Sign in to follow this  
st27

Ontario Plant Closings

Recommended Posts

The liberals are getting desperate to defend the migrants, aware of the coming election...watching the political talk shows, one lib mp had the nerve to say the migrants are entrepreneurs who will create jobs and provide the good paying salaries for the middle class !!! Another talked over the conservative mp and wouldn’t let her advance her POV. 

Both the CBC and CTV hosts are getting frustrated...the CBC host cut a guy off and said “you’ve been talking for 2 mins and still haven’t answered my question!!!” ...and he never did.

The cost of the migrants is not lost on the soon to be unemployed auto workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malcolm

The only data I could find from Stats Canada is very old, but does provide some limited information on past performance.

You were almost certainly correct in that next year's 350K won't likely all be refugees, but the number of 'dependents' within that group is an unknown and no doubt will be very large regardless.

Has the government provided any factual data that considers the costs associated with caring for the growing mass of illegal migrants being housed in hotels, sport stadiums and other venues?

 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2015051-eng.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEFCON said:

Frankly Malcolm. I'm confused.

I've looked through a pile of reports, graphs & stats and although there are numerous presentations out there, none of them provide an answer to a simple question.

They are; how many immigrants & refugees as separate entities have arrived over each of the past ten years and how many of those respective arrivals have remained dependent on public assistance to date?

You're much better at internet searches than I am and I'd be pleased to be 'proven' wrong by data that actually addresses the question posed.

 

 

 

 

Defcon: I guess I have to concede that you are very easy to confuse. My post was in response to your question that contained incorrect information.

Quote

But bringing in 350 thousand fully dependent refugees a year remains trudeau's highest national priority? 

 

So I will ask you two questions

1. where did you get the 350 thousand a year number?

2. where does it say that all refugees are dependent?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you have to behave like the an arrogant old fool Malcolm?

That post was supposed to have been erased and corrected.

The 350 K comes from trudeau

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

Why do you have to behave like the an arrogant old fool Malcolm?

That post was supposed to have been erased and corrected.

The 350 K comes from trudeau

Me, talk about the kettle calling the pot black. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the better part of 5 decades, Canada has brought in 250,000 +/-  per year in immigration. Nothing much has changed here.  Refugees have been a significantly smaller number until recently but still only a fraction.

The lines are becoming blurred due to the use of the term "migrant" all immigrants be it refugee or just run of the mill immigrants are "Migrants" This term is being used to intentionally blur the lines so suddenly all non-Canadians entering the country by any avenue are all the same.  This is social engineering at work.  All of a sudden the British family that has been going through the proper channels to come to Canada is lumped into the same category as the refugee from Syria.  These are NOT the same so don't fall for it.

Immigration in Canada is necessary.  Strictly controlled immigration is mandatory.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, boestar said:

Immigration in Canada is necessary.  Strictly controlled immigration is mandatory.

hear hear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Immigration in Canada is necessary."

But can you say why and present data that actually justifies the contention?

I mean, I've been hearing that same line since there were 15 million people in this Country and it sure was one hell of a nice place for the most part back then, even the big cities.

Now we've way more than doubled the population and for that we've got deforestation, pollution and carbon taxes, the big cities have / are becoming violent unlivable human cesspools, taxation to pay for all the progress has all but eliminated the middle class, publicly earned pensions are now called 'entitlements' and free speech has become a thing of the past just to name a few of the changes that have come along with the growth model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire world economy is based on Growth.  That is not sustainable.  

Canada has a birthrate of 1.6 presently.  in order to sustain positive growth that number needs to be 2.1.  That leaves 0.5 to be made up with immigration.  failing that will cause the economy to shrink which would lead to massive inflation and into another depression.  

its all about numbers and growth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or the government could give tax incentives to CANADIAN families to have one more child at probably a fraction of the cost of his refugee program. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, st27 said:

Jaydee, the turd introduced this:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/child-family-benefits-calculator.html

I ran through it, single mom, 3 kids under 18, 25k/yr, $10grand paid in rent.....typical small town scenario......

                            $22600 in cash and benefits!

Gets them almost through year one...child care alone can easily run $800 - $1000 per month  per child 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t know what to post this under, but it’s kind of an interesting :

 

A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the St. Lawrence River .  Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak  performance before the race.  On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile .

    The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.  A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people paddling and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people paddling.Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
    They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were paddling.Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the paddling team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
    They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people paddling the boat greater incentive to work harder .   It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program, with meetings, dinners and free pens for the paddlers.  There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices , and bonuses.  The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.
    The next year the Japanese won by two miles.Humiliated, the American management laid off one paddler, halted development of a new canoe , sold all the paddles, and cancelled all capital investments for new equipment.  The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.
    The next year, try as he might, the lone designated paddler was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles), so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India.
    Sadly, the End.  Here's something else to think about:
GM has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US .
The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while GM rack s up 9 billion in losses.
GM folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses....  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this