liberal leadership race [Archive] - Page 2

SteelTown

Dec 4, 2006, 7:56 PM

Also, what is his stance on the military? will he mothball the thing or what? and what about afghanistan?

Stephane Dion seeks new strategy for Afghanistan
CTV.ca News Staff

Coming out of his first caucus meeting as federal Liberal leader on Monday, Stephane Dion said he wanted to develop a new strategy for Afghanistan.

"What we are doing now is not working," Dion said.

He added that he was interested in proposing a multi-nation approach comparable to the Marshall Plan, the U.S. strategy for rebuilding the allied countries of Europe and repelling communism after the Second World War.

This plan would focus on eradicating illicit crops that provided funding for warlords, Dion said.

"We are in a very, very difficult situation so we will try to propose to the government an approach that will make sense," Dion said.

lubicon

Dec 4, 2006, 8:14 PM

Are the Liberals becoming a defacto regionalist party too?

The entire federal political system in Canada has become regional with parties very strong in one part of the country and extremely weak in others. This is bad, and will threaten to divide the country more and more as time goes on. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Liberals will focus on winning the election at any cost (it's logical, and all the parties will probably do the same) which in my mind means focusing on Ontario and Quebec which is what they traditionally do. This can only cause further alienation and outrage in the west, particularly in Alberta with the end result being an extremely divided country pitting one region against another if Dion is not careful (and if he ends up winning).

Hate to say it, but I am becoming more disallusioned every day with how things are going in this country. And it looks like we may be taking more steps backward if Dion pull it off.

BTW, I find Dion and Harper very similar in that they are both very thoughtful and intelligent people, and both have the personality of a wet paper bag.

It will be interesting to see how things shake out.

trueviking

Dec 4, 2006, 8:58 PM

the liberals can easily hope to win most of ontario, the maritimes and the north...1/2 of manitoba, 1/3 of B.C. and quebec....they did worse than that last time, but i would hardly consider their focus to be regional....they are only 'extremely weak' in 2 provinces.

just because he is from quebec, doesnt mean that his policy will not be popular in english canada (alberta excluded)

i could even see harper losing some base in rural manitoba and saskatchewan if they continue to unilaterally dismantle the wheat board.

LordMandeep

Dec 4, 2006, 9:12 PM

Look a native quebec guy will win atleast 20-25 seats in quebec atleast. Plus, i doubt Ontario will go more blue.

REMEMBER! It would only take 10-11 conservative seats to switch to Liberal, for the Liberals to win. So the conservatives will have to hang on next time, or gain support some where else.

samne

Dec 4, 2006, 9:31 PM

worst case scenario, Con. minority gov.

caltrane74

Dec 4, 2006, 9:33 PM

Yeah thats defineltly the worse case scenario. But the cons prospects in Ontario look grim.

caltrane74

Dec 4, 2006, 9:40 PM

The only province where a Dion lead Liberal party would be be seriously weak is Alberta, but the Liberals couldn't win a seat here under the current archaic voting system even with God himself as party leader. The environmental focus of Dion's platform, combined with a westerner in Kennedy as his chief lieutenant, should allow the Liberals to do quite well in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and especially the lower mainland of BC and Vancouver Island.

Kennedy as a Westerner..that sounds so freaky. I always think of him as a Torontoian. ( but his roots are definetly more Western than central canadian.)

LordMandeep

Dec 4, 2006, 10:24 PM

Dion is quite all right in ontario. He is seen as a fresh new face here by people and the media.

drew

Dec 4, 2006, 11:24 PM

drew

Dec 4, 2006, 11:27 PM

...

drew

Dec 4, 2006, 11:27 PM

Kennedy as a Westerner..that sounds so freaky. I always think of him as a Torontoian. ( but his roots are definetly more Western than central canadian.)

Well he grew up in The Pas Manitoba, which doesn't really fit the definition of a "western" town.
Its a resource town in the Canadian Shield, more like a "northern" town.

IntotheWest

Dec 5, 2006, 12:02 AM

The entire federal political system in Canada has become regional with parties very strong in one part of the country and extremely weak in others. This is bad, and will threaten to divide the country more and more as time goes on. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Liberals will focus on winning the election at any cost (it's logical, and all the parties will probably do the same) which in my mind means focusing on Ontario and Quebec which is what they traditionally do. This can only cause further alienation and outrage in the west, particularly in Alberta with the end result being an extremely divided country pitting one region against another if Dion is not careful (and if he ends up winning).

Hate to say it, but I am becoming more disallusioned every day with how things are going in this country. And it looks like we may be taking more steps backward if Dion pull it off.

BTW, I find Dion and Harper very similar in that they are both very thoughtful and intelligent people, and both have the personality of a wet paper bag.

It will be interesting to see how things shake out.

I agree with this...and though I am conservative, I thought if we had to have yet another Liberal party, Ignatieff would've been good. Actually, I thought Martin would've made a real good leader long-term - it's unfortunate that he was left with Chretien's mess and no carpet to sweep it under easily...I think he did the best job as a liberal to try and bridge gaps across Canada.

As much as it shouldn't matter where the leader is from, it is hard to ignore that 1) the last several leaders have been from Quebec (actually, the majority of the 1900's, correct?), and 2) our "national" media seems to put special attention on Harper being from AB (i.e. not from Quebec??).

LordMandeep

Dec 5, 2006, 3:17 AM

Its funny how Harper was born and rasied in Toronto, but there is no place else that is so oppose to him...

Matrix

Dec 5, 2006, 4:13 AM

Look a native quebec guy will win atleast 20-25 seats in quebec atleast.

Not because is native in Québec, that we will vote for him.

