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

waldo · January 30, 2016

Liberal party corruption had to show up sooner or later....may as well be a Syrian refugee caper....good as any other.

don't hesitate to provide qualification for your use of the word 'corruption' - sure you can!

Derek 2.0 · January 30, 2016

when challenged to put up something specific and concrete, you openly state "you don't know"... "there's no way to know". But in spite of that open acknowledgement, you didn't directly target the government with your presumptive concern; instead you targeted the newly elected MP and the company that realized a contract; i.e., your inNuEnDo!

Were we not discussing the recent story from the Star, involving the evictions of tenants of a hotel, why wouldn't the company seeking housing for refugees from the story be noted? Likewise any relationship that it had/has with a member of the Liberal Government.

All my citations are public record, if any are incorrect, I'd gladly correct them.

excuse me as a quote from 'Michelle Rempel' is hardly a source I'll bother with. Your word 'hiding' is simply you over-reacting to a generalized 'security reasons' reference I keep coming across... and apparently, this all focuses on the "Welcome Kits' given to the refugees upon their arrival. And I read it in relation to the government not wanting to disclose the names and/or locations of vendors providing materials to fill those kits.

No it doesn't, the cited CBC story clearly speaks to other concerns relating to contracts, including housing services, which would directly tie into the more recent Star article.

Here's a thought: given the backlash from the usual detractors of immigration/refugees... and given, particularly, the inflammatory rhetoric from Harper Conservatives during the election campaign... with a resulting degree of public backlash to immigrants/refugees, to the program itself... is there any chance of targeted "ill will" towards vendors supplying materials for the kits? Accordingly, any reason why not to disclose the names/locations of the vendors, hey? Ya think!

Interesting logic.........by using that, the Government shouldn't disclose contracts pertaining to the military or the RCMP, since they engage in actions that could invoke public (or international) backlash......or contracts with Government workers, as that could invoke backlash against members of PSAC........Or contracts involving First Nations....the CBC....Industry....etc etc etc

:lol:

WestCoastRunner · January 30, 2016

The Conservative government has been accused of screening Syrian refugees based on their religion and ethnicity: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syrian-refugees-conservatives-focus-religion-ethnicity-1.3423323

The policy, unveiled last January, was contentious. The vast majority of the Syrian refugee population is Muslim. The decision to hone in on "religious minorities" prompted allegations the government was biased against Muslims and was also violating United Nations principles governing refugee resettlement.

The refugees the Canadian government accepts for resettlement are chosen by the UN. They do not use ethnicity or religion as a basis for determining whether someone requires resettlement to a third country.

But documents tabled in the House of Commons this week in response to a question from the NDP show how the Conservatives found a workaround.

In February 2015, visa officers in Jordan and Lebanon were instructed to track "areas of focus" for Syrian refugees, which included tracking whether someone was a member of a vulnerable ethnic or religious minority, the documents say.

They applied those criteria to the files they were receiving from the UN.

"Cases meeting at least one of the areas of focus were identified for expedited processing," the documents say. "Cases that did not meet the areas of focus were included in the mission's inventory and processed as a regular case."

The tracking stopped in November 2015.

Unfortunately, JT has chosen to screen against single male refugees, which is just as contentious.

waldo · January 30, 2016

All my citations are public record, if any are incorrect, I'd gladly correct them.

and your citations provide nothing more than your self-acknowledged statements that, "you don't know", "how could you know". Quite telling this is your justification behind targeting the new Liberal MP and the company COSTI Immigration Services... with you emphasizing the now MP was a former employee of that company. Your lengthy pursuit was wholly intended to, without substantiation, imply through association, that the company secured a contract because of a former employee! That sir, that is absolutely unfounded!

.

