Trudeau's Committment to Syrian Refugees - 25,000 by Year End

[segnosaur]

I'm sure you'll find some periodicals that will try to explain it away, but the facts are the facts. Church folk (those hateful christians) give nearly 50% more in money and volunteer time than the ever so evolved atheists.

Getting a bit off topic (perhaps a new thread might be in order).

But, before we make any claims about generosity, I'd like to see what exactly those church folk are contributing their money to.

If they are giving more, but their funds are going towards "mega-churches" and similar things, then perhaps it is more a case of being gullible rather than being generous.

[dialamah]

I'm sure you'll find some periodicals that will try to explain it away, but the facts are the facts. Church folk (those hateful christians) give nearly 50% more in money and volunteer time than the ever so evolved atheists.

So, all these cliches that you live by; Cons are mean, greedy, heartless, fearful etc etc. are all unfounded.

I'm sure I could find examples of mean, greedy, heartless Conservatives if I wanted to - look at Donald Trump. And of course there are some very decent ones. But if rhetoric is anything to go by, Conservatives blame the disadvantaged for being disadvantaged, are happy to impose their personal beliefs on others, and are quite happy to turn their backs on those in need. Witness Republicans in the States fighting to shut down Planned Parenthood centers because they provide abortions, and the push to dictate what poor people can buy in the way of food, and now Republican governers saying they won't allow refugees in. I didn't think we had those kinds of attitudes in Canada, but am finding we do, among Conservative voters. And again, not saying all Conservatives, but given the rhetoric I've seen, Conservatives overall do not appear to me to be particularly generous or warm-hearted.

Risk-averse (aka fear of the unknown) is a conservative trait more than a political leaning, I think. Pretty sure there are risk-averse people who vote NDP, Liberal or Democrat.

[dialamah]

I'm not against helping people. I think what bothers me most is the mass hysteria that the government and media have whipped up over the refugee crisis. The government (any government) who will go to such lengths to provide for refugees but turn a blind eye to their own people's needs makes me angry.

At least JT has indicated some intention to help Canadians who live in poverty, and the mandate letter to the Minister of Families/Children is very specific about the goal of reducing poverty. Interestingly, this Minister is an economists who specialized in poverty so perhaps things really will improve for those in need. We shall see.

I'm also concerned about the cost. The deficit is going to cost us all dearly in the long run and the unemployment situation is promising to worsen. (Maple Leaf Food today announced a lay-off of 400 more). We are all going to be living in dire poverty at some future point. Some legacy for our children! It isn't just the Federal deficit but the Provinces are also going to need more from us.

I think they could have done this a lot more cheaply if they wanted to.

Chartering jets? If they wanted to involve the military why not use troop carriers to transport the refugees? We have ships that could transport more than a jetliner and we're already paying their crews.

Health care? Why don't they set up temporary clinics for the refugees? Maybe hire back some of the nurses that have been previously laid off? (I'm speaking here about Ontario). Our facilities here are already bursting at the seams. My husband became paralysed and almost died 2 years ago because of lack of care.

It isn't the refugees themselves or even helping them that upsets me. It is the way it is being done and the strain it will put on our services and our economy and problems that will arise that haven't even been considered yet by the majority of people.

Maybe they could have done it more cheaply, but who knows? Its pretty easy to be critical when one doesn't actually have to make the decisions. One member on here thinks its too much that they are winterizing barracks to avoid displacing military personnel already living on the base; another (or maybe the same one, I don't know) thinks it's terrible that military personnel might be displaced. So, what's the solution - save money and displace some military (which has costs of its own, I'm sure), or winterize summer-only barracks? Is it perhaps cheaper to charter planes than use military equipment? Without actually seeing the costs in front of me, I can't make that determination.

In any case the refugees are expected to repay the government for the cost of bringing them to Canada - transportation and health screening, and interest is charged on outstanding debt. Repayment is expected to start within 30 days of arrival. And, according to the news story I saw, 91% of all refugees do eventually pay the government back.

I agree with you that things are going to get worse before they get better, and I don't think it would matter who was at the helm - Trudeau, Mulcair, Harper - though they'll get blamed. I don't know that bringing or not bringing refugees would make a lot of difference, really.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure I could find examples of mean, greedy, heartless Conservatives if I wanted to.....Witness Republicans in the States....I didn't think we had those kinds of attitudes in Canada...

One could find examples of mean, greedy, heartless liberals too if always looking at the United States to rationalize a point of view. An example would be 1990's welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton. But that doesn't fit this typical cross border narrative. Canada is perfectly capable of screwing this up all by itself, just as it has in the past.

