Is Trudeau saying most Canadians are racists?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, capricorn said:

There it is. Trudeau and the Liberals have launched a culture war as a means to denigrating political opponents as its main strategy for reelection. This has probably in the works almost as soon as they were elected.

 

Well, if the Liberals criminalize political opposition/dissent like they want to do, it will effectively make conservative opinions 'hate speech' and subject to criminal justice.

Case in point: woman getting called a racist for mentioning illegal immigrants jumping the border on the taxpayer's dime by Dear Leader.

[DogOnPorch]

....oh and arrested for good measure.

[capricorn]

Quote

Still, even a poll skeptic such as myself was surprised to read in The Globe and Mail this morning that Ekos's Frank Graves is simultaneously polling for the taxpayer-supported CBC and providing partisan political advice to the Liberals: "Frank Graves of Ekos Research … has told the Grits that the wedge politics of the Conservatives provide them with an opportunity to stake out a stark alternative. Stop worrying about the West, he's told them. No need to fear polarizing the debate. It's what worked for Mr. Chrétien against Preston Manning and Stockwell Day.

In his advice, Mr. Graves could hardly have been more blunt. 'I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don't like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.' The Grits haven't told him whether they favour this approach or not. But they are keen on projecting a more activist agenda for the party."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/cbc-pollsterliberal-adviser/article1367070/

Did Graves influence the Liberal campaign and governing style? Or did the Liberals come up with this strategy all by themselves?

Graves subsequently apologized for his incendiary comments but too late, the ink was set.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pollster-frank-graves-apologizes-denies-anti-tory-bias/article4352832/

Edited August 21, 2018 by capricorn

[turningrite]

12 minutes ago, capricorn said:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/cbc-pollsterliberal-adviser/article1367070/

Did Graves influence the Liberal campaign and governing style? Or did the Liberals come up with this strategy all by themselves?

Graves subsequently apologized for his incendiary comments but too late, the ink was set.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pollster-frank-graves-apologizes-denies-anti-tory-bias/article4352832/

Good to know this stuff. Progressives often scoff at those who post on here about the deliberate Lib pursuit of identity politics, including racialist denigration of their critics. They certainly blasted Bernier for publicly identifying the problem. Maybe they should be more concerned about Ontario, where, as a National Post article today notes, concern about immigration levels has risen to the extent that almost majority now think those levels are too high. The Libs are losing the support of mainstream Canadians in the migration and cultural battles. I suspect they just don't realize it, although given JT's tantrum in Quebec this weekend maybe they do and are doubling down. I just don't see it as a winning formula.

[cannuck]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

Trudeau and his cronies probably aren't racists. Rather, I believe they're racialists, who exploit racial and cultural categorization and division for political purposes,

You can call them "racialists".  I will stick with the same name as the last bodily orifice your dinner sees.

[taxme]

21 hours ago, turningrite said:

Well, our little potato(head) is apparently at it again, essentially appearing to call all Canadians who are critical of his refugee policies racists. As polling suggests a majority disagree with his government's approach on refugees, isn't he really saying that most of us are racists? And in other news today, his government is increasing the number of foreign grandparents it will permit to immigrate to this country, who no doubt will add an additional burden to an already pathetically threadbare health care system. Is Trudeau for real here? Has he lost it and is he trying to force his party to replace him before the next election? The guy has got to be replaced.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-defends-his-reaction-to-heckler-pledges-to-call-out-hate/

If Canadians are such bad racists, as Trudeau likes to pretend most Canadians are, then why the hell do Canadians go along with allowing more non-white immigrants(85%)into Canada than white immigrants(15%)into Canada?   Is there something wrong with this picture? 

[scribblet]

5 hours ago, capricorn said:

There it is. Trudeau and the Liberals have launched a culture war as a means to denigrating political opponents as its main strategy for reelection. This has probably in the works almost as soon as they were elected.

Well said...   Bernier is addressing it and Scheer has come out on twitter against it, but is it enough, can the Trudeau and their One World Order be stopped?

The thing is Trudeau's pushing and defending illegal border crossing has turned people against a well administered legal immigration system.