Interesting logic.........by using that, the Government shouldn't disclose contracts pertaining to the military or the RCMP, since they engage in actions that could invoke public (or international) backlash......or contracts with Government workers, as that could invoke backlash against members of PSAC........Or contracts involving First Nations....the CBC....Industry....etc etc etc

I offered a thought; one predicated upon the shameless Harper Conservative election campaign ploy to inflame the public and instill fear in regards to 'Muslims, refugees, immigrants'... which did result in profiled cases of public backlash towards Muslims/refugees. Given that inflammatory backdrop resulting from shameful Harper Conservative election campaign tactics, I asked you if it might be reasonable, from a security standpoint, to not want to disclose the names of companies providing materials/service to fulfill contract obligations... perhaps to avoid any possible public backlash against any companies security related contracts to provision material/service for refugees? I replied to you in this regard and you chose to belittle it in relation to military/police contracts... and you actually think there's a reasonable parallel between them.

in any case, it was my thought/speculation... let's have yours! You're sure quick with the innuendo but you won't actually offer your own interpreted reason/rationale to the use of "for security reasons". Let me follow your lead and have you answer the exact same question you posed: "So why is the Trudeau Government hiding the process in which it awards contracts?"... again, your word, "hiding"! Answer it, yourself - yes?

.

Derek 2.0 · January 30, 2016

and your citations provide nothing more than your self-acknowledged statements that, "you don't know", "how could you know". Quite telling this is your justification behind targeting the new Liberal MP and the company COSTI Immigration Services... with you emphasizing the now MP was a former employee of that company. Your lengthy pursuit was wholly intended to, without substantiation, imply through association, that the company secured a contract because of a former employee! That sir, that is absolutely unfounded!

.

Where did I say, or suggest, that Waldo? Is said MP even involved in the contract process? A valid question (among many other), left unanswered, by a Liberal Government that refuses to divulge the process it uses to award contracts relating to the Syrian refugee file.

in any case, it was my thought/speculation... let's have yours! You're sure quick with the innuendo but you won't actually offer your own interpreted reason/rationale to the use of "for security reasons". Let me follow your lead and have you answer the exact same question you posed: "So why is the Trudeau Government hiding the process in which it awards contracts?"... again, your word, "hiding"! Answer it, yourself - yes?

As I said, I've no idea why the Trudeau Government is hiding the process, then when confronted, cites "security reasons" for its secretive nature.

waldo · January 30, 2016

Where did I say, or suggest, that Waldo? Is said MP even involved in the contract process? A valid question (among many other), left unanswered, by a Liberal Government that refuses to divulge the process it uses to award contracts relating to the Syrian refugee file.

then why mention the individual at all... and why draw the association between the individual and the company at all? That sir, that was sleazy innuendo; wholly unfounded. And now you're scrambling away from it! As you can read from the little bio I provided, that MP has a stellar academic and work association, inclusive of an established rounded display of volunteerism - one that includes the company you're targeting.

.

As I said, I've no idea why the Trudeau Government is hiding the process, then when confronted, cites "security reasons" for its secretive nature.

beauty! You have no idea and won't even offer a thought or speculation... but you sure relished in a belittling attempt on my wholly speculative answer to your same posed question. C'mon, spit it out... your buddy wasn't hesitant to outright declare corruption. What's holding you back... you've laid the groundwork... now carry on through! :lol:

.

Derek 2.0 · January 30, 2016

then why mention the individual at all... and why draw the association between the individual and the company at all? That sir, that was sleazy innuendo; wholly unfounded. And now you're scrambling away from it!

.

Scrambling away from what? With the secretive nature of the Liberal's contract awards, the public mention of any parties relating to the process are a public interest.

Of course, the Liberal Government could demystify the entire process by including a measure of transparency into their closed door, backroom dealings.

beauty! You have no idea and won't even offer a thought or speculation... but you sure relished in a belittling attempt on my wholly speculative answer to your same posed question. C'mon, spit it out... your buddy wasn't hesitant to outright declare corruption. What's holding you back... you've laid the groundwork... now carry on through!

I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the Liberal Party of Canada, and how it awards government contracts .......that being why there are questions with the entire process relating to the refugee program.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Derek 2.0

waldo · January 31, 2016

Scrambling away from what? With the secretive nature of the Liberal's contract awards, the public mention of any parties relating to the process are a public interest.

scrambling away from your unsubstantiated attempt to impugn the integrity and reputation of a newly elected MP and the company you named. You had no foundation for it yet, apparently, didn't care.

.

