Home › Nanos-Policy Options Poll - Immigration as Nati...
Nanos-Policy Options Poll - Immigration as Nation-building (Video Blog Post)
Nearly three Canadians in four in our poll thought attracting new immigrants was important or somewhat important, but even more Canadians, nearly 85 percent, thought it was important to select immigrants whose skills met the needs of Canada’s workforce.
Watch the video for the full analysis or select “read the full piece” below to read more. The complete analysis and Policy Options article I wrote is on the right in the support materials box.
Meanwhile, four Canadians in five also thought family reunification was important or somewhat important. However, only two Canadians in three thought “being a refugee” was an important reason for admitting someone to Canada.
Nanos Research polled 1002 Canadians between May 1 and 6. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent, 19 times out of 20.
The two big drivers of Canadians’ attitudes on immigration are economic necessity and family compassion. Canadians are looking for a balance in their immigration policies, particularly as between those two factors. It’s not a question of supporting an open door policy. It’s much more strategic and selective. If immigration is a nation-building exercise, then making our economy stronger and making families stronger are at the centre of that.
What are your views on immigration?
Cheers,
NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard.
|
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
Canada's recent immigration policy, or lack of policy, has often been driven by ... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 06 Jun 04:20
It's interesting that the existing immigration policies and procedures as well a... more
deejay (Alberta) 06 Jun 11:47
Nik, In Northern Alberta, contractors have been given the ability to bing in gue... more
parnel (Ontario) 06 Jun 04:43
Hi Tom, while I have reservations about parts of your comment, I wholeheartedly ... more
Non-aligned in Toronto (Ontario) 06 Jun 10:26
Hi Deejay, I think we also have to consider "payback". I believe about 95% of im... more
Non-aligned in Toronto (Ontario) 06 Jun 12:13
I agree with you, Non Aligned: Our immigration needs are symptomatic of a much... more
Tom Good (British Columbia) 06 Jun 15:01
Comments
Tom Good
Canada's recent immigration policy, or lack of policy, has often been driven by heart and little head while the decision makers were often vulnerable to vocal interest groups. The number of illegal immigrants who have tied up our court systems for years is disgraceful and the number of illegal immigrants who have literally "disappeared into the woodwork" by shiploads is an indictment of the whole Immigration Department and the Government of Canada.
Canada needs immigrants and Canada has figuratively "stolen" foreign trained professionals rather than face the costly training of our own citizenry for example, doctors, engineers, teachers and a host of others. We have a huge talent pool in Canada that should be addressed through minimal cost post secondary technical schools, night schools, retraining institutions, universities etc. We ignore this costly route and take the Wal-Mart cost cutting route called immigration. Do not misread me-----we need immigrants, select immigrants, as our social/educational policies,federal and provincial, do not adequately address or ignore training of the Canadian gene pool. This widely held attitude is disgusting in a wealthy country.
It seems that family reunification and "specific needs" is an affordable programme and a defensible programme for the present if the Federal Immigration Department has the skills to make it work----skills they have not demonstrated too well in the last couple of decades. This should not preclude some LEGITIMATE immigrants in other categories.
As I have said many time before, I believe an immigrant MUST demonstrate functional competence in either French or English (reading, writing, speaking) before citizenship is granted. I oppose the multicultural approach whose time has passed.
[updated Fri Jun 06 04:20:06 -0400 2008]
06 Jun 04:20
62 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
Nik, In Northern Alberta, contractors have been given the ability to bing in guest workers. These guest workers are mostly from Eastern Europe and are generally young married men who come with the idea of making enough money to build a house etc. back home.
One feature of this program is that if the guest worker obtains Canadian certification in his trade during his guest worker visa period and if he gets good marks from his employer,learns sufficient English, he can then automatically apply for landed status. This progam as opposed to the farm worker guest program encourages the person to become one of us and has been wildly successful so far..
This, in my opinion is one of the best channels for reaching out to qualified immigrants. They get to see us as a country and a people, help us through a manpower shortage,get Canadian qualified in their trade or profession and gain landed status for their efforts.