In Québec, he will win back the seat that the Liberal lost in the last election. Not more not less.

But at the same time, I think that...too many people has underestimated him in the past....I mean nobody believe that he had a chance to be leader of the PLC. And nobody believe in 1996 that Stéphane Dion will stay more that four years in the politics...

malek

Dec 5, 2006, 4:48 AM

Kilgore Trout

Dec 5, 2006, 5:58 AM

he doesn't even want to pronounce the words "fiscal imbalance" and is defiently against the Quebecois nation and is pro-centralization... how the hell will people like him in Quebec? because he hugs trees?

if quebeckers dislike him so much, how do you explain the poll published today that shows 2/3 of people in quebec think he was a good choice for leader? even when you consider the margin of error, there is a large majority of quebeckers who approve of stéphane dion.

most people in this province don't give a shit about the "fiscal imbalance." besides, once harper forks over the few billion dollars needed to solve this mythical imbalance, it will be a complete non-issue.

dion voted in favour of harper's québécois-as-nation motion. in fact, dion was the only person consulted when harper drafted the motion -- even his own cabinet was left in the dark! sure, he might have had personal problems with it, but the official record shows that he supports it. how will anyone argue against that?

you know, recent polls show that two of the biggest concerns for quebeckers are the environment and afghanistan. harper's position on these issues has lost him significant support in quebec. why wouldn't dion stand to gain from this?

salvius

Dec 6, 2006, 10:37 PM

As much as it shouldn't matter where the leader is from, it is hard to ignore that 1) the last several leaders have been from Quebec (actually, the majority of the 1900's, correct?)

Wrong...

The number of PMs from Quebec from 1900s onward is 6 out of 20. Now if we look at years ruled by Quebec PMs, then it is true that the average number of years that they ruled is longer (a little below 60), but that hardly has to do with any nomination process.

malek

Dec 6, 2006, 10:41 PM

another poll today in Quebec gives the Liberals 20%, one point below last poll, and one point behind the conservatives. Bloc is surfing at 43%.

waterloowarrior

Dec 6, 2006, 11:27 PM

another poll today in Quebec gives the Liberals 20%, one point below last poll, and one point behind the conservatives. Bloc is surfing at 43%.

I wish we used mixed member proportional instead of first-past-the-post... federalist vote splitting will just mean more seats for the bloc.

In the 2006 election, Conservatives and Liberals had 45.3% of votes but 30.7% of the seats (and the NDP had 7.5% of votes but 0 seats). The bloc had 42.1% of the vote but 68% of the seats.

It's usually the left wing parties like the NDP who want some kind of proportional representation, but FPTP hurts the right and centre parties too. The Bloc always benefits - they've always had a higher proportion of seats than their proportion of the popular vote.

IntotheWest

Dec 7, 2006, 12:29 AM

Wrong...

The number of PMs from Quebec from 1900s onward is 6 out of 20. Now if we look at years ruled by Quebec PMs, then it is true that the average number of years that they ruled is longer (a little below 60), but that hardly has to do with any nomination process.

I meant years headed by a Quebec PM, but you are correct:

Laurier 1896-1911 - St Lin, Que - 15 years
Borden 1911-1920 - Grand Pre, NS
Meighen 1920-1921/1926 - Andersen, Ont
Mackenzie King 1921-1926, 1926-1930, 1935-1948 - Berlin, Ont
St Laurent 1948-1957 - Compton, Ont
Diefenbaker 1957-1963 - Neustadt, Ont
L. B. Pearson 1963-1968 - Newton Brook, Ont
Trudeau 1968-1979, 1980-1984 - Montreal, Que - 16 years
Clark 1979-1980 - High River, AB
Turner 1984 - England
Mulroney 1984-1993 - Baie Comeau, Que - 10 years
Campbell 1993 - Port Alberni, BC
Chretien 1993-2003 - Shawinigan, Que - 11 years
Martin 2003-2006 - Windsor, Ont

Anyway, I was just agreeing with the regionalism that will always be tough for a leader to overcome. If being a leader from Quebec doesn't matter, than it also shouldn't matter that Harper's riding is in Calgary...but that seems to always get a good mention from the national media.

waterloowarrior

Dec 7, 2006, 12:36 AM

louis st. laurant is from Compton, Quebec, not compton, ON

LordMandeep

Dec 7, 2006, 1:15 AM

Holy crap at King, he ruled the country with an iron fist...

MaThQc

Dec 7, 2006, 1:18 AM

And Louis-St-Laurent was in Quebec City, so add 9 years.

LordMandeep

Dec 7, 2006, 1:31 AM

Who the longest serving Member of Parliament. Including MP, Cabinet and even PM years.

Is it Jean Chretien? I think he has been going at it since 1965-1986
1990-2003??

Or this guy since 1979.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Blaikie

waterloowarrior

Dec 7, 2006, 4:05 AM

sir wilfred laurier is the longest serving - almost 45 years

MolsonExport

Dec 7, 2006, 3:27 PM

Holy crap at King, he ruled the country with an iron fist...

With a little help from dead spirits and his dog.

Taller Better

Dec 7, 2006, 5:57 PM

Look a native quebec guy will win atleast 20-25 seats in quebec atleast. Plus, i doubt Ontario will go more blue.
.

He is also a French citizen. Was he born there or did he acquire it? He refuses to renounce it.

The Chemist

Dec 7, 2006, 6:31 PM

He is also a French citizen. Was he born there or did he acquire it? He refuses to renounce it.

The only reason he has French citizenship is because his mother is French. He was born in Canada. He's never lived in France. He's never had a French passport. Why on earth should he renounce it? It's not like his loyalty to Canada is in question.

He's less French than I am Irish (born in Ireland to an Irish father and a Canadian mother), so why is this even an issue?