Of course, the Liberal Government could demystify the entire process by including a measure of transparency into their closed door, backroom dealings.

that's rich! I read all these latest 'lack of Liberal transparency' statements coming from former Harper Conservative cabinet ministers... and I wonder how they say such things with a straight face! And their supporters too - that would be you! :lol: You don't like the response 'for security reasons' so you're on a mission to, in this case, quite literally smear, without any provided substantiation to that end, an new MP/the company you named. And if it wasn't any clearer that was your intent, Trolly immediately charged forward off your queues to declare 'Liberal corruption'!

that you now link to a graphic tied to the 'sponsorship scandal' is probably the most telling point of all here concerning your intent. Why that's akin to me highlighting the recent days revelations concerning the Harper Conservatives improper use of taxpayer money for self-party promotion (vis-a-vis the Economic Action Plan and over $100 million dollars spent on advertising)... you know, that revealing 'Department of Finance' survey that suggests almost half of Canadians never even heard of the plan. Money well spent, hey!

.

Derek 2.0 · January 31, 2016

scrambling away from your unsubstantiated attempt to impugn the integrity and reputation of a newly elected MP and the company you named. You had no foundation for it yet, apparently, didn't care.

.

Where did I do any of that?

You don't like the response 'for security reasons' so you're on a mission to, in this case, quite literally smear, without any provided substantiation to that end, an new MP/the company you named. And if it wasn't any clearer that was your intent, Trolly immediately charged forward off your queues to declare 'Liberal corruption'!

Where did I "smear" anyone or any one company?

that you now link to a graphic tied to the 'sponsorship scandal' is probably the most telling point of all here concerning your intent.

How is that? The conduct of past Liberal governments and their awarding of contracts is in retrospect........are you suggesting this Liberal Government follows the same conduct as Liberal governments previous, namely in relation to the noted ADSCAM?

So far, your suggestions as to why this Government refuses a transparent process on the awarding of contracts, on the Syrian refugee file, is laughable........and amounts to we have secrets and they are justified because the previous guys were also secretive. :lol:

waldo · February 1, 2016

Where did I do any of that?

Where did I "smear" anyone or any one company?

you claim "public interest" as the rationale for you, without substantiation, attaching a new MP and the company you named to your innuendo about the awarding of government contracts associated with the refugee program. You have nothing and you don't care that you have nothing! Don't let that get in the way of your smear attempt.

.

How is that? The conduct of past Liberal governments and their awarding of contracts is in retrospect........are you suggesting this Liberal Government follows the same conduct as Liberal governments previous, namely in relation to the noted ADSCAM?

I'm suggesting nothing about your desperate attempt to link something from a prior government... a decade+ ago... to this bout of your latest fake-outrage. The very fact you're doing so is a reflection on your own posturing that you weren't trying to, through innuendo, smear the new MP/and the company you named.

.

So far, your suggestions as to why this Government refuses a transparent process on the awarding of contracts, on the Syrian refugee file, is laughable........and amounts to we have secrets and they are justified because the previous guys were also secretive.

I could give a rats-azz what you think of my speculative answer to the question you asked. Of course, your response to the same question posed back to you is classic! Your, I dunno, let's you continue your dance... and innuendo game! Harper Conservatives practiced purposeful inflammatory tactics and fear mongering during the election campaign... and there were instances of public backlash. If the government simply states they're not detailing names/locations/particulars related to those refugee contracts, "for security reasons"... in my speculative response to your question, I sure see good reason in not wanting to chance a fueled wingnut responds against a particular company. In any case, as I said, this is simply another tactic in trying to denigrate the refugee program... you have no shame!

.

Derek 2.0 · February 1, 2016

you claim "public interest" as the rationale for you, without substantiation, attaching a new MP and the company you named to your innuendo about the awarding of government contracts associated with the refugee program. You have nothing and you don't care that you have nothing! Don't let that get in the way of your smear attempt.

Again, what smear Waldo? Quote it.

I'm suggesting nothing about your desperate attempt to link something from a prior government... a decade+ ago... to this bout of your latest fake-outrage. The very fact you're doing so is a reflection on your own posturing that you weren't trying to, through innuendo, smear the new MP/and the company you named.

