A new poll finds that just under half of Canadians think the federal government’s plan to regulate internet speech will make online platforms safer. But a majority agree with the government’s bolstering of sentences for hate speech. True North’s Andrew Lawton says it’s clear from the last few years that many Canadians simply don’t support free speech, which may make this catastrophic bill a political win for the Liberals.
Also, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has taken aim at corporate Canada, telling business leaders at a trade board meeting that he won’t be beholden to big business and lobbyists and that if they want anything from his government, it has to serve Canadians’ interests. Macdonald-Laurier Institute domestic policy director Aaron Wudrick weighs in.
Plus, the federal government is defending its carbon tax and other environmental policies by appealing to the existence of a “climate crisis.” But does the evidence support such a claim? Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green says it doesn’t. He joins Andrew to explain.
A former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is sounding the alarm over Justin Trudeau’s new “sinister” and “shocking” Online Harms bill which could see Canadians thrown in prison for life for “hate-motivated” crimes and given steep fines for so-called hate speech.
“What we are likely to see right away is a chilling effect,” lawyer David Thomas said on True North’s The Faulkner Show. Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, will have “a big impact on free political discourse in this country and I think that’s what we should all be concerned about immediately,” he said.
“If this passes, God help us, because I don’t know where it will go.”
Thomas was appointed chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the body tasked with adjudicating violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act, in 2014 for a seven year term.
“The reason I am speaking out right now is that nobody who is on the tribunal is free to speak, they’re like judges sitting on the bench,” he said. “That’s why I think it’s important for somebody with inside knowledge to convey these concerns about this legislation.”
The Trudeau government’s new legislation proposes life sentences for anyone who “advocates or promotes” genocide and for anyone who commits a crime that is “motivated by hatred” based on a protected human rights ground, such as race, religion, or gender identity.
It also allows for prosecution of hate speech, defined as comments “likely to foment detestation or vilification.”
Thomas says that the “vagueness” of the legislation and the definitions of hate speech “that nobody really knows” will cause uncertainty and fear across Canada.
Justin Trudeau is also planning to enshrine into law the idea of punishing people for crimes they may commit in the future.
Under the new legislation, the attorney general, or any Canadian, can apply to a judge to put someone under house arrest and to force them to wear a tracking device there is a “fear on reasonable grounds” that the pre-accused might commit a hate crime in the future.
The Online Harms Act is “an incredibly damping piece of legislation, which I think, of course, will infringe on our Charter rights to freedom of expression,” Thomas said.
“It will take years to get a case to the Supreme Court of Canada to make a decision about that. In the meantime, people will be afraid to say anything.”
Thomas also argues that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal won’t be able to handle the amount of cases being lodged against Canadians for hate speech under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was repealed by the previous Conservative government but will be reintroduced if the government’s online harms bill passes.
“To adjudicate these cases themselves takes years. When someone lodges a complaint when they get a final decision, it would not be surprising if it took three to five years or even longer,” Thomas said. “That’s a terrible thing, especially for an administrative tribunal which is supposed to be delivering access to justice to the public.”
Bill C-63 will empower the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to award $20,000 to “any victim identified” in a successful complaint, with a further penalty of up to $50,000 payable to the government.
While the legislation does allow for the tribunal to award costs to an accuser it feels is abusing the process, Thomas said this carve-out – which doesn’t apply to any other matters the tribunal deals with – complicates an already-fraught process.
“The message there is, ‘Lawyer up, folks, because you’re going to get your legal fees paid for when the tribunal finds in your favour,’” Thomas warned. “That makes me very worried.”
Thomas urged Canadians to “be very careful” about what you post online given the uncertainty and vagueness of new hate speech definitions and the legislation.
Two employees working for Canada’s auditor general have been fired for not disclosing money they received through government contracts, with a third now under police investigation.
Spokesperson for the Office of the Auditor General Natasha Leduc confirmed that three of its own employees had undeclared contracts within the Government of Canada.
Two were fired. The Ottawa Police Service and the Office of the Auditor General say they are investigating the third employee who was recently discovered to be covertly holding contracts with a separate arm of the federal government.