As the Country gets more and more desperate for qualified people that approach should also be applied in other sectors.
[updated Fri Jun 06 04:43:48 -0400 2008]
06 Jun 04:43
54 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Non-aligned in Toronto
Hi Nik,
In your piece you say that "only" 2 out of three consider being a refugee a good reason to admit someone into Canada. That is still 67% in favour which means only 33% opposed. These are pretty solid numbers in favour of a liberal refugee policy. The numbers supporting other categories of immigrant are less surprising, as filling needed skills is a win-win situation.
One of the critical things that Canada must do if we wish to attract skilled immigrants in the trades and professional groups is to find a way to fast track qualification equivilancy. We don't need another 500 mechanical engineers driving cabs, or Heart specialists changing diapers in a seniors home.
I am not suggesting that we weaken our standards, but if additional training is needed to have skilled immigrants meet Canadian standards, we should provide a navigable road map to get there.
I would be willing to invest tax dollars to make this happen, if in return we could make a requirement that those receiving assistance in acheiving Canadian certification were then willing to put in three years of practice in remote communities and high need areas, rather than in the relatively over serviced urban areas.
[updated Fri Jun 06 10:18:10 -0400 2008]
06 Jun 10:18
14 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
deejay
It's interesting that the existing immigration policies and procedures as well as the wholesale refugee acceptance would now be supplemented with military deserters if our three opposition parties' views could rule. We can't deport criminals in less than years (if we can locate them). It seems that those who are desirable and follow the rules will see years pass before consideration can be given yet those that will pick loopholes to their best advantage receive expedited consideration. Is this how we have imported gangs of criminals?
Parnel's view has great merit. In essence, if there is a "fit" and we learn they are good people they are welcome. Otherwise, go away.
Family reunification is fine for spouse and children and perhaps parents (the latter means medical and support cost's). Any set of rules that could be written regarding refugee's landing at our door is so open to abuse (as we have experienced) that they are impossible to administer. This means we must take a tough stance and consider only the very exceptional cases.
[updated Fri Jun 06 11:47:11 -0400 2008]
06 Jun 11:47
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
This is my message to candidates and should apply to those in Ottawa also:
No Support or Votes
This applies to all candidates in Metro Vancouver, You will not get any support if you are Pro China and have any plans to invite the [EDITED BY MODERATOR] (EDITED in Beijing) to any Gala events in Vancouver for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics.
Vanoc has already proven it is a [EDITED BY MODERATOR] organization and all current Board Members must be removed.
Go the Globe and Mail for recent developements in China proving we do not need or want these people, this includes any candidates who have relatives in China and relatives who are Pro China supporters in Taiwan.
[updated Fri Jun 06 18:28:55 -0400 2008]
06 Jun 18:28
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MRM
I believe that immigration is critical to any nation building strategy and indeed to the very survival of our nation. We cannot survive and prosper as a nation either economically or socially without it. That said it should not be confused with the import of refugees. One is an act for the good of the nation; the other is an act done because the nation is good. One an act for the good of the country and the other an act of compassion. That is not to say that both are not of great benefit to those entering the country and to Canada. Nor is it to say that we should not be actively doing both. We should be doing both because one is an economic necessity and the other is a global humanitarian responsibility. It is just to say that we should not confuse one with the other. While both programs have a net effect on each others capacity, they are different and have differing goals.
In both cases Canada’s best interests must come first so Immigration and the needs of Canada must take precedence over the acceptance of refugees. This will allow Canada to continue to prosper economically and as a result allow us to accept refugees on an ongoing humanitarian basis. To give refugees precedence over immigrants only serves to harm our economy by limiting our capacity to attract and effectively employ skilled labour and causes social problems, particularly with regards to our ability to deliver health care due to a severe lack of skilled medical personnel. One negative effect of the current policy of mixing both programs together and giving refugee’s precedence over immigrants is to actually limit our ability to accept refugees because the economy does not have the capacity to accept them and governments do not have the economic capacity to care for them. This why the current policy is flawed and in need of reform. For the good of both Canada and those wishing to enter this great nation.