Kilgore Trout

Dec 7, 2006, 7:12 PM

actually, he did live in france for a few years while he obtained his doctorate in sociology at the university of paris.

i don't see any reason why he would renounce his french citizenship. this whole issue is a transparent ploy by dion's opponents to feel around for some issue that might explode into actual controversy.

i mean, seriously, gilles duceppe defended dion in the house. he of all people has more reason to attack dion than any conservative or NDPer, yet he stood up for dion's right to have a dual citizenship.

the president of latvia is a canadian citizen who lived here for decades.

The Chemist

Dec 7, 2006, 7:16 PM

the president of latvia is a canadian citizen who lived here for decades.

The first president of Ireland, Eamonn De Valera, was an American citizen too. I just don't understand why it makes a difference if a national leader happens to have dual citizenship.

This whole thing is just making a mountain out of a molehill. People who don't like Dion are just flinging mud right now and hoping that something sticks.

salvius

Dec 8, 2006, 12:45 AM

Duceppe said it very well, I think noting that he is a "modern man. He's not living in a previous century."

Who cares about the dual citizenship?

Smron

Dec 8, 2006, 6:02 AM

Did anyone catch Dion's appearance on The National tonight? He sure answered all those questions well, ESPECIALLY the one about his dual citizenship.

waterloowarrior

Dec 8, 2006, 6:27 AM

check it out here and click on the watch the national link online... it's at 22:14
http://www.cbc.ca/national/

Kilgore Trout

Dec 8, 2006, 7:03 AM

yeah, dion's performance on the national was impressive, especially his answer to the dual citizenship question. he pointed out (correctly) that john turner, who was prime minister in 1984 and liberal leader for six years, had dual citizenship: he held both UK and canadian passports. it was a non-issue back then any nobody insisted that he renounce his british citizenship just because he was prime minister.

so what has changed? i don't think canadians have become more xenophobic since 1984, so why is dual citizenship the question du jour for so many right-wing blowhards?

Taller Better

Dec 8, 2006, 7:03 AM

I figured he would cave. He now says he will drop it if there is an election with him running for PM.

so what has changed? have canadians become more xenophobic since 1984?

The answer is, of course, that the issue of the GG having dual citizenship is still fresh in everyone's
memory. Had it not been for that, no one would have cared. The GG's situation as the Queen's representative
was different than Dion's.

waterloowarrior

Dec 8, 2006, 7:35 AM

so what has changed? i don't think canadians have become more xenophobic since 1984, so why is dual citizenship the question du jour for so many right-wing blowhards?

I think the issue is that recently the media (and some people) made a bit of a deal about Ted Morton having American citizenship. Now when the Liberal leader has foreign citizenship, it's not a problem. People try to make the point that if Harper was a US citizen people would be up in arms at an "American" being PM. (though some (?) MPs and the Green Party leader are American)

I'm a Conservative (federally, at least) and I really don't care if he has dual citizenship... gotta agree with Gilles on this one :D

on a side note, there is a lot of hypociscy with the Liberal party and Americans... they will bash the Conservatives for having American ties (like in their 2006 campaigh ads) and go for votes for the anti-US crowd, then get economic benefits, convention speakers, political campaign advisors, or MPs/potential leaders.

caltrane74

Dec 8, 2006, 3:33 PM

circle33

Dec 8, 2006, 3:55 PM

.
i don't think canadians have become more xenophobic since 1984, so why is dual citizenship the question du jour for so many right-wing blowhards?

Right wing blowhards have become more xenophobic?

The Chemist

Dec 8, 2006, 4:13 PM

I bet if his second citizenship was Anglo (Australian, English, etc) there wouldn't be any uproar at all. He was keeping his French citizenship in honour of his mother - nothing more.

I'll note that Ezra Levant (a smug bigot who I wish would just go away, BTW), the one who made the biggest fuss over this issue had no such issues whatsoever with Ted Morton's American citizenship - in fact, Levant was one of Morton's biggest boosters. Can we say hypocrisy?

MaThQc

Dec 8, 2006, 4:36 PM

« Je m’en moque absolument »

Michel Corbeil

Le Soleil

La mère de Stéphane Dion se « moque absolument » que son fils Stéphane, le nouveau chef du Parti libéral à Ottawa, laisse tomber sa citoyenneté française. Cette polémique provenant du Canada anglais apparaît un peu « idiote » à Denyse Dion, même si cela l’amuse beaucoup. « Ce sont des chinoiseries politiques. »

Jointe à son domicile, dans l’arrondissement de Sainte-Foy--Sillery à Québec, Mme Dion a beaucoup ri de la polémique entourant la double nationalité de son fils. « Ce sont surtout les Canadiens anglais » qui sont à l’origine du débat, a-t-elle glissé dans la conversation. « Ils sont très chatouilleux là-dessus. Stéphane m’avait déjà dit, une fois, qu’ils “n’aiment pas beaucoup que je sois Français”. »

La dame âgée de 77 ans a énoncé une évidence qu’il convient de rappeler. « Stéphane n’y est pour rien. Je suis une Française de naissance. J’ai épousé un Canadien (Léon Dion, un universitaire de renom, décédé il y a quelques années).