Did you not refer to the previous Conservative government? I fail to see why mention of the previous Liberal Government's, regardless if its tenure was over a decade ago, past practices involving the awarding of contracts is off key......after all, there are previous members of that past Government, in this present government, including the minister in charge of the Syrian refugee file.

In any case, as I said, this is simply another tactic in trying to denigrate the refugee program... you have no shame!

Trying to denigrate the program? They are doing that themselves, none the less, that is not reason for the Liberal's close door policy on the awarding of refugee service contracts...........

Edited February 1, 2016 by Derek 2.0

waldo · February 1, 2016

be loud and proud of your unsubstantiated attempts to link a new MP/and your named company to the corruption you absolutely are implying. Keep on keepin' on with your fake-outrage over not knowing contract particulars! As you're the self-proclaimed law-n-order and military guy here, it's so odd you would so easily, so readily, rally against a security based cautionary response. So odd!

.

Derek 2.0 · February 1, 2016

be loud and proud of your unsubstantiated attempts to link a new MP/and your named company to the corruption you absolutely are implying.

Again, where is the implication? If we were conversing government defense policy, would noting the current MND's previous career be seen as a "smear"? What of the Finance Minister's past career in the private business sector being noted in a topic on monetary policy, is that also a "smear"? It would seem, in this Government's infancy, such credentials are applauded........so its strange that you denote corruption with a member of this Government with direct knowledge of the immigrant service industry......that would seem something to celebrate loud and proud!!!!!

Keep on keepin' on with your fake-outrage over not knowing contract particulars! As you're the self-proclaimed law-n-order and military guy here, it's so odd you would so easily, so readily, rally against a security based cautionary response. So odd!

Fake outrage? Not the least, I'd very much like to know the process the Liberal government used to award contracts related to the settlement of Syrian refugees..........that they refuse, citing "security" is forever vexing........

waldo · February 2, 2016

Again, where is the implication? ........so its strange that you denote corruption with a member of this Government with direct knowledge of the immigrant service industry......that would seem something to celebrate loud and proud!!!!!

"implication"? You're now saying it was me "denoting corruption"?

let's recap: you linked to a TorStar article that mentions the company COSTI Immigration Services in relation to a contract for temporary accommodations for newly arrived refugees in the GTA. That article mentions nothing about the newly elected MP - that was you introducing your "fact" that the new MP was, as you stated, "an employee of COSTI" (and you repeated that employer/employee reference several times in subsequent posts)... as it turns out, as I pointed out to you, he wasn't an employee, he 'dedicated/volunteered' his time with that company as a part of his described community participation as he did with other named organizations/clubs. All your posts were filled with nothing more than innuendo (your adscam reference, no less) suggestive of... exactly what Mr. Trolly identified as "Liberal corruption"... at least he had the trolling balls to use the word you only implied!

.

Fake outrage? Not the least, I'd very much like to know the process the Liberal government used to award contracts related to the settlement of Syrian refugees..........that they refuse, citing "security" is forever vexing........

through this smear attempt of yours, the only cited/quoted reference I actually recall to your fake outrage over the government "citing security reasons" was one related to the "welcome kits" presented to new refugees (and you quoting from Conservative MP Rempel)... which has nothing to do with your linked TorStar article/GTA accommodations/newly elected MP... your smear attempt needs to be tightened up a tad!

I gave you my speculative answer to your posed question.. you clearly didn't like me speaking to public backlash in regards Harper Conservatives purposeful inflammatory and fear mongering tactics during the election campaign... what I thought might be a reason to exercise concern about releasing particulars relative to contracts and potentially subject companies to "further fueled backlash stoked by Harper Conservatives during the election campaign". No, you didn't like me doing that at all! Of course, when I turned your question back to you seeking your answer, you simply said, "I dunno"!

in any case, in regards to procuring items for the refugee welcome kits, there is a clause called the 'National Security Exception' that can be invoked by trade agreement partners to exclude "respective item procurement" from the obligations of trade agreements. This clause has been invoked in regards the refugee 'welcome kits', and that this has been done, has been prominently reported by the mainstream media. I expect it was done for expediency purposes to facilitate quick/localized provisioning of materials for the welcome kits... which also, tied to the particulars of that invoked exception, means the government can't disclose the identity/location of any supplier. Hey, this also keeps any possible wingnut fueled backlash against companies involved in facilitating refugee contracts, at bay!

you'll need to restart your smear engine to get further mileage out this!