Inquiries into the two fired employees came as a result of a contract worth almost $8 million given to them to work on the ArriveCan app. Leduc said the investigations span back to the summer.
“The (Office of the Auditor General) conducted its own investigations in both cases. The investigations began in June 2023 and concluded in September in one case and December in the other. Based on the results of the investigations, the OAG revoked the individual’s security clearance and terminated employment,” said Leduc.
It raises questions about who audits the auditor, as concerns persist about government employees not following their own employment codes in light of the ArriveCan app scandal, which continues to balloon.
Auditor General Karen Hogan said it’s “essential” for public servants to disclose any secondary income they may be receiving to their managers so an assessment can be made as to whether there is a conflict of interest.
That doesn’t always happen however, noted Hogan, who revealed that her office found numerous “incidents where disclosure did not happen” amongst its own employees.
The cases were ultimately referred to the Ottawa Police Service last month as a result of government directives that call for “security events that could potentially be related to criminal activity be referred to law enforcement.”
Leduc declined to identify who the employees were on the basis of privacy concerns however she did confirm that none of the employees were auditors, nor in management.
Arianne Reza, deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement testified before the committee last week that five employees within her department were fired or resigned in the past year for not disclosing conflicts of interest.
She claimed it was a problem with how the current system only operates based on attestations, meaning vendors must sign an attestation during contracts bids so that they won’t place themselves in a conflict of interest situation as public servants.
Leduc noted that it’s incumbent on public servants to make their manager aware of secondary income sources so that their manager can’t properly vet the circumstances.
A True North exclusive reveals the Conservative candidate for the Ottawa-riding of Orleans says he is a conservative despite previously donating to the Liberals and even working for a former Liberal cabinet minister.
Plus, despite laying off hundreds of employees, declining revenue, and low viewership, Canada’s state broadcaster dished out $14.9 million in bonuses to its staff.
And another premier tells Justin Trudeau to scrap the upcoming hike to the federal carbon tax.
Tune into The Daily Brief with Lindsay Shepherd and Isaac Lamoureux!
That’s a fact. But apparently, not one recognized by the Trudeau government.
In response to a question about a recent Ipsos poll that showed 42 per cent of Canadians would go to the United States to pay for health care to avoid long waits, federal Health Minister Mark Holland went on a nonsensical rant. In fact, his remarks reveal a dangerous attitude at the very top of Canada’s federal government.
Holland began his response with a clear denunciation of the idea that patients should have the right to pay to improve their health.
“I would say that, you know, health systems that have operated on this model, are an abject disaster,” he said.
“We can not have people begin spending money in private systems or private models. That will be the end of quality care for all of us.”
Federal Health Minister Mark Holland responds to questions about a recent poll that shows that 42% of Canadians are willing to consider getting… pic.twitter.com/NOKIe1x5ZJ
Is that really so? Which countries would Minister Holland happen to be referring to?
Sweden, for instance, operates a universal, government-run system, but allows patients to pay for private care if they so choose. A study from the progressive-leaning Commonwealth Fund showed that, despite spending roughly the same amount of money per capita on health care as Canada, Sweden’s system performed better. Same for the Netherlands, the U.K., Switzerland and France.
New Zealand and Australia both spent lessthan Canada and far outperformed our system.
All of these countries provide universal healthcare while allowing patients to pay for care if they so choose. Does Canada’s health minister not know this or is he deliberately trying to mislead Canadians?
What’s even worse is Holland’s minimization of the suffering and death Canadian patients are facing in our health system.
“I would say to folks, most of the waiting that is occurring is for either elective procedures or for procedures that are non, not an emergency circumstance, that people be patient with those,” he said.
The disconnect from reality and disregard for patients is, frankly, shocking. One has to wonder if Holland would look someone like retired nurse Judy Anderson in the eye and tell her to be patient.
Bothof the Ontario woman’s adult daughters diedwaiting months for heart surgeries that could have saved their lives. Ontario health data show that since 2013, there have been 931 patients who died while waiting for cardiac treatment in the province – 244 of whom waited longer than the maximum recommended wait time.