[updated Sat Jun 07 10:33:05 -0400 2008]
07 Jun 10:33
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
One of thie other issues on immigration is the fact each province has input into immigration. They can decide on their own who gets in and who doesn't if they follow some simple federal guidelines. This leads to some immigrants coming to Canada via provinces that have easier "tests" so to speak for entry. Quebec was noted for accepting "economic immigrants" some time back, and once in, most of these moved either to Ontario or the western provinces.
While I agree there are differing regional needs for types of immigrants I think the guidelines should be tighter in certain respects.
In Canada's immigration boom of the 50's and 60's we accepted mostly hard done by Europeans like Italian workers from then the very poor region of Calabria or refugee Hungarians who escaped communism. In both cases the system worked well in aasimilating both types of immigrants and they all became great Canadians.
I'm not sure how or if either of these types would make it in under our proposed new laws.
My point is that if we get too specific over who we accept we could miss out on some very good potential citizens.
[updated Sun Jun 08 03:42:38 -0400 2008]
08 Jun 03:42
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
Nik, I have also come to believe that Canada has nothing to fear with an expansion of free trade to include full labour mobility between Canada and the US and eventually Mexico. Welfare and medicare laws may need some adjusting to make this cost efficient to Canada so that migrants from the south will have to work to live here but in general it would be accreditive to Canada's prosperity.
[updated Sun Jun 08 14:06:55 -0400 2008]
08 Jun 14:06
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MRM
This is off topic and more relative to the last discussion regarding the Bernier incident but just watched Duffy and it seems that reports are surfacing in the Quebec media that Madame Coulliard was introduced to Bernier by and is on the payroll of the Liberal Party. If these accusations are true they will be explosive to say the least and have a devastating effect on Liberal fortunes in the Province and to a lesser extent nationally. It must be stressed though that they are, at this point, only accusations. They are being made by a La Presse reporter but it remains to be seen if there is any validity to them.
[updated Mon Jun 09 22:43:55 -0400 2008]
09 Jun 22:43
39 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
larryl
well it seems we might need a new topic for discussion. i don't know if all that can be said has been said but i can't seem to get any rebuttals to any of my posts. am i on the s..t list and nobody wants to try to convince me i am wrong. i guess if we stick to the topic people don't really have much to say. our biases seem to take us off topic pretty easily.
i need to know where to find the people on your leaders list since in 2 weeks i have yet to see any of their posts.
[updated Fri Jun 13 16:37:48 -0400 2008]
13 Jun 16:37
55 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
Subjects do wear out here larryl. Sometimes low IQ's from Tory assault teams take over as well.
[updated Fri Jun 13 17:58:45 -0400 2008]
13 Jun 17:58
larryl
parnel.It has nothing to do with I.Q.s. Why is it you have to insult rather than just they say are wrong and then try to prove it. It is quite possible that some of your opponents are as smart or even smarter than you. I disagree with 99% of what hollin and your friend have to say but i don't think they are idiots. just confused. When i first signed on to this blog i got up in the insults but soon figured out they won't listen if you aggravate them with your first shot. detente was suppose to be the new order of the day.
[updated Fri Jun 13 18:47:24 -0400 2008]
13 Jun 18:47
Are all bloggers on this site independent? Do any actually work (or volunteer or contribute) for/to a particular party? Should they declare their potential conflict of interest in some way?
Maybe we should start off, "I am a longstanding Liberal...
[updated Sat Jun 14 21:31:54 -0400 2008]
14 Jun 21:31
larryl
sharp. sorry i mistook you as someone who actually could change their political ideology to benefit the country when necessary. I have never and will never limit myself to a party. If the liberals run a really bad candidate I won't vote for that person simply because they are liberal. I don't vote for a party simply because the leader is better than the other leader. I will however vote ABC. in every election simply because they are the party of big business. OH , ABC is Anything But Conservative. You stated you are a long standing liberal as though it is something to be proud of. Why??????
