I'm actually really curious as to whether or not Canada will elect him again next year. Most of the Canadians I've talked to have extreme opinions on him one way or the other. It'll be interesting to witness.

Back in 1979-80 Canada accepted 60,000 Vietnamese refugees alone. They even won an award for it. My family came later when restrictions became much tighter. I'm not sure where you're getting the millions trying to get into Canada number from, but that's just not the case right now.

You're right that not everyone will integrate but most will. Its a great challenge for new immigrants but their descendants will be more successful.

Like I said, its a short term burden we all bare, but that's where we can make our government accountable. The Trudeau Government spent 4.5 billion dollars to buy a pipeline. The Trump one is dedicating almost 900 billion to the military. This lady questioned Trudeau about spending a much smaller amount to support refugees but maybe she should spend her energy elsewhere.

Sad to hear about the ratio of joblessness and welfare of refugees in Australia. Is there a reason for this, I wonder? Does the ratio change after 10 years? 15 years? What about the children of these refugees in Australia? Are they more successful?

Of course there are limits and overpopulation is very real but Canada has about 36 million people. There is certainly room for growth here.

It will be interesting for sure. I don't think he will or if he does it will likely be a minority government. He pissed off left leaning voters with the pipeline situation and he has always pissed off the right leaning ones. I myself didn't vote for him last time but we'll see how things go.

You said you are fine with Canada accepting anyone desperate. There are a lot of desperate people who want to move to a developed country.

For the reasons why refugees are mostly jobless in AU, language would be the biggest issue. Around 40% of the refugees do labouring jobs, which is not vey common in australia unless you’re living in the bush. Professionals make up a very small percentage of the refugees. There’s no data available for years after 5 years.

You’ll be interested to know that 65% of Canadians think too many refugees are taken in and the percentage of people think the number of immigrants taken in should be decreased now represents the majority of the segments.

no, no. What the lady was asking is if the government will give money to the Quebec government for dealing for the 19 000 person that entered illegaly in canada in 2017 by crosing the Quebec border with the USA, and the 9000 that have done the same this year so far. The province have to take care of those 27 000 people, and it cost us about 142 million dollars to do so. but so far Ottawa have only gave 30 millions dollars to the Quebec government.  To put those number in perspective, the 27 000 refugees that crossed the border illegaly in Quebec represent 96% of the total of illegal immigrant that entrer the whole canada. 

So in fact, she was asking why Trudeau didnt spend the money on the refugees instead of dumping the burden on the provicial gorvernment. but his respond was way off course. He said that she was a racist, but since when asking that question was racist. she didnt say kick them out, she didnt even said that it was too much immigrant, she was only asking if the federal government was planning of helping Quebec to deal with the costs. 

But, i agree that she seems rather rude and yell at him a lot. it was probably not the good time and place to ask the question 

How can we be tolerant to those who are intolerant towards our own culture and have zero interest into assimilating with the country that so openly tolerates their presence and ability to leach off our economy.

It’s like that’s one guy telling republicans to gtfo of NY, they have no place there lol. They are the “tolerant ones” lol.

Y'all know that 'being tolerant' doesn't mean that you unequivocally accept any and all potential worldviews or behaviours, right? Like, tolerance is the idea that you accept a person regardless of their creed, their sexuality, their identity, or political affiliation by default but only as long as those people aren't using their creed, sexuality, identity, or political affiliation to harm others. The basic mentality of tolerance and the concept of it as it's been pushed by liberals is that "As long as you're not hurting anyone, I see no right to discriminate or judge; I have tolerance for anyone's decisions or affiliation, but that doesn't mean I'm a twat."

It is not 'tolerant' to openly encourage the KKK to discriminate against black folks. It is not an act of 'tolerance' to turn a blind eye to misogyny or harassment of females in the workplace (as an example.) By the definition of many here who are seeking to poke holes in the concept of tolerance in order to devalue any left-leaning stances, "tolerance" means 'Absolute tolerance'. Or more precisely "EVERY SINGLE PERSON MUST NEVER INTERACT WITH ANOTHER".

Point is, cut that shit out. It's pathetic seeing people try to make 'tolerant' people look bad because they don't tolerate nazis or KKK or Alex Jones other objectively terrible groups.

Quit misrepresenting folks who just want to make the world a better place by giving everyone a chance BEFORE judging them for being racist bastards.

You cant compare Vietnamese to Middle eastern immigrants, they're nothing alike.

That's wrong. You guys dont give anyone a chance. Leftists make judgement about people based on one time actions or mistakes then brand them for life with it. They're not interested in forgiveness or tolerance, they're interested in smearing opposition. Problem is you have created your own definition of tolerance that you're spewing here and you've defined it for everyone else. That's the totalitarian left. You've defined it as tolerance of certain pet groups that you like (minorities) and intolerance of certain groups you dont like. Tolerance without definition would be absolute, you guys created a definition to protect some and not others.