[Northern Light]

The fact of the matter is that Egypt and Syria want to avoid taking refugees precisely because that’s what Israel wants, and capitulating to that means a greater Israeli dominance over the area, and a greater likelihood of economic and social instability in the region.

For clarity.

This isn't correct. Egypt doesn't want Palestinian Refugees because Hamas is seen to be affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which was deposed by and is despised by the Egyptian Military and power structure.

There is also no economic gain, as the Palestinians are relatively low income/low asset.

Jordon likewise sees little advantage and many risks, they were once open to the idea, but wanted all of the Westbank.

****

Now....that said...............can we please keep the Israel-Palestine stuff to a minimum? We've already had the dedicated thread for that locked. Too many here are unable to discuss things dispassionately and in a fact-based manner.

 

[Northern Light]

Moving things along, the Globe and Mail is out with a report that Cabinet Ministers are being asked to find significant operating budget savings.

Cabinet ministers asked to find ‘ambitious’ spending cuts as Carney government prepares first budget

Ministers have been instructed to cut 7.5 per cent from program spending next year, growing to 15 per cent by 2028-29

www.theglobeandmail.com

From the above:

This is a very big ask. Unclear to me is whether this includes transfers to individuals.

Which would make this a much larger number; but its already a big one.

 

[ShonTron]

Moving things along, the Globe and Mail is out with a report that Cabinet Ministers are being asked to find significant operating budget savings.

Cabinet ministers asked to find ‘ambitious’ spending cuts as Carney government prepares first budget

Ministers have been instructed to cut 7.5 per cent from program spending next year, growing to 15 per cent by 2028-29

www.theglobeandmail.com

From the above:

View attachment 664479

This is a very big ask. Unclear to me is whether this includes transfers to individuals.

Which would make this a much larger number; but its already a big one.

That’s devastating, even if it only applied to discretionary ministerial spending, and not provincial and individual transfers. It’s looking a lot like 1994-1995.

 

[picard102]

Look how well the opposite of that has worked out across the West over the past decade. /S

Why does the burden of expectation to save the world always fall on Canada (or the West in general)? Ask yourself why Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, etc, don't want to accept them? Why is there no expectation & pressure for said countries to open up their borders (without any due process or background checks of course) like there is on the West? Why is the West always expected to pick up the slack?

Because the west is what caused the issue. It's entirely our mess.

 

[zang]

And what advice is that? To keep borders wide open? Clearly the West has already followed that advice (except countries like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, etc, which made the absolute right call not to).

Open borders my a$$.

First off, regardless of what you may believe, refugees bring economic benefits. They pay taxes into the system at a rate much, much greater than they receive in benefit. This is true for all unpatriated immigrants.

Second “the west” has long been selective about what’s considered a “worthy” of asylum or refugee status.

Canada has refused the claims of almost 15,000 Nigerians in the last decade. The US denies over half of all claims; mostly from central and South America. The EU denies almost 60% of all claims.

Or hey, look into why Christmas Island is no longer considered official Australian territory.

It's not realistic to keep bringing in more people into the West in large numbers when the West is already struggling to sustain its existing population, either.

We are the richest counties in the world. We can more than afford both, if our taxation system were actually fair.

 

[Northern Light]

Because the west is what caused the issue. It's entirely our mess.

Really? Why not blame the Neo-Assyrians who conquered Israel in ~700BCE?

Or the Neo-Babbylonian Empire?

Sure Rome after that was arguable 'the west' in a sense......

But they were displaced by the Byzantines, assorted Caliphates and later the Ottoman).....

****

You see how this goes, it gets really silly, really fast............

Can we stop with the eternal blame/responsibility assignments, particularly for actions that occurred before anyone on UT was even born....well except maybe Walter, LOL

 

[Northern Light]

Open borders my a$$.

First off, regardless of what you may believe, refugees bring economic benefits. They pay taxes into the system at a rate much, much greater than they receive in benefit. This is true for all unpatriated immigrants.

Citation please

Second “the west” has long been selective about what’s considered a “worthy” of asylum or refugee status.

As opposed to where else? Is China more accepting of refugees? I mean, I'm fine with a call out, but you need to show which places are doing so much more admirably.

We are the richest counties in the world. We can more than afford both, if our taxation system were actually fair.

Maybe, but it isn't.

And we literally do not have enough housing for the people we already have. Hence a housing crisis.

That's not an argument against immigration in general or refugees in particular, nor is it a suggestion that we close the proverbial door.

However, the idea that we have sufficient space, in the near term for significantly more people is simply incorrect. Its a math thing.

****

Finally, in the name of being even-handed

@81-717 can we please drop this exchange............ you're not going to persuade Zang or Picard; and frankly you're way of expressing yourself on the subject, like theirs, is a bit on the hyperbolic side.

There are other subjects to discuss.

 

[zang]

Citation please

https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/the-economic-case-for-welcoming-refugees-fact-sheet.pdf

As opposed to where else? Is China more accepting of refugees? I mean, I'm fine with a call out, but you need to show which places are doing so much more admirably.

My point was that we certainly do not have "open borders" as @81-717 claimed.

Maybe, but it isn't.

And we literally do not have enough housing for the people we already have. Hence a housing crisis.

That's not an argument against immigration in general or refugees in particular, nor is it a suggestion that we close the proverbial door.

However, the idea that we have sufficient space, in the near term for significantly more people is simply incorrect. Its a math thing.

We don't have sufficient space, but we have sufficient money, which is the point.