[updated Sat Jun 14 21:49:56 -0400 2008]
14 Jun 21:49
I have never voted Liberal in my life. But I am get tired of voting for parties that have no chance of winning. We are so overdue for proportional representation and it is criminal that the Tories and the Grits won't reform themselves.
[updated Sun Jun 15 16:05:57 -0400 2008]
15 Jun 16:05
larryl
sharp. I voted liberal when Pierre was there because he was a socialist who played the game better than anybody else. Now I vote strategically to prevent any right wing wacko from getting in. Forgive me for thinking your statement in quotations marks " I am a longstanding liberal " was meant to be about you. I should have known you made too much sense to be a Liberal. Proportional representation won't do much to solve the problems our system was designed to facilitate. Maybe we need runoff elections to make our choices clear. Mandatory voting or rewarding voters for taking part in the process might lead to a more accurate view of what the people want. We definitely need change but the powers that be will never allow it . They like the way things are now.
[updated Sun Jun 15 16:32:00 -0400 2008]
15 Jun 16:32
I crashed the leadership convention when PET took home the prize. The whiff of grass in the stairwells was "breathtaking." The Mounties must have been on orders to lay off.
That was 40-odd years ago. Today, we're still making criminals out of casual users and wasting incredible amounts of police, prosecution and prison resources on essentially victimless "crimes."
This in the year 2008.
[updated Sun Jun 15 16:43:54 -0400 2008]
15 Jun 16:43
larryl
sharp. I am sure it was breathtaking and you took a few breaths. Does that and so many other things prove my point about obfuscation. They need diversions where ever they find them to keep us from issues that really matter. Wasting government resources on stupid court cases lets the real criminals off scott free when they don't get their cases heard quickly enough. Of course a high priced lawyer helps too.
[updated Sun Jun 15 17:01:49 -0400 2008]
15 Jun 17:01
I have never voted Liberal in my life. But I have always lived in Ottawa-Vanier and Gatineau where the Liberals have always won. Since Confederation!
So, I admit, I've not voted a few times over the past 30+ years. What's the use?
I think in terms of which parties have the best chances of winning. And support the party that best meets my values.
Little thing like peace, justice and care for the disadvantaged.
[updated Sat Jun 21 18:45:02 -0400 2008]
21 Jun 18:45
larryl
sharp. unfortunately we have very little say when it comes to government. our representatives owe their loyalty to the party. back benchers do exactly what they are told or they don't get their party nomination next election. cabinet ministers are sworn to secrecy for a reason. they have to follow party policy. since the parties are controlled by the people with the money the voters are powerless. we have become a fascist police state controlled by the neo-cons.
[updated Sat Jun 21 19:14:07 -0400 2008]
21 Jun 19:14
We're close to facsim. Meaning a marriage of government and business to oppress us. But most Canadians, including the traveling public, don't see it that way.
The American and Canadian governments have turned banks. phone companies and ISPs into corporate snitches. We used to enjoy free speech.
Not any longer.
[updated Sat Jun 21 19:39:34 -0400 2008]
21 Jun 19:39
larryl
sharp. I tried to tell you about Nik but you thought he showed no bias.
[updated Sat Jun 21 20:37:02 -0400 2008]
21 Jun 20:37
larryl
sharp. If your interested google HR 1955. you will find that the U.S. congress
passed some interesting legislation to protect Bush and Cheney from prosecution for war crimes committed in the name of homeland security. They can't be charged for starting an illegal war in Iraq or Afghanistan.Invading other U.N. countries without a declaration of war is against international law. If it is a war then when was the declaration of war actually made. NEVER. Declaring a war against terrorism does not give them the right to invade other countries especially when the so called terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19
911 attackers were from Saudi Arabia so they should have attacked the Saudis. The millitary action in the middle east has made billionaires out of war mongers.
