Majority opinion at odds with Trudeau over refugees, air strikes

A clear majority of Canadians disagree (60%) with the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plan to settle 25,000 refugees in Canada before the end of the year and more than two thirds (68%) support the use of Canadian Forces CF-18 fighter jets in air strikes against ISIS, a new Ipsos poll conducted after the terrorist attacks that devastated Paris one week ago revealed.

Most (80%) Canadians feel that individual refugees − regardless of how dire their personal situation is − must go through a proper security screening to make sure they aren’t terrorists even if this slows down their admission as Canada cannot compromise national security.

Two thirds (67%) of Canadian believe that there are terrorists pretending to be refugees who will enter Canada to cause violence and destruction.

While Canadians are worried about the security threat refugees pose, a majority (57%) feel that
confident that most refugees who come to Canada will successfully integrate into their new society.

Most (75%) Canadians see a terrorist attack taking place in Canada as a real threat − and increase of 14 percentage points from last month − while just one quarter say it isn’t.

A majority of Canadians see real security threats on the horizon, including Canada being involved in an armed conflict (66%), a nuclear, biological or chemical attack taking place somewhere in the world (64%), and a violent conflict breaking out between ethnic or minority groups in Canada (52%).

But a majority of Canadians (55%) do no see the personal safety and security of Canadians personally, and their family, being violated as a real threat.

The contradiction maybe explained by the Canadians’ confidence in the Canadian Security Agencies, with a majority believe that the authorities would be able to protect them in the cases where a violent conflict breaking out between ethnic or minority groups in Canada (66%), their personal safety and security their family being violated (66%), Canada being involved in an armed conflict with another nation(65%), a terrorist attack taking place in Canada (62%), or a nuclear, biological or chemical attack taking place somewhere in the world (51%).

This faith in the security establishment should come as welcome news to RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson and CSIS Director Michel Coulombe who assured Canadians on Wednesday that the government is not cutting corners when it comes to screening refugees.

“We will play a role in making the security checks and confirm people’s identity,” Paulson told reporters. “In my view, the system is satisfactory.”

Public Safety Minister and Liberal Member of Parliament for Regina-Wascana Ralph Goodale explained that the initial goal is a “humanitarian mission” to “rescue people who are in terrible conditions and fleeing from the scourge that is [the Islamic State],” a mission he vowed to fulfil “without any diminution or reduction in our security work.”

The Ipsos survey conducted between November 17 and 19, 2015 with a representative sample size of 1,002 is deemed accurate to within ± 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

[Photo Credit: PMO]

8 Responses to Majority opinion at odds with Trudeau over refugees, air strikes

  1. Liberal supporter against Refugee plan says:

    First, many of the children of these immigrants will not remember Assad or ISIS and will resent their likely inferior socioeconomic status and lack of full integration into Canadian society. They will then cause havoc in Canada.

    Second, the economic growth and unemployment rates of Canada are not robust enough to handle a vast number of newcomers. And as the British writer Janet Daly pointed out in the Telegraph, what about “the pressures on their hospitals and GPs’[Family Doctors’] surgeries, and of shortages of housing and school places”?

    Third, it is as certain as night follows day that Islamic State and other terror groups will place terrorists among the refugees coming into Canada.

    Fourth, as a result of the three arguments above, Canada will be threatened by far-right political movements that will arise in opposition to the threat to their national identity, values, and economy.

    Though cultural Marxists will inevitably label this outlook racist, this is nothing more than a smear designed to avoid confronting the real issue — values, not race. If the Kurds, who are also Middle East Muslims, wished to move to Canada, we should welcome them with enthusiasm. Because they share our values. That’s what this is about.

    • One says:

      It sounds like you think we should support the less fortunate among us. Good! I do too. Did you know that in Germany (a country that has committed to over 800 thousand refugees) you can go to university for free?

      There’s an argument to be made for free access to high-quality education, and not only restricted to rich countries (to which Canada is one). Even Mexico and Argentina offer tuition-free higher education.

