Federal Conservative Leader

[Queenmandy85]

I don't care whether a person is Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Muslim, Jewish or of the One True  Christian Faith. I am more concerned with their ablity and knowledge. God help us from that failed philosophy major.

[scribblet]

5 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

......Honestly, it's very possible for a poli-sci person to take some economics classes, barely pass without understanding anything, and then being able to claim they have a master's in economics. I doubt Harper could even do a simple OLS regression.

I doubt you know that or that he 'barely passed', the rest is also nonsense.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Shady said:

Ditto for things like socialism too.

No, there's plenty of room for elements of socialism, lots of virtue and I'm sure we could even squeeze in a little corporate welfare for good measure.

[Argus]

Whoever it is has to be able to present an image of strength and confidence. They have to speak in a forthright manner without the weasel words Scheer used to answer questions. If they have social conservative beliefs they have to be able to clearly state that these are the views of their church, and that they understand that these are not the views of secular Canada, nor would it be right nor even possible to foist them off on an unwilling population.

They have to be a strong advocate of conservative policies, not someone who timidly promises not to get serious about any of them. The point of leadership is to lead, not go wherever the polls show you people are already positioned.

Balanced budget, even if that means tax increase

Slash red tape around resource projects which require years of studies and hearings. Assert federal rights to control export trade (which includes forcing through pipelines)

Fix health care

Properly fund the military. Increase funding for CSIS and CCSE

Push back against Chinese economic and cyber attacks with tariffs. Lower number of Chinese students in Canada.

Strong laws, particularly against violence

Strengthen deportation laws against immigrants for crimes or fraud, and bring back the ability to strip immigrants of citizenship. Strengthen vetting of potential immigrants. Work to integrate immigrants. End elderly immigration without heavy sponsorship requirements. Cut immigration overall.

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

Whoever it is they will be pandering to the  GTA ridings which means they will simply become the Other Liberals without any really conservative policies at all.

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The point of leadership is to lead, not go wherever the polls show you people are already positioned.

The point of democratic leadership is a give-and-take between those elected leaders (MP's, PM) and their constituents. Leaders represent the views of constituents, and also at times inform constituents about factors that influence decisions. Democratic leaders are always accountable to constituents. 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Slash red tape around resource projects which require years of studies and hearings. Assert federal rights to control export trade (which includes forcing through pipelines)

"Red tape" is what protects us  against projects that will fail because they do not have viable business plans in terms of environmental, economic, legal or human resource liabilities. 

No one can "force through pipelines". They are always ultimately accountable through the courts. For example, the low court may have ordered an injunction against Wetsueten people to allow the LNG pipeline construction to continue, but that injunction is still subject to appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case for Aboriginal rights and title. (Meantime, Chevron has just pulled out its 50% investment due to the low price of gas, so the project is most likely no longer viable anyway, a 'stranded asset'.) 

Transmountain (TMX, Trudeau's purchase) oil pipeline construction continues on the Alberta side, but in BC there are court cases pending against it too. Also, its economic viability is also in jeopardy due to the low price of oil.

So again, nobody can "force pipelines through", and nobody can guarantee that a pipeline won't end up abandoned as a stranded asset as the viability of the fossil fuel industry wanes.

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Properly fund the military. Increase funding for CSIS and CCSE

And ensure proper policy and focus on domestic terrorism by far-right white supremacist groups and individuals across Canada. 

 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Strengthen deportation laws against immigrants for crimes or fraud, and bring back the ability to strip immigrants of citizenship. Strengthen vetting of potential immigrants. Work to integrate immigrants. End elderly immigration without heavy sponsorship requirements. Cut immigration overall.

 Most of what you mention is already in place, already part of the process. Elders without their own financial resources ARE sponsored. 

Canada is fully capable of addressing crimes, fraud or otherwise, via our own legal and justice system. 

Stripping citizenship never was a viable legal option. Harper passed it for optics only, and Trudeau quickly reversed it, for legal reasons. According to International law, you cannot leave a person "stateless", so it can only be applied against people who hold dual citizenships and that would be an additional, harsh and discriminatory punishment against dual citizens that would never be applied for the same crime to a person holding only Canadian citizenship: Canadian courts would strike it down. Once a citizen, you are subject to the laws and punishments of Canada, and no more.

