How should the Canadian government handle Donald Trump?

Quote:

"Liberals are continuing to deny American immigration policies have a direct impact on Canada. The Prime Minister refuses to stand up to Trump's Muslim Ban."

Was the wrong approach used on Monday?

Well, I'm not sure that (basically) complaining that "now YOUR Muslims are OUR Muslims, so knock it off!" would really be a win.

If the government wants to wade in chest deep and criticize the ban on obvious ethical and humanitarian grounds then that's great.  But I don't know to what degree "this affects CANADA too!" can really be made to fly.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So while I cannot say the wrong approach to Trump was taken on Monday, I am concerned that the wrong apporach to refugees from the US is being taken.

Mulcair also said today in QP

"Why is this Liberal government turning a blind eye to these obviously discriminatory and hateful US immigration policies."

As I said, by leaving in place the third country rule that is exactly what they are doing.

I am sure if the Liberals wanted to they could advance some kind of argument for their position but they are not. They are turning a blind eye just as Mulcair said and functionning as if nothing had changed in the US for these refugees.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

They are turning a blind eye just as Mulcair said and functionning as if nothing had changed in the US for these refugees.

Do you mean that when they cross the border into Canada, in contravention of the Safe Third Countries Agreement, we've been turning them back?  Because I've been reading about this happening out west, and it sounds like we actually aren't.

Sorry that is not the way it works.

If they get into Canada illegally they can apply for status here under the agreement but due to this agreement they cannot do it at the border so they risk their lives to sneak in. Without this agreement they could show up at a land border and apply for refugee status. As it is they risk death in sub zero weather to get into Canada and then apply (usually after being arrested).

Quote:

If they get into Canada illegally they can apply for status here under the agreement but due to this agreement they cannot do it at the border so they risk their lives to sneak in. Without this agreement they could show up at a land border and apply for refugee status.

Well, maybe we need to read "The Art of The Deal".  Because that really doesn't make any sense at all.

We agree to NOT take in refugees passing through the U.S., unless they can do so illegally, in which case we'll accept them.  And presumably the U.S. is fine with this, so long as it's done illegally.  As if they were welcoming those refugees anyway, which I guess we're sort of stealing from them, and that's the problem.

I have to guess this is an agreement that we asked for, not them, so if we're willing to overlook it, I'd be really curious to hear what their problem is with that.

Conversely, if it's CANADA that has a problem with it, what with all the new refugees and such, I'd be really curious to hear how abolishing this agreement is going to make for FEWER refugees.

quizzical wrote:

and losing extremities

Any links to that happening? 

To the rest, if we opened our borders and said all refugees and immigrants in the US can come to Canada how would we manage the numbers? That would probably take up all our refugee and immigrant quota, maybe for years to come. Already from what I have read our welcoming of Syrian refugees meant others have had to wait longer or be rejected. Personally if we are going to increase acceptance of refugees I think we should take them out of camps where people are living in desperate conditions far worse and more dangerous than any in the US. 

The NDP is grandstanding. If Mulcair were PM he would not lift the safe 3rd country agreement either. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

 

Conversely, if it's CANADA that has a problem with it, what with all the new refugees and such, I'd be really curious to hear how abolishing this agreement is going to make for FEWER refugees.

Fewer refugees -- or fewer allowed here?

The first is laudible the second not so much.

The point of this is that when they cross into Canada they cannot be admitted back to the US. If they are in the US already Canada does not ahve to accept them.

More logical than you are making out. The problem is it is not humane.

pondering's posts = Liberals are worried

quizzical wrote:

pondering's posts = Liberals are worried

They should be --

They came to power with the following support in addition to their core:

-- Environmentalists

-- Indigenous peoples

-- People who had not voted previously -- youth or those who felt their vote would not count.

-- NDP voters who thought Trudeua sounded more progressive than Mulcair

They betrayed Indigenopus people and those who wanted the electoral system to be meaningful (presumably many of those who voted for Trudeau who did not vote previously). They proved that they were the same old bait and switch party and are not that progressive.

Unless they can get the Indigenous, environmental, progressive, and those who want a better system out, they are screwed.

If they come out at all, it may be to vote against Trudeau.