      The way to undercut the extremist views from developing is a very simple one: listen to the grievances of ordinary people. Of course they feel their way of life is being threatened; their jobs have been offshored and taken out from under them by their so-called betters, threatening their livelihoods and their incomes. At the same time, already-modest reforms to protect those incomes (employment insurance, welfare, etc.) were eroded and pulled back in the name of “economic efficiency”. Not efficient for them, mind you.

      How does this make people feel? Like interchangeable cogs in a machine, with very little agency and control over their own lives, replaced by someone only more desperate than them to work.

      Is there a risk of violent extremism from abroad? Sure, there could be. I suppose that is the risk our government took while participating in a war of aggression with Iraq and Syria. We killed innocent civilians (meaning women and children) to score political points at home. Accepting refugees is only one small part of our role in ensuring justice can be done, at home and abroad.

      You can’t punish innocents for the crimes of others. We cannot repeat the mistake we did in the beginning of the last century.

    • Sean A says:

      Superior? Don’t mistake a land destroyed by Israeli orchestrated terrorism as having been inferior : if bloody pirates and mercenaries didn’t destroy their homes ; they wouldn’t need to leave !

  2. One says:

    The people at IPSOS aren’t imbeciles. They know exactly how to elicit the responses they want to polls. Look at how the questions are worded:

    “When a humanitarian emergency takes place my country should admit refugees as quickly as possible even if this means we have to modify our normal security screening procedures to do it”

    No background, just an assertion that isn’t even true of the process as it’s done here. Not exactly a Soviet ballot, but the report seemed hastily put together. I mean they don’t even put where the “representative sample” of 1002 people (0.003% of Canada’s population) were from.

    This is a lesson, folks: Take online opinion polls with a grain of himalayan sea salt. The less information is given (methodology, population statistics, spread), the more side-eye should be given.

    • Sean A says:

      Those figures really don’t sound right : those sound like a hateful and bigoted regime (like America) … Canada on the other hand : i feel has too large an immigrant population (aren’t we all ‘cept for the few [like my brothers] born here in recent history)… And these polling organizations would never know how to engineer statistics (like politicians) for the greatest financiers ; not that they’d take pride in doing such a thing proficiently 🙁 🙁

  3. Onewoman says:

    Apparently a large number of educated people in responsible positions have been seconded from other work to do the vetting. It can be done.

    As to 68% supporting BOMBING, that is the same as RELIGIOUS people supporting TORTURE! What? WHAT?

    If you ask frightened people if they want the trouble to remain far away, they will, of course, say YES, FAR AWAY.

    Why does no one treat the Canadian population with respect and give them the information they need to make responsible choices.

    People want to help but not at the cost of their own lives and narrow margin of safety and prosperity. If you want Canadians on board, tell us the truth and live with our evaluation or ELSE you will get uninformed KNEE JERK reaction. The way the brain works is the it counts anything that is perceived as negative with TWICE as much weight. That is a fact.

    So, common sense tells us to give a balance representation. Other research tells us that when informed, large groups make astoundingly good decisions.

  4. paul a says:

    plan “B” take out this bunch of murdering idiots -deash or isis and return Syria to its people, than provide support and military protection to rebuild there country.

    • One says:

      It’ll take more than a military solution for this to be different than what has already been happening. Bombing campaigns alone seem to do very little. There’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement along the lines of the one Lohkdar Brahimi was attempting in Vienna.

      Like it or not, Assad is going to have to be a part of that settlement. Turkey (our neighbour’s ally) is also going to have to start playing ball, since they have contributed much to this problem as well.

      It’s not as easy coming up with solutions that aren’t just bombing people. It’s much easier to shout and call for war. For sure ISIS has to go, but any military solution has to involve local forces. Patrick Cockburn has a good piece on this in the Independent (Nov 21, 2015)

      We must always remember how this all came to be: since the hammer came down on Iraq (when it was invaded) and the country was split into sectarian divisions.

Leave a Reply to Onewoman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.