« Mes enfants, quand ils sont nés, automatiquement, je les ai fait inscrire au Consulat français. Je trouve que la double nationalité, c’est quelque chose de merveilleux. »

http://images.cyberpresse.ca/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CP&Date=20061207&Category=CPSOLEIL&ArtNo=61207197&Ref=AR&Profile=5293&MaxW=170&Q=85

----

Je pense que le problème vient que beaucoup de gens utilisent la double nationalité pour jouer sur le système, comme par exemple, quand il y a eu guerre au Liban, plusieurs gens ont utilisé leur double nationalité pour quitté le pays au frais des contribuables canadiens, sans même y vivre. M. Harper a lui même dit qu'il pensait interdit la double nationalité pour éviter ce genre d'abus.

caltrane74

Dec 8, 2006, 5:25 PM

Country over Mom

Taller Better

Dec 8, 2006, 5:38 PM

« Ce sont des chinoiseries politiques. » LOL!! Don't hold back, Madame Dion. Get it all out!

He is a big boy now and can make up his own mind what he wants to do. One thing is clear, however,
after the big GG issue, like it or not the issue will always be raised for the Prime Minister or GG from now on, if they hold a dual citizenship from any other country. It is, as my mother used to say, a "tempest in a teapot".

Greco Roman

Dec 8, 2006, 5:48 PM

[B]
Je pense que le problème vient que beaucoup de gens utilisent la double nationalité pour jouer sur le système.

Exactly. This is purely symbolic and nothing else; this does nothing to empower the people of Quebec (those who wish to seperate, anyways). They are no better off than before. Harper is only trying to appease those in Quebec who are pro-seperatist. He's not getting to the root of the problem (of which I'm not sure of what it is myself). I honestly don't know what the answer would be. This is the same issue with the Aborigional people. How do you make everyone happy, I mean TRULY happy?

MaThQc

Dec 8, 2006, 6:27 PM

Si le Québec se sépare, je vois pas pourquoi que les québécois auraient la double citoyenneté, soit canadienne et québécoise.

En cas de séparation du Québec, moi je ferais plutôt une "Union canadienne" à l'exemple de l'Union européenne, et qu'on est un passeport de l'Union canadienne et qu'on puisse aller ou on veut dans cette Union, comme dans l'UE.

Parce que, sans lancer de débat, l'Ouest canadien tourne autour aussi du 50% de faveur pour la souveraineté de l'Ouest canadien.

mais bon, on est pas encore rendu là, mais il existe des façons de faire ailleurs, qui serait bon ici. Mais c'est purement hypothétique.

Greco Roman

Dec 8, 2006, 6:58 PM

En cas de séparation du Québec, moi je ferais plutôt une "Union canadienne" à l'exemple de l'Union européenne, et qu'on est un passeport de l'Union canadienne et qu'on puisse aller ou on veut dans cette Union, comme dans l'UE.

This is an interesting concept, I just wonder if it would be accepted by the rest of Canada, or the government for that matter. Being able to go whereever you want requires a lot of trust, and in these days of the big "terrorist threat", I wonder if that trust still exists. I am not opposed to it, but I would rather see my country stay united. Some will not agree with me, but I love the diverse flavor we have, and it would be ashame to see it crumble.

Parce que, sans lancer de débat, l'Ouest canadien tourne autour aussi du 50%de faveur pour la souveraineté de l'Ouest canadien.

mais bon, on est pas encore rendu là, mais il existe des façons de faire ailleurs, qui serait bon ici. Mais c'est purement hypothétique.

I remeber a few years back when Klein was so upset with the though of the federal government getting their hands on Alberta's oil riches, that Klein was threatening seperation from the rest of Canada. BC has apparently felt isolated and has also pondered this aswell. Canada is a very segregated country in my opinion; instead of learning and respecting eachother; everyone wants to be better than everyone else. We have so much potential as a nation, and yet we seem to not get along with one another. I wonder if this will ever change.

MaThQc

Dec 8, 2006, 7:31 PM

Certes, c'est seulement hypothétique mon idée. Mais bon, nous sommes dans un pays démocratique et comme que l'Ouest canadien, l'Alberta, le Québec, et les trois territoires possèdent leur propre groupe souverainiste fédéraux, il faut avoir un plan B.

Pour cela je pense que l'Union canadienne serait une alternative intéressante.

Taller Better

Dec 8, 2006, 7:35 PM

It would definitely depend on if it were agreed upon by both sides, and that would depend on the nature of the separation. I would say that it is not a foregone conclusion that Quebecers would be able to keep Canadian citizenship, however. Would depend on how amicable the "divorce" was.

caltrane74

Dec 8, 2006, 7:42 PM

if after seperation Quebecs still have Canadian Citizenship and Passports. Then Quebec is still part of Canada. No breakup of the country will be complete because quebec would never have its own Currency anyway.

And I'm sure the Feds would assume all of Quebecs Debt too. (not the provincial.) Of course they (quebec gov't) would have to buy all the Federal Buildings in quebec from the Feds. ( And federal land too..dont even metion the natives. Seperation would be dicey.) And montrealer's is a whole other storey.

Man I'm way off topic.

Dion give up the France Citizenship you dont need it.

Kilgore Trout

Dec 8, 2006, 8:00 PM

I would say that it is not a foregone conclusion that Quebecers would be able to keep Canadian citizenship, however. Would depend on how amicable the "divorce" was.

i'm don't think there is any legal basis for stripping canadians of their citizenship. your citizenship is an unalienable right.

Taller Better

Dec 8, 2006, 8:26 PM

i'm don't think there is any legal basis for stripping canadians of their citizenship. your citizenship is an unalienable right.

It would be terribly easy for Canada (what's left of it) to pass a law forbidding dual citizenships. Even our friend Steve Hopeless is considering this. Then if someone wanted to become a Quebec citizen, they would have to choose. I am not saying it would be like this; I am saying it could be like this.. nothing is guaranteed when it comes to nationality. Brazil refuses to acknowledge any dual citizenship. Laws can be re-written, and frequently are. In the same way, I doubt if every Canadian would have an automatic right to a Quebec citizenship... see my point?