Our issues with lacking housing has more to do with protectionism on the part of homeowners and developers, and governments who avoid social spending at just about every turn.

 

[zang]

Really? Why not blame the Neo-Assyrians who conquered Israel in ~700BCE?

Or the Neo-Babbylonian Empire?

Sure Rome after that was arguable 'the west' in a sense......

But they were displaced by the Byzantines, assorted Caliphates and later the Ottoman).....

No need to be pedantic. His point seemed pretty clearly to be that current countries and their governments, continuing their same stances and support, are directly responsible for the current problem.

 

[Northern Light]

https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/the-economic-case-for-welcoming-refugees-fact-sheet.pdf

On cursory review, the high level document (page directly linked) is problematic as it makes different statements about different places, and compares different things without fulsome context.

I will review the some of the underlying studies if I have a moment later.

I don't doubt that Refugees grow the GDP, more population will do that. Its a different question as whether they grow the GDP per capita.

I'm not sure that should be the criteria for compassion, but to the extent it matters, we ought to understand what we (the study) is really saying.

My point was that we certainly do not have "open borders" as @81-717 claimed.

I agree we do not have 'open borders'. Though it is fair to say, Canada's population grew quite aggressively in recent years and that has been to the detriment of the housing market and low income earners due to same and wage-suppressing effects.
Again, its good to steer clear of hyperbole and be able to consider the issues coldly. You may find your debating partner above to have engaged in over-reach, and I may agree, but I don't think you're turning down the temperature much.

We don't have sufficient space, but we have sufficient money, which is the point.

A fine point. One we can agree needs fixing; but we must then equally agree it has not been fixed yet. For that reason, we can't implement policy A that is contingent on policy B being in place, when B is not in fact, in place.

Our issues with lacking housing has more to do with protectionism on the part of homeowners and developers

Partially. But given that Toronto has seen more housing construction that just about anywhere in the U.S. or Canada for the last decade, until the recent downturn, and that tens of thousands of approved units have never been built.......it is not a hugely material issue.

, and governments who avoid social spending at just about every turn.

Moreso this, I agree

Lets add, minimum wages that too low and insufficient paid vacation mandates. (higher mandates result in a contraction in labour supply which drives up wages)

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Look how well the opposite of that has worked out across the West over the past decade. /S

Why does the burden of expectation to save the world always fall on Canada (or the West in general)? Ask yourself why Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, etc, don't want to accept them? Why is there no expectation & pressure for said countries to open up their borders (without any due process or background checks of course) like there is on the West? Why is the West always expected to pick up the slack?

Oh, poor us...

 

[81-717]

Oh, poor us...

Poor us damn right. If you really think Canada 15–20 years ago wasn't a much better place than Canada today I have nothing to say to you. The grass looks a lot greener right now in places like Switzerland, Poland or Japan.

@Northern Light fair enough. I tried to be moderate & civil and chose my words carefully.

 

[Northern Light]

Poor us damn right. If you really think Canada 15–20 years ago wasn't a much better place than Canada today I have nothing to say to you. The grass looks a lot greener right now in places like Switzerland, Poland or Japan.

See...'much better' is a bit rose-coloured glasses looking back. I know the point you're trying to make, but let me suggest a more nuanced expression.

15-20 years ago Toronto, and Canada more broadly, experienced less homelessness (about 2/3 less) and housing was generally somewhat more affordable.

In the intervening years, many things have gone sideways (meaning neither better/worse on balance), while some rights/freedoms have improved, a handful of public services are better, and some advantages from a larger/more diverse population have accrued, such as a more interesting food scene.

However, the median standard of living, particularly in the country's most expensive cities (Toronto and Vancouver) has almost certainly declined, at least somewhat, particularly for young adults under 40 early/new to the housing market.

***

Canada wasn't necessarily way better 20 years ago, but it was almost certainly more affordable and in the mean, people were a bit more optimistic/hopeful about their personal circumstances.

This change is not solely the result of inordinately quick or aggressive population growth, but that certainly aggravated the situation. Under investment in 'affordable housing', declining rates of private sector unionization, failure to increase social assistance rates or minimum wage in line with real inflation (CPI under weights housing) all contributed to the aforementioned challenges.

@Northern Light fair enough. I tried to be moderate & civil and chose my words carefully.

I get that. But I think on subjects which are sensitive an extra deft use of the keyboard is required. In any event, I think the discussion has largely run its course ( I hope)

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Poor us damn right. If you really think Canada 15–20 years ago wasn't a much better place than Canada today I have nothing to say to you. The grass looks a lot greener right now in places like Switzerland, Poland or Japan.

@Northern Light fair enough. I tried to be moderate & civil and chose my words carefully.

I'm glad you don't. Saves me from having to place you in my /quiet dungeon. So thnkx!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Mark Carney's finance minister outlines "ambitious" $21.5 billion in annual cuts by 2028 to balance defence spending

The Liberal government wants to find at least $21.5 billion in annual savings from the federal budget by 2028, according to a letter sent from the finance minister to all

www.thestar.com

Paywall free: https://archive.is/GP7MJ

Good. For starters let’s cut the civil service back to the ratio to population it was pre-Justin.

Federal Public Service Size vs. Population​

Year	Federal Public Servants	Canadian Population	Ratio (Servants per 1,000 People)
2014	~257,000	~35.5 million	7.2 per 1,000 people
2024	~357,000	~40.1 million	8.9 per 1,000 people