In Canada we have entered a new age of political discourse. It has become increasingly clear on certain political issues that if you disagree with the government's policy or with what is considered the popular "political stance" you may be considered a racist. This is no more clearly apparent than the discourse surrounding the issue of Syrian migrants.
In Canada, the new Liberal government has decided that they are going to try and bring 25,000 Syrian migrants to Canada by the end of the calandar year. There is a broad consensus across the country that this is not only the right thing to do, it is the best thing that Canada can do to aid Syrians in their plight as they flee from their war torn homeland. The problem that has arisen however, is that if you disagree with this program, you are labeled a racist. It doesn't really matter what basis you base your opposition to the program on, you are simply labeled an islamophobe.
Across the country since the attack in Paris, there have been several blatantly racist attacks against muslims, mostly against women. A mosque in Peterborough ON, was destroyed by arson, a muslim woman was attacked outside a school, and there have been incidents of racist behaviour on Toronto subways. These incidents of racism are abhorrent, and blatantly unCanadian. However, it must also be noted, that denying a person their right to free speech, and their right to disagree with their government is equally as abhorrent. Canadian rights apply to everyone, not just those who agree with the majority (or apparent majority) opinion.
There are several reasons why I think that bringing 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of the calandar year is irresponsible, and I will outline them below., but first I feel that before I do, I have to defend myself, and even though I have the right to my opinion and the right to free speech, I need to state unequivocably that I am not a racist, and that I believe in the concept of multiculturalism and immigration. This is not about immigration or multiculturalism, it is about a policy that is irresponsible on several different levels.
First, there is the question of security. The Liberal government cannot guarantee the security of Canada in allowing the 25,000 Syrians into Canada on such a quick schedule. The government of Canada is not conducting the security screenings of these individuals but is relying on the screening process of the UNHCR. The unfortunate thing about this is that where the migrants are being processed, there are so many people being processed that it is fairly easy for a terrorist to slip through posing as a migrant. One of the attackers in Paris apparently slipped through into Europe via Greece as a Syrian refugee. Another of the attackers in Paris has apparently been able to slip in and out of Europe quite easily, and nobody knows how. Did he pose as a migrant?
The Government of Canada continuously says that it is safe and that we have nothing to worry about. The chances of a jihadist slipping through is next to zero. I don't buy that for an instant. A jihadist was able to slip through become one of the attackers in Paris. If it can happen in Paris, it can happen in Toronto or Montreal, or Vancouver.
My second argument is based on the number of migrants that Justin Trudeau has decided that Canada can absorb. The previous government under Stephen Harper had a plan to bring 10,000 Syrian refugees. This number was based on reasoned approach to the problem. The number that Justin Trudeau decided upon was simply a number that he threw out during the election campaign. The Harper government would bring 10,000 Syrians to Canada, so he would bring 25,000. It was simply a political tool used to get his party elected to government.
Even the United States with a population of over 300 million and an economy astronomicallyn larger than that of Canada feels that they can only absorb 10,000, yet somehow, Justin Trudeau thinks that Canada with only 33 million people and a much smaller economy can absorb more than twice as many refugees than the United States. Many other western countries are taking Syrian refugees at numbers around 10,000.
My third argument is both economic and social. The Liberal government inherited a 3 billion dollar plus deficit from the previous Conservative government, not the surplus that the previous government indicated. The estimated cost of bringing the 25,000 refugees to Canada is now aproximately 1.3 billion dollars. The argument here is not that we cannot afford it, because we can always afford to help, but there are some unspoken issues that nobody is talking about.
The refugees that come to Canada will be given access to healthcare, housing, and education. That is true for all immigrants to Canada. There is a counter arguement here. We have a homeless problem in Canada with people who have no access to housing. Many of or First Nations reservations do not have access to adequate education, housing, healthcare, and in some cases even clean drinking water. The Government of Canada will spend 1.3 billion dollars on the refugee crisis, but there is nothing being done to alleviate some of the problems for our own Canadian Family. Is it right to spend such vast sums of monies on bringing so many refugees to Canada, while ignoring other social issues affecting Canadians. Where is the money for social services, clean drinking water initiatives, First Nations education and healthcare? Where is the money for low income housing initiatives? When I was growing up, I was taught that even when you couldn't stand each other, family came first, and in Canada we are not doing that.