.

Derek 2.0 · February 2, 2016

. All your posts were filled with nothing more than innuendo (your adscam reference, no less) suggestive of... exactly what Mr. Trolly identified as "Liberal corruption"... at least he had the trolling balls to use the word you only implied!

.

Again, where is the innuendo (quote it), with mention of what is public record? Is stating the Prime Minister was years prior a drama teacher to be construed as a "smear" also? As mentioned, other members experience (of this Government) appear celebrated.

through this smear attempt of yours, the only cited/quoted reference I actually recall to your fake outrage over the government "citing security reasons" was one related to the "welcome kits" presented to new refugees (and you quoting from Conservative MP Rempel)... which has nothing to do with your linked TorStar article/GTA accommodations/newly elected MP... your smear attempt needs to be tightened up a tad!

And in said article, its mentioned her concern over lack of transparency with other facets of the Syrian refugee program........information this Liberal Government won't provide, citing "security"....

You've offered your speculative reasons as to why the Liberals refuse a measure of transparency in the awarding of contracts.......what makes other members musings any less valid? Clearly, the only way this Government could end such speculations is to make their process public........something they seem unwilling to do.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Derek 2.0

waldo · February 2, 2016

Again, where is the innuendo (quote it), with mention of what is public record?

you drop the name of a company, add in the name of a newly elected MP, draw association between the company/newly elected MP, draw implications of questionable contract awarding... and sprinkle with your presumed 'coup de gras' referencing "adscam". Own it!

.

And in said article, its mentioned her concern over lack of transparency with other facets of the Syrian refugee program........information this Liberal Government won't provide, citing "security"....

as mentioned, I won't give whatever "Rempel" states the time-of-day. If you have something to formally tie the government to that "for security reasons", something beyond the provisioning of those welcome kits, I encourage you to cite it and quote appropriately from it.

.

You've offered your speculative reasons as to why the Liberals refuse a measure of transparency in the awarding of contracts.......what makes other members musings any less valid? Clearly, the only way this Government could end such speculations is to make their process public........something they seem unwilling to do.

no - I offered you my speculative thought on why that 'for security reasons' might apply in relation to, again, the fevered inflammatory tactics of Harper Conservatives during the election campaign... that did result in public fear mongering, that did result in instances of backlash against immigrants and refugees. I've also given you the direct rationale the government applied in regards the, 'National Security Exception' that can be invoked by trade agreement partners to exclude "respective item procurement" from the obligations of trade agreements. You know, the thing you've just blown off and feel is insignificant and below your need to acknowledge and/or comment on.

.

Derek 2.0 · February 2, 2016

you drop the name of a company, add in the name of a newly elected MP, draw association between the company/newly elected MP, draw implications of questionable contract awarding... and sprinkle with your presumed 'coup de gras' referencing "adscam". Own it!

Are any of said mentions untrue?

as mentioned, I won't give whatever "Rempel" states the time-of-day. If you have something to formally tie the government to that "for security reasons", something beyond the provisioning of those welcome kits, I encourage you to cite it and quote appropriately from it.

I did, if you won't give the Tory Immigration critic the time-of-day, I don't know what more can be said.

no - I offered you my speculative thought on why that 'for security reasons' might apply in relation to, again, the fevered inflammatory tactics of Harper Conservatives during the election campaign... that did result in public fear mongering, that did result in instances of backlash against immigrants and refugees. I've also given you the direct rationale the government applied in regards the, 'National Security Exception' that can be invoked by trade agreement partners to exclude "respective item procurement" from the obligations of trade agreements. You know, the thing you've just blown off and feel is insignificant and below your need to acknowledge and/or comment on.

So now you're to suggest this move by the Liberals was to sidestep international trade agreements?

waldo · February 2, 2016

Are any of said mentions untrue?

your innuendo is absolutely true!

.