[updated Sat Jun 21 21:32:52 -0400 2008]
21 Jun 21:32
parnel
I am a longstanding Liberal who has voted strategically inthe past as well. Unfortunatley any other votes in Canada other than Lib or PC are effectively wasted and any PC vote is an absolute waste...LOL
[updated Sun Jun 15 21:16:04 -0400 2008]
15 Jun 21:16
larryl
parnel. Why would you think that any vote is wasted. By voting for other parties you are showing your displeasure with the governing party and hopefully they will try to do better . If we keep voting for only one party why bother having an election. The liberals are far from perfect but they are usually the best choice we have and that is why they have won 80% of the time. Then again it might be that my I am right and they have been alternating power sharing with the conservatives provincially and federally. Not voting and then complaining about the outcome is really dumb. Claiming that it does not matter how you vote might be accurate since liberals and conservatives are controlled by the money men.
[updated Sun Jun 15 21:35:37 -0400 2008]
15 Jun 21:35
parnel
the only time voting for other parties would make sense is if we had proportional representation.
[updated Mon Jun 16 05:16:52 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 05:16
larryl
parnel. If we only had one choice or if if everybody voted the same way we would be living in a communist country. Our system is in need of change but proportional representation is not the answer. The opposition parties are there to oppose even when the government is doing something that benefits the majority.
Let us pick the P.M. and elect members that would represent their constituents rather than the party. We would not end up with a dictator like P.M. who wants to control everything . Patronage was perfected by lyin brian and he appointed any and all who wanted government jobs. We should pay M.P.s more to attract better candidates who would be less inclined to rip us off. The power we put in the hands of the P.M. is bound to corrupt who ever gets the job. Preston Manning might have had the right idea when he ran the reform party but the powers that be made sure he never got anywhere. They like the corrupt system just the way it is.
[updated Mon Jun 16 08:02:22 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 08:02
parnel
That would mean changing our parliamentary system for a republic type system and Canadians are not ready to do that. It would also mean major changes to our constitution that would never get past the provinces.
[updated Mon Jun 16 08:22:34 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 08:22
larryl
parnel. We agree that we need change and with an exchange of ideas like this we might come up with something better than what we have. Putting our heads together seems to be better than name calling and insults. Sometimes a dumb idea doesn't look so dumb if we look at it from a different perspective. What in the world were you doing at 5:16 A.M.
[updated Mon Jun 16 08:34:15 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 08:34
parnel
Strong coments to people who are way too biased to realize it are not insults but simply serve as wake up calls. Unfortunately their thin skins cannot take it.
516am is the latest I wake up...LOL...early bird gets the worm!!!
[updated Mon Jun 16 08:45:58 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 08:45
larryl
parnel. unless i'm going fishing ,why would I want a worm.
[updated Mon Jun 16 08:56:40 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 08:56
parnel
You may simply wish to enjoy the early morning solitude also. There are different types of fishing also
[updated Mon Jun 16 09:01:37 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 09:01
larryl
parnel.is it my imagination or paranoia that nobody is talking to me anymore.
[updated Mon Jun 16 20:49:01 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 20:49
parnel
either....there is not much to discuss and tories cannot discuss stuff because they are too embarassed by the scandals breaking every day.
[updated Mon Jun 16 21:27:31 -0400 2008]
16 Jun 21:27
MRM
I cannot speak for the others but will venture a guess that you are the reason everyone has left. Everyone is fed up with your mean spirited nonsense.
[updated Thu Jun 19 08:00:07 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 08:00
larryl
M.R.M. I hope you meant parnel was the reason everyone has left and not me . I can't recall any mean spirited comments from me lately. If you do mean me could you please check my record and point them out to me. If you can't then maybe you could prove my statements wrong . We should address our responses to an individual to avoid confusion. Exchange of opinions sometimes to lead to a change of those opinions if someone is proven wrong .
[updated Thu Jun 19 08:14:29 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 08:14
MRM
larryl. Sorry for the confusion. My comments were directed at parnel not you.
[updated Fri Jun 20 00:04:54 -0400 2008]
20 Jun 00:04
parnel
or possibly your lies
[updated Thu Jun 19 09:31:31 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 09:31
larryl
parnel. who are you calling a liar now?