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by scribblet

[scribblet]

Transcript here   https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tranlation-transcription-trudeau-heckler-video-1.4793229?cmp=rss       as usual she got bafflegab for an answer 

[AngusThermopyle]

So has everyone forgotten what his father said when asked if he thought Canada would be better as a one party state? If you have I'll remind you. He replied that he thought it would, but that the time wasn't right, perhaps some time in the future. Obviously Justin was greatly influenced by his father, that's plain for all to see, and makes perfect sense. That being the case I really don't find it too far fetched that he would aspire to make that hypothetical situation a reality. In fact I've believed that might be his ultimate end game since he was first elected. He hasn't been shy about professing his admiration for other single party dictatorship type states, it's not too much of a stretch to surmise that he may want just such a system for Canada.

My question, for all the supporters of Trudeau who post here is this. If indeed Trudeau wanted to abolish democracy in Canada and move us to a single party state, would you still support him and his agenda?

[paxamericana]

On 8/20/2018 at 6:02 PM, turningrite said:

Well, our little potato(head) is apparently at it again, essentially appearing to call all Canadians who are critical of his refugee policies racists. As polling suggests a majority disagree with his government's approach on refugees, isn't he really saying that most of us are racists? And in other news today, his government is increasing the number of foreign grandparents it will permit to immigrate to this country, who no doubt will add an additional burden to an already pathetically threadbare health care system. Is Trudeau for real here? Has he lost it and is he trying to force his party to replace him before the next election? The guy has got to be replaced.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-defends-his-reaction-to-heckler-pledges-to-call-out-hate/

Yup this is a typical symptom of the intersectionalist snowflake left and their identity politics. Any time you disagree with their idea you are by default also attacking their identity and is liable to be labeled a racist, homophobe, sexist, bully, etc...

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by paxamericana

[eyeball]

Quote

Is Trudeau saying most Canadians are racists?

No, he probably meant that most conservatives are racists. Racists on the other hand are just assholes, especially the respectable ones.

Edited August 22, 2018 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

So has everyone forgotten what his father said when asked if he thought Canada would be better as a one party state? If you have I'll remind you. He replied that he thought it would, but that the time wasn't right, perhaps some time in the future.  

Cite, please !  I love the quote but I can't really believe it until I see a link.  I'll wait.

[turningrite]

16 hours ago, scribblet said:

Well said...   Bernier is addressing it and Scheer has come out on twitter against it, but is it enough, can the Trudeau and their One World Order be stopped?

The thing is Trudeau's pushing and defending illegal border crossing has turned people against a well administered legal immigration system.

 

I'm not sure about the well-administered part. My perception of government is that very little it runs is well-administered, so I won't grant the benefit of the doubt here. In any case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing any government policy in a democracy. That's essentially the purpose of the system. It's supposed to be messy and contentious, or in more casual terms disagreement and debate are features of the system and not bugs to be corrected. In any case, I was startled when watching a private network's national news broadcast yesterday evening to hear the anchor proclaim that the woman who confronted Trudeau in Quebec "IS a racist," a conclusion justified by the anchor on grounds that the woman reportedly belongs to a group that opposes irregular/illegal migration. Well then, I thought, our media are at it too, demonizing anybody who disagrees with the government's pro-immigration, pro-refugee, pro-hyperdiversity agenda. This makes me fear for the survival of actual democracy in this country, a concept that's clearly under siege. There is, apparently, only one proper way to think and we are permitted no public forum to openly disagree with our leadership without being moralistically disparaged. Is Canada being transformed into a cult?

[scribblet]

40 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I'm not sure about the well-administered part. My perception of government is that very little it runs is well-administered, so I won't grant the benefit of the doubt here. In any case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing any government policy in a democracy. That's essentially the purpose of the system. It's supposed to be messy and contentious, or in more casual terms disagreement and debate are features of the system and not bugs to be corrected. In any case, I was startled when watching a private network's national news broadcast yesterday evening to hear the anchor proclaim that the woman who confronted Trudeau in Quebec "IS a racist," a conclusion justified by the anchor on grounds that the woman reportedly belongs to a group that opposes irregular/illegal migration. Well then, I thought, our media are at it too, demonizing anybody who disagrees with the government's pro-immigration, pro-refugee, pro-hyperdiversity agenda. This makes me fear for the survival of actual democracy in this country, a concept that's clearly under siege. There is, apparently, only one proper way to think and we are permitted no public forum to openly disagree with our leadership without being moralistically disparaged. Is Canada being transformed into a cult?