I did, if you won't give the Tory Immigration critic the time-of-day, I don't know what more can be said.

I won't take her spoken word for anything. You provide a quote from a mainstream article where a government source has used the "for security reasons" caveat... beyond the provisioning of the "refugee welcome kits"... I may actually think of responding to that. That doesn't exist anywhere in the TorStar article you provided.

.

So now you're to suggest this move by the Liberals was to sidestep international trade agreements?

you make whatever interpretation you want. That provision exists, it's very name describes it's purpose: "National Security Exception". Perhaps instead of spending so much time on your smear attempt, you should do more of your own research to first understand the basis for that "for security reasons" that has so raised your fake-outrage - yes?

3.105.1 Trade Agreements and Invoking a National Security Exception (2010-01-11)

The national security exception (NSE) provided for in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement (WTO-AGP), the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA) and the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) allow Canada to exclude a procurement from some or all of the obligations of the relevant trade agreement(s), where Canada considers it necessary to do so in order to protect its national security interests specified in the text of the NSE. The purpose of the NSE must ensure that parties to the agreements are not required in any way to compromise these interests through application of the obligations of the trade agreements.

.

Derek 2.0 · February 2, 2016

. I won't take her spoken word for anything. You provide a quote from a mainstream article where a government source has used the "for security reasons" caveat... beyond the provisioning of the "refugee welcome kits"... I may actually think of responding to that. That doesn't exist anywhere in the TorStar article you provided.

.

.

It was the CBC article with the Rempel quote.

you make whatever interpretation you want. That provision exists, it's very name describes it's purpose: "National Security Exception". Perhaps instead of spending so much time on your smear attempt, you should do more of your own research to first understand the basis for that "for security reasons" that has so raised your fake-outrage - yes?

So why is the provision of "welcome kits", housing, language training etc in our "National Security Interests"? That is a laughable defense!!!!!!!

waldo · February 2, 2016

It was the CBC article with the Rempel quote.

so what! Again, I won't accept anything she states herself. In those articles related to the refugee welcome kits, there are direct quotes from government personnel/spokespersons. Is this your way of stating you gots nuthin to provide beyond the 'welcome kit' references? Before you get all convoluted, as you do, this is not me saying the government hasn't invoked that exception beyond just welcome kits... this is me saying, I have yet to come across anything to that end in the mainstream media - and you have also not provided anything either... other than a quote from "Michele Rempel".

.

So why is the provision of "welcome kits", housing, language training etc in our "National Security Interests"? That is a laughable defense!!!!!!!

again, I've seen it in relation to refugee welcome kits... I've not seen it stated or referenced by a government official for anything else... and apparently, either have you since you haven't provided direct citation to that end. You can keep laughing while you fuel your fake outrage. I gave you my speculative thought in regards those welcome kits - you also laughed off my thoughts that tied back to Harper Conservative election campaign tactics that stoked public fear... and actual backlash... against immigrants and refugees. It is certainly your prerogative to, as you did, laugh that speculative thought of mine off!

I have no further cycles to waste in accommodating your innuendo and fake outrage - carry on!

.

Argus · February 6, 2016

Came across this today in the Globe. The author is clearly fairly left of centre and extremely sympathetic to refugees from Syria, but he points out, as Matthew Fisher did in a similar column a few months back, that the refugees Canada is getting are the poorest of the poor. We're not getting the university grads and businessmen. We're getting the olive growers and cigarette kiosk guy. We're getting people with no language skills, little education, whose kids have been out of school for years. The only thing they have, which the author did not mention, is Islam. The poorer you are in he middle east, the more dedicated you are to Allah. What else do you have to hope for, after all? These will be extremely conservative people as far as values go. And I mean conservative in a way which progressives would condemn without hesitation were they white.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-distinguishes-the-syrians-arriving-in-europe-from-those-incanada/article28614428/

waldo · February 6, 2016

...the refugees Canada is getting are the poorest of the poor. We're not getting the university grads and businessmen. We're getting the olive growers and cigarette kiosk guy. We're getting people with no language skills, little education, whose kids have been out of school for years.