People like Kim Purdy, Jerry Agar and Sharon Kilkenny have suffered from chronic physical and emotional pain thanks to long waits for joint replacements. Would ‘patience’ have helped any of them out? They’re also far from alone. SecondStreet.org data show that over 17,000 Canadians died waiting for various surgeries and diagnostic scans just last year.
The Fraser Institute has been tracking median wait times since 1993. Over the last 30 years, wait times have nearly tripled to 27.7 weeks. Over the same period, government spending in Canada – on a per person basis – has increased at nearly double the rate of inflation.
More money, longer wait times. Clearly, throwing money at the system hasn’t worked.
Perhaps the health minister would be wise to spend some more time looking at the data and hearing what patients are going through, instead of fear mongering about reform.
“We cannot have people begin spending money in private systems or private models. That’ll be the end of quality care for all of us,” he concluded.
As demonstrated, he’s clearly wrong that allowing patients the right to choose would somehow detract from the universal system. Perhaps sharing falsehoods like this is easier when you don’t have to rely on the Canadian system. If Holland was diagnosed with cancer or had chronic hip pain, he could afford care in the U.S. on his taxpayer-funded salary of nearly $300,000.
Though it’s possible a politician in his position may not face the same long waits as everyone else, given his influence on the system.
Years of pain and suffering, or maybe death, for many everyday Canadians, with the only real option for access to timely care coming from outside of the country. It’s hard not to call a system like that an ‘abject disaster.’
Dom Lucyk is the Communications Director for SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank.
Government spending on corporate welfare rose to $52 billion in 2022, more than double what it once was only 15 years ago, according to a new study by the Fraser Institute.
The report released on Tuesday titled, The Cost of Business Subsidies in Canada: Updated Edition, revealed a dramatic increase in corporate welfare spending at every level of government since 2007.
Between 2007 and 2019, federal, provincial and municipal governments spent a combined $352.1 billion on business subsidies.
“These subsidies for businesses — also known as corporate welfare — come with huge costs to government budgets and taxpayers, while doing little if anything to stimulate economic growth,” said co-author Tegan Hill, who also serves as associate director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute.
The annual amount of spending has more than doubled what it was in 2007, going from $24.5 billion a year to $52 billion in 2022 when adjusted for inflation.
Meanwhile, federal business subsidies went up exponentially in the post-pandemic era, spiking up to $88.5 billion in 2020 before decreasing to $47 billion the following year.
To put that figure into context, federal spending on corporate welfare was only $6.5 billion in 2019.
Corporate welfare spending increased most at the provincial level, going from $13.2 billion in 2007 up 4o $35.4 billion in 2022, however, that has not always been the case historically.
“In 1961, real federal subsidies were nearly nine times as large as real provincial subsidies. This gap shrank consistently over the decades,” reads the report. “Real provincial subsidies surpassed federal subsidies in dollar value in 1992. This trend remained consistent in all but two years from 1992 to 2019. During the final pre-COVID year, in 2019, real provincial subsidies were more than four times as large as real federal subsidies.”
According to the report, Quebec and Prince Edward Island spent more on corporate welfare than they received in corporate tax revenue from 2007 to 2019, with P.E.I spending at a rate of 160.8% and Quebec at 100.8%.
Quebec taxpayers spent the most of any province, paying out $30,570 in corporate welfare taxes per person from all levels of government over the same time period, followed closely by Saskatchewan, where taxpayers paid $29,413 per person.
Taxpayers in New Brunswick paid the lowest, for a combined total of $9,484 from 2007 to 2019.
However, these figures are conservative estimates at best, notes the report, as they only factor in direct government transfers to private businesses as well as government business enterprises.
“To be clear, the report does not provide a comprehensive measure of government support to businesses, which would include all tax expenditures, loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory privileges extended to particular firms or industries,” reads the report.
One of the reasons that Fraser Institute can’t get precise figures is due to a lack of government transparency surrounding the amount it spends on businesses.
According to the report, this failure remains ongoing and the government has yet to provide “comprehensive accounting detailing such support in all forms.”
While corporate welfare can stimulate the economy, the Fraser Institute found that it’s Canadian taxpayers who bear the brunt of these costs, which often don’t nurture economic growth in the way that they’re intended to.