[updated Thu Jun 19 09:43:32 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 09:43
parnel
not you
[updated Thu Jun 19 09:57:24 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 09:57
larryl
parnel . a liar is a person who says things he knows are not true. M.R.M. says things he believes . that is the truth to him. your beliefs are different than his because the truth is whatever a person chooses to believe. The truth is usually somewhere in between especially when it comes to political beliefs. I disagree with both of you but don't think you are liars . just wrong. all politicians are liars . they say whatever it takes to get elected.
[updated Thu Jun 19 10:13:48 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 10:13
parnel
larryl, before you came on this board I was strongly pointing out slanted pieces he was posting that led one to believe a partial story. This guy is a master at slanting things that are pro conservative and anti Liberal or any other political stripe.
He didn't like my attacks on his so called truth posts and we got into it pretty strongly.
I don't suffer fools easily
[updated Thu Jun 19 10:24:37 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 10:24
larryl
parnel. rather than insult why not just prove him wrong if you can. as i said before people believe what they want to believe until proven wrong. if they won't admit they are wrong then don't waste your time . if we read right wing newspapers or watch fox news then we only know one side. corruption exists in all political parties that have ever been in power because everyone knows power corrupts. you can't deny facts but you can dispute the truth because it is different for each of us.
[updated Thu Jun 19 10:58:08 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 10:58
larryl
hello
[updated Thu Jun 19 08:15:22 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 08:15
parnel
larryl, so you're saying the same things I'm saying except you're being socially correct...LOL
[updated Sun Jun 15 21:13:20 -0400 2008]
15 Jun 21:13
Good question larryl. I'm a Johnny-come-lately to this site and I never see anything from these people either. Who are they?
Leaders have to be around to lead. No posts in, say, 2-3 months? Off with their head! Figuratively speaking, of course.
[updated Sat Jun 14 18:45:35 -0400 2008]
14 Jun 18:45
larryl
hi real. does the "R" stand for real. You are definitely sharp er than the liberals and conservatives on this site. I think there are about twenty of us who contribute. its probably easier for nik to keep track of our comments.
[updated Sat Jun 14 19:08:40 -0400 2008]
14 Jun 19:08
larryl
good morning sharp.did you notice the latest comments. we have just heard from one of Nik's leaders . Vandaphil shows up on the bernier affair after it was beaten to death a week ago. Methinks they are trying to get us off the immigration topic because we might have hit a sore spot. Corruption at the O.L.G.,Rae and Harris screwing up the Health care system, Ontario Hydro, public education and privatizing roads has nothing to do with immigration and we should have been informed to stay on topic. The right wing pollsters who run this site do not want anyone to inform others of what is going on. According to Vandaphil"s profile SHE/he joined to-day and made it to the leaderboard first try.
[updated Tue Jun 17 08:59:55 -0400 2008]
17 Jun 08:59
This site isn't run my RW pollsters, but it is dominated by RW posters. They spew tired and failed neocon absurdities, support and vote for each other, etc. I suspect their level of undying devotion to Mr. Harper is cause for many to leave the site, never to return.
The leaderboard thing? Who knows? Maybe 5 votes puts you there. Only Nik can unravel this mystery.
[updated Tue Jun 17 18:32:18 -0400 2008]
17 Jun 18:32
larryl
sharp. If they are not rw pollsters they sure are not left wing. Quebecor's Sun and Osprey media group might qualify as RW. Good pollsters know how to pose a question to get the answer they want . They don't usually ask questions that would make the people paying for their service look bad.
You are right{correct} only Nik can explain how someone who joined yesterday could have been on the leader board the day before. Conspiracy theories everywhere.Nutty eh.
[updated Tue Jun 17 19:01:56 -0400 2008]
17 Jun 19:01
It is amazing how biased polls can sway public opinion. And, in Canada, most pollsters are decidedly pro-Harper, pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-business, etc. They are little more than prostitutes, except the harm they do is much, much worse. They pollute our society with propaganda, meaning lies.
The constant attacks on Mr. Dion's "leadership" is a case in point. This man won fair and square and has kept an excellent team together and with him ever since. There is zero (public) dissension.