I don't think immigration was out of control under previous gov'ts for the most part, at least they brought most in under the merit system and I'm pretty sure Harper actually reduced family reunification, which Trudeau is going increase greatly, costing our medical system for sure. Totally agree that democracy and freedom of speech is under siege, more so than ever under the Trudeau regime.  They could not have known at the time of the incident who the woman is and what groups she allegedly belongs to, but the demonizing of anyone questioning Trudeau is well under way.  Even if they did know her name and that she was going to be at this rally, her question of fiscal responsibility was a valid one, the same question some provinces are asking.  

Andrew Scheer is now under attack for speaking out against Trudeau's comments as some believe he (and Trudeau) did know who she was.   It's amazing how the media are blowing this up into everyone is a racist for not agreeing with Trudeau. 

As Trudeau beats the drum of diversity and open borders, he is dividing the country into those who vote Liberal, and those he labels as racist etc.  This is the Liberal campaign strategy, this is the wedge issue –  We, the Canadian voters are the wedge issue.  

[AngusThermopyle]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cite, please !  I love the quote but I can't really believe it until I see a link.  I'll wait.

Here you go, I paraphrased because I couldn't remember his exact words but it's essentially the same. I've provided this cite before because people didn't believe it. Personally I don't understand why people don't believe it. Pierre was quite open about his preference for Communism, he really didn't try to hide it. It just stands to reason that he'd favour Canada becoming a single party state. Given that Justin grew up at Pierre's knee, listening to and being indoctrinated from an early age by him, it just makes sense that he'd believe the same.

I've quoted the relevant paragraph but the whole article is well worth reading. It sheds some much needed light on the kind of man Trudeau the elder actually was. It's nothing like the popular narrative spun by Liberal friendly media. It's a must read for all, including Liberal supporters, they've been lied to as much as anyone else.

While Trudeau talked about strengthening democracy, his commitment to the system varied. In 1977 he said that in certain countries and at certain times a one-party state would be preferable. “I wouldn’t be prepared to think I would be successful in arguing that for Canada at the present time, but such times might come, who knows?”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pierre-trudeaus-disastrous-record-is-finally-laid-out-for-all-to-see

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

I don't think immigration was out of control under previous gov'ts for the most part, at least they brought most in under the merit system and I'm pretty sure Harper actually reduced family reunification, which Trudeau is going increase greatly, costing our medical system for sure. Totally agree that democracy and freedom of speech is under siege, more so than ever under the Trudeau regime.  They could not have known at the time of the incident who the woman is and what groups she allegedly belongs to, but the demonizing of anyone questioning Trudeau is well under way.  Even if they did know her name and that she was going to be at this rally, her question of fiscal responsibility was a valid one, the same question some provinces are asking.  

Andrew Scheer is now under attack for speaking out against Trudeau's comments as some believe he (and Trudeau) did know who she was.   It's amazing how the media are blowing this up into everyone is a racist for not agreeing with Trudeau. 

As Trudeau beats the drum of diversity and open borders, he is dividing the country into those who vote Liberal, and those he labels as racist etc.  This is the Liberal campaign strategy, this is the wedge issue –  We, the Canadian voters are the wedge issue.  

The current large-scale immigration model began in earnest under Mulroney and has more or less continued apace since then. Harper tweaked it, mainly to prefer skilled and employable immigrants and to rein in problematic aspects of the refugee program, but still kept intake levels relatively high. The reasons for high intake levels are often misrepresented. It's been demonstrated via objective analysis, including by Australia's Productivity Commission, which examined that country's similarly large-scale immigration program in depth, that the "demographic" argument used to justify high intake levels is mainly hokum. I believe it more likely that the principal intent of Canada's programs has been wage suppression combined with rentier profiteering, and in serving these objectives has done an admirable job of lowering living standards and increasing economic inequality. But why be forthright when you can get away with propaganda, right?

I suspect you are correct that Trudeau's intent is to opportunistically divide the country, although this may be backfiring if polling results published this week in the National Post, which indicate increasing resistance to high immigration levels, are indicative of growing public discontent. Trudeau's approach, and that of his backers, appears to be to double down, casting aspersions on anybody who even remotely appears to challenge the government's agenda. This is dangerous stuff in a democracy. To me, there's little or no moral difference between one racialist agenda, imposed diversity, on one side of the ideological agenda and another racialist agenda, Eurocentrism, on the other. Trudeau is playing with matches if he thinks his agenda is somehow morally superior.

