Trudeau's virtue signalling

[Northern Light]

Of course, our current $14 per hour minimum wage, is about $2,275 before tax deduction. (per month)

Or about $2,000 per month after tax.

That discrepancy is unduly low...........anyone fancy the idea of raising the minimum to $15 or even $16 per hour???

 

[buildup]

"Kamal Takkouch, here three months from Lebanon, said as a single person, he receives $1,079 a month.
“It’s not enough for rent,” he said, adding jokingly, “I want to eat.”"

There is work available in Toronto, the unemployment rate is very low, which could double his income to $2,240 per month. And is another family member is around that would add to it. Are people in the Lebanese community helping out as well? Lebanese are very entrepreneurial, including Syrians. Its not all about Govt.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Of course, our current $14 per hour minimum wage, is about $2,275 before tax deduction. (per month)

Or about $2,000 per month after tax.

That discrepancy is unduly low...........anyone fancy the idea of raising the minimum to $15 or even $16 per hour???

*raises hand*

I'm asking for a pay rise next month because I have to move next week and my new rent is $250 more per month than my current. I'm straight up using that as my reason for a pay increase when I talk to the office about it.
Also, if minimum wage goes up then I ask for a pay increase to keep me at the same multiple of the minimum as before. Help me help me and those making minimum.

 

[SunriseChampion]

"Kamal Takkouch, here three months from Lebanon, said as a single person, he receives $1,079 a month.
“It’s not enough for rent,” he said, adding jokingly, “I want to eat.”"

There is work available in Toronto, the unemployment rate is very low, which could double his income to $2,240 per month. And is another family member is around that would add to it. Are people in the Lebanese community helping out as well? Lebanese are very entrepreneurial, including Syrians. Its not all about Govt.

I need an assistant at work. Somebody give me this guy's deets. He can start at $18 or $19 an hour. Perks: long lunches, short Fridays and Mondays, my blunt sense of humour.

 

[Filip]

My grandmother on OAS and CPP would go hungry and homeless in no time if she weren't living with my mother.

That's a Canadian citizen, earning the equivalent of $400 a month (taxable) from the government.

Illegal alien, 'refugee' (read economic migrant) - here's a few thousand a month, more if you have a brood of children.

Ridiculous and absolutely disgusting.

 

[Northern Light]

My grandmother on OAS and CPP would go hungry and homeless in no time if she weren't living with my mother.

That's a Canadian citizen, earning the equivalent of $400 a month (taxable) from the government.

Illegal alien, 'refugee' (read economic migrant) - here's a few thousand a month, more if you have a brood of children.

Ridiculous and absolutely disgusting.

I appreciate the struggles of your grandmother, but I don't think your making a reasonable comparison.

First off, your grandmother would qualify for public housing and/or longterm care. Which is not inexpensive.

Second, I've never heard of a combined CPP/OAS/GIS payment that low for qualified recipients.

As a rule GIS rises to ensure a minimum payment equal to the lowest possible CPP payment, plus OAS. (the minimum payment for someone w/no CPP income who is otherwise qualified is $1,487 per month)

https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/dfa4daf1-669e-4514-82cd-982f27707ed0

OAS/GIS generally requires you be a resident of Canada for at least 10 years after the age of 18 for a partial payment (40 for a full payment) . But even if grandma didn't qualify initially, she would become qualified after a period of years. (as I understand it)

If you argue that retirement incomes writ large are inadequate I'd be fully supportive. I also support raising the retirement age to 68 which would fully finance a major increase in benefits.

If you want to argue that someone who has been in Canada less than 10 years should receive full retirement benefits.......I'm open minded and progressive but that might be a struggle. Perhaps partial payments should be higher.

Regardless, I fail to understand why you are upset that someone you care for is not receiving the kind of support you feel she needs, but you would gladly deny proper support to someone else.

 

[jje1000]

The Ontario government is sticking a $200 million dollar bill to Ottawa. Again, this is going to get tremendously expensive- possibly driving resentment across many segments of society (including immigrant ones). The Ford government knows it has the ability to make this very politically uncomfortable for the Trudeau government.

MacLeod renews demand of $200 million from feds for cost of migrants

Lisa MacLeod, Ontario’s minister tasked with immigration, says the federal government’s offer of $11 million to Toronto to help cover some of the costs of irregular migration is a “drop in the bucket.”

