Roundup: Changing the refugee timeline

The Liberal government has released their official refugee resettlement plans, and surprising probably no one, they had to back away from the pledge of 25,000 by year’s end. The revised goal is 10,000 by year’s end, the 15,000 remaining by the end of February, and while that number will be both government-sponsored and privately sponsored, they pledge to have a least 25,000 government-sponsored refugees by the end of 2016. All security screening will happen on the ground in the refugee camps, while they will be offered mental health services once in Canada. There are spaces for 6,000 that would be prepared in a couple of different military bases, but those are intended only as a back-up, with the intention to have communities take them right away. So in all, more resettled refugees than the previous government would have done, but not quite as ambitious as they had initially hoped for. As for why the government changed their minds, Trudeau told Matt Galloway in an interview that it was because they wanted to “get it right,” at which point, we ask ourselves how we consider the accountability question. Do we blast them for breaking the campaign promise? Do we point out that it was possibly a reckless promise in the first place, as they were trying to one-up the other parties? Do we try to have a more grown-up conversation where we allow them the ability to change their minds with changing circumstances (and before you say it, no, I don’t think that the attacks in Paris changed anything, particularly about the question of security)? The Conservatives have certainly decided to declare victory on this one, but it should probably be noted that while things are going slower than promised, the doors are not closed, which is unlike the calls we’ve seen in several American states and others. Trudeau is sending the message that these refugees are not some outsider menace, as it should be noted that in fact the vast majority of attacks that have happened to date were from those who were born in the country where the attacks happened, and they were radicalized later in life. It does send a message that keeping up with resettlement is happening in spite of the Paris attacks, and that should perhaps be noted too.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau is now on the second leg of his international adventures, meeting the Queen and David Cameron, before the Commonwealth meeting in Malta, and then the Paris conference.
  • Here’s a preview of Trudeau’s visit with the Queen later today.
  • Thomas Mulcair “guarantees” he’ll be leader in the next election, but a) it’s not up to him, and b) there are some senior party officials who think he should move on.
  • The Charbonneau commission concluded and gave its report, saying that corruption is a widespread problem in the province, which the premier says he’ll address.
  • For part two of his incoherent “parliamentary reform” suggestions, Craig Scott wants to “fix” the Senate by turning it into an even bigger rubber stamp.
  • Emmett Macfarlane goes through and evaluates the Justice Minister’s mandate letter.

Odds and ends:

Apparently there’s some science behind attractive politicians doing well.

https://twitter.com/journo_dale/status/669359544980676608/photo/1

4 thoughts on “Roundup: Changing the refugee timeline

  1. The delay in admitting 25,000 refugees by end of year in 5 weeks is mostly due to lack of sufficient immigration ressources on the ground. There is just so much Immigration Officers can do. So maybe the mature adult approach is best in this discussion though far too many people are willing to scream to score cheap partisan points. The security vetting question as also been blown way out of proportion and the media is largely to blame by writing and slanting the story just so to scare the ignorant public. Thank you for pointing out that in most cases like the recent attacks in Paris, the criminals were Belgian and French who later became nut jobs.

  2. With respect to the Syrian refugee situation, I agree that the new government was correct in deciding to take the time to do the job right.

    However, agreeing with the decision does not mean we have to ignore the fact that as recently as 10 days ago Mr. Trudeau was saying that the Government was going to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year.

    Mr. Trudeau, himself, set both the number and the end-date as political and personal commitments. For example, in his interview with Lisa LaFlamme on W5 [air date 24 Oct 2015], LaFlamme did her best to give him an out when she questioned the timing but got this response: “I know this is a surprise to certain people within the political universe but the commitments I made in that platform I’m going to keep.”

    So we should be neither surprised nor scandalized that his political adversaries take the opportunity to point out that he has not met his commitment in this instance.

    • Given that his opponents are the same people who did not lift a finger to help this humanitarian crisis and fanned the flames of fear and hatred in Canada, they have no credibility. This will get done and refugees are already arriving in Canada. So Canadians should be happy we are responding to the crisis.

      • Of course Canadians should be pleased that we are taking in Syrian refugees. I thought I made that clear. My point is that if a leader — regardless of whom she or he is — politicizes and personalizes a commitment and then will not or cannot keep that commitment, it is hardly surprising that she or he will be the subject of criticism for failing to keep that commitment. Indeed, it is dangerous for any of us in a democracy — even the most partisan — to claim that our leaders need not be held to account for their failings. There is no need for us to serve as apologists for Mr. Trudeau. He’s able to make his own, as needed (e.g., his interview with Matt Galloway on Nov 24).

Comments are closed.