Edited August 22, 2018 by turningrite

[AngusThermopyle]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

I don't think immigration was out of control under previous gov'ts for the most part, at least they brought most in under the merit system and I'm pretty sure Harper actually reduced family reunification, which Trudeau is going increase greatly, costing our medical system for sure. Totally agree that democracy and freedom of speech is under siege, more so than ever under the Trudeau regime.  They could not have known at the time of the incident who the woman is and what groups she allegedly belongs to, but the demonizing of anyone questioning Trudeau is well under way.  Even if they did know her name and that she was going to be at this rally, her question of fiscal responsibility was a valid one, the same question some provinces are asking.  

Andrew Scheer is now under attack for speaking out against Trudeau's comments as some believe he (and Trudeau) did know who she was.   It's amazing how the media are blowing this up into everyone is a racist for not agreeing with Trudeau. 

As Trudeau beats the drum of diversity and open borders, he is dividing the country into those who vote Liberal, and those he labels as racist etc.  This is the Liberal campaign strategy, this is the wedge issue –  We, the Canadian voters are the wedge issue.  

The thing I find most disturbing, the thing no one is talking about is the fact that Trudeau appears to be equating critical questions of his policies with hate. I'm left wondering if he'll try to expand hate speech laws to cover criticism of immigration, both illegal and legal. If he were to attempt to do so it would in effect be using the law to silence his critics, in essence  forcing them into submission. That would be the end of democracy as we know it in Canada and the first biggest step towards totalitarianism.

So once again I have to ask his supporters, would they continue to support him if this were his goal?

[Guest]

Some of these posts seem completely ludicrous. The press and public have infinitely more access to the PM than under Harper. JT is far more open to answering unscripted questions and actually engaging with the public. How do you think a similar incident involving a heckler would have played out during a Harper or Trump rally? There is no way in hell the former PM would have actually engaged with her at all, the woman would have just been dragged out.

In this incident the heckler not only asks a question about the cost of housing refugees, she also states that Trudeau is intolerant of white Quebecors. Her position and intolerance is clear even before we learned that she is part of a far right anti-immigration group. Also, from what I can tell the woman was just questioned by two police officers, not arrested, after she continued to pursue JT after he left the stage. She was refusing to show ID but I don't think she was arrested. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tranlation-transcription-trudeau-heckler-video-1.4793229

Trudeau didn't answer her question directly, as no politician would during a rally, because it's not an easy or popular one to address. Municipal and provincial governments will continue to haggle with the feds over funding.

The world has seen the highest surge in refugee claims since 1961 and Canada, a big, wealthy nation with low population density, is housing a tiny fraction of them. Does anyone really believe that Canada should not help out at all? 85% of the world refugees from the last couple of years are being housed in poor, developing nations. I think most of us agree we have a duty to take in some, and housing and settling refugees comes with a cost and that will be haggled over.

I find the tales of fear being developed on the right over immigration and diversity to be troubling though. The exaggerated numbers and misleading terms being applied are not an accident. We had an increase of about 50,000 immigrants over normal levels in 2016 and then numbers returned back to normal in 2017. The talk of hyper-diversity, tribes and Trudeau being intolerant of "old stock" Canadians are obvious signs of a wedge being built to capitalize on the racial fears common among older Canadians.
 

Quote

2017 saw the largest spike in refugees worldwide since 1961, so it's hardly surprising that "a very small proportion" of those people should turn up in Canada, said Jean-Nicolas Beuze, the representative in Canada for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

But even with the influx of irregular border crossers, Beuze said, Canada's refugee intake is not dramatically higher than what the country has dealt with in the past — and is downright tiny compared to the sort of numbers other countries are experiencing.

The UNHCR estimates there are 68.5 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, 25.4 million of whom are refugees forced to flee conflict or persecution in their home countries.

Fully 85 per cent of the world's displaced people are being hosted in developing countries that are much smaller geographically, much more densely populated and considerably poorer than Canada. Among the top refugee hosting countries, the UNHCR reports that Turkey is coping with 3.5 million refugees, Pakistan and Uganda with 1.4 million each, Lebanon with 1 million and Iran with 979,400.

...