Greco Roman

Dec 8, 2006, 8:31 PM

It would be terribly easy for Canada (what's left of it) to pass a law forbidding dual citizenships. Even our friend Steve Hopeless is considering this. Then if someone wanted to become a Quebec citizen, they would have to choose. I am not saying it would be like this; I am saying it could be like this.. nothing is guaranteed when it comes to nationality. Brazil refuses to acknowledge any dual citizenship. Laws can be re-written, and frequently are. In the same way, I doubt if every Canadian would have an automatic right to a Quebec citizenship... see my point?

Doesn't the USA refuse to acknowledge dual citizenship as well?

Taller Better

Dec 8, 2006, 8:46 PM

Doesn't the USA refuse to acknowledge dual citizenship as well?

Quite possibly. Most nations consider it a right, not a privilege to retain their citizenship, and will take any measures they choose to protect it. It is entirely an internal matter for that country and I doubt if there is any international law than can stop them.

drew

Dec 8, 2006, 9:13 PM

Doesn't the USA refuse to acknowledge dual citizenship as well?

Yep. I know a few people with American parents who went south of the border to get their American citizenships. Part of the process includes renouncing whatever previous citizenship you have.

Then, with new American passport in hand, you sheepishly head back home to your renounced home country. The whole process would leave a bad taste in my mouth... guess it depends on how much a SIN and working in the US means to you.

You will also need to always travel from Canada to the US using your US passport to avoid some serious sh*t at the border.

e909

Dec 8, 2006, 9:18 PM

Yep. I know a few people with American parents who went south of the border to get their American citizenships. Part of the process includes renouncing whatever previous citizenship you have.

Then, with new American passport in hand, you sheepishly head back home to your renounced home country. The whole process would leave a bad taste in my mouth... guess it depends on how much a SIN and working in the US means to you.

You will also need to always travel from Canada to the US using your US passport to avoid some serious sh*t at the border.
Nah, there seems to be some grey area for Canadians naturalizing in the United States. I know several people who haven't had to renounce their citizenships.

drew

Dec 8, 2006, 9:25 PM

^hmmm. Maybe the people I know volunteered to renounce their Canadian-ness...

That settles it. They are off the christmas card list...

Taller Better

Dec 8, 2006, 9:36 PM

^hmmm. Maybe the people I know volunteered to renounce their Canadian-ness...

That settles it. They are off the christmas card list...

You are a friend of Conrad Black, too!??!? :smiley3: I struck him off my list for
invitations to my soirees once he gave up his Canadian citizenship. I've not spoken to his Lardship since.

Dylan Leblanc

Dec 8, 2006, 10:58 PM

Although I feel democracy is a good thing, I can't help but feel that the Liberal leadership race is a bit of a freakshow. The things they were debating, that I heard of at least, just don't jive with my politics. I glad we have our current Prime Minister for now.

Smron

Dec 9, 2006, 1:10 AM

Taller Better

Dec 9, 2006, 7:07 AM

So what IS the problem with having dual citizenships? I don't think anybody has yet mentioned what is wrong with him having this. All you people say is 'renounce it!'... for what? He gave a good reason for why he wanted to keep it on The National last night. He also did not 'cave in' as Taller_Better suggests... He did not say he would renounce his French citizenship if he became Prime Minister... he said if it proved to hinder his chance at becoming Prime Minister, he would regretfully give it up.

People just need to let this issue die... I, for one, am amused. They are just trying to think of any dirt they possibly can on Dion... and it seems there is none. If this trivial issue is the best the Conservatives can come up with to stick to Dion, it shows that they are going to be in for a rough time.

What's with all the drama? Of course he caved into pressure. The day before he catagorically denied he would ever give it up. The next day he says he will. If that is not caving, then what the heck is? What else could have happened? Did he get instructions from God in his sleep, like Jeanne d'Arc?
I think you exaggerate about the number of people who care about his citizenship? I certainly don't. He is not Canada's Head of State and never will be. I can't believe he is even going to be running for Prime Minister. What's with your role of pseudofrancophone ? Does that mean you pretend to be French? :shrug:

Smron

Dec 9, 2006, 8:51 AM

What's with all the drama? Of course he caved into pressure. The day before he catagorically denied he would ever give it up. The next day he says he will. If that is not caving, then what the heck is? What else could have happened? Did he get instructions from God in his sleep, like Jeanne d'Arc?
I think you exaggerate about the number of people who care about his citizenship? I certainly don't. He is not Canada's Head of State and never will be. I can't believe he is even going to be running for Prime Minister. What's with your role of pseudofrancophone ? Does that mean you pretend to be French? :shrug:

I've had that 'pseudofrancophone' thing up there for a few months, I don't know what urged me or where the word came from... I just did it. I guess I put it there because although my French is not perfect (far from it, actually), I try to use it every chance I get just to make sure I don't forget even more of it. The thing is, I don't know have any close personal friends to speak French with, so I just speak it to my English speaking friends at times, for no good reason. The word in question is the first thing that came to mind when I thought about that. It's also more creative than "Registered User". Hopefully that answers your question in detail.

On the issue of 'drama'... I don't see any. It just annoys me that people are calling for him to renounce his French citizenship even though there is no reason to do so. The only reason this is even being discussed is because we are in the middle of this whole "Is-Québec-A-Nation-Within-Canada" dilemna. I am going to go out on a limb here and say if this had been six months earlier OR if this were, for example, Ken Dryden we were talking about instead of Stéphane Dion, this would not have received the slightest amount of attention. Like I said, if this trivial issue is the best 'dirt' the Conservatives can dig up on Dion, well, that's really stretching it.

malek

Dec 9, 2006, 4:45 PM

Wasn't PM Turner a citizen of both Canada and the UK ?