Our point system for vetting of immigrants is just fine, imo. Can you point to any real problems with it?

[Argus]

17 hours ago, jacee said:

The point of democratic leadership is a give-and-take between those elected leaders (MP's, PM) and their constituents. Leaders represent the views of constituents,

You don't  'lead' by representing their views. You lead by presenting them with a position and convincing them it's the right one.

Quote

"Red tape" is what protects us  against projects that will fail because they do not have viable business plans in terms of environmental, economic, legal or human resource liabilities. 

Companies are not going to invest billions in projects that aren't viable. And it's their money.

Quote

No one can "force through pipelines".

The federal government has the authority to overrule all provincial and municipal objections on anything related to international trade, including the transportation of the goods.

Quote

They are always ultimately accountable through the courts.

That's what the override clause is for.

Quote

Most of what you mention is already in place, already part of the process. Elders without their own financial resources ARE sponsored. 

None of it is in place. There is no vetting of immigrants except for a cursory check for criminal records. Elders are sponsored but we pay their health care costs. When the Tories capped the numbers at 5k in 2013 they said each elderly immigrant was costing us a quarter of a million dollars in health care, and that 25% were winding up on welfare. They're also eligible for OAS and GIC after ten years. Trudeau quadrupling the elderly numbers will cost us $4 billion a year in additional health care costs alone.

Quote

Canada is fully capable of addressing crimes, fraud or otherwise, via our own legal and justice system. 

I see no reason to keep an immigrant who comes here and molests children. Remove their citizenship and send them home.

Quote

Stripping citizenship never was a viable legal option.

It has ALWAYS been a legal option.

Quote

Our point system for vetting of immigrants is just fine, imo. Can you point to any real problems with it?

The fact every public housing project is filled with immigrants and refugees, that every police wanted poster is filled with immigrants and refugees, and the massive costs of supporting immigrants and refugees who are not economically successful, which falls on the shoulders of taxpayers. Not to mention that the numbers are simply too great to integrate.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Argus

[August1991]

On 12/14/2019 at 3:14 PM, Argus said:

Whoever it is has to be able to present an image of strength and confidence. They have to speak in a forthright manner.....

 

Argus, you describe - with hindsight - a Churchill in 1940 or so.

You don't help to distinguish a Churchill in 1935 from the many people in 2010 claiming Climate Change.

====

I reckon that to win, the next federal Canadian Conservative leader will have to get a few more votes from low-information female, suburban voters - Trump style.

Edited December 16, 2019 by August1991

[jacee]

On 12/15/2019 at 11:19 AM, Argus said:

None of it is in place. There is no vetting of immigrants except for a cursory check for criminal records. Elders are sponsored but we pay their health care costs. When the Tories capped the numbers at 5k in 2013 they said each elderly immigrant was costing us a quarter of a million dollars in health care, and that 25% were winding up on welfare. They're also eligible for OAS and GIC after ten years. Trudeau quadrupling the elderly numbers will cost us $4 billion a year in additional health care costs alone.

I see no reason to keep an immigrant who comes here and molests children. Remove their citizenship and send them home.

It has ALWAYS been a legal option.

The fact every public housing project is filled with immigrants and refugees, that every police wanted poster is filled with immigrants and refugees, and the massive costs of supporting immigrants and refugees who are not economically successful, which falls on the shoulders of taxpayers. Not to mention that the numbers are simply too great to integrate.

Argus I am very aware of your personal racial prejudices and obsessive and irrational fears, and that's all you're spewing here. You provide no sources, no facts, just a lot of paranoid and delusional nonsense.

Just "a cursory check for criminal records"?!  So NOT TRUE, Argus. Are you not even familiar with Canada's immigration 'points system'?