Beuze, Hyndman and Bauder all agree there is no foundation for calling the influx of irregular border crossers a crisis. But all three worry that the word is being used by some — along with terms like "illegal," "bogus" and "queue jumpers" — to dehumanize asylum seekers and instill fear that they're lawbreakers not worthy of compassion.

"To label it a crisis does political work, it opens up space for us to denigrate certain groups of people," said Hyndman. "But it also allows governments to marshal resources toward security, national security, away from humanitarian and/or human rights obligations, even in law."

Given the facts and the views of the experts, while there's little doubt the situation poses a political and policy challenge for both Ottawa and the affected provinces, Scheer's contention of a "crisis" rates a ranking of "full of baloney."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/baloney-meter-border-migrants-1.4787765

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

The thing I find most disturbing, the thing no one is talking about is the fact that Trudeau appears to be equating critical questions of his policies with hate. I'm left wondering if he'll try to expand hate speech laws to cover criticism of immigration, both illegal and legal. If he were to attempt to do so it would in effect be using the law to silence his critics, in essence  forcing them into submission. That would be the end of democracy as we know it in Canada and the first biggest step towards totalitarianism.

So once again I have to ask his supporters, would they continue to support him if this were his goal?

Our previous federal government was the closest Canada has been to Totalitarianism. Harper consolidated unprecedented power and control within the PMO. He gagged experts, scientists and his own MPs. His party members were required to attend pre-committee meetings to receive their positions and talking points from the PMO. He used the CRA to attack charities who spread messages critical of his government.

Trudeau is not equating critical questions with hate, he is just intolerant of racism. He is not limiting free speech. Immigration and refugee claims are not at crisis levels and scary foreigners are not plotting a takeover of Canada. Your question to Trudeau supporters based on your hysterical, what if, possibility comes off a little crazy. Especially when considering where we were with the last government.

[bush_cheney2004]

How quickly the Trudeau apologists forget about his totalitarian ban on anti-abortion groups summer jobs funding:

 

Quote

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau has established a policy mandating that groups that apply for youth employment grants support abortion rights.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42736530

 

[turningrite]

35 minutes ago, Slick said:

1.) In this incident the heckler not only asks a question about the cost of housing refugees, she also states that Trudeau is intolerant of white Quebecors. Her position and intolerance is clear even before we learned that she is part of a far right anti-immigration group. Also, from what I can tell the woman was just questioned by two police officers, not arrested, after she continued to pursue JT after he left the stage. She was refusing to show ID but I don't think she was arrested.

2.) Trudeau didn't answer her question directly, as no politician would during a rally, because it's not an easy or popular one to address. Municipal and provincial governments will continue to haggle with the feds over funding.

3.) The world has seen the highest surge in refugee claims since 1961 and Canada, a big, wealthy nation with low population density, is housing a tiny fraction of them. Does anyone really believe that Canada should not help out at all? 85% of the world refugees from the last couple of years are being housed in poor, developing nations. I think most of us agree we have a duty to take in some, and housing and settling refugees comes with a cost and that will be haggled over.

 

1.) You have to consider that under the Charter we have to respect "freedom of association." The Charter is broadly and perhaps primarly intended to protect political freedoms and not just religious proclivities. It is not against the law to belong to a group that opposes immigration and/or refugee policy. To do so is protected as much as many people argue is the right to wear a burqa or niqab. You might not like the woman's views, but she has every right to freely express them anywhere she wishes, including to the PM. (Unless, of course, you only believe that "freedoms" apply to activities and beliefs you like, which seems a progressive predilection these days.)

2.) Why wouldn't he answer her question directly? She's as much a citizen as (presumably) are you and the matter she raised is legitimately one of public debate. He could have civilly and respectfully said something like 'we know there are problems and concerns and we're working to address them' without launching into a derogatory tirade. The tone of his response suggests that he doesn't respect democracy, or at least the kind of democracy (i.e. actual democracy) that permits the expression of dissenting views. It's his way or the highway. Hopefully, next year Canadian voters will show him the highway.

