[OnTheIce]

Delwin Delwin:

Moreover, the fact that in this case that refugees designated country of origin was being used as a reason to deny the claimants life saving medicine is what makes it all the more disturbing. How more blatantly discriminatory can a government be without being outright racist? And these were people who were not denied but still undergoing the process.

It's not racist, it's selective and rightfully so.

We aren't a country with finite resources. We provide things to these people for free that we don't offer our own.

Coming to Canada is a privilege and I want my government to be very selective over the people they allow into the Country. Having people claim refugee status from vibrant democracies shouldn't be allowed.

I think if you saw the flip-side of the argument...the abuse of the system and the people taking advantage of you and I, you'd have a very different view on the subject. I don't think that's a view you've considered.

[Delwin]

martin14 martin14:

Delwin Delwin:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Funny that you implied racist motives were behind the changes, yet looking at that list the vast majority of those countries are predominantly first world and/or "white".

The Harperites don't like white people?

That's ironic, Harper doesn't accept that you can be from a white country and be a refugee, so yeah I guess he does.

No, what is ironic is your firm belief that the Cons are all a bunch of sheet wearing KKK, except when shown otherwise, and you are still able to talk out of your ass.

Just your usual amount of hot air.

Shown where ? Harper isn't going to go to bat for refugees who come from countries that he considers to be fair and just. These include all of his buddies, the individuals who claim persecution from these countries are less likely to be in line with their governments and less likely to be in line with Harper. Look a little closer, Israel is on the list ? No, no one is Isreal has ever been persecuted. Arbitrary may have been a misnomer, the closer I study the list, the more deliberate it appears.

[saturn_656]

Delwin Delwin:

Shown where ? Harper isn't going to go to bat for refugees who come from countries that he considers to be fair and just. These include all of his buddies, the individuals who claim persecution from these countries are less likely to be in line with their governments and less likely to be in line with Harper. Look a little closer, Israel is on the list ? No, no one is Isreal has ever been persecuted. Arbitrary may have been a misnomer, the closer I study the list, the more deliberate it appears.

Israel is on the list, but the Gaza Strip and West Bank are excluded.

[Delwin]

Arab Israelis undergo rampant discrimination. But don't take my word for it, this is according to the Isreali State Commission of Inquiry:

$1:

A decade after the publication Or Commission’s report, Arab citizens of Israel are still suffering from ongoing discrimination from the establishment. This discrimination contradicts the principles of justice that should be at the basis of every democratic country, but it also undermines the basis of relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel, exacerbating their volatility. The time has come for the Israeli government to implement the conclusions of the Or Commission, which are now more relevant than ever, in the interests of all citizens of Israel, Jews and Arabs alike.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.550152

[Xort]

Someone trying to claim a status of refugee from Switzerland shouldn't be getting totally free dental care when I have to pay for it myself or through an employer supplied plan.

This isn't a victory for refugees it is a victory for insanity.

And to make a clarification, no one was ever denied access to life saving care, medication or anything else like that. They were just 'demoted' to the same care as regular Canadians get.

[N_Fiddledog]

Got Cancer? Need Chemo? Come to Canada. It's on us.

[Delwin]

No refugee in Canada is entitled to dental or vision. I don't think anyone is arguing they should be entitled to that.

Sonal Marwah, who is completing a master’s degree in global health at McMaster University, explores the cuts in a study released this week by the Wellesley Institute.

$1:

1. Ottawa’s cutbacks have exposed Canadians to health risks the government did not anticipate and has not acknowledged. Infectious diseases, wiped out long ago in this country, could make a comeback if refugees are left untreated. Although the legislation allows medical professionals to immunize asylum seekers with communicable diseases, it does not permit them to use publicly-funded lab tests to diagnose unfamiliar symptoms. Without accurate information, the probability of mistakes goes up.

2.The cost of cutting off access to health care could quickly overtake the savings. Bill C-31 prevents doctors from treating diseases in their early stages when they can be cured or managed. This heightens the risk a refugee will be hospitalized with a full-blown case of a serious disease, a life-threatening tumour or infected limb that cannot be saved. Most emergency wards don’t turn away uninsured patients. But the provinces have to pay their bills.

3.Pregnant women in refugee limbo are giving birth at home — often with heartbreaking consequences — because they can’t pay $2,600 for a hospital delivery. In many cases, they’ve had no prenatal care because obstetricians demanded upfront payment for a consultation. Their babies — Canadian citizens by birth — are often premature, underdeveloped, with neurological problems and other complications. These struggling infants cost medicare much more than proper screening and prenatal care would have done.

4.Some walk-in clinics, specialists and general practitioners have adopted a blanket policy of turning away refugees — even those who qualify for coverage under Ottawa’s complicated rules — rather than sorting out their immigration status.