It does increase the government deficit, however, with a longstanding poor track record when it comes to government selection regarding which businesses get the funding.
“Rather than give preferential treatment to certain companies and industries, it’s high time Canada reduced business taxes and helped to foster a pro-economic growth environment that gives all businesses the opportunity and incentives to succeed,” said study co-author Jake Fuss.
The Fraser Institute concluded “that business subsidies delivered through government spending since 1961 came with significant costs to government budgets and to Canadian taxpayers generally” and that despite what the literature may suggest, it’s these subsidies that “stand out as a key area for spending reform.”
One of Canada’s most renowned authors, Margaret Atwood, is among the concerned voices, joined by Elon Musk and Russell Brand, criticizing the dystopian future that might arise from the introduction of the Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63.
Atwood posted to X on Friday saying that “if the account of the bill is true, it’s Lettres de Cachet all over again.” The Lettres de Cachet were orders signed by the King of France to enforce arbitrary actions and judgments that could not be appealed. People were imprisoned via these letters without a trial or opportunity for defence, resulting in confinement in a convent or hospital, being banished to colonies, or expelled from the state altogether.
“The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!” Atwood wrote in her post.
Perhaps most well-known for her bestselling novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, which was subsequently made into a TV series, Atwood was called the “prophet of dystopia” by the New Yorker.
In the story, a totalitarian regime known as the Gilead overtakes the United States and enforces its rules under the guise of declining birth rates and environmental degradation. Women are stripped of their rights and assigned roles based on their fertility. Gilead’s control extends beyond reproductive rights, permeating every aspect of life with constant surveillance, public executions, and indoctrination to suppress dissent and maintain the regime’s grip on power.
Terming Bill C-63 as “Trudeau’s Orwellian online harms bill,” Atwood compared the bill to George Orwell’s renowned novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Published in 1949, the book is a cautionary tale about the dangers of totalitarian rule, pervasive mass surveillance, and strict control of individuals and their actions in society.
The novel depicts a world wherein “thoughtcrimes” are punishable by the authoritarian regime, which employs the Thought Police to quash dissenting thoughts and expression. Thoughtcrimes are the act of committing a crime against the government in your thoughts. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Truth disseminates propaganda to suppress uniqueness and distort reality and historical facts.
Critics have warned of similar outcomes as a provision in the bill permits a court to enforce a peace bond, resulting in an informant “fears on reasonable grounds” that someone may commit a “hate crime,” even if they have not yet committed any such crime.
The judge could subsequently order this potential offender to wear an electronic monitoring device, be under house arrest, and more for up to one year. The period increases to two years if a judge finds that the person was previously convicted of hate crimes or propaganda.
In her post to X, Atwood shared an article about the online harms bill from the Spectator.
Justice Minister Arif Virani, who tabled Bill C-63 in the House of Commons, said that he was grateful for Atwood’s interest in the Act in a reply to Atwood. He said the Act “would keep kids safe, apply existing laws to the online world and address the rise in hate—but the article you’ve shared mischaracterizes the bill.”
He added that he was happy to discuss with Atwood and linked an article from CTV News about the new measures for more context.
Bill C-63 creates a new hate law based on motivation, accompanied by increased sentences of up to life imprisonment.
Elon Musk shared a post on X from an article titled “Canadian law would allow judges to hand down life sentences for ‘speech crimes’ (no, this isn’t a joke).”
Canada’s former chief of justice Beverley McLachlin said that the bill will face constitutional challenges in an interview with journalist Edward Greenspon.
“Life sentences for sending out some words. That’s heavy. And it will, I suspect, be challenged,” she said.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has already called for significant amendments to Bill C-63.
“Our initial assessment reveals that the bill includes overbroad violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights, and liberty. These must be rectified before the bill is passed into law,” said the association’s Executive Director and General Counsel, Noa Mendelsohn Aviv.
UK actor and comedian Russel Brand questioned the bill on X as well.
“With Canada’s new ‘online harms bill’ set to make online hate punishable up to LIFE in prison, is Trudeau’s C-63 bill about protecting children or about labelling any speech he personally dislikes as hateful?” he asked.