You don't know even the smallest facts about immigration to Canada, nor do you really care or  ever bother to research or cite sources for what you say. It's like you're just a wind-up toy repeating every anti-immigrant meme that ever crossed your screen! And, given the google, facebook and other algorithms that mine your clicks and keep sending you more and more of the same, you're inevitably mired in downward slide under a mountain of racist propaganda.

Fear is not enough: I suggest you start your real citizenship education here: 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/family-sponsorship/sponsor-parents-grandparents.html

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by jacee

[PIK]

5 minutes ago, jacee said:

Argus I am very aware of your personal racial prejudices and obsessive and irrational fears, and that's all you're spewing here. You provide no sources, no facts, just a lot of paranoid and delusional nonsense.

Just "a cursory check for criminal records"?!  So NOT TRUE, Argus. Are you not even familiar with Canada's immigration 'points system'?

You don't know even the smallest facts about immigration to Canada, nor do you really care or  ever bother to research or cite sources for what you say. It's like you're just a wind-up toy repeating every anti-immigrant meme that ever crossed your screen! And, given the google, facebook and other algorithms that mine your clicks and keep sending you more and more of the same, you're inevitably mired in downward slide under a mountain of racist propaganda.

Fear is not enough: I suggest you start your real citizenship education here: 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/family-sponsorship/sponsor-parents-grandparents.html

 

Wrong again, like usual.

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, jacee said:

Argus I am very aware of your personal racial prejudices

You mean you've made up and assigned some to me, using the typical far left mantra that anyone who is even mildly opposed to immigration or to any group coming in must be inspired by racism. That is simply due to your own fanaticism. Ideologues invent things about their ideological enemies. The far left cannot stand being contradicted on its sacred 'truths'.

Quote

You provide no sources, no facts,

Everything I say is fact. If you question anything then ask and unlike you I'll provide the source. There's nothing I've said above I haven't said before, with sources and cites included.

Quote

Just "a cursory check for criminal records"?!  So NOT TRUE, Argus. Are you not even familiar with Canada's immigration 'points system'?

A cursory check. That's it. That's all. There isn't even an interview. Just a very quick scan of documents, most of them produced by private parties in third world countries, often by bribery, often forged. Not sure why you included a cite about elderly immigrants. There's nothing in it which contradicts what I said.

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Argus

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Just "a cursory check for criminal records"?!  So NOT TRUE, Argus.

It is true.

 

 

https://tnc.news/2019/12/12/crown-seeks-life-in-prison-for-edmonton-isis-connected-van-attacker/?fbclid=IwAR11gi-nBoB9yDtExqGRpnTZcfb_qz6E1X6Noa6LHxOUCVqWmyuQhBxLkHU

This guy came into Canada illegally after being ordered deported in the US and this raised "no red flags" nor was he put on any watch lists.

 

Quote

 

Authorities knew about Sharif before the attack took place but deemed he was no threat to society upon further investigation. 

Sharif crossed into Canada illegally in 2012 and was granted refugee status despite the fact that U.S. authorities had ordered him to be deported. According to former Liberal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, Sharif raised no “red flags” for Canadian authorities. 

 

 

He was espousing ISIS views 2 years before he did the attack in Edmonton and still the RCMP did nothing about him.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/deep-dive-into-edmonton-terror-suspects-background-a-little-too-late/

 

Quote

Two years ago, city police and RCMP had investigated Sharif after receiving a complaint about him espousing extremist ideological views—reportedly incoherent rants about genocide, and praise for Islamic State leaders. Police at least interviewed the complainant and the suspect, performing what they called this week an “exhaustive investigation” yet concluding the young resident didn’t pose a security threat and didn’t warrant charges or further investigation.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Goddess

[taxme]

On 12/12/2019 at 7:54 PM, Dougie93 said:

Big Daddy Trump President of Canada.

 

All politicians must kneel before the god of ZOD or ZOG which is what I am assuming that you were trying to say here, right? Just asking. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

Wrong again, like usual.

What's your source for that?  Lol 

[taxme]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It is true.