No fuss.

Again, double standards.

e909

Dec 9, 2006, 6:32 PM

Wasn't PM Turner a citizen of both Canada and the UK ?

No fuss.

Again, double standards.
He still pledged allegiance to the queen, in either standard. France is another story.

I've never understood how you can be loyal to two countries, though. Isn't it kind of like having two wives?

MaThQc

Dec 9, 2006, 6:46 PM

Well, my uncle is vietnamiese, and he's loyal to Canada and Viet-Nam.

You can be loyal, why not man?

Personnaly, I don't really care about the queen. It's a symbol. Like the GG.

Dans la mondialisation, et surtout au Canada, puisque 600 000 canadiens et canadiennes ont deux nationalités au Canada... et ça, c'est sans compté ceux qui ont la nationalité canadienne qui vivent pas au pays...

Je pense qui devrait y avoir du cas par cas.

La France, pas de problème, système politique stable et démocratique.

Le Liban, non, système politique non-stable et non-démocratique.

Élargissez vos esprits... ça sert à rien de garder des vieilles valeurs qui ne correspond plus à notre contexte socio-culturel, car c'est vous qui risquez de manquer le bateau.

Kilgore Trout

Dec 9, 2006, 6:48 PM

He still pledged allegiance to the queen, in either standard. France is another story.

canada and the UK might share a queen, but they're still sovereign countries in every respect.

"loyalty" to your nation-state is kind of an outmoded concept, isn't it? i mean, we aren't the subjects of empire anymore. fighting against multiple citizenship is fighting against globalization. it's like being a luddite. fight all you want, the world isn't going backwards.

on that note, i should point out that the concept of citizenship was not universally embraced until relatively recently. there was no such thing as canadian citizenship until after WWII; passports didn't even make an appearance until the end of the 19th century, when the concept of the nation-state emerged.

in the 1990s it was popular to assume that nation-states were becoming less and less relevant. recently there has been a bit of a backlash against this idea. personally, i think that while nation-states are not becoming irrelevant, their purpose and function is changing. boundaries are becoming less rigid in many regards, especially in terms of trade. as long as their is international trade

standards change... deal with it.

incidentally, the united states does not require dual citizens to renounce their non-american citizenships. from wikipedia:

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952).

Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other,” (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952).

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not define dual citizenship or take a position for it or against it. There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists. Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship.

Although the U.S. Government does not endorse dual citizenship as a matter of policy, it recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens. In the past, claims of other countries on dual-national U.S. citizens sometimes placed them in situations where their obligations to one country were in conflict with the laws of the other. However, as fewer countries require military service and most base other obligations, such as the payment of taxes, on residence and not citizenship, these conflicts have become less frequent. As a result, there has been a dramatic increase in recent years in the number of Americans who maintain citizenship in other countries.

Kilgore Trout

Dec 9, 2006, 6:54 PM

It would be terribly easy for Canada (what's left of it) to pass a law forbidding dual citizenships. Even our friend Steve Hopeless is considering this. Then if someone wanted to become a Quebec citizen, they would have to choose.

canada cannot force anyone to renounce their citizenship. a parliamentary "ban" on dual citizenship would simply mean that canada would not recognize any other nationalities its own citizens may have.

it's no different that the many dual chinese/canadian citizens living in canada. china does not recognize their canadian citizenship, so when they travel to china, they are considered chinese citizens only.

trueviking

Dec 9, 2006, 7:38 PM

if this is the best they got on dion, he was clearly the right guy for leader...good luck making this stick.

harper may only have candian citizenship, but his percieved allegiance to the U.S. real or not is far more engrained in candian public opinion than dion's allegiance to france ever will be.

dion's response that french citizenship was a gift from his mother and he keeps it in her honour is the perfect response.

e909

Dec 10, 2006, 3:21 AM

canada cannot force anyone to renounce their citizenship. a parliamentary "ban" on dual citizenship would simply mean that canada would not recognize any other nationalities its own citizens may have.

it's no different that the many dual chinese/canadian citizens living in canada. china does not recognize their canadian citizenship, so when they travel to china, they are considered chinese citizens only.
We can force those seeking our citizenship to renounce all others. But for those born to another citizenship, while being Canadian, you're right.

trueviking

Dec 10, 2006, 3:44 AM

We can force those seeking our citizenship to renounce all others. But for those born to another citizenship, while being Canadian, you're right.

the government does not force anyone to renounce their citizenship to another country...it is basically a dont ask, dont tell policy....as it is in the states.

e909

Dec 10, 2006, 4:00 AM

the government does not force anyone to renounce their citizenship to another country...it is basically a dont ask, dont tell policy....as it is in the states.
actually, I was saying that was a possibility for those interested in that sort of action.

As far as Canada goes, I don't think you have to renounce any citizenship, officially.

Taller Better

Dec 10, 2006, 4:42 AM

We can force those seeking our citizenship to renounce all others. But for those born to another citizenship, while being Canadian, you're right.

i'm don't think there is any legal basis for stripping canadians of their citizenship. your citizenship is an unalienable right.

Under current legislation, yes. After the hypothetical separation, any changes imaginable may happen. Every country has complete control over its citizenship/residency requirements that it chooses. Look what happened to all the "British Passports" that had been previously issued in Hong Kong when the repatriation to China came. Suddenly the previously bona fide British Passports in Hong Kong were changed to be not equivilent to a normal UK passport to prevent a flood of immigration to the UK. Anything can be changed and it often is, especially in separations that are unpleasant. Brasil will not recognise dual citizenships, and it is forbidden for anyone born in Brasil to enter that country with a foreign passport. Nada. Zip. They will not let you in. They can make renewing passports for nationals living in other countries as difficult as they choose. So, it is a futile discussion talking about current laws with a hypothetical separation. It is worthwhile pointing out that not every existing Canadian law would remain the same in the event of a separation. The Charter would automatically have to be re-written to suit the new reality.

