take a step back, please, and realize that the important part is in the details.

i don't know exactly where there are 25,000 houses to put these people in - i would suspect that it would require building. now, the immediate kneejerk to this is that this is exorbitant and perhaps unfair to all of the homeless people we have on the street. but, then ask yourself this question: what happens to all that housing when these refugees assimilate and move up the ladder? well, then we have a lot more social housing to move homeless people in to.

it may be sort of backwards, on some level, but if the end result is more social housing, it's a good thing.

on the other hand, if they think they can just move all these people in without building housing, then i'm left with the question of why it is that we have 30,000 permanently homeless people and 25,000 empty houses.

i need to be clear: it's slightly crazy. if it's done wrong, it *will* be a disaster. but, if it's done right then it's a net benefit to the social infrastructure, along with it being a positive humanitarian aim and an ultimate net boost to the economy.

so, i'm in favour of this in principal, but i must admit that i'm a little skeptical about how it's going to be done. i'll be eager to see the details, and whether they're worth criticizing or not.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-syria-refugees-settlement-groups-1.3291959

Minisip
I'm sure that they wouldn't object to living at 24 Sussex Drive.

jessica murray
if they don't mind the asbestos.

i actually can't believe that harper let his kids live there, knowing there was asbestos in the walls as early as 2007. that's really outrageous to me.

GeeMan64
You do realize there is allot of spin dedicated to the "asbestos" angle so the renovation will be more palatable, right?

jessica murray
you're right. i apologize for not seeing the positive spin on asbestos in the walls.