The only thing they have, which the author did not mention, is Islam. The poorer you are in he middle east, the more dedicated you are to Allah. What else do you have to hope for, after all? These will be extremely conservative people as far as values go. And I mean conservative in a way which progressives would condemn without hesitation were they white.

this post explains much! You equate/confuse the humanitarian focused refugee program to/with the "family unification/economic skilled workers" immigration program. A quick glance of your linked article has no specifics/data related to actual Syrian refugees being brought into Canada... let me take the liberty of suggesting this is as close as the journalist gets: "Canada, by relying on the UNHCR to lead its selection process, is receiving Syria’s poorest and most vulnerable." Hey wait a minute, if we accept that statement from the journalist is he not reaffirming the humanitarian basis for... the refugee program?

.

Argus · February 6, 2016

this post explains much! You equate/confuse the humanitarian focused refugee program to/with the "family unification/economic skilled workers" immigration program.

I do? What part of the post to which you refer even mentions the immigration program?

A quick glance of your linked article has no specifics/data related to actual Syrian refugees being brought into Canada... let me take the liberty of suggesting this is as close as the journalist gets: "Canada, by relying on the UNHCR to lead its selection process, is receiving Syria’s poorest and most vulnerable." Hey wait a minute, if we accept that statement from the journalist is he not reaffirming the humanitarian basis for... the refugee program?

Did I ever question the 'humanitarian basis for the refugee program'? Did I ever suggest it had some other basis?

My point in posting the article you are referring to is to point out that the costs for feeding, clothing and sheltering these people will run into many billions of dollars - far more than the government has admitted - and that there will be a continuing need to support them for decades to come. It is unlikely any of the adults will ever produce sufficient income to result in a positive flow of taxes from them versus the enormous outlays which their upkeep will require of us.

As to the 'humanitarian basis', it is desperately misguided in that we could achieve far more good for ten times more people if we were to put money into helping provide services in the existing countries which border Syria. Of course, then Trudeau would have to go to Turkey and Lebanon for is selfies.

WestCoastRunner · February 6, 2016

The author is clearly fairly left of centre and extremely sympathetic to refugees from Syria, but he points out, as Matthew Fisher did in a similar column a few months back, that the refugees Canada is getting are the poorest of the poor. We're not getting the university grads and businessmen. We're getting the olive growers and cigarette kiosk guy. We're getting people with no language skills, little education, whose kids have been out of school for years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-distinguishes-the-syrians-arriving-in-europe-from-those-incanada/article28614428/

The article also states:

But the prices that smugglers extract mean that most families can only afford to send one member, so they pick their best-educated or most-skilled child. The dangers of the trip mean that most families will choose to send a son over an equally talented daughter.

It goes on to say:

Europe is chaotically receiving the youthful cream of the crop. Canada, by relying on the UNHCR to lead its selection process, is receiving Syria’s poorest and most vulnerable. Where Europe is receiving too many young men, most of those Canada is resettling are families, often with female heads of households, the men often having died in the war.

But of course, thanks to the fear mongering of the Conservatives, Canada elected to refuse young Syrian men admission to Canada.

waldo · February 6, 2016

I do? What part of the post to which you refer even mentions the immigration program?

Did I ever question the 'humanitarian basis for the refugee program'? Did I ever suggest it had some other basis?

oh pleeeese! Presuming to showcase an economic focused disparity (one not even accurately qualified beyond broad generalization) within the refugee program... is one that only fits against sought out criteria aspects of the immigration program.

.

As to the 'humanitarian basis', it is desperately misguided in that we could achieve far more good for ten times more people if we were to put money into helping provide services in the existing countries which border Syria. Of course, then Trudeau would have to go to Turkey and Lebanon for is selfies.

you keep dropping this lil' gem of yours - "leave em' there... just send the camps money"! Can you, will you ever provide any information/data that speaks to deficiencies and needs within camps, and just what gains you presume "Canada's money" channeled away from the refugee program and applied "to the camps" might realize? Care to offer comment on how long the longest standing refugee camps have existed "in the middle east"... and how that might impact on your commitment of "Canadian monies" to refugee camps? Of course, Canada (and other world nations) provide funding to the UNHCR already, right?

more fixation with selfies - more?

.