Under Ottawa’s plan, approved refugees, government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugees are eligible for health benefits. Rejected claimants and asylum seekers from countries Ottawa deems safe are not. Unwilling to navigate this labyrinth, some medical practitioners deny treatment to all refugees.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014 ... _cuts.html

$1:

In one example, a Hungarian woman who fled her home country and is waiting for her refugee hearing has learned that she is pregnant, but the staff at HNCH are unable to check her for a fetal heartbeat.
The woman is not eligible for insurance to cover an ultrasound, and she is not eligible for health care in Canada.
“We don’t know if it’s an issue of fetal demise, meaning that the baby has passed away,” Grafe said.
Through an interpreter the Hungarian woman said that she is sad and upset because she doesn’t know what is going on with her baby.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-hea ... -1.1336972



It's going to get really fun when we have an endemic outbreak because the government wanted to save $10 on a treatment.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

Shown where ? Harper isn't going to go to bat for refugees who come from countries that he considers to be fair and just. These include all of his buddies, the individuals who claim persecution from these countries are less likely to be in line with their governments and less likely to be in line with Harper. Look a little closer, Israel is on the list ? No, no one is Isreal has ever been persecuted. Arbitrary may have been a misnomer, the closer I study the list, the more deliberate it appears.

Take another good look at that list. It's also rather representative of the countries that we generally don't accept immigration from either.
And as far as refugees go, Canada is not obligated in ANY way to accept economic or "political" refugees. That's not Harper/CPC policy, it's been that way for decades now.
The fact that we have people here, NOW, who are Canadian(whether natural or naturalized) who don't have enough to eat and/or can't afford a roof over their heads makes it utterly reprehensible that we continue spending money on other people's problems.

Even the Immigration Minister's appeal to bring in at least 10,000 Syrians came from the UN. The same UN that recently blasted Canada for its child poverty rate.

[saturn_656]

Delwin Delwin:

No refugee in Canada is entitled to dental or vision. I don't think anyone is arguing they should be entitled to that.

$1:

In one example, a Hungarian woman who fled her home country and is waiting for her refugee hearing has learned that she is pregnant, but the staff at HNCH are unable to check her for a fetal heartbeat.
The woman is not eligible for insurance to cover an ultrasound, and she is not eligible for health care in Canada.
“We don’t know if it’s an issue of fetal demise, meaning that the baby has passed away,” Grafe said.
Through an interpreter the Hungarian woman said that she is sad and upset because she doesn’t know what is going on with her baby.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-hea ... -1.1336972



It's going to get really fun when we have an endemic outbreak because the government wanted to save $10 on a treatment.

In that CTV article you linked it states that

$1:

Canadian taxpayers funded free eye care, free dental care and free supplementary drugs for 4,000 asylum claimants from the United States. They did so for another 7,500 claimants from Hungary (prior to the June 2012 changes)

As far as the woman from Hungary goes, as an E.U. citizen there were 27 other member states she could have freely moved to.

What justification is there for her to skip every single one of them and try and claim refugee status here?

[Delwin]

I disagree, I believe we are morally obligated as a civilized society, unless you are native, at some point your family came here looking for a better life and were not turned away, just like mine did about 150 years ago, so what makes you special ?

We are an underpopulated country and risk a very real funding crises with the aging workforce so unless we experience a serious baby boom, we are going to need to bring in immigrants.

I also believe we need to cut down on abuses to the system but this decision regarding health care is not the way to do it. Improve border security, keep better track of the people who are here, improve the application process, these are the solutions. Denying someone their heart medication is just being a dick.

[Delwin]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Delwin Delwin:

No refugee in Canada is entitled to dental or vision. I don't think anyone is arguing they should be entitled to that.

$1:

In one example, a Hungarian woman who fled her home country and is waiting for her refugee hearing has learned that she is pregnant, but the staff at HNCH are unable to check her for a fetal heartbeat.
The woman is not eligible for insurance to cover an ultrasound, and she is not eligible for health care in Canada.
“We don’t know if it’s an issue of fetal demise, meaning that the baby has passed away,” Grafe said.
Through an interpreter the Hungarian woman said that she is sad and upset because she doesn’t know what is going on with her baby.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-hea ... -1.1336972



It's going to get really fun when we have an endemic outbreak because the government wanted to save $10 on a treatment.

In that CTV article you linked it states that

$1:

Canadian taxpayers funded free eye care, free dental care and free supplementary drugs for 4,000 asylum claimants from the United States. They did so for another 7,500 claimants from Hungary (prior to the June 2012 changes)

As far as the woman from Hungary goes, as an E.U. citizen there were 27 other member states she could have freely moved to.

What justification is there for her to skip every single one of them and try and claim refugee status here?

I can't speak to the woman's reasoning there are no details, that is what the application process is for.