Kilgore Trout

Dec 10, 2006, 7:36 AM

vid

Dec 10, 2006, 7:43 AM

After thinking about it a bit I don't think having dual citizenship would really get in the way. His French citizenship is only because his mother was from there anyway, I hardly think he would become Prime Minister and then dump us for some cushy job at Airbus. Isn't that Martin's gig?

Taller Better

Dec 10, 2006, 3:32 PM

well of course this is all speculation -- but it's very easy to speculate. it is incredibly hard to rewrite the constitution. it didn't work in 1987, it didn't work in 1992 and it probably won't work in the future, especially for something that would deprive millions of canadians of something they once have.

You have hit the nail on the head, it would be incredibly hard to do but if the country splits up there would be no choice, would there? The Constitution as it stands regards the nation as it is today.
A theoretical separation would make all sorts of incredibly difficult situations, but they would have to be dealt with whether anyone likes it or not.

Andy6

Dec 10, 2006, 3:38 PM

You have hit the nail on the head, it would be incredibly hard to do but if the country splits up there would be no choice, would there? The Constitution as it stands regards the nation as it is today.
A theoretical separation would make all sorts of incredibly difficult situations, but they would have to be dealt with whether anyone likes it or not.

So all these independent Quebeckers will still, as Canadian citizens, be voting in our elections? I don't really see that going down very well. I would think that Quebeckers would be given a limited time to elect between Canadian and Quebec citizenship.

Taller Better

Dec 10, 2006, 6:06 PM

It wouldn't work that way, with people from either nation voting; neither Canada or Quebec would want it (even moreso Quebec). Laws would be drawn up to determine how it would work.
A commonly asked question is: "Could a separate Quebec still use a Canadian dollar?" The answer is, of course, yes. They could use any currency they please, even the US greenback. The drawback of using a foreign currency is that they would have no say in charting its course, and would be at the mercy of the host nation's currency planning. The most likely scenario is they would make their own currency.

malek

Dec 11, 2006, 2:47 AM

Taller Better

Dec 11, 2006, 4:34 AM

exactly, and moreso because we have in our collective pockets and bank accounts billions of dollars, who will come and take the bills out of my pants?:P

I dunno, but I met a few strippers over the weekend who appeared to
be mighty good at doing just that! Get pants with zippers on the pockets...:tup:

Actually, there is no reason why any country, anywhere cannot use another country's currency. It is good for the host country to have their currency bought up. It is not so good for the new country using someone else's money as they literally have no control over it whatsoever. Far better to bite the bullet and create a new currency. Let's face it, there is no point having gone to all the problems of creating a separate country if you are going to just turn around and use the mother country's currency.....:yes:

vid

Dec 11, 2006, 4:53 AM

exactly, and moreso because we have in our collective pockets and bank accounts billions of dollars, who will come and take the bills out of my pants?:P

Huh?

'Quebec wants to separate because we want more control over ourselves! ... But we want to use Canadian Money! We don't like control over money!'

I must be missing a point here or something? :(

malek

Dec 11, 2006, 2:26 PM

I dunno, but I met a few strippers over the weekend who appeared to
be mighty good at doing just that! Get pants with zippers on the pockets...:tup:

:haha: :haha: :haha: I guess I was wrong :)

Actually, there is no reason why any country, anywhere cannot use another country's currency. It is good for the host country to have their currency bought up. It is not so good for the new country using someone else's money as they literally have no control over it whatsoever. Far better to bite the bullet and create a new currency. Let's face it, there is no point having gone to all the problems of creating a separate country if you are going to just turn around and use the mother country's currency.....:yes:

absolutely, in the short to mid term, we will keep using the canadian currency, but in the long term there will have to be something else.

Kilgore Trout

Dec 11, 2006, 5:28 PM

ah, the famous we...

caltrane74

Dec 11, 2006, 6:26 PM

absolutely, in the short to mid term, we will keep using the canadian currency, but in the long term there will have to be something else.

Quebec Franc (itz kinda like a Swiss Franc, but different)

malek

Dec 11, 2006, 6:54 PM

ah, the famous we...

:rolleyes: OUI

Doug

Dec 12, 2006, 6:49 PM

Nah, there seems to be some grey area for Canadians naturalizing in the United States. I know several people who haven't had to renounce their citizenships.

You don't don't have to renounce your citizenship when you become an American citizen. However, there are often tax advantages to doing so. The US requires all citizens (dual or otherwise) to pay income tax on their global earnings. If those earnings are in a country with tax reciprocity with the US, you can deduct the taxes paid in that country against US taxes. Since almost all other nations have higher tax burdens that the US, that means paying no US tax but it still requires filing a tax form, which is a pain in the ass. The intent seems to be to prevent people from evading American taxes by residing in tax havens, which is a legitimate motive. Canada is different in that it only taxes its citizens on income earned within Canada.

I renounced my Canadian citizenship in 2003 for taxation reasons. While I was employed in the US, I still had two business interests in Alberta. Dumping the citizenship eliminated a lot of paperwork and resulted in some tax savings. The biggest motivation was certainty. As I planned to sell the business, the tax treatment would have been both complex and uncertain. The only thing I lost through renouncing the citizenship was the ability to claim Canada Pension, which is no big deal as it probably would be around by the time I would have qualified. I also have to pay full Canadian income tax on my RRSP's once I eventually close them out.

