Trudeau's Committment to Syrian Refugees - 25,000 by Year End

dialamah · January 1, 2016

Can you just imagine if Stephen Harper had made the same promise (which he wouldn't). Where would your tolerance be for this debacle. Really - think about it.

Surprising as it may seem to you, I supported SH where I thought he was right - for instance, I felt he had no choice but to run deficits even though he promised a balanced budge and felt that those who criticized him were being unfair - shit happens, even if you are the prime minister. If SH had gone above and beyond to bring in refugees, I'd have supported that - even if it hadn't gone exactly as planned.

People who continue to criticize when a plan is changed, or when things don't work out just exactly as expected are criticizing just for the sake of criticizing, and are unreasonable as far as I'm concerned. Promises are amended, even broken, by people all the time. Sometimes its for a good reason, and sometimes it's not. In this case, taking in refugees over a longer period of time is a good thing, not a bad thing. To continue to whine about it is pointless.

Accountability Now · January 1, 2016

In this case, taking in refugees over a longer period of time is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Which is exactly what Harper stated and campaigned on. Unlike Trudeau who repeatedly called on the Prime Minister to increase the numbers and the timeline which was never feasible to begin with.

It was an election promise that was only meant to fool his bleeding heart contingency.

dialamah · January 1, 2016

Which is exactly what Harper stated and campaigned on. Unlike Trudeau who repeatedly called on the Prime Minister to increase the numbers and the timeline which was never feasible to begin with.

It was an election promise that was only meant to fool his bleeding heart contingency.

Maybe he did, but if forced to choose between a leader who promises to do more than he can to help others over one who promises to do what he can to marginalize others (banning apparel or setting up 'tiplines'), I'll choose #1 over #2.

Big Guy · January 1, 2016

It appears that the Canadian Health system (Ontario for sure) is prepared for the influx of refugees:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/12/canadian-doctors-prepare-wave-syrian-refugees-151222055338796.html

"Many refugees are actually in relatively good health," says Rashid. "They have been the ones that climb over the mountain and wade through the stream to get away from whatever they're fleeing. "But many have never really had good primary care. Our model is built on engaging them in the healthcare system early and keeping people healthy. It helps with successful integration."

Until five years ago, Syria was a middle-income country with a very good healthcare system but then everything changed. It will be interesting to see how the health of the refugees will compare to that of homegrown Canadians.

Accountability Now · January 1, 2016

Maybe he did, but if forced to choose between a leader who promises to do more than he can to help others over one who promises to do what he can to marginalize others (banning apparel or setting up 'tiplines'), I'll choose #1 over #2.

Interesting. Just a few posts back, your go to argument was that a large amount of Canadians supported increased numbers. A vast amount of Canadians also supported banning apparel.

Do you use only care for public support when it agrees with your position?

The reality is I prefer a leader who is knowledgeable, practical and willing to make the tough decisions to get the job done. Not just pander to a crowd especially when an election is on

capricorn · January 1, 2016

Our Immigration Minister sure is keen on how history will record the influx of Syrian refugees under his watch.

“When history is written, the story will be about how we resettled 25,000 refugees in a short period of time,”

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/31/canada-pushes-year-end-goal-of-10000-syrian-refugees-by-two-weeks.html

dialamah · January 1, 2016

Interesting. Just a few posts back, your go to argument was that a large amount of Canadians supported increased numbers. A vast amount of Canadians also supported banning apparel.

Do you use only care for public support when it agrees with your position?

The reality is I prefer a leader who is knowledgeable, practical and willing to make the tough decisions to get the job done. Not just pander to a crowd especially when an election is on

What does what the 'majority' would do have to do with what *I* would do? In the first case, someone said "Canadians want ..." and I responded with with polls indicating that Canadians got what they wanted. In the second case, I was saying what *my* choice would be, between the two leaders.

And tell me, what was the rhetoric about niqabs and tiplines but pandering to a (certain) crowd during an election? It didn't work, but it was no less pandering.

As for preferring a leader who is knowledgeable, SH wasn't even knowledgeable enough about the Charter to avoid being consistently shut down by the courts as he attempted to impose legislation. Did you have any problem with that when it happened? Did you ever say "Jeez, Harper should at least be smart enough to know what kinds of laws will fail if challenged"? Or did you instead say "Look - it's a conspiracy against Harper"?