In contrast, Mr. Harper has behaved liked a ruthless dictator, muzzling his team and controlling the pettiest news.
If Mr. Harper had any policies or initiatives that actually would help ordinary Canadians, maybe his tactics would be acceptable. But he doesn't. He is an ideological, neocon freak, who needs to be sent back to the corporate/RW think tanks from which he came
[updated Tue Jun 17 20:14:24 -0400 2008]
17 Jun 20:14
larryl
sharp. you and I are not going to disagree on much .unfortunately the people who need our help to grasp what the neocon objectives really are seem to have disappeared from this site. Where are Hollin, M.R.M.and the other right wingers I thought we were actually making progress with. Seeing things from a different perspective might have scared them away. They brought on the big guns from the leader board to try to stop the education of the right.
[updated Tue Jun 17 20:31:45 -0400 2008]
17 Jun 20:31
All quiet on the Western front. I am frustrated, too. I think we need to help Nik design a new poll concerning which party and which leader would be best for Canada.
I most pointedly am not talking about who is the best leader because past polls have been horribly biased. "Leadership" means a 100 things to a 100 people. It needs to be qualified to make any sense.
[updated Thu Jun 19 19:25:00 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 19:25
larryl
sharp. nik wants to ask his own questions to get the answers he wants. lets ask who the voters would they would vote for if dion was not there. we had no say in picking the liberal leader. I doubt dion would have won.
[updated Thu Jun 19 19:44:04 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 19:44
I think Nik shows zero bias. He wants to ID the next PM before anyone else. That's all. And he's done it going back several elections now.
As for Mr. Dion, I have long defended him because he has been so unfairly treated by the MSM and pollsters. This man has the best platform and best team (that has a chance of winning a majority). The constant and truly vicious character attacks against him by the Tories sicken me. What have we come to?
Just today, Mr. Harper called Mr. Dion's Green Shift plan "crazy." This is typical and, in the end, I am quite certain the Tories will suffer the consequences at the polls.
[updated Thu Jun 19 20:05:55 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 20:05
larryl
sharp. Nik runs a research firm and is paid for his services . He comes up with answers they pay him for. As for Harper he was calling the plan crazy before he had time to read it. Any plan is better than the conservative one because they don't seem to have one. The right wingers aren't commenting because they know that.
[updated Thu Jun 19 20:20:58 -0400 2008]
19 Jun 20:20
Nik Nanos (The Pollster)
Hi larryl - Nik here (the pollster) - Read your note. Personally, pollsters are more likely to get in trouble with their analysis than their numbers. As to your comment that I come up with the answers I'm paid for, you know that's an unfair comment. My priority is to get it right and to shed light on what is happening. Still, thanks for your posts. Cheers, NJN
[updated Sun Jun 22 19:42:57 -0400 2008]
22 Jun 19:42
larryl
nik. I wish I wasn't so cynical but when Sun Media hires you to poll us I'm pretty sure they prefer answers that shed more favorable light on steve and the boys.If you ask a Question like "Who is the better choice for P.M. " and then only give 2 choices , they usually get the answer they want. Ask if we have a better choice and see what the answer might be. Sorry if you thought I was unfair. Didn't mean to be.Have all the right wingers seen the light or have they opted out? can we expect a new topic soon?
[updated Sun Jun 22 20:33:57 -0400 2008]
22 Jun 20:33
k. So Parliament is gone and the political theater is over for a few months, save a H of C committee bent on investigating alleged Tory election spending misdeeds. Most Canadians don't give a ____ about what's going on in Ottawa.
This is mostly because it never gets any better for them. All they nget is less job security. Higher prices. Lower benefits. Less freedom and privacy. More environmental destruction.
We are witness to generally-condoned madness. It sickens me.
[updated Sun Jun 22 21:31:50 -0400 2008]
22 Jun 21:31
larryl
sharp. did you google HR 1955
[updated Sun Jun 22 21:40:55 -0400 2008]
22 Jun 21:40
larryl
hi
[updated Sun Jun 22 22:21:04 -0400 2008]
22 Jun 22:21
Yes I did and I am dumbfounded by the balance in this bill:
The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
10/23/2007--Passed House amended.