I have no problems with dual citizenship for politicians or otherwise. There definitely should be a fee (say $1,000 per year) to maintain the absentee citizenship if one is out of the country for more than a reasonable period of time, say two years, to guard against "citizenships of convenience" where people seek out official citizenship in another country as an insurance policy against political unrest in their native country.

Taller Better

Dec 12, 2006, 7:16 PM

The pain in the neck for maintaining an American citizenship, if you are Canadian, is that you MUST complete income tax forms every year. If you rarely go to the USA this can be a pain. Countries have their ways of making dual citizenships awkward, if they choose....

drew

Dec 12, 2006, 7:24 PM

The people I know simply renounced their Canadian citizenship for ceremonial purposes while in the US completing their citizenship process. It had nothing to do with anything "official" in terms of their Canadian citizenship. FWIC the declaration of only your US citizenship and renouncement of all others is a requirement when becoming an American Citizen, seeing as they don't recogonize duals...

But, yes they do need to fill out both countries tax returns

Taller Better

Dec 12, 2006, 8:17 PM

^^ So, in other words you just lie and say you have renounced your Canadian citizenship? They don't require any proof? How bizarre!

e909

Dec 12, 2006, 11:21 PM

You don't don't have to renounce your citizenship when you become an American citizen. However, there are often tax advantages to doing so. The US requires all citizens (dual or otherwise) to pay income tax on their global earnings. If those earnings are in a country with tax reciprocity with the US, you can deduct the taxes paid in that country against US taxes. Since almost all other nations have higher tax burdens that the US, that means paying no US tax but it still requires filing a tax form, which is a pain in the ass. The intent seems to be to prevent people from evading American taxes by residing in tax havens, which is a legitimate motive. Canada is different in that it only taxes its citizens on income earned within Canada.

I renounced my Canadian citizenship in 2003 for taxation reasons. While I was employed in the US, I still had two business interests in Alberta. Dumping the citizenship eliminated a lot of paperwork and resulted in some tax savings. The biggest motivation was certainty. As I planned to sell the business, the tax treatment would have been both complex and uncertain. The only thing I lost through renouncing the citizenship was the ability to claim Canada Pension, which is no big deal as it probably would be around by the time I would have qualified. I also have to pay full Canadian income tax on my RRSP's once I eventually close them out.

I have no problems with dual citizenship for politicians or otherwise. There definitely should be a fee (say $1,000 per year) to maintain the absentee citizenship if one is out of the country for more than a reasonable period of time, say two years, to guard against "citizenships of convenience" where people seek out official citizenship in another country as an insurance policy against political unrest in their native country.
That makes sense to me. However, isn't it awkward coming back into Canada as an immigrant with a Canadian birth certificate (assuming you were born here)? Is it any easier to gain your citizenship back after you've renounced it, as compared to someone who is naturalizing in Canada for the first time?

Doug

Dec 13, 2006, 3:58 PM

^^ So, in other words you just lie and say you have renounced your Canadian citizenship? They don't require any proof? How bizarre!

That is true. How could the American government force an individual to renounce their citizenship from another country that does recognize dual citizenship? Tax American citizens based on global income more or less forces the individual to make the choice.

MaThQc

Dec 13, 2006, 9:09 PM

Greco Roman

Dec 13, 2006, 9:59 PM

Un sondage publié aujourd'hui montre que les appuis aux conservateurs ont fondu de moitié au Québec.

Le Bloc Québécois remonte la pente de 40% à 45%.

Les libéraux sont maintenant à 27%, 12% pour les conservateurs, 8% pour les verts et 7% pour le NPD.

Well, lets just wait and see how this plays out. Give it a couple months, and then we will see what the people really think.

malek

Dec 13, 2006, 10:11 PM

yeah its the post-race boost, things will level out between the cons and liberals.

vid

Dec 14, 2006, 12:12 AM

Interesting that the Greens are higher than the NDP in Quebec. What did the NDP do that pisses you off so much?

malek

Dec 14, 2006, 12:39 AM

nothing, they never had any roots here.

Maybe because they have no credible francophone running for them in quebec, other than my ex-crazy accounting teacher.

vid

Dec 14, 2006, 1:04 AM

Well that sounds reasonable. They're only popular here because of our abundance of communists. All of their candidates have sucked steady for the past decade, but then they aren't really up against much.

caltrane74

Dec 14, 2006, 4:37 PM

I think Dion appeals to Quebecers on 2 levels. He's soft on Afganistan which they like. And he is really green on Kyoto which they like.

I'll throw in he is also a Quebec'r, which cant hurt him there either.

He is already kickin' ass in the Ontario polls. Considering the con roots here are weak as frick and frack. Next election Ontario will be blood red.

Taller Better

Dec 14, 2006, 5:44 PM

As long as Quebec doesn't inexplicably swing back to the neo-con Conservatives then Mr. Harper shouldn't get too comfy in his new digs on
Sussex Drive. Also it will be fun to watch how long he can continue to pretend that Ontario doesn't exist! LOL!

MolsonExport

Dec 14, 2006, 6:10 PM

nothing, they never had any roots here.

Maybe because they have no credible francophone running for them in quebec, other than my ex-crazy accounting teacher.

I like the description but it could be interpreted different ways:

1. He is your 'Ex', and he is also an accounting teacher who happens to be crazy.
2. He used to be crazy, but he is not anymore, all the while being an accounting teacher.
3. He was once your crazy accounting teacher.
4. He used to teach you a crazy form of accounting.
5. He is really quite a normal guy (who used to teach accounting to you), but since he is running for the NDP, he must be crazy.
6. He continues to teach a crazy form of accounting, and you and him were formerly partners.
...

:D forgive my silliness.