To make matters worse, the broken promise also means that Trudeau will be personally resoponsible (he said it was his call) if Canada gives a false majority to a right wing Conservative. His pleas to NDP voters will only remind them of his betrayals.

If either the NDP or the CPC increase their support with a new leader, they are behind.

They should be afraid.

The only thing that can save them now is if the Conservatives pick a leader who is rejected, perhaps based on the bedlam coming from the US and Trump.

it should've been handled differently Trump is now using Justin and the womens meeting to make himself apper  in support of women. Justin whitewashed Trump and it's not ok.

Are we still pretending Trudeau has Canada's best interests at heart?  Moar shirtless Trudeau pics please!

who here was ever pretending this?

HI quizzical, sorry i don't know how to properly quote yet.

When JT was running for PM I remember a handful of people happily stating "Canada's back" (or something to that effect?).

Mighty Middle what a ridiculous, childish and dumb of him or anyone else to suggest. Don't you think?  Does anything think Tom would tell Trump or any other world leader off to their face? Nope.  It's the proverbial internet tough guy routine.

Remember this? "Justin Trudeau says he would tell off Vladimir Putin 'to his face' if he becomes PM".

We know how that turned out.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CT8Q1qDUAAAtiGq.jpg

Tom would have been all smiles and handshakes with Trump.

What is the goal in having Trudeau denounce Trump?

Who genuinely believes that is what the majority of Canadians want?

On the "Canada's back" comment. Considering the Liberals have a long history of dominating Canada politically I would say that Trudeau does portray a more traditional face of Canada to the world in comparison to Harper.

I doubt anyone on this message board underestimates the influence wielded by the wealthy through corporations over government. They don't run the government. They don't aways get their way, but no government will ignore them, asuming they even want to.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadians-dee...

But on economic policy, 53 per cent of Canadians approve of what Trump is doing versus 43 per cent of Canadians who approve of what Trudeau is doing. Trudeau’s “disapproval” rating on economic policy is 41 per cent while Trump’s disapproval on this issue is just 22 per cent.....

But on the three other policy areas Mainstreet asked about, it was all Trudeau. On immigration policy, health care policy, and his approach to foreign affairs, Trudeau’s approval rating was more than twice Trump’s approvals on the same issues.

The message from Mulcair/the NDP is that were they in power they would denounce Trump not make nice with him.

Trump just okayed Keystone and said Canadian steel can be used. He is reopening NAFTA. He could destroy our economy. That it would hurt the US too is not consolation.

Does anyone here really believe that Canadians want Trudeau to alienate Trump?

If not, why is the NDP choosing to focus on this issue. Is it a moral damn the consequences it's the principle of the thing move or is it intended to convey a facade of progressiveness to pacify members?

- Thread drift-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections

Since 1935 the Liberals have been in power 56 years, Progressive Conservatives 12 years, Conservatives 9 years.

Even combining the Progressive Conservative party with the Conservative party would give conservatives 21 years to the Liberals 56 years.

If we go back to 1921 it adds 9 years to the Liberals, 5 to the Progressive Conservatives.

From 1917 to 1921 the Unionist party won which is so far back it is not in the living memory of voters.

Basically the Liberals run Canada until Canadians are sick of them then they give the Conservatives a run. They tend to get sick of Conservatives faster.

This is why Kevin O'Leary wants the Conservatives to drop social conservatism. That, not fiscal policy, is what hold the Conservatives back.

Neoliberalism has the support of most Canadians whether they know what it is or not. This is why all three major parties support neoliberalism with the NDP willing to nibble at the edges a bit more than the Liberals.

Neoliberalism won the debate. Canadians are socially liberal but fiscally conservative, or even neoliberal. Who people think can better run the economy generally wins the election unless they think more than one leader is equally capable.

-End of thread drift.-

Concerning Trudeau and Trump. The Canadians that are aware enough to even know Trump and Trudeau met other than vaguely also understand the threat of reopening NAFTA, or at least aware of media alarm. The Economy is the terrorist of oligarchs. It is my perception of Canadians that they are pragmatic. The Economy (NAFTA) will trump making a statement.