When answering a question from True North’s Andrew Lawton last month, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre followed up with a question of his own, answering Brand’s question before it was asked.
“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the words hate speech? he asked rhetorically. “He means speech he hates.”
Atwood was previously outspoken against Bill C-11, warning against the Trudeau government’s online censorship.
Alberta held its lead as the province with the fastest-growing rent in the country, increasing by 20% since March of last year, according to a report by Urbanation on rentals.ca.
True North previously reported that average rent in Canada increased 9% in 2023 to a record-high of $2,178 in December 2023.
Among the country’s municipalities, Calgary posted annual rent growth of 14% between December 2022 and 2023, following Quebec City at 18.9%. Calgary’s rent also increased by 22.6% in 2022.
While Edmonton’s rent prices were lower than Calgary’s, they rose by 13.5% between December 2022 and 2023.
The trend has seen Alberta’s two largest cities rank high, though Edmonton’s price increase has now surged ahead of Calgary’s.
Between March 2024 and 2023, Calgary’s average rent has increased by 10.6%. Edmonton’s average rent has increased by 17.3%, greater than any other of the country’s largest cities.
In 2023, the population of people aged 15 to 24, a key demographic in the rental market, saw a notable increase. Alberta, in particular, experienced a growth rate that was over double the national average in this age group. The province’s allure for this demographic was further enhanced by the promise of job opportunities and more affordable living conditions, drawing a significant number of interprovincial migrants.
Despite the large percentage increase in rents in Calgary and Edmonton, they remain ranked 16th and 23rd, respectively, for price ranking from a dollar perspective, out of Canada’s 25 largest municipalities.
The average rent in Edmonton is $1,489/mo, less than half of Vancouver’s $3,017/mo asking price.
The three most expensive cities in Canada have all seen decreases in average rent costs since March of last year. Vancouver’s average rent decreased by 3.3%, while Burnaby and Toronto decreased by 0.8% and 1.3%, respectively.
The least expensive municipality listed in the report is Saskatoon, with an average annual rent of $1,278, despite having increased 10.4% since last March.
Tracked in four provinces, roommate listings increased by 72% in B.C., Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec in February 2024 compared to the same month the year prior.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre commented on the new data in a post to X.
“More renters are choosing studios or roommates because they can’t afford housing,” he said.
“Lower-income renters have been disproportionately impacted by the below-average vacancy rates, exacerbating the affordability crisis,” said the CMHC.
The study pointed to employment growth, demographic growth, and the low affordability of homes as causes for an increased demand in the rental market.
Despite an increase in housing supply, it has lagged behind the increase in demand, leading to a more competitive rental market and a decline in housing affordability.
The data comes as legislature debates Bill 205, a proposed annual rent cap increase introduced by Alberta’s NDP. The legislation seeks to limit rent increases to 2% for two years, tying increases to the Consumer Price Index for a maximum of 5% in the following years. Critics, including the UCP, argue the bill might inadvertently heighten homelessness by incentivizing landlords to evict.
If a tenant’s rent agreed upon at the start of the lease was $1,500/mo, but the market supported $1,750/mo by the end of the lease, a rent cap of 2% would not support such an increase. Landlords would subsequently find a new tenant and increase the lease to support the market price.
Trevor Adams, an Albertan landlord, said the bill would do the opposite of what it intends because it would reduce supply. His sister had a rental in Comox, B.C. A rental cap was introduced, and she could not raise rent to offset costs, so she decided to sell the home as it became too expensive to rent.
Alberta’s Seniors, Community, and Social Services Minister Jason Nixon agreed that implementing rent caps in a province with an existing supply issue would result in more homeless people.
“Every jurisdiction that went down that road of rent control has been a disaster. There’s not a major economist anywhere in this country calling for rent control because it does not work,” he said.
Saskatchewan has unveiled its ten-year investment strategy that includes new tax incentives for critical mineral projects.
Trade and Export Development Minister Jeremy Harrison addressed a group of business leaders, highlighting the impressive growth in private capital investment within the province—nearly 25% last year with an anticipated increase of over 14% this year.
