ones I had then.

i just really dislike fptp because i don't really believe that a party that gets a <40% share of the electorate that bothered to vote has the legitimacy to have complete control of the legislative and executive functions of the government.

I liked how it ended Stockwell Day's run... It is a stable and effective system, even though it privileges regional parties like Reform and BQ and means the NDP will never sniff power again

libs will go back to disliking it when the tories get back in i guess

Next time they need to win lefty votes they can just promise to overturn it again

i just really dislike fptp because i don't really believe that a party that gets a <40% share of the electorate that bothered to vote has the legitimacy to have complete control of the legislative and executive functions of the government.

I agree but I think this could also be dealt with if there was less pressure for MPs to vote along party lines.

i don't see how that sort of situation can be arrived at tho? is that a thing that has been introduced in other places/by what methods?

here's an illustration of why i like more proportional systems

http://www.scotsman.com/news/dominic-hinde-budget-deal-a-milestone-for-green-politics-1-4356617

Elections to the Scottish Parliament use a Mixed-member proportional system.

The SNP received 46.5% of constituency votes and 41.7% of regional list votes in 2016. in FPTP they would likely have a majority, yet they have under 50% of seats in the Scottish Parliament and have formed a minority government.

They're in a fairly commanding position as befits their proportion of the vote vis-a-vis their opponents, but can't act with impunity, and must make concessions to the opposition to pass a budget.

and fuck him on this

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-abandons-electoral-reform/article33855925/

― sean gramophone, Wednesday, February 1, 2017 4:19 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

have they abandoned electoral reform permanently or just in time for the next election? seems obvious that it is not ready for next elxn yet, both in terms of logistics and like, there hasn't been a mature national conversation about it yet. and it's a pretty complex topic, not something u wanna rush. i get feeling burned bc it was a campaign promise, but i never expected it to come to pass

i don't see how that sort of situation can be arrived at tho? is that a thing that has been introduced in other places/by what methods?

I would re-frame this: why is party discipline so strict in Canada? The UK has almost the exact same system on a national basis but MPs seem freer: David Cameron was clearly at odds with much of his own caucus on the EU, to the point where he held a referendum on something he didn't believe in and had to resign. 47 Labour MPs voted against Corbyn on Article 50. Congressmen in the US are not nearly as bound by party lines as Canadian MPs are: House Democrats were divided on things like the Iraq War, the ACA, even Trump's cabinet appointments. This article cites several experts who think Canada has the strictest party discipline of any advanced democracy.

Potential ways to address this: Parliament passing rules that MPs cannot be whipped except under certain circumstances, parties passing rules that party leaders have to be accountable to their caucuses (as is the case with some British and Australian parties), stricter separation between riding-level fundraising and national-level party fundraising.

and fuck him on this

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-abandons-electoral-reform/article33855925/

― sean gramophone, Wednesday, February 1, 2017 4:19 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

have they abandoned electoral reform permanently or just in time for the next election? seems obvious that it is not ready for next elxn yet, both in terms of logistics and like, there hasn't been a mature national conversation about it yet. and it's a pretty complex topic, not something u wanna rush. i get feeling burned bc it was a campaign promise, but i never expected it to come to pass

― flopson, Thursday, February 2, 2017 12:42 PM (twenty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

looks like theyve just abandoned it. trudeau wanted a ranked ballot as that would benefit libs most, as things weren't pointing in that direction it's been scrapped. libs win the next election or two and then when the tories are back in they'll put it back on the agenda. love me some democracy!

I would re-frame this: why is party discipline so strict in Canada? The UK has almost the exact same system on a national basis but MPs seem freer: David Cameron was clearly at odds with much of his own caucus on the EU, to the point where he held a referendum on something he didn't believe in and had to resign. 47 Labour MPs voted against Corbyn on Article 50. Congressmen in the US are not nearly as bound by party lines as Canadian MPs are: House Democrats were divided on things like the Iraq War, the ACA, even Trump's cabinet appointments. This article cites several experts who think Canada has the strictest party discipline of any advanced democracy.

going to be a pedant here: David Cameron did not need to have the EU ref. He knew that that there was euroscepticism in the UK and that to deflect the right-wing alternative offered by UKIP, and to ward off the anti-eu competitors for his leadership within the tory party, he specifically made a referendum a campaign promise and then went through with it assuming that it would be won and that his position would be secured, and UKIP would be chastened and damaged by a referendum defeat. His MPs, many of whom wanted the referendum, could never have made him do anything, it was entirely self-inflicted and done out of political (mis)calculation.

it's common for MPs to vote against the whip in the uk, but generally where the vote is symbolic, and quite rarely when the rebelling vote will make a difference (though more than in canada I'm sure). The parliamentary labour party are also particularly and almost uniquely in contemporary UK politics in revolt against the Corbyn leadership

That wasn't pedantic at all. Thanks for expanding.

With all the troubles right now, I'm just glad we aren't going through a referendum. Don't get me wrong, I am all for reform but I understand Trudeau, we saw what happened to the last two prominent PM (Renzi/Cameron) who proposed this dubious democratic practice.

Anyone watch the Tory debate? I'm about 19m in here. What do they have, like, 12 candidates?? (Edit: just checked; there are 14!) I'm actually a little intrigued that almost all of them (except Chong?) are so opposed to a carbon tax. I would have thought shifting taxes from income to consumption might appeal to conservatives.

And, yes, wtf is going on with the NDP?

Ugh, Idk who Rick Peterson is but he's calling for a flat income tax.

Lol @ Andrew Saxton: "[Economists] are in their ivory towers, sipping their tea and coffee, dealing with theory and not practice". The latte-loving elites have been reduced to tea and coffee now?

Hm, I actually agree with Raitt and Alexander on reducing the number of sexual assault claims that get dismissed as 'unfounded'.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/thirteen-canadians-we-want-back-from-trumps-america/article33773631/

ha elon musk

dude literally lives in a city protected by tall metal gates

every time i pass by i feel like im in the twilight zone

Lol @ Andrew Saxton: "[Economists] are in their ivory towers, sipping their tea and coffee, dealing with theory and not practice". The latte-loving elites have been reduced to tea and coffee now?

― My Body's Made of Crushed Little Evening Stars (Sund4r), Sunday, February 5, 2017 9:17 AM (three days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

guessing game. who is this:

"He took up post-secondary studies again at the University of Calgary, where he completed a bachelor's degree in economics in 1985. He later returned there to earn a master's degree in economics, completed in 1991."

That sounds like Harper but I'm hoping that also describes Saxton.

it's harper. saxton studied and worked in finance.