Edited January 1, 2016 by dialamah

Accountability Now · January 1, 2016

What has what the 'majority' would do have to do with what *I* would do? In the first case, someone said "Canadians want ..." and I responded with with polls indicating that Canadians got what they wanted. In the second case, I was saying what *my* choice would be, between the two leaders.

This is very simple. You can't use the polls just to suit you're meme. Either you give credence to the fact that the majority of Canadians believe in something or you don't. So does it matter that a majority of Canadaians agree with bringing in more Syrians? The polls say they do but the polls also support of the banning of the niqab.

.

As for preferring a leader who is knowledgeable, SH wasn't even knowledgeable enough about the Charter to avoid being consistently shut down by the courts as he attempted to impose legislation. Did you have any problem with that when it happened? Did you ever say "Jeez, Harper should at least be smart enough to know what kinds of laws will fail if challenged"? Or did you instead say "Look - it's a conspiracy against Harper"?

Nope. No issues. Interpretation of the law is very arbitrary and those decisions could have gone either way. Unlike the refugee situation where even people on the left knew the promises made could not be done.

Having said that, is your only defense of Trudeaus blunder going to be " well....Harper..." Let it go...he can't hurt you anymore.

Big Guy · January 1, 2016

This is very simple.

Is it your position that the Liberal Party knew that they could not deliver on the promise of 25,000 government sponsored refugees but still put it into their platform. And because of this misdirection or lie, they were elected to a majority?

dialamah · January 1, 2016

This is very simple. You can't use the polls just to suit you're meme. Either you give credence to the fact that the majority of Canadians believe in something or you don't. So does it matter that a majority of Canadaians agree with bringing in more Syrians? The polls say they do but the polls also support of the banning of the niqab.

You are not making any sense to me here. I can use polls for an approximation of what Canadians prefer. I can state what my own personal choice would be. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Nope. No issues. Interpretation of the law is very arbitrary and those decisions could have gone either way. Unlike the refugee situation where even people on the left knew the promises made could not be done.

Excuses. Harper was either very stupid or actively working to undermine Canada's Charter - how else to explain being at constant odds with the SC? (The forgoing is not what I personally believe, just what I've heard claimed by some very partisan Liberals)

Having said that, is your only defense of Trudeaus blunder going to be " well....Harper..." Let it go...he can't hurt you anymore.

Just noting the hypocrisy: "Harper could do no wrong, and if he did he was forced into it/didn't know/because of liberal-biased media/but it certainly wasn't his fault" comes from the conservative hardliners. JT, on the other hand, fails to bring in enough refugees quickly enough, that the conservative hardliners didn't want in the first place, and that must be harped upon endlessly as proof of his incompetence.

Keepitsimple · January 1, 2016

Is it your position that the Liberal Party knew that they could not deliver on the promise of 25,000 government sponsored refugees but still put it into their platform. And because of this misdirection or lie, they were elected to a majority?

You got the first part absolutely right......but it was only a contributing factor in the election although it probably didn't affect the final outcome. That said, momentum is a big thing in elections and the since-proven outlandish promise fed the narrative that Harper was uncaring.....and since Mulcair offered a similar pledge to Harper, the NDP continued their descent. Hey - that's politics......but if it wasn't such an emotional issue - one that we all hope will end well, that original promise would have a more overt putrid stench to it.

Accountability Now · January 1, 2016

Is it your position that the Liberal Party knew that they could not deliver on the promise of 25,000 government sponsored refugees but still put it into their platform. And because of this misdirection or lie, they were elected to a majority?

Yes. I believe they knew it was an overachievement but still did it anyway. However as I have stated before, the Syrian refugee crisis was a minor issue for the reasons that Trudeau got elected. I believe the majority of people who voted for Trudeau did it as an anything but Harper vote. This refugee issue was a sliver of the reason he got elected however it doesn't excuse him from accountability to election campaigns/promises.

dialamah · January 1, 2016

You got the first part absolutely right......but it was only a contributing factor in the election although it probably didn't affect the final outcome.

The other day, in the end-of-year interview JT gave, he thought the tide turned in his favor when he promised to run deficits, and that the refugee crisis wasn't as much of a factor.