The safe 3rd country agreement is odious. To say- if you make it to our soil, you may be able to stay, but if we stop you at a valid border crossing you are just out of luck forces people to try to cross illegally.

But, I have yet to see truely intelligent debate about how to absorb the numbers likely to cross if we lift the agreement. Many of the refugees already here are falling onto welfare and are shockingly in debt to the government for transportation costs of thousands of dollars. They are on waiting lists for english lessons. They are displacing Canadians in low income housing and that does breed resentment. The manner in which we recieve refugees is being praised by the world but I see ghettos in the making.

It is true that we can's take in all the world's refugees but we can take in more than we do and do a better job of it.

I think Mulcair is grandstanding in the house of commons. Trudeau is not going to call Trump a facist or call him out in any other way. It would not be helpful. It wouldn't improve life for a single person. The debate we need to be having is how to handle refugee inflow, how much of GDP we should be investing, if that money is better invested in the camps where millions of people are stuck. We should have classes of refugees if it means we can take more. Anyone with family here should be accepted and still government sponsored as long as they pass security checks. Groups who sponsor families should not have to take on the financial burden either. Refugees should all be government sponsored financially and should all have private welcoming groups who could help find housing and top off government support. We need to decide how much money we are spending, then ensure people coming in are given the support they need to succeed. But that also would increase resentment (racism) if Canadians themselves aren't given the support they need to succeed. Social housing is stretched to its limits.

The real conversations that need to be happening are barely a murmur while we are distracted by debating Trudeau's management of Canada's relationship with Trump and whether or not he should be calling Trump out.

So do you agree or disagree with Mulcair as to whether or not he would confront Trump if Mulcair were in power? Do you or do you not agree that he should do it? How do you think Trump would respond? How do you think Canadians would respond to that?

I view Trump as a hothead who lashes out without regard as whether or not it will benefit him. The only predictable thing about him is that he is entirely unpredictable in how far he will go. He has filled his administration with extremists who believe they can create reality. We don't know how this will shake out long term. There are legal restraints on what he can do by executive order. We shouldn't cower before him, but neither should we attack him. He will take it personally. He will retaliate. He can't be reasoned with. Throwing Canadians into poverty in order to make a statement is not the moral thing to do in my view. Neoliberalism will not be defeated without intense focus on who the economic winners and losers are as a result of every action, who is being sacrificed for the supposed greater good.

Trump is a dangerous man that I hope the US can block and defeat. Never have the checks and balances of the US system been so tested as they are now. Trump is president and surrounded by his cohorts but Congress exists, the Senate exists, the courts exist. We have no control over Trump. The best Canada can hope to do is mitigate the fallout. Trudeau calling Trump a facist would achieve nothing for anyone and would hurt a lot of people.

Pondering:   Great posts.   I don't agree with all your analysis above, but I do agree with the larger point - JT should (and will) play nice with Trump.

Can Canada Get Out of the War Business?   -  by David Swanson

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/07/can-canada-get-out-of-the-war-bus...

"Canada is becoming a major weapons dealer, a reliable accomplice in US wars, and a true believer in 'humanitarian' armed peacekeeping as a useful response to all the destruction fueled by the weapons dealing.

Now the US government is building up hostility toward Russia, and it was in Canada in 2014 that Prince Charles compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. 

What course will Canada take?"

From SeekingAPolitic...:

Let's talk politics.  Truduea can not chesse off trump(Trump can do a lot harm to Canada, I'd blame the politicals that put canada in such weak position vs US by policy carried out by past governments(1980 to now)...

​Canada is in a weak position vs the USA because Canada has 1/10th the population, and 1/30 the military strength.

Mnuchin To Wed Fiancee With Trudeau's Finance Chief Among Guests

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-23/mnuchin-to-wed-fiance...

"Through summits, bilateral meetings and a Broadway show, Canada has fanned out across the US in a push to strengthen ties with President Donald Trump's administration.

Add a wedding to the list...and Canada's Finance Minister Bill Morneau and wife Nancy McCain will be among the guests..."

With collaborators like Chrystia Freeland and Morneau,  prospects of NAFTA 'renegotiations' are looking better and better. For America. Hear that big sucking sound Canucklheads...?