Canadians are also being quite hypocritical on the issue of the Syrian refugee crisis. As the crisis has moved forward there have been offers of housing and some companies are even holding jobs, and in some cases even creating jobs for the refugees that will soon be arriving in Canada. Exuse me? Where was this housing when low income Canadians were trying to find it? Where were these jobs when Canadians were seeking employment? In some cases, they didn't exist. The were simply created out of thin air. I know several first generation immigrants who cannot find work, yet there are jobs being created for Syrian refugees? It is laudible that people want to help with the refugee crisis, and every little thing can make a difference, but Canadians must come first. This is true for both the government, and for the citizens of Canada.
Finally, why are we not creating safe zones in the middle east? We could use the militaries of many countries to protect the refugees in these zones. Why are Arab nations not taking Arab refugees? In many cases some of these countries hate us one minute and then they flock to us the next. A different approach is needed to deal with this crisis than to simply allow 3 million people to migrate from the middle east. Western countries cannot handle the inflow of 3 million refugees either economically or politically. A different approach is needed, but for the moment, we need to take some refugees to alleviate the situation, but 25,000 in less than 40 days? That is totally irresponsible.
It is the duty of the government to put Canadians first. The mosaic of the Canadian family is mulit-leveled and multi-cultural. It doesn't matter whether a person is a member of our First Nations community, a white canadian, or an immigrant from Sudan, Haiti, or Korea, they are all part of our Canadian Family and it is the duty of the government to put us first.
Sunday 22 November 2015
Wednesday 19 August 2015
The New Ontario Pension Plan Really is a Good Idea
The new Ontario Pension Plan really is a good idea. The Liberal government is intoducing a pension plan system similar to the federal Canada Pension Plan that will give retiring Ontarians more money in their pocket when they retire. What could be wrong with that?
It wasn't all that long ago, perhaps just two generations, that many companies offered pensions to their workers. These pensions were funded by both the employee and the company, and these deductions were put into pension funds that were managed by the company so that when the employee retired, there was a pension available. It was not considered a tax, but a benefit provided by the company to entice workers to work for the company. This money was put into a fund managed by the company and occasionally the fund was mismanaged, embezzeled, or disappeared if the company went bankrupt. But it was not a tax.
The government even created it's own Canada Pension Plan to help all Canadians with retirement, including those who did not have access to a company pension. This also is considered a benefit and not a tax. Retirees, when they apply for CPP do not apply for a CPP tax rebate or refund, but a CPP Benefit.
Many opponents argue that this will hurt business in the province. In terms of medium to large business, this is simply not true. Yes it will affect their bottom line, but this is not a new practice for many businesses. Companies offered pension plans in the past as enticements to employees and it didn't hurt them then. It is unclear how this will affect small business, but the Provincial government has an obligation not only to seniors but especially to small business to make sure that everybody benefits.
Today it is clear that as more and more seniors retire, there are more of them living on a fixed income at what seems to be a lower level every year. These seniors have been convinced to tap into their savings and spend, they have been convinced to refinance the houses they actually already owned, and it has become acceptable for the children of seniors to move back in with their parents and tap into their resources, reducing the amount of money seniors will have access to in their retirement.
The Federal government under Stephen Harper claims many programs to help and benefit seniors, but the affect seems to be negligible at best. More and more seniors are slipping into poverty. The Provincial government in Ontario is trying to alleviate this problem by introducing an Ontario Pension Plan similar to the Canada Pension Plan, that will put more money in the pockets of seniors when they retire.
Stephen Harper, his government, and the opponents in the provincial legislature all seem to be against this and call it a tax. Perhaps they have forgotten that business used to do this. Perhaps they object to the fact that it is being done in a fair and objective manner that will benefit all Ontarians. Perhaps they object to the fact that it is not business that is controlling the pool of money, but the Ontario Government. In any case, they cannot see past the fact that it is not a tax, but a benefit, that in the long term will aid Ontarians when they retire.