 

 

https://tnc.news/2019/12/12/crown-seeks-life-in-prison-for-edmonton-isis-connected-van-attacker/?fbclid=IwAR11gi-nBoB9yDtExqGRpnTZcfb_qz6E1X6Noa6LHxOUCVqWmyuQhBxLkHU

This guy came into Canada illegally after being ordered deported in the US and this raised "no red flags" nor was he put on any watch lists.

 

 

He was espousing ISIS views 2 years before he did the attack in Edmonton and still the RCMP did nothing about him.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/deep-dive-into-edmonton-terror-suspects-background-a-little-too-late/

 

 

 

Are just about all of our politicians and some police departments full of dumb and dumber idiots? Other than Maxine Bernier, I have never really heard any politician from any political party in Canada try and do anything about legal and illegal refugees entering Canada. They all stay politically correct mum on the question of legal and illegal immigration. One has to get the impression that these so called, I really do care about Canada politicians, only care about their power and glory over we the people. The people are demanding that they do something about our refugee problem, and all we seem to get from them is more refugee problems. Do we have impeachment in Canada? Dam, no. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You mean you've made up and assigned some to me ... 

No, I don't have to make anything up. Your words have spoken for themselves. 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Everything I say is fact.

Lol 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

A cursory check. That's it. That's all.

Please explain the points system, Argus. 

 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Not sure why you included a cite about elderly immigrants.

Because you said they all end up "on welfare". That's just more of you racist and malicious lies and made-up nonsense. Where's your cite for that?!  Lol 

Elderly immigrants are sponsored and supported by their family's verified income in Canada, or they have their own money to support themselves. 

[jacee]

41 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It is true.

https://tnc.news/2019/12/12/crown-seeks-life-in-prison-for-edmonton-isis-connected-van-attacker/?fbclid=IwAR11gi-nBoB9yDtExqGRpnTZcfb_qz6E1X6Noa6LHxOUCVqWmyuQhBxLkHU

This guy came into Canada illegally after being ordered deported in the US and this raised "no red flags" nor was he put on any watch lists.

He was espousing ISIS views 2 years before he did the attack in Edmonton and still the RCMP did nothing about him.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/deep-dive-into-edmonton-terror-suspects-background-a-little-too-late/

That's a refugee. They do have a face-to-face interview. 

Argus is talking about immigration.

Edited December 16, 2019 by jacee

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, jacee said:

No, I don't have to make anything up. Your words have spoken for themselves. 

Filtered through the mind of your extremism.

Quote

Lol 

Please explain the points system, Argus. 

Perhaps I'd be better off explaining how immigrant applications get approved.

Quote

Because you said they all end up "on welfare". That's just more of you racist and malicious lies and made-up nonsense. Where's your cite for that?!  Lol 

I said nothing of the sort. I suggest you go back and try to read what I actually wrote instead of how your extremist ideological brain filtered and translated it. I said 25% were winding up on welfare. As per the minister at the time. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/don-t-bring-parents-here-for-welfare-kenney-says-1.1351002

Quote

Elderly immigrants are sponsored and supported by their family's verified income in Canada, or they have their own money to support themselves. 

And if they stop being sponsored what happens then? You also ignore that we're responsible for their health care and that they can get pension despite having never contributed anything to Canada.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

These quotes from a book on the immigration system illustrate how little care is given to checking out the people we're bringing here in such numbers.
 

Points of Entry (Canada’s newest book on the Canadian Immigration System):

 

Dr. Satzewich’s book, “Points of Entry”, is about how Canadian visa officers make decisions about potential immigrants on a day-to-day basis. Canada has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, and immigration is one of the most researched subjects in Canada today, yet what goes on in visa offices is clouded in secrecy” (page 7).

 

In writing this book, Dr. Satzewich has provided a valuable service in casting light on what he describes as a government department that “could have written the manual on how to design a truly nameless and faceless bureaucracy” (page 8).

 

That Dr. Satzewich, through perseverance and tenacity managed to get inside the “black box” of the immigration system, something very few could do before him, is a testament to his commitment to his research.

 

One of Dr. Satzewich’s key findings is that far fewer interviews are conducted today than were conducted before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002. The result is that immigration officers meet “only a handful” (page 240) of the people whose applications they process and lose “opportunities to assess credibility and risk” (page 216).