Accountability Now · January 1, 2016

You are not making any sense to me here. I can use polls for an approximation of what Canadians prefer. I can state what my own personal choice would be. The two are not mutually exclusive.

You used the polls to validate your position that increased numbers are ok. I'm saying you can't use that argument unless you fudamentally agree that all polls are correct.

Excuses. Harper was either very stupid or actively working to undermine Canada's Charter - how else to explain being at constant odds with the SC? (The forgoing is not what I personally believe, just what I've heard claimed by some very partisan Liberals)

The law is up for interpretation. Harper challenged that interpretation and it didn't go his way. That makes him neither stupid nor at odds. The reality is that our 'justice' system is continually changing and becoming more difficult to amend due to precedents that legally force a ruling even when common sense is against it.

Just noting the hypocrisy: "Harper could do no wrong, and if he did he was forced into it/didn't know/because of liberal-biased media/but it certainly wasn't his fault" comes from the conservative hardliners. JT, on the other hand, fails to bring in enough refugees quickly enough, that the conservative hardliners didn't want in the first place, and that must be harped upon endlessly as proof of his incompetence.

I have never said Harper could do no wrong and I certainly did not allude to it in that post. My point it that Trudeau made a mistake and all you can say is "Harper Harper Harper."

dialamah · January 1, 2016

You used the polls to validate your position that increased numbers are ok. I'm saying you can't use that argument unless you fudamentally agree that all polls are correct.

I used the polls to demonstrate to someone that the slower pace of bringing in refugees resulted in an increased approval of bringing in refugees, from 40% support in November to 60% in December, when he said that was what 'Canadians wanted', my point being that Canadians seem to have gotten what they wanted. That has nothing to do with whether or I think the polls are 'right' or 'wrong' or even the action being polled on is 'right' or 'wrong'. It is merely polls showing a shift in approval ratings. I also said my preference in voting between two different leaders promising different things; again, that has nothing to do with what *other* people polled at that time thought was right or wrong.

In any case, just to clarify - I thought SH was right to plan to bring in refugees more slowly, and think it's better it worked out that way. However, that doesn't mean I think JT needs to be drawn, quartered or pilloried for being over-enthusiastic in his promises. I'd still rather vote for someone who makes a mistake while trying to carry out a humanitarian plan, over someone making mean-spirited promises and singling out a certain group for 'special' treatment.

As for the rest, well -- I am getting dizzy and see no point in continuing the circuit. You are no doubt as reasonable as I think I am, even if we don't agree about the relative blameworthiness of either JT or SH.

Edited January 1, 2016 by dialamah

overthere · January 1, 2016

The other day, in the end-of-year interview JT gave, he thought the tide turned in his favor when he promised to run deficits, and that the refugee crisis wasn't as much of a factor.

Oh man, that is laugh out loud stuff.

His comments have nothing to do with a campaign several months back, he is doing now what is his second biggest priority: managing expectations. More accurately, he must effectively lower our expectations on many fronts.

Yes, I promised you deficits, but now guess what? I'll exceed that promise and deliver an even bigger deficit! Sunny ways!

And he has to downplay the whole refugee issue, as it is obvious today that the Trudeau Government has fallen far short of even very modest, revised estimates of refugees landed by Dec 31 2015. It really does not matter to most Candians that he has failed, but the man is very sensitive to criticisim and there are so very many promises yet to be addressed.

Nobody wants to talk about a couple of things regarding the refugees. One is that by far most of the refugees landing here now were organized by Harper, and most are not govt sponsored but privately sponsored. The Trudeau govt had little to do with getting them here other than arranging flights, nearly all the screening was done long ago for this batch. The other item they'd like to keep quiet is where the refugees are coming from... The great campaign refugee lottery that Trudeau won with a bid of 25K before Decemeber 31, 201 was spurred by the daily media streams of hordes walking the roads of Eastern Europe, crossing the stormy waters of the Med, and washing up dead toddlers on beaches. Of course, we are not taking any of those people, none as far as I am aware. We are taking people long settled into camps if Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

Justin needs to shift our focus away from all this, and he hopes to revist it in a few months when they have actually geared up to get some refugees here in significant numbers. This won't be an issue for him soon, all he needs to do and is doing is shift the goalposts for a while..

Smallc · January 1, 2016

The reality is, no matter the party in power, we're starting from a shakier footing than we thought when the last budget was crafted. That can't be pinned on Trudeau.

Rue · January 1, 2016

normally your posts are tooooo long for the waldo to bother with; however, a quick scan saw you addressed lil' ole me... to that end, I agree with you that more refugees from other world areas should be relocated by Canada - good on ya!

of course, the current world-wide profile is clearly on Syria and the related ~4 million refugees associated with the ongoing war are taking precedence. Actually prior to the most recent years emphasis on Iraq and Syria, from 2004-to-2013, the following graphic presents a listing breakdown of the greatest number of refugees by country: ... not sure if this data matches the vitriol in your post, hey!

.

Waldo a couple of things;

1-don't whine to me about the length of my responses-then respond to them claiming you haven't read them it only reders yur position petulant-you find them too long, no one forces you to read them-the point is you did, so your whining is meaningless;

2-quoting one site for refugee sources means what exactly- did it ever occur to you the list you use is not even accurate-go to www. statista . com if you want accurate stats up to date on source nations -not surprisingly your list doesn't even contain the actual top refugee producers-there is a reason why if you take the time to go find out;

3-don't misrepresent what I said-you claim you didn't read it, then suddenly you did and misquote what I said, which one is it;

Refugees need food, clothing, medicine, shelter, protection from rape from other refugees.

They need help in the camps not being used as tokens to assuage liberal guilt..

You don't speak for me. I did my tour and I watched people die and I know what a refuugee is,what they die from, what they smell like.

Trudeau's refugee charade is just a token gesture.

I don't yank people from the environments with this racist notion they are savages in need of my salvation to make me feel god about myself.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Rue

dialamah · January 2, 2016

Oh man, that is laugh out loud stuff.

Always nice to give someone a chuckle. I'm not convinced the promise of deficits was the turning point either, so when he said that I was less than convinced.

His comments have nothing to do with a campaign several months back, he is doing now what is his second biggest priority: managing expectations. More accurately, he must effectively lower our expectations on many fronts.

Yes, I promised you deficits, but now guess what? I'll exceed that promise and deliver an even bigger deficit! Sunny ways!

Given the lack of outrage over Harper's deficits after promising balanced budgets, I don't see why this would concern him much at all. The people most concerned about deficits/balanced budgets etc., tend to be Conservatives, but Conservatives are not the majority. The majority of Canadians seem to consider other things of equal value - helping the poor, the environment, social justice, etc. As long as we don't get into a situation such as that faced by Chretien where we were almost bankrupt, I don't think most Canadians are going to be overly concerned about openly admitted additional deficit, as long as the other valued things are seen to be done and we don't feel like we're being deliberately 'lied' to.

And he has to downplay the whole refugee issue, as it is obvious today that the Trudeau Government has fallen far short of even very modest, revised estimates of refugees landed by Dec 31 2015. It really does not matter to most Candians that he has failed, but the man is very sensitive to criticisim and there are so very many promises yet to be addressed.

True, he certainly does seek approval and that may be his undoing. Promising too much has no doubt shortened many a politicians career. On the other hand, if his claim that he spent a year (or was it two?) traveling around talking to Canadians directly, it may be that he does have a much better handle on what Canadians will and won't accept than what either your or I think. Although he never made it to my house, I have to admit that his rhetoric could have come from me and his "sunny ways" was a tremendously welcome change from Harper's "Only I can save you" rhetoric, whether it was the economy or terrorists Harper was going to save me from.

Nobody wants to talk about a couple of things regarding the refugees. One is that by far most of the refugees landing here now were organized by Harper, and most are not govt sponsored but privately sponsored. The Trudeau govt had little to do with getting them here other than arranging flights, nearly all the screening was done long ago for this batch. The other item they'd like to keep quiet is where the refugees are coming from... The great campaign refugee lottery that Trudeau won with a bid of 25K before Decemeber 31, 201 was spurred by the daily media streams of hordes walking the roads of Eastern Europe, crossing the stormy waters of the Med, and washing up dead toddlers on beaches. Of course, we are not taking any of those people, none as far as I am aware. We are taking people long settled into camps if Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

True enough. But if Canadians overall were looking for a more humanitarian leader, then the motivation and effort is doubtless more important than the details of accomplishment. Harper was seen as not caring, even as he raised the limit on how many he'd bring in. He was 'grudgingly' going to help people, after having his (perceived) lack of compassion thrown in his face; JT is wholehearted, enthusiastic. The end result may well end up nearly identical, but who doesn't prefer enthusiasm over aloofness?