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add a new section concerning the prevention of violent radicalization (an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change) and homegrown terrorism (violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives).
Establishes within the legislative branch the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism to: (1) examine and report on facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States; and (2) build upon, bring together, and avoid unnecessary duplication of related work done by other entities toward such goal. Requires: (1) interim reports and a final report from the Commission to the President and Congress on its findings and recommendations; (2) the public availability of such reports; and (3) Commission termination 30 days after its final report.
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States to assist federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security officials, through training, education, and research, in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. Requires the Secretary to: (1) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and (2) report to Congress on lessons learned from survey results.
Prohibits Department of Homeland Security (DHS) efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Directs the: (1) Secretary to ensure that activities and operations are in compliance with DHS's commitment to racial neutrality; and (2) DHS Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer to develop and implement an auditing system to ensure that compliance does not violate the constitutional and civil rights or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and to include audit results in its annual report to Congress.
If our H of C could pass such clear language bills, we could be getting somewhere!
The bill itself? It's scary!
[updated Mon Jun 23 22:00:22 -0400 2008]
23 Jun 22:00
larryl
sharp. You missed some of the good parts.Your comments about Bush and company on this site could lead to your arrest without trial since you would be a considered a terrorist. The thought police have the power to arrest anyone criticizing the gov't in any way. The site you found only tells you what they want you to see . Try some of the you tube stuff to get the real story.
[updated Mon Jun 23 22:12:50 -0400 2008]
23 Jun 22:12
Hey Nik, this is to suggest your next political poll:
1. Correct sample size, etc, with the right questions. Our job here is to eliminate those who will vote one party or another or not vote, no matter what. So the questions....
2. Are you eligible to vote? If not, thank the respondent and say good bye. (Exit, say, 10% of respondents)
3. If yes, will you vote? If no, politely say good bye. (Exit, `30% of respondents but still try to send them stuff!))
4. If yes, are you certain who you will vote for this time? If yes, ask and tally which party and politely say good bye. (Exit, say 30-40% of respondents)
5. We have now identified you as a political VIP. You are eligible and intending to vote, but you are uncertain as to who or which party to vote for.
6. Most voters vote for some combination of a party's policies, their leaders and the local candidate. We are trying to determine what's most important to Canadians about a Prime Minister, and whether Mr. Harper or Mr. Dion best fits your ideals.
7. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate which of the the following qualities are most important to you for the next Prime Minister of Canada:
a) Vision for Canada (regarding war and peace, security, justice, help for the disadvantaged, etc.)
b) Policies that make a difference for me and my beliefs
c) Trust that the leader will do what s/he says and has the competence to meet his/her commitments.
d) Trust that the leader has a team of would-be Cabinet ministers that can get the job done, with dignity and frugality.
In other words, vote Liberal
[updated Sun Jun 22 21:01:08 -0400 2008]
22 Jun 21:01
For the next six weeks or so, Nik is the closest thing to reality we will see. What's your next poll about, Nik?
Please. Not "leadership."
[updated Fri Sep 05 19:41:15 -0400 2008]
05 Sep 19:41
Nik is behind in Topics: Canadians organizing to bring Chretien and Max Teitelbaum to Justice, this time a panel of Judges a total of 20 in all, selected at random from across the country, they do not have to Federal Judges, British Columbians will not allow the Federal Judges in Quebec to make a Mockery of the Justice in Canada. We stand behind Gomery all the way. Quebec is an on going trouble spot in Canada, we are going to put an end to it, with Chretien and Teitelbaum in front of this Panel, which have enforment powers.
[updated Fri Jun 27 15:24:43 -0400 2008]
27 Jun 15:24
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
MRM
I Just read some of the comments on the CTV website from BC regarding the provincial carbon tax which took effect today. If this is any indication of how the Dion Tax Shaft will be received nationally the Liberals are in for a very rough time.
[updated Tue Jul 01 23:34:31 -0400 2008]
01 Jul 23:34
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.