 

This is not the fault of these officers but rather a bureaucratic and policy structure that is obsessed with numbers. Of the hard-working immigration officers of whom more is regularly demanded, “some still regard themselves as nation-builders whose mandate is to select good immigrants for Canada [and] many officers lament the fact that so little of their job involves personal contact with applicants” (page 242).

 

Immigration is an important issue and Dr. Satzewich provides us with an important look at how immigration decisions are made. This is an important book and one that we urge all with an interest in this issue to read very carefully!

 

Kellie spoke with Dr. Satzewich about his book. Dr. Satzewich told Kellie that he did not support the idea of values testing. That’s fine. Dr. Satzewich’s research is still very important.

 

Dr. Satzewich does not, however, answer the question of how many people seeking to come to Canada are interviewed.

 

That number comes from Vigilance, Accountability and Security at Canada’s Borders, a report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, dated June 2015, in which the committee states that it is “concerned that only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants are interviewed by a visa officer before they come to Canada” (page 14).

 

Only 9% to 15% of immigrants are interviewed by a trained immigration official before they are awarded permanent residency status in Canada!

 

The full report can be found here:

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/secd/rep/rep16jun15a-e.pdf

 

The Senate Committee goes on to recommend “[w]ith respect to those seeking to immigrate to Canada (e.g. students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and permanent residents), Immigration Canada should establish a pilot project to examine the feasibility of using secure video conferencing and mobile teams of experienced immigration officers to conduct fully recorded face-to-face interviews, in the applicant’s country of residence” (page 15).

 

Here are some of the findings from Dr. Satzewich’s book:

 

On the move away from face-to-face interviews

 

Prior to the 2002 introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, most applicants for permanent resident visas were interviewed by an officer. Though the trend to waive interviews in relatively ‘straightforward’ cases arose during the late 1990s, officers were progressively cut off from the immigrants (and visitors) whom they selected. Their face-to-face interactions with applicants became increasingly rare, with the result that most now see only a handful of the thousands of people whose files they will process during their careers” (page 240).

 

“…in isolating themselves from applicants, officers may be foregoing opportunities to assess credibility and risk” (page 216).

 

Triage of Cases

 

Dr. Satzewich points out in his field notes that the security guards and receptionists at visa offices play a role in collecting information on those potential immigrants who arrive for an interview. Their impressions about applicants, their body language, mannerisms, and behaviour, are passed on to the officers who make the decisions on the case. (page 225)

 

Time Pressures

 

Satzewich’s interviews with employees of CIC repeatedly point out that the CIC organization is obsessed with numbers. There are constant demands for more and more approvals meaning an effective demand for fewer refusals since, refusals take more time and therefore make it more difficult for them to meet the approval quotas.

 

“Time and target constraints, and the prospect of an appeal, seem to end up benefitting marginal, potentially undeserving applicants” (page 185).

 

“In a busy Asian office, an officer who dealt exclusively with visitor visas said that she was expected to make seventy-five decisions a day, which translated to about three minutes per file, not including the time she devoted to writing up her notes in the database.

 

In the same office, another officer who handled temporary foreign workers said, ‘I spend about five to seven minutes per file’…. In another Asian office, a Canada-based officer said that she makes about 100 decisions a week on all types of temporary resident files but was being pressured to increase that to 75 a day. She noted that a locally engaged non-immigrant officer in her office made over 14,000 decisions in 2011 alone, compared to her own 4,400. As elsewhere in the system, time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making. A Canada-based officer remarked:

 

“There’s so much pressure. They want the numbers. They don’t want the waiting times … It’s always about the numbers” (page196).

 

“A Canada-based officer explained that ‘the targets generally work to the advantage of the client. If we didn’t have the demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate. Another Canada-based officer said much the same thing: ‘In some cases, you are “feeding the target beast.” The big buzzword is “risk management.” You just can’t take the time to verify every document. Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. That is why quality assurance exercises are very important. Risk management means closing your eyes” (page 136).

 

Interviews

 

“One consequence of the pressure to meet targets is that visa offices and officers limit their direct contact with applicants and reduce the number of interviews with them. Interviews slow the decision-making process, so International Region encourages officers to ‘waive interviews whenever possible’ (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2011, OP 2: Processing Members of the Family Class). As a result, they are used sparingly and only if an officer has concerns about the credibility of an application or if the risks of making a wrong decision are high” (page 135).

 

“Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork. Interviews for ‘good cases’ might last just a few minutes, but those for refusal cases could consume an hour or two. In the early 2000s, hoping to improve efficiency, the department began to encourage officers to make more decisions solely on the basis of the paper application: strong ones could be accepted without an interview, and certain categories of weak ones could be rejected without an interview, on the grounds that nothing significant would be learned by talking to the individual. Today, interviews are no longer expected or required….” (page 170).

 

“In most cases, an officer’s contact with applicants is solely via their ‘paper’ application. As a result, much of the assessment of credibility and risk occurs without any face-to-face interaction. Though officers interview far fewer applicants than they did before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, they still use interviews to clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies, to assess truthfulness, to gauge credibility, and to measure risk. In a face-to-face interview, credibility is determined by verbal responses but also by demeanor and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer’s concerns can factor into the decision to issue or refuse a visa” (pages 55-56).

 

Interviews and Personal Suitability

 

“Before 2002, language proficiency was not measured via a standardized test. Instead, applicants rated themselves on their spoken and written language abilities, and visa officers were responsible for confirming whether those self-assessments were accurate. Almost all applicants for a permanent resident visa in what was then called the ‘independent category’ were required to attend an interview, which officers used to determine whether their language skills matched what they had stated on their application” (page 167).

 

Further, prior to the introduction of the Act, applicants were evaluated on “an explicitly discretionary criterion called ‘personal suitability.’ The stated rationale for this category was that the grid should leave room for officers to exercise their professional judgment about an applicant. It was believed that certain intangible factors, such as ‘adaptability, motivation, initiative and resourcefulness played a role in whether applicants could ‘successfully establish’ in Canada” (page 167).

[jacee]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Filtered through the mind of your extremism.

Perhaps I'd be better off explaining how immigrant applications get approved.

I said nothing of the sort. I suggest you go back and try to read what I actually wrote instead of how your extremist ideological brain filtered and translated it.

And if they stop being sponsored what happens then? You also ignore that we're responsible for their health care and that they can get pension despite having never contributed anything to Canada.

No, they don't get "pension" - CPP - unless they've worked and  contributed. 

They do get OAS and possibly GIS ... like every senior in Canada, including all others who have never worked (eg, mostly women supported by spouse's income). 

[Argus]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

No, they don't get "pension" - CPP - unless they've worked and  contributed. 

They do get OAS and possibly GIS ... like every senior in Canada, including all others who have never worked (eg, mostly women supported by spouse's income). 

There is a difference between us giving these pensions to seniors who have lived their lives in Canada and giving them to foreigners.

[jacee]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

I said nothing of the sort.

You said that as of 2013, 25% of elderly immigrants ended up on welfare. Can you provide a cite for that, and more importantly, an update to 2019? 

[jacee]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is a difference between us giving these pensions to seniors who have lived their lives in Canada and giving them to foreigners.

There are length-of-residency requirements for OAS & GIS. Look it up. 

And again ... CPP is a "pension" with contributions through working. OAS and GIS are not pensions, but senior benefits. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by jacee

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, jacee said:

You said that as of 2013, 25% of elderly immigrants ended up on welfare. Can you provide a cite for that, and more importantly, an update to 2019? 

I provided the cite in the post you replied to.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

Only in your prejudiced mind. 

And again ... CPP is a "pension" with contributions through working.

OAS and GIS are not pensions, but age benefits. 

OAS and GIS are paid for through the taxes of Canadians. Why do we let the government take our money to pay for these pensions on behalf of the elderly? Because they're OUR elderly. Because we have a sense that we belong to a community with shared values and sense of shared identity. These are foreigners. I see no reason to be paying for their health care or their pensions.