In any case, if Trudeau succeeds in bringing in the full 25,000 by February (I believe the current goal), then to keep harping on this as a failure and an indication of incompetence is pointless. The job was done, and who hasn't had a project go over a deadline and overbudget? It happens all the time, whether one is remodeling a room in their home, building a whole new house, building icebreakers or bringing in refugees, apparently.

Argus · January 2, 2016

The reality is, no matter the party in power, we're starting from a shakier footing than we thought when the last budget was crafted. That can't be pinned on Trudeau.

Policies which make it worse can be. Increasing taxes, esp on business, as with the new proposed CPP contributions and carbon taxes will discourage business while the new taxes to higher level earners will discourage investment. If the trial balloon on raising the GST is implemented that will discourage consumer spending. At the same time, a slew of new regulations to slow down new drilling, oil exploration and mining developments, as well as pipelines, will be a drag on the resource sector. Offering billions to third world countries isn't going to make our economy work any better either.

Big Guy · January 2, 2016

Yes. I believe they knew it was an overachievement but still did it anyway. However as I have stated before, the Syrian refugee crisis was a minor issue for the reasons that Trudeau got elected. I believe the majority of people who voted for Trudeau did it as an anything but Harper vote. This refugee issue was a sliver of the reason he got elected however it doesn't excuse him from accountability to election campaigns/promises.

I agree that there were a number of reasons for the surprising Liberal majority. I also agree that this new government is as accountable as any other to follow through on campaign promises. There is a source which I find informative of perceived Liberal promises and their success at fulfilling them - an interactive source that does allow and portray a wide number of views on each promise:

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

With the improvement of social media, I have no doubt that this, and every subsequent government, will be held to the closest scrutiny than any other government has been in the past.

Accountability Now · January 2, 2016

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/[/url]

With the improvement of social media, I have no doubt that this, and every subsequent government, will be held to the closest scrutiny than any other government has been in the past.

Yes...I've think you posted this earlier. It does seem to be non-partisan which is good. I agree...politics is a new game now that social media/internet has evolved. People remember what you say because it's out there.

Smallc · January 2, 2016

Policies which make it worse can be. Increasing taxes, esp on business, as with the new proposed CPP contributions

But of course, with the economic climate in mind, that's been shelved...

and carbon taxes will discourage business while the new taxes to higher level earners will discourage investment.

..and there is absolutely zero talk of a federal price on carbon. At least 5 provinces have decided to go that way, but, they all did that independently of Trudeau (3 by Cap and trade, and 2 by carbon tax - 1 revenue neutral).

If the trial balloon on raising the GST is implemented that will discourage consumer spending.

And yet, if you were to ask most economists, they'd tell you it was the smartest tax to raise.

At the same time, a slew of new regulations to slow down new drilling, oil exploration and mining developments, as well as pipelines, will be a drag on the resource sector. Offering billions to third world countries isn't going to make our economy work any better either.

Almost no one is looking for resources that we don't need and that won't make money in the short to medium term at this point.

Smoke · January 2, 2016

The reality is, no matter the party in power, we're starting from a shakier footing than we thought when the last budget was crafted. That can't be pinned on Trudeau.

So you feel that having "almost" balanced the budget, down to a few billion, as the conservatives did has left us on "shaky" ground, yet you are now supporting the Liberals promise to increase the deficit to 10B (a number which many are predicting will undoubtedly grow).

Smoke · January 2, 2016

I agree that there were a number of reasons for the surprising Liberal majority. I also agree that this new government is as accountable as any other to follow through on campaign promises. There is a source which I find informative of perceived Liberal promises and their success at fulfilling them - an interactive source that does allow and portray a wide number of views on each promise:

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

With the improvement of social media, I have no doubt that this, and every subsequent government, will be held to the closest scrutiny than any other government has been in the past.

It's wonderful that you are basing your assessment of the Liberals on a report from some self proclaimed Tim Horton's addict named Dom. His claim to fame is trying to find the perfect Alberta poutine. So in his assessment so far he has "no promises broken" but we all know that to be untrue. But if it makes you feel good about Junior, then knock yerself out.