As for the free eye care, etc. I agree that they were good changes to remove those entitlements. I think most people would agree with that and I don't take issue with that. At present no refugee is entitled to that. The 2 tiers being referred to are basic healthcare and virtually none at all, that is the issue.

[Delwin]

Xort Xort:

And to make a clarification, no one was ever denied access to life saving care, medication or anything else like that. They were just 'demoted' to the same care as regular Canadians get.

Wrong.

$1:

Changes to IFH

1. All refugees (excluding government assisted refugees) lost access to medication coverage, vision and dental care through IFH

2. People from DCO’s no longer have health coverage including for urgent or essential care except for #3 below

3. All refugees are covered for the following conditions (including medications)

i) Issues of public health concern-these are infections that are on the Public Health Agency of Canada notifiable diseases list and involve human to human transmission (note this does not include common infections such
as pneumonias, pyelonephritis etc. or even conditions such as malaria)
ii) Issues of public security concerns-this is defined as psychotic conditions where a person has been identified as being a danger to others (this does not include suicidal intent)

http://www.doctorsforrefugeecare.ca/the-issue.html

[BeaverFever]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Funny that you implied racist motives were behind the changes, yet looking at that list the vast majority of those countries are predominantly first world and/or "white".

The Harperites don't like white people?

Correct me if I'm wrong here on the DCO definition, but is that not a list of "third countries" i.e. a refugee from Africa who came to Canada via the UK is deemed to be arriving from the UK and therefore not eligible?

[Delwin]

The verbiage for the definition includes the term "nationals" which is a reference to play of birth.

$1:

Whereas, pursuant to subsection 109.1(2)(a) (see footnote a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (see footnote b), the number of claims for refugee protection made in Canada by nationals of each of the countries set out in section 1...

Of course it's still not clear, the Conservatives propensity to try to pass illegal bills is well documented and referenced by the fact that he has already been to the supreme court on numerous occasions to have his bill overturned because their are illegal and infringe on our rights as human beings.

Maybe we should amend the process to have his bills just run through the supreme court before he brings them before the house, it could save time. Or maybe someone could mail him a copy of our bill of rights.

Anyway, we all know this will get struck down in the supreme court just like all the other failed attempts. Conservatives don't seem to mind this expensive process, I guess as long as no one is actually being helped by it they are content.

Let's examine some more of his failures as a law maker shall we?

Drug Addiction Site:
Back in 2011, the Supreme Court heard arguments over the legality of Vancouver’s Insite program, a safe-injection facility that allows users to connect to health care services like addiction counselling.

The PM came close to shutting down Insite, but after the challenge was brought before the Supreme Court , the justices unanimously ordered the federal minister of health to grant an exemption allowing Insite to remain open.

Prostitution Laws:

In another unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s anti-prostitution laws. Lawyers on behalf of the Harper government argued vehemently to keep laws prohibiting brothels and living off the avails of prostitution in place.


Truth in Sentencing
In April 2014 the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Conservative’s tough-on-crime agenda. The Truth in Sentencing Act aimed to stop judges from giving offenders extra credit for time served in jail prior to sentencing.


Supreme Court Nominee Marc Nadon

In March 2014, the Supreme Court said Nadon, a federal court judge, was ineligible to represent Quebec on the Supreme Court because he did not meet the qualifications outlined in the Supreme Court Act.

Now it's Refugees. I guess he just doesn't agree with the whole "human rights" thing.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

I disagree, I believe we are morally obligated as a civilized society, unless you are native, at some point your family came here looking for a better life and were not turned away, just like mine did about 150 years ago, so what makes you special ?

They weren't turned away because you either worked or you had a miserable, short life. There was no tax base with which to pay people to get "settled" in. My father arrived here to escape what was essentially slavery, with nothing but the clothes on his back and no govt hand-outs were sent his way. Ever! So I have to ask, what makes anyone else arriving here so special?

Delwin Delwin:

We are an underpopulated country and risk a very real funding crises with the aging workforce so unless we experience a serious baby boom, we are going to need to bring in immigrants.

Yep, just what Toronto and Vancouver need, MORE people. That is where the vast bulk of them settle upon arrival.
What you spouted is bullshit theory. Here's the reality; immigration has created a massive housing bubble in Vancouver, while at the same time, forces Toronto to continue playing a balancing act of continually adding new infrastructure with replacing old infrastructure that should have been replaced at least 20 years ago.
And as far as economic benefit goes, those who import their parents under so-called family class immigration pretty much take themselves out of the equation.

I think some people are under the mistaken impression that I'm against immigration and/or the refugee system, I'm not. I'm against mass immigration, bringing in large numbers just for the sake of bringing in large numbers, especially when there's no control over where they can settle upon arrival.

Canada no doubt is a large, under-populated country and that's part of the problem, Canada doesn't just consist of Toronto and Vancouver.