[dialamah]

^^^^ I knew as I typed Donald Trump that your notifications would go off and you'd pop on here. Partly why I used Trump although the main reason is that he's a particularly ugly example of ignorance and racism - I felt you'd not been given enough opportunity to comment on this thread. You can thank me later.

And yeah, everybody is bad at some point in their life, but repubs still win the prize. Was reading an interesting article on why so many southern whites left the democrats back in the day because although the dems started out on the right side of racism, they didn't stay the course. The republicans have, so they still get those votes.

[notca]

At least JT has indicated some intention to help Canadians who live in poverty, and the mandate letter to the Minister of Families/Children is very specific about the goal of reducing poverty. Interestingly, this Minister is an economists who specialized in poverty so perhaps things really will improve for those in need. We shall see.

I think they could have done this a lot more cheaply if they wanted to.

Chartering jets? If they wanted to involve the military why not use troop carriers to transport the refugees? We have ships that could transport more than a jetliner and we're already paying their crews.

Health care? Why don't they set up temporary clinics for the refugees? Maybe hire back some of the nurses that have been previously laid off? (I'm speaking here about Ontario). Our facilities here are already bursting at the seams. My husband became paralysed and almost died 2 years ago because of lack of care.

It isn't the refugees themselves or even helping them that upsets me. It is the way it is being done and the strain it will put on our services and our economy and problems that will arise that haven't even been considered yet by the majority of people.

Maybe they could have done it more cheaply, but who knows? Its pretty easy to be critical when one doesn't actually have to make the decisions. One member on here thinks its too much that they are winterizing barracks to avoid displacing military personnel already living on the base; another (or maybe the same one, I don't know) thinks it's terrible that military personnel might be displaced. So, what's the solution - save money and displace some military (which has costs of its own, I'm sure), or winterize summer-only barracks? Is it perhaps cheaper to charter planes than use military equipment? Without actually seeing the costs in front of me, I can't make that determination.

In any case the refugees are expected to repay the government for the cost of bringing them to Canada - transportation and health screening, and interest is charged on outstanding debt. Repayment is expected to start within 30 days of arrival. And, according to the news story I saw, 91% of all refugees do eventually pay the government back.

I agree with you that things are going to get worse before they get better, and I don't think it would matter who was at the helm - Trudeau, Mulcair, Harper - though they'll get blamed. I don't know that bringing or not bringing refugees would make a lot of difference, really.

I must say that I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful way of debating

True, we don't have the costs in front of us but we haven't heard any details of why and how the decisions were arrived at either and I think the public has a right to know. I do know it is always easy to spend someone else's money!

How will the refugees be able to pay back their costs? Not even the crooked politicians and bureaucrats who have cheated the taxpayers out of Millions of dollars have ever paid back what they owe. Refugees will have a hard time finding employment at anything but low paying jobs when the unemployment rate is rising. And when the tax rate of Corporations gets raised, more industries will go offshore creating more unemployment

Once government monies are spent you can kiss them good bye!

I agree that it wouldn't matter what government was in power, matters will get worse but it is the one in power at the time that will take the heat. If there is a major terrorist attack in Canada, a real possibility, and there is any link to even one refugee, Trudeau and his crew will have to take the responsibility for it.

Oh and about winterizing the barracks, I'm not so sure that is necessary. Lots of people have survived in shacks with no insulation - the aboriginal people in the far northern areas still do.

Edited November 26, 2015 by notca

[bush_cheney2004]

^^^^ I knew as I typed Donald Trump that your notifications would go off and you'd pop on here. Partly why I used Trump although the main reason is that he's a particularly ugly example of ignorance and racism - I felt you'd not been given enough opportunity to comment on this thread. You can thank me later.

Donald Trump does not hold public office or legislate policy for refugees....just another off topic, red meat attempt to attract attention using Canada's well known cross border neurosis. Trudeau's commitment to 25,000 refugees by year end was as fake as Trump's comb-over.

And yeah, everybody is bad at some point in their life, but repubs still win the prize. Was reading an interesting article on why so many southern whites left the democrats back in the day because although the dems started out on the right side of racism, they didn't stay the course. The republicans have, so they still get those votes.

More off topic and very old American political history...glad you are all caught up.

[WestCanMan]

That doesn't mean I dont think the west bank settlements shouldn't be abandoned. I think they are counter productive. And it doesn't mean I don't shake my head in resignation at some of the things Israel, or Israelis do at times. But it does mean I am not about to condemn them while embracing their enemies - who are in every respect worse.