“We’re going to be talking about why Saskatchewan is the right place in the world to invest. We’re really highlighting the strengths we have in the natural resource sector and also highlighting the strengths we have on the policy front (and announcing) new incentives, in addition to a host of existing incentives,” said Harrison.
The strategy’s cornerstone is a generous 25% tax credit for commercialization projects involving critical minerals, complemented by a 15% tax credit for new investments in critical minerals processing.
These incentives are part of a broader effort to position Saskatchewan as a global investment destination, particularly for the natural resource industry.
“The reason for it is because our government works very closely with our stakeholders, community leaders, municipalities and business leaders to make sure we have the right policy environment in place so there’s a comfort level in making a very large investment in the province,” said Harrison.
The Saskatchewan government has also launched a new investment website showcasing the province’s offerings and potentially attract international investment into the province.
Harrison also announced the extension of two existing incentives—the Oil and Gas Processing Investment Incentive and Saskatchewan Petroleum Innovation Incentive—until 2029.
Additionally, the province is doubling its annual tax credit cap for startups in eligible technology fields from $3.5 million to $7 million and broadening the eligibility criteria to include clean technology ventures.
Saskatchewan will also set up a new Multi-later Well Program to fund sustainable drilling technology for the oil and gas sector.
Half of Canadians now agree that immigration levels are too high. A recent Leger survey conducted for the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute found that the amount of Canadians who shared that sentiment in January 2023 was only about 21%, revealing a dramatic change in opinion in just over a year.
“This concern about immigration has traction and certainly it constitutes a challenge to this consensus…. This suggests it’s a departure from what we’ve seen in the previous decade,” Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies and the Metropolis Institute told the National Post.
Canada welcomed around one million new temporary and permanent immigrants in 2022, which ultimately brought the country to a record new population of 40 million people.
The Trudeau government announced last November that it would be capping Canada’s annual immigrant target at 500,000, beginning in 2026.
Of those 50% of Canadians who believe the current immigration levels are too high, 39% believe that it’s having a negative impact on housing, exasperating the current crisis. Within that same cohort, 21% said they felt that immigrants are “draining the system.”
“They’re all rooted in this idea that our economy is challenged at supporting this number of immigrants, whether it’s housing or services, or so forth — at least for people who feel there are too many,” said Jedwab.
A minority of Canadians believe the opposite however, with 7% responding that immigration levels should increase, to help fill job vacancies and prevent population decline.
Canada’s current birth rate stands at 1.33 children per woman, the lowest in history.
“There’s definitely a significant part of the population that has concerns about the economy and another part of the population that may have concerns about the economy, but still maintains immigration is the answer,” added Jedwab.
While 50% of Canadians believe that current levels are too high, there isn’t widespread fear regarding sentiments of xenophobia.
Only 10% said that they fear Canadians will become a “minority” due to high immigration levels. Even fewer respondents, 8%, said they didn’t feel that immigrants shared Canadians values, with the lowest cohort, 4%, saying that they believed immigration was bringing criminals into the country.
There was another more significant minority, 18%, who believed that immigrants were taking jobs from Canadians.
“It’s really more rooted in the economy and our capacity to support this number of immigrants with available services,” said Jedwab.
The concern for high levels of immigration doesn’t appear to fall across ethnic lines, as both white and non-white Canadians shared the same concern with a difference of only four percentage points.
Atlantic Canadians shared the strongest opposition to immigration, compared to other provinces.
Respondents in New Brunswick held the strongest opposition, with 59% saying that current levels were too high and 56% of Nova Scotians agreed.
British Columbia, Ontataio and Saskatchewan all followed closely behind, with 53% saying there are currently too many immigrants coming into Canada.
About half of Albertans agreed as well, but that sentiment decreased to 46% in Manitoba and 44% in Quebec.
Income played a role in how respondents answered, with Canadians earning less than $40,000 (57% of Canadians) being the most likely to oppose current immigration levels.
Canadians who earn over $100,000 annually were less likely to hold that view, at 46%.
Respondents generally said that Canada’s immigration strategy needs to shift its focus from refugees to skilled workers, with a consensus of 59% saying that change must be made.
Whereas respondents who felt the current levels were accurate tended to value family reunification at 40% and taking in refugees at 22%.