3.) The size of Canada is irrelevant. And our relative wealth is sliding in global rankings in any case. Our social infrastructure, in particular, has in many places been permitted to fall into a state of inadequacy and disrepair. Many analysts have concluded that the best way to help the largest number of refugees is to address their needs 'in situ' in camps near their homelands. Moving several thousand across oceans to foreign countries where they'll have difficulty adjusting is more tokenism than a humane response. David Suzuki, the well-known environmentalist and member of the Order of Canada, has noted that from an ecological perspective Canada has reached a full population level and pointed out that bringing people here from developing countries isn't enlightened because it drains the countries they leave of important human and leadership resources. Others have pointed out that moving people from the developing world to Canada is an ecological disaster as their carbon footprint expands substantially once here. Canada is one of the coldest countries on earth. There's no "progressive" way to get around that fact.

Edited August 22, 2018 by turningrite

[capricorn]

48 minutes ago, Slick said:

Some of these posts seem completely ludicrous. The press and public have infinitely more access to the PM than under Harper.

Slick, Harper is long gone. I suspect if Trudeau was Blackbeard reincarnated you would still defend him because he's not Harper. Get over Harper and tell us what you really think of Trudeau the Impaler.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) You have to consider that under the Charter we have to respect "freedom of association." The Charter is broadly and perhaps primarly intended to protect political freedoms and not just religious proclivities. It is not against the law to belong to a group that opposes immigration and/or refugee policy. To do so is protected as much as many people argue is the right to wear a burqa or niqab. You might not like the woman's views, but she has every right to freely express them anywhere she wishes, including to the PM. (Unless, of course, you only believe that "freedoms" apply to things with things you like, which seems a progressive predilection these days.)

I agree she can freely express herself. However, I am also saying that she would have been hastily removed from a Harper rally, not indulged. It is also true that JT takes infinitely more unscripted questions from the press and public than our former PM, meaning the voices of far more Canadians are expressed now.  The woman is part of a group with a race based anti-immigration agenda and she yelled that the PM is intolerant of white Quebecors. Rallying the troops around a message that racism will not be tolerated by Liberals was an appropriate response. 

Quote

2.) Why wouldn't he answer her question directly? The matter she raised is legitimately a one of public debate. He could have respectively said something like 'we know there are problems and concerns and we're working to address them' without launching into a derogatory tirade. The tone of his response suggests that he doesn't respect democracy. It's his way or the highway. Hopefully, next year Canadian voters will show him the highway.

It was a rally not a town hall or Q&A. His tone suggested he is trying to rally his supporters it does not even come close to a derogatory tirade or your "my way or the highway" suggestion. The question of cost and what portion each level of government will be responsible for will have to be addressed, especially leading up to the next election, but not at a rally.

Quote

3.) The size of Canada is irrelevant. And our relative wealth is sliding in global rankings in any case. Our social infrastructure, in particular, has been permitted to fall into a state of inadequacy and disrepair. Many analysts have concluded that the best way to help the largest number of refugees is to address their needs 'in situ' in camps near their homelands. Moving several thousand across oceans to foreign countries where they'll have difficulty adjusting is more tokenism than a humane response. David Suzuki, the well-known environmentalist and member of the Order of Canada, has noted that from an ecological perspective Canada has reached a full population level and pointed out that bringing people here from developing countries isn't enlightened because it drains the countries they leave of important human and leadership resources. Others have pointed out that moving people from the developing world to Canada is an ecological disaster as their carbon footprint expands substantially when here.

The world is housing massive number of refugees fleeing certain death. Don't you think Canada has a responsibility to carry a tiny fraction of that load? 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, capricorn said:

Slick, Harper is long gone. I suspect if Trudeau was Blackbeard reincarnated you would still defend him because he's not Harper. Get over Harper and tell us what you really think of Trudeau the Impaler.

We have people complaining about aspects of this government that are far superior to the previous. Hence, reference to that government are required.

Scheer will now use immigration as a wedge issue like Harper tried to do with the niqab ban. I find the leveraging racial fears for political gain to be distasteful. 

[capricorn]

1 minute ago, Slick said:

We have people complaining about aspects of this government that are far superior to the previous. Hence, reference to that government are required.

Scheer will now use immigration as a wedge issue like Harper tried to do with the niqab ban. I find the leveraging racial fears for political gain to be distasteful. 

It's normal for people to hold a current government to account because the previous government is no longer able to put its stamp on current government policy and spending. Mainstream Canadians assess the government in power not the one they discarded in the last election.

Speaking of immigration as a wedge issue, it is Trudeau that is setting the tone by calling a citizen racist and intolerant simply for asking a relevant question regarding expenditures for illegal migrants. You are blind if you can't see that.