MacLeod, who is the province’s children, community and social services minister, has asked for the federal government to give $74 million to the City of Toronto, $3 million to the Red Cross and other organizations supporting refugee claimants who stayed in college dorms this summer and $12 million to the City of Ottawa. She also wants to see $90 million in social assistance and $20 million for primary and secondary education spaces.

https://ipolitics.ca/2018/08/13/macleod-renews-demand-of-200-million-from-feds-for-cost-of-migrants/

 

[Filip]

I appreciate the struggles of your grandmother, but I don't think your making a reasonable comparison.

First off, your grandmother would quality for public housing and/or longterm care. Which is not inexpensive.

Second, I've never heard of a combined CPP/OAS/GIS payment that low for qualified recipients.

As a rule GIS rises to ensure a minimum payment equal to the lowest possible CPP payment, plus OAS. (the minimum payment for someone w/no CPP income who is otherwise qualified is $1,487 per month)

https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/dfa4daf1-669e-4514-82cd-982f27707ed0

OAS/GIS generally requires you be a resident of Canada for at least 10 years after the age of 18 for a partial payment (40 for a full payment) . But even if grandma didn't qualify initially, she would become qualified after a period of years. (as I understand it)

If you argue that retirement incomes writ large are inadequate I'd be fully supportive. I also support raising the retirement age to 68 which would fully finance a major increase in benefits.

If you want to argue that someone who has been in Canada less than 10 years should receive full retirement benefits.......I'm open minded and progressive but that might be a struggle. Perhaps partial payments should be higher.

Regardless, I fail to understand why you are upset that someone you care for is not receiving the kind of support you feel she needs, but you would gladly deny proper support to someone else.

Because these are not real refugees, they're economic migrants, like my family was - except we did it the legal way.

This whole episode is angering legal immigrants (who happen to be almost all immigrants) and risks backfiring on Trudeau and his band of sycophants.

$200 headphones, fancy jackets, electronics? These guys don't look like they escaped a warzone with the clothes on their back.

 

[Northern Light]

The Ontario government is sticking a $200 million dollar bill to Ottawa. Again, this is going to get tremendously expensive- possibly driving resentment across many segments of society (including immigrant ones). The Ford government knows it has the ability to make this very politically uncomfortable for the Trudeau government.




https://ipolitics.ca/2018/08/13/macleod-renews-demand-of-200-million-from-feds-for-cost-of-migrants/

The Trudeau government is correct when describing its international obligations to asylum seekers.

Its not unfair to say some would be applicants are breaching the spirit of such deals, in the manner of their arrival.

Be that as it may, the government must address people properly once on our soil.

They also can't as a practical matter eliminate all illegal/irregular crossings.

For reasons of good policy and good politics, however, they really should stop-up that leaky road into Quebec.

There are three practical choices:

1)Make it a legal, regularized point-of-entry. (not really desirable, at the end of a dead-end road)

2)Buy out property owners on the US side, and remove the road base and re-forest the land, making it a far less desirable crossing point.

3)Install security fencing (no faces), not endless amounts, maybe 4km worth, enough to make this location less desirable for a crossing.

I'm in favour of treating asylum seekers fairly.

But we should take reasonable action to encourage them go through the normal process for such claims.

 

[Northern Light]

Because these are not real refugees, they're economic migrants, like my family was - except we did it the legal way.

This whole episode is angering legal immigrants (who happen to be almost all immigrants) and risks backfiring on Trudeau and his band of sycophants.

$200 headphones, fancy jackets, electronics? These guys don't look like they escaped a warzone with the clothes on their back.

There are non-economic claimants in the mix.

The issue has been driven by people who had been legal in the United States on a temporary or interim basis facing the threat of that status being revoked.

Those folks, in many cases, have been living and working in the United States for several years.

You'd have to examine each country and person to consider whether the claim is purely economic (many from central America are fleeing the threat of violence as well)

But even for those who are economic claimants, I sympathize w/their POV, even if I wouldn't be inclined to grant asylum.

If they went through the regular process, they might be deported (from the US) in the meantime, losing existing employment; we also don't provide for any claimants to apply from the US and just await our ruling.

Nor do we guarantee a ruling w/in the time required.

Choices are sometimes really messy.

 

[Filip]

There are non-economic claimants in the mix.

The issue has been driven by people who had been legal in the United States on a temporary or interim basis facing the threat of that status being revoked.

Those folks, in many cases, have been living and working in the United States for several years.