I never started off here "embracing their enemies", I've been defending the point that I am not comfortable with immigration from anyone involved in that conflicted region, Jews and Arabs alike. I was branded an anti-Semite (ridiculous word) for that because somehow it's politically incorrect to say the same things about the Jews from Israel as the Muslims from Syria.

[eyeball]

I agree that it wouldn't matter what government was in power, matters will get worse but it is the one in power at the time that will take the heat. If there is a major terrorist attack in Canada, a real possibility, and there is any link to even one refugee, Trudeau and his crew will have to take the responsibility for it.

If one gets through and does kill 10 or even 100 people it would be a small sacrifice in the scheme of things compared to having spared the other 24999 people. What was the ratio of lives sacrificed compared to lives saved when our great grand-parents did their bit in the face of tyranny?

What if one of these 24999 grows up to find the cure for cancer or an insight that leads the world out of this darkness and towards peace? Who will take the credit for that?

Edited November 26, 2015 by eyeball

[dialamah]

I must say that I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful way of debating

Thanks, but I freely admit I'm not perfect in that regard, surely you've noticed. Mostly it depends on what I'm responding to.

, we don't have the costs in front of us but we haven't heard any details of why and how the decisions were arrived at either and I think the public has a right to know. I do know it is always easy to spend someone else's money!

If Trudeau is really dedicated to 'transparent' and 'open' government, then at some point I expect costs and justifications will be made public. One might prefer they be presented ahead of time, but on the other hand if the Government has to present/debate/approve everything prior to acting, it'd be at a standstill. And anyway, he was elected on a mandate that included bringing these refugees in so ....

Also, to my mind, he's not spending 'someone else's money'; he's spending Canada's money - which we've also elected him to do. People who object to how taxes are spent by claiming it 'someone else's money' don't seem to understand that paying taxes is an obligation and in that sense, it's no longer their money.

How will the refugees be able to pay back their costs?

This to me is a very valid point. I haven't verified what the news story claimed about 91% of all refugees repaying that loan, but if so that's a pretty good repayment rate - better than student loan repayment rates, I think. According to the same news story, Canada isn't the only country that expects refugees to repay monies spent resettling them, but we are the only one who charges interest on unpaid balances.

Not even the crooked politicians and bureaucrats who have cheated the taxpayers out of Millions of dollars have ever paid back what they owe.

They seem the least likely to ever pay back, honestly. Rich people/corporations avoid taxes with impunity; 'regular' people pay. Politicians get away with bilking the public purse; 'regular' people do not. Refugees appear to be more like 'regular' people than not, so far.

Refugees will have a hard time finding employment at anything but low paying jobs when the unemployment rate is rising. And when the tax rate of Corporations gets raised, more industries will go offshore creating more unemployment

I may be misremembering but I think it was the NDP who was going to raise corporate tax rates, not Trudeau - he felt the tax rate was fine where it is. Trudeau's platform was to raise taxes on the top 1% of earners.

I agree that it wouldn't matter what government was in power, matters will get worse but it is the one in power at the time that will take the heat. If there is a major terrorist attack in Canada, a real possibility, and there is any link to even one refugee, Trudeau and his crew will have to take the responsibility for it.

Don't sound so hopeful. What if there is no terrorist attack associated to any refugees? Do you think Trudeau should be given credit for screening the refugees well enough to prevent it? What if there is a terrorist attack associated to someone who gained entry to the country prior to Trudeau's taking power? Shall we let Trudeau off the hook? Should we give Trudeau a pass for two successful attacks, since that's how many got past the Conservative 'system'?

Terrorism is a risk, it's a risk no matter who is in power and accepting refugees doesn't make the risk greater. If there is anything that increases the risk of terrorists coming to Canada to carry out an attack, it's probably people who are let in under tourist or work visas.

[freeloader1969]

Our international treaties say we keep them. You may want to educate yourself on the laws and obligations we have before forming an opinion, so you don't look foolish.

Laws can be changed and were under no obligation to any other country to take in it's citizens. We do so voluntarily. I absolutely love looking foolish, it's the trend lately.

[dialamah]

Laws can be changed and were under no obligation to any other country to take in it's citizens. We do so voluntarily. I absolutely love looking foolish, it's the trend lately.

You should look it up. We have had international treaties in place since 1969, regarding taking in refugees and how we treat them.

