[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

I was raised catholic. I have no problems with them. His reply should be "My personal position has always been open and consistent. I am personally pro-life but I would never infringe on someone's right to choose" or something along those lines. Not wanting to reopen the debate is afar cry from defending someone right. There's where my hang up lies.

[PRC]

Turns out Andrew Scheer also has dual-Canadian & US citizenship.  Past Conservatives had complaints against Stephane Dion and Tom Mulcair over just such a thing.  Andrew Scheer himself criticised Michäelle Jean over this exact thing as well.  Conservatives: do as we say not as we do. 

Scheer raised concerns about former Governor General Michaëlle Jean holding both Canadian and French passports in a 2005 blog post.

"I have a few quick questions for anyone who thinks that Michaëlle Jean is a good choice to be our next GG," Scheer wrote. "What are her qualifications? What experience does she have that would assist her to carry out her duties as our head of state, including the potential to be a referee in a minority government situation?"

He also asked his constituents if they felt it was appropriate for Jean to maintain her French passport. "Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship, she held U.S. citizenship?" Scheer asked.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-has-american-citizenship-1.5307986

https://election.ctvnews.ca/andrew-scheer-has-dual-canadian-u-s-citizenship-party-confirms-1.4623024

[Barrister]

Yeah, you'd think they should have thought about that beforehand, since it has been an issue.

And it's not like Ted Cruz, who never even realized he was a Canadian citizen until it came up in 2016.  I think I read Scheer held an American passport at one point.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask your leader not hold dual citizenships, so I don't know why Scheer didn't renounce his American citizenship after he won the party leadership.

[Malthus]

I was raised catholic. I have no problems with them. His reply should be "My personal position has always been open and consistent. I am personally pro-life but I would never infringe on someone's right to choose" or something along those lines. Not wanting to reopen the debate is afar cry from defending someone right. There's where my hang up lies.

Seems to me a distinction without a difference. Without a debate, the laws will continue as they are - that is, no law infringing choice.

This is just the avowed social conservative's way to save face. He won't come out and admit his POV on that subject is wrong; instead, he'll refuse to engage in it at all.

Why? Because in Canada at least, it's a done deal. Same as gay marriage (and now, pot legalization). These are all things social conservatives tend to be against, but the majority of Canadians are for, so it isn't politically possible to turn the clock back on them.

That being the case, it makes more sense to make one's political choice based on other issues - ones that are actual live controversies (unfortunately, doing something about global warming is one of those ...).

[Barrister]

Scheer is saying that he applied to renounce his citizenship back in August, and the wait time is 9-10 months.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-has-american-citizenship-1.5307986

If so, this is a nothingburger.

[PRC]

That term "nothingburger" seems to be big in Conservative circles nowadays, at least in the US - Lindsay Graham used it recently and it was all over twitter last week.  Is this a talking point out of the Conservative newsletter or what?

[Barrister]

That term "nothingburger" seems to be big in Conservative circles nowadays, at least in the US - Lindsay Graham used it recently and it was all over twitter last week.  Is this a talking point out of the Conservative newsletter or what?

I wouldn't know - I don't get a set of talking points.

Do you consider this story to be meaningful if (and I emphasize if) Scheer renounced his US citizenship in August, and is just waiting for it to be processed?

[PRC]

Overall, no I don't think it's that meaningful a story, especially with the renouncing of his US citizenship.  It highlights some garden variety hypocrisy because of his past comments to Michäelle Jean and other Conseratives having issues with Mulcair and Dion over it... a level of hypocrisy much less in-your-face than Trudeau's whole dress-up episode.

[Grey Fox]

No person that is a forced-birther should be PM or even MP.

But you could vote for the NPD with a deeply religious leader whose personal convictions may collide with our ideas of a secular society.  If you can't trust Scheer for his personal convictions, how can you trust the NDP leader when he says he respecsts our desires for secularism?

You assume so much, so often.

I could not & I won't.

[viper37]

French/English interview, written test if more is required.  In business admin in Quebec, bilinguism is required to graduate, so if you have recently graduated, an interview will be sufficient to determine your proficieny in english.
If you graduated 15-20 years ago, they may ask more questions and have you submit to an oral exam (listen to "tapes" and type your answers to the questions).
It's all second hand experience though, I never had to submit to any tests since my skills were sufficient, but I know some friends had to while we were in Gatineau/Ottawa.

Just to be clear, I'm asking about high level government jobs like central bank governor.  Does the same apply?

He needs to be able to communicate correctly in French, not engage in day to day policy-related debates.  That's most likely a low level of bilinguism.  Anyone working there is required to be fluent in english.

[viper37]

No person that is a forced-birther should be PM or even MP.

But you could vote for the NPD with a deeply religious leader whose personal convictions may collide with our ideas of a secular society.  If you can't trust Scheer for his personal convictions, how can you trust the NDP leader when he says he respecsts our desires for secularism?

You assume so much, so often.

I could not & I won't.

Well, there's the Green Party with its non realistic platform.
I'm just assuming you won't vote for the Conservatives, that's all.  Badly worded, sorry.

[Grey Fox]

I'll probably vote for the Libs, not that it matters in my Liberal chateau fort riding.

[Oexmelin]

It's a funny switch going on out there.

50 years ago or more people on the right would note vote for a Catholic because they would just be following the Pope's orders.

Then we got over that.

But now a new bigotry is coming up: people on the left won't vote for a Catholic because they'd be following the Pope's orders on social issues.

It's not a funny switch. It's your spin.

[Camerus]

It's an observation of fact.

[Oexmelin]

Er, no, it's not. It's a spin that suggests that leftists are suspicious of Catholics in power, just like Protestants were once.

Leftists are not concerned about the pope, and are not concerned about Catholics following orders of a foreign power - which was the Anglo Protestant fear. They are concerned about people who want to limit or ban access to abortion or repeal same-sex marriage. It's an equal opportunity concern, which targets evangelicals, lutherans, greek orthodox, copts, baptists, muslim fundamentalists, aka, anyone who would suggest to reopen this debate, and whether they obey the Pope, a TV personality, their kind pastors, a thick book, or voices in their heads. It also suggests that the only Catholics are the ones who obey the pope on all matters - if that is the case, someone should forward the memo to US Catholics, who are fixated on abortion, and somehow a lot more reluctant to amplify the current Pope's critique of capitalism, for instance.