You'd have to examine each country and person to consider whether the claim is purely economic (many from central America are fleeing the threat of violence as well)

But even for those who are economic claimants, I sympathize w/their POV, even if I wouldn't be inclined to grant asylum.

If they went through the regular process, they might be deported (from the US) in the meantime, losing existing employment; we also don't provide for any claimants to apply from the US and just await our ruling.

Nor do we guarantee a ruling w/in the time required.

Choices are sometimes really messy.

Refugees are to claim asylum in the first safe country they touch.

There is quite a safe country between Canada/Central America - and quite a few between Canada/Middle East. The fact that the safe country below us isn't feeling too generous regarding economic migrants doesn't make them our problem. There are rules in place for a reason.

Apply the legal way, you run the risk of getting rejected. If you do, tough shit. How many job interviews have you had where you didn't' get the job? Shit happens - go elsewhere. Our family had Canada as #1, Australia as #2 and America as #3 in terms of our immigration wishlist. We would have progressively continued down the list if we got rejected. But we didn't cause we came with some skills that could be used in our new home - unlike some of this...

Scandinavian countries are having a major issue with their social safety net due to uncontrolled migration. Social safety nets and immigration work if you're carefully tailoring who you're letting in (are you going to be a drain on my economy or are you going to contribute?) without that calculus - immigration becomes a nasty issue that will feed populists and racists - I don't want it to to get to that.

 

[jje1000]

The Trudeau government is correct when describing its international obligations to asylum seekers.

Its not unfair to say some would be applicants are breaching the spirit of such deals, in the manner of their arrival.

Be that as it may, the government must address people properly once on our soil.

They also can't as a practical matter eliminate all illegal/irregular crossings.

For reasons of good policy and good politics, however, the really should stop-up that leaky road into Quebec.

There are three practical choices:

1)Make it a legal, regularized point-of-entry. (not really desirable, at the end of a dead-end road)

2)Buy out property owners on the US side, and remove the road base on re-forest the land, making it a far less desirable crossing point.

3)Install security fencing (no faces), not endless amounts, maybe 4km worth, enough to make this location less desirable for a crossing.

I'm in favour of treating asylum seekers fairly.

But we should take reasonable action to encourage them go through the normal process for such claims.

Any attempt to 'fix' the crossing will only shift migrant loads elsewhere. People are opportunistic (you and me included), and to no fault of their own- will always look for openings in the system to improve their lives- even if it harms the system.

I wonder if revisiting the Safe Third Country Agreement loophole be an option? Either changing the wording to automatically reject all applicants arriving from the US, or allowing all migrants to lodge a asylum claim at any point of entry would be a far better solution than the current state of affairs.

Another alternate would be to open an 'Ellis-Island' kind of facility so as to temporaily hold migrants from the general populace until their claims have been processed (and to allow for an easy deportation), but that draws unfavorable comparisons to holding camps.

 

[buildup]

I appreciate the struggles of your grandmother, but I don't think your making a reasonable comparison.

If you argue that retirement incomes writ large are inadequate I'd be fully supportive. I also support raising the retirement age to 68 which would fully finance a major increase in benefits.

You raise another serious beef I have with Trudeau. Harper did all the heavy lifting and took his lumps in raising the retirement age. Everyone knows this has to be done. But Trudeau reversed in his campaign pledge. He didn teven have to do the work, but still....

 

[Northern Light]

You raise another serious beef I have with Trudeau. Harper did all the heavy lifting and took his lumps in raising the retirement age. Everyone knows this has to be done. But Trudeau reversed in his campaign pledge. He didn teven have to do the work, but still....

I agree that reversing this decision was wrong.

But Harper is at fault for not reinvesting any of the savings in higher benefits. If he had, it would have been more popular/less unpopular and not likely in the Liberal platform.

Harper made it strictly a benefit reduction (by delaying payment) and that was bad policy and politics.

The Liberals capitalized, but chose the wrong prescription, which should have been to raise benefits w/the savings.

 

[buildup]

I agree that reversing this decision was wrong.

But Harper is at fault for not reinvesting any of the savings in higher benefits. If he had, it would have been more popular/less unpopular and not likely in the Liberal platform.

Harper made it strictly a benefit reduction (by delaying payment) and that was bad policy and politics.

The Liberals capitalized, but chose the wrong prescription, which should have been to raise benefits w/the savings.

I don't think the goal should have been higher current benefits, but rather ensuring we have a better chance of meeting obligations future (darn, dyslexia again).