Canada ratified the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees on June 4, 1969; both instruments entered into force for Canada on September 2, 1969. Canada then became obliged (inter alia) to provide administrative assistance to refugees and to 4 Caledon Institute of Social Policy issue them with identity and travel documents according to the terms of Articles 25, 27 and 28 of the Convention.

[Army Guy]

You should look it up. We have had international treaties in place since 1969, regarding taking in refugees and how we treat them.

Your source does not refute Freeloaders claims.....no where does it say Canada has to accept refugees, rather your source states how they should be treated AFTER we decide to accept any......

[Army Guy]

Sorry for the reprint of this, i read part of dialamah post and was confused about what exactly refugees pay for.....Just their trip over to Canada and their medical exam.....the rest is on the tax payers...

Most resettled refugees arrive in Canada with a significant debt burden, since they are expected to repay the Canadian government for their transportation to Canada as well as the cost of their medical examination undertaken as part of their processing to come to Canada. Refugee families therefore often begin life in Canada with a debt running to thousands of dollars. Interest is charged on this loan at a rate set by the Department of Finance each year.

[dialamah]

Your source does not refute Freeloaders claims.....no where does it say Canada has to accept refugees, rather your source states how they should be treated AFTER we decide to accept any......

Correct, I misread, thought he was saying we could send them back.

Sorry for the reprint of this, i read part of dialamah post and was confused about what exactly refugees pay for.....Just their trip over to Canada and their medical exam.....

Yes, thank you for clarifying.

Edited November 26, 2015 by dialamah

[Army Guy]

Our international treaties say we keep them. You may want to educate yourself on the laws and obligations we have before forming an opinion, so you don't look foolish.

Actually there are two type of refugee status in Canada....according to the link dialamah provided. permanent, or temporary....

Canada’s accession was made subject to the following reservation with respect to Articles 23 and 24: 7 “Canada interprets the phrase ‘lawfully staying’ as referring only to refugees admitted for permanent residence; refugees admitted for temporary residence will be accorded the same treatment with respect to matters dealt with in Articles 23 and 24 as is accorded visitors generally.” However, this reservation was not made in regard to any of the other Articles of the 1951 Convention which use the term “lawfully staying” (Articles 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 28 and 32).

http://maytree.com/PDF_Files/summaryrefugeesinlimboandcanadasinternationalobligation2000.pdf

[Keepitsimple]

It appears that a new challenge - maybe the biggest one - is actually finding enough "refugees" who want to come to Canada.....

Initial efforts in November by the United Nations to find Syrian refugees keen on immediately migration to Canada yielded relatively little fruit, figures released by Ottawa show. Only about one in 10 refugees indicated an interest when contacted in the latter half of November by the UN, numbers published by the federal government Wednesday indicate.

Only about 6.3 per cent of refugees contacted indicated they were interested in coming to Canada when the UN got in touch with them between Nov. 18 and 26. This was chiefly in Jordan but also in Lebanon.

The Canadian government insists refugee interest has since picked up substantially but could provide no numbers to back that up. They said a number of refugees in camps are still hoping they might return to Syria or want to remain in the region.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/syrian-refugees-not-keen-to-move-to-canada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/

Edited December 3, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[G Huxley]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/03/up-to-50000-syrian-refugees-could-be-in-canada-by-end-of-2016

Now it's 50,000. This country isn't half as bright as it should be.

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/03/up-to-50000-syrian-refugees-could-be-in-canada-by-end-of-2016

Now it's 50,000. This country isn't half as bright as it should be.

Don't for get that throughout those hard-hearted Harper years, Canada took in about 25,000 refugees every year from around the world - and there has been a well-oiled process in place to do so. So.....you can either bump that figure up to 75,000 refugees - or come to the conclusion that the Liberal promise will force refugees from other countries to wait even longer.

[G Huxley]

Glad I don't vote for either party.

[capricorn]

It appears that a new challenge - maybe the biggest one - is actually finding enough "refugees" who want to come to Canada.....

You'd think a Cabinet with so many experienced Ministers would have developed contingency plans to deal with this possibility.

[G Huxley]

Why deal with it at all? If refugees don't want to come to Canada why bother?

[Smallc]

You'd think a Cabinet with so many experienced Ministers would have developed contingency plans to deal with this possibility.

6.3% of 4M is a lot of people.

[overthere]

6.3% of 4M is a lot of people.

It is a lot, but of course has absolutely nothing to do with what happened.

[waldo]

It appears that a new challenge - maybe the biggest one - is actually finding enough "refugees" who want to come to Canada.....

what? Weren't they told Harper was punted? No worries Simple, out of a 4 million refugee pool, there will be no difficulty meeting the figure...