It wasn't all that long ago, perhaps just two generations, that many companies offered pensions to their workers. These pensions were funded by both the employee and the company, and these deductions were put into pension funds that were managed by the company so that when the employee retired, there was a pension available. It was not considered a tax, but a benefit provided by the company to entice workers to work for the company. This money was put into a fund managed by the company and occasionally the fund was mismanaged, embezzeled, or disappeared if the company went bankrupt. But it was not a tax.
The government even created it's own Canada Pension Plan to help all Canadians with retirement, including those who did not have access to a company pension. This also is considered a benefit and not a tax. Retirees, when they apply for CPP do not apply for a CPP tax rebate or refund, but a CPP Benefit.
Many opponents argue that this will hurt business in the province. In terms of medium to large business, this is simply not true. Yes it will affect their bottom line, but this is not a new practice for many businesses. Companies offered pension plans in the past as enticements to employees and it didn't hurt them then. It is unclear how this will affect small business, but the Provincial government has an obligation not only to seniors but especially to small business to make sure that everybody benefits.
Today it is clear that as more and more seniors retire, there are more of them living on a fixed income at what seems to be a lower level every year. These seniors have been convinced to tap into their savings and spend, they have been convinced to refinance the houses they actually already owned, and it has become acceptable for the children of seniors to move back in with their parents and tap into their resources, reducing the amount of money seniors will have access to in their retirement.
The Federal government under Stephen Harper claims many programs to help and benefit seniors, but the affect seems to be negligible at best. More and more seniors are slipping into poverty. The Provincial government in Ontario is trying to alleviate this problem by introducing an Ontario Pension Plan similar to the Canada Pension Plan, that will put more money in the pockets of seniors when they retire.
Stephen Harper, his government, and the opponents in the provincial legislature all seem to be against this and call it a tax. Perhaps they have forgotten that business used to do this. Perhaps they object to the fact that it is being done in a fair and objective manner that will benefit all Ontarians. Perhaps they object to the fact that it is not business that is controlling the pool of money, but the Ontario Government. In any case, they cannot see past the fact that it is not a tax, but a benefit, that in the long term will aid Ontarians when they retire.
Sunday 16 August 2015
Marriage Rights vs Religious Rights
There is a county in Kentucky in the US, where the County Clerk is refusing to issue marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight because she believes that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is a violation of her first ammendment rights.
However, her religious rights and freedoms are actually not being infringed upon. What are being infringed upon are the rights of all of those couples from whom she is withholding marrigage licenses. Her job is not religious in nature, she is not performing any religious rite or ritual, nor is she acting in any capacity as a religious leader. Her job is to perform the civil duty of issuing marriage licenses, something that the U.S. Supreme Court has now decided can be issued to same sex couples.
Even the Governor of the state agrees and has ordered her to issue the licenses as required by law, but she continues to refuse citing her religious beliefs. The US political system is designed to keep religion and politics apart, but time and time again, people with a religious agenda bring things to a grinding halt. Religous groups do not like being interfered with by government, so perhaps they should stop interfering in the good governence of the country.
This county clerk in Kentucky should just do her job, since it has absolutely nothing to do with religion and is a civil position, or she should just quit in protest. Either way, if she doesn't do her job, she should just go.
However, her religious rights and freedoms are actually not being infringed upon. What are being infringed upon are the rights of all of those couples from whom she is withholding marrigage licenses. Her job is not religious in nature, she is not performing any religious rite or ritual, nor is she acting in any capacity as a religious leader. Her job is to perform the civil duty of issuing marriage licenses, something that the U.S. Supreme Court has now decided can be issued to same sex couples.
Even the Governor of the state agrees and has ordered her to issue the licenses as required by law, but she continues to refuse citing her religious beliefs. The US political system is designed to keep religion and politics apart, but time and time again, people with a religious agenda bring things to a grinding halt. Religous groups do not like being interfered with by government, so perhaps they should stop interfering in the good governence of the country.
This county clerk in Kentucky should just do her job, since it has absolutely nothing to do with religion and is a civil position, or she should just quit in protest. Either way, if she doesn't do her job, she should just go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)