[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

If, say, it's up to the local pharmacist whether he has ethical problems dispensing it, I think lots of people won't care. In Vancouver, everyone will dispense it anyways (and if not, there's another pharmacist on duty or another pharmacy); no one will notice. But in some small town with only one pharmacist, if he or she doesn't want to dispense it that has significant impact for individuals.

But as Malthus corrected me,that is outside Federal jurisdiction.  The Feds can only dictate if the drug needs a prescription or not.  Regulation of pharmacies is a Provincial jurisdiction.

You asked me what sort of things I'm expecting. I told you, with the caveat that I don't necessarily think those *specific* situations to develop, but things that are roughly analagous and of the same order of magnitude.

Yes, but you mostly are thinking of things the Feds cannot do.  Which brings me back to the rather fuzzy thinking around "throwing a bone" - what bone and why would Harper ever do that?

I'll be happy to find that my worries did not come to pass.

Seems to me you should be more worried about Provincial policies then worrying about whether the Feds will try to invade Provincial jurisdiction - something that seems very much against Harper's idea of how the Federal government ought to operate.

[crazy canuck]

Come on. That will NEVER happen 

It already has to a large extent.  You have just been to worried about phantom hidden agendas to notice.

[Jacob]

Like I said, we'll see. I'll be happy if nothing like it comes to pass. The need for Harper to keep voters like you and Malthus on board will certainly act to curtail the worst excess. Maybe you're right and it will be enough to keep Harper away from any bone throwing at all.

We'll see.

[crazy canuck]

It is interesting that the more social conservative militant of the Conservatives is agreeing with Jacob's, mine, and Josephus' fear about the social conservative agenda of Harper against the fiscal conservative voters who say such an agenda doesn't really exist...

That is because BB hopes for bones to be thrown whereas I have no such bias...

[Jacob]

It already has to a large extent.  You have just been to worried about phantom hidden agendas to notice.

I'm not particularly worried about hidden agendas. It's one area of concern, yes but it's nothing that keeps me up at night. It's just that you like to discuss it so much and I'm happy to oblige for the sake of conversation.

What you really should do is read the story I wrote, and we can discuss that instead 

[crazy canuck]

What you really should do is read the story I wrote, and we can discuss that instead 

Where is the fun in that.  No chance of my mocking you for your fear of hidden agendas and no chance for you to mock me for being a Pollyanna.

[Barrister]

You know I do find the entire notion of "hidden agendas" to be fairly silly.

I predict that Harper wil do many things Jacob doesn't like, but I further predict they will all be things he's said that he would do beforehand.

[Jacob]

Where is the fun in that.

You wound me sir. The fun is being there at the very beginning of the emergence of a Canadian literary icon (knock on wood).

No chance of my mocking you for your fear of hidden agendas and no chance for you to mock me for being a Pollyanna.

I don't think I have mocked you. I have a soft spot for smug self-satisfied lawyers, you see. Sometimes I think I could be one myself. Except for the whole lawyer thing, of course.

[Jacob]

You know I do find the entire notion of "hidden agendas" to be fairly silly.

I predict that Harper wil do many things Jacob doesn't like, but I further predict they will all be things he's said that he would do beforehand.

Yeah, I don't think I've used the term "hidden agenda" at all. I think Harper's been pretty clear about what he stands for. I've been talking about bones to be thrown to social conservatives. I think there'll be some, but they'll be kept low profile for reasons of political expedience. I don't think that constitutes a hidden agenda, though.

[Monoriu]

Yeah, I agree, and it gives me some hope on those areas.

This is why I expect that anything done to cater to anti-immigrant people will all be about "abuse of the system and criminality", since "good immigrants" might not feel it targets them. Though in the end, it comes down to how they feel the system treats them. If the wait time to bring grandma in goes up from seven to twelve years, then all the talk about "it's an economic choice" and "we love immigrants" won't take the edge off that.

So yeah, I expect most of it will just be a change in rhetoric. Chinese voters, for example, won't have a problem with refugees being shafted further or law-breakers being deported for smaller and smaller offences or whatever (depending on how petty it might get, of course).

When I first landed in Canada, and looked at the political parties there, my first hunch was that the Chinese immigrants would vote Reform.  High taxes is one of the biggest complaints of Chinese Canadians, and Reform is pretty much the only "less tax; less welfare" party out there.  (Strangely, I remember that the Conservatives was pretty much a non-entity when I was there.  My memory may not serve me right but I think they almost got destroyed back then or something.)

I was wrong, of course. They all vote Liberal.  Taxes is important, but bringing grandma, mother-in-law, nephew in is more important to them.

I think you are right.  Chinese Canadians is all about bringing family in.  I do not understand Canadian's passion about refugees and asylum seekers.  Also, citizenship is a privilege that needs to be earned by good behaviour, not a right.  Not breaking the law is the least I should do.  While I was there, we understood that if we broke the law, we would be deported.  Perhaps not for, say, minor traffic offences.  But I think it is fair if I was deported for shoplifting.  I am very surprised that anybody would argue otherwise 

[Malthus]

Yeah, the Cons would be well advised to reduce wait times and red tape for family reunification - cracking down on criminal immigrants will not lose them votes (it isn't as if granny is likely to carry on a crime spree).

[Jacob]

Yeah, the Cons would be well advised to reduce wait times and red tape for family reunification - cracking down on criminal immigrants will not lose them votes (it isn't as if granny is likely to carry on a crime spree).

Well, CC assures me that keeping granny out for longer is sound fiscal conservative policy and thus desirable.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, the Cons would be well advised to reduce wait times and red tape for family reunification - cracking down on criminal immigrants will not lose them votes (it isn't as if granny is likely to carry on a crime spree).

Well, CC assures me that keeping granny out for longer is sound fiscal conservative policy and thus desirable.

I said I could see the economic arguments both ways.  what I objected to was characterizing this issue as a matter of social conservativism  rather than simply having the system run better.  After all if you put all resources into family reunification how are we going to get the numbers we need to keep our economy growing?  Its an ecomic policy at its core.

[Valmy]

Yeah, the Cons would be well advised to reduce wait times and red tape for family reunification - cracking down on criminal immigrants will not lose them votes (it isn't as if granny is likely to carry on a crime spree).

Especially older immigrants who will be supported by the family and will not cost the taxpayer anything.  There is no harm in that at all.

[crazy canuck]

By the way Jake, you wanted to know when you talked about your suspicions of a hidden agenda.  You did it early and often in this thread.  Here is the first post you talked about it.

That makes me quite suspicious of their hidden agenda;