I would agree. We should continue with a commitment to resettle refugees from Syria, but not impose a strict timeline/schedule. It should be done, and done well. An artificial timeline does not make sense.
Situations change. Difficulties can arise. Staying with a timeline “just because” is usually a recipe for failure in any business.
The Beaverton headlines practically write themselves: “Syrian Refugees Settled In Windsor Seek Funding For Tickets Back To Syria”.
Well it looks like Trudeaus advisors have finally shaken some sense into that head of his. Now they are only taking 10,000 refugees by year-end.
What an ill-thought, irresponsible promise. Let’s hope the next time he opens his mouth, more sensible thoughts come out of it, or it could a long four years.
I see nothing negative here. I’d rather have objectives or timelines change in light of new information than a stubborn and unnecessary clinging to arbitrary goals.
I must admit that as much as I admire almost everything Trudeau has done so far, I’m a bit ambivalent about the 25,000 refugees – meaning, literally, that I can see the humanitarian imperative but also the risks and downsides. Stories like this one show that we haven’t always done a very good job of vetting. I’m not going to fall into the trap of xenophobic bigotry like some of the US governors who refuse to have even one refugee in their state, but we need to do this right, and if it means more time so be it, and if it should mean higher standards and smaller numbers, so be it as well.
So far Trudeau has extended the timeline to the end of February, and announced that only families and women and children will qualify. That’s a good start. CBC did a short profile of one of these families, who looked like a nice couple with one small child. They had been informed months ago that they had been accepted for admission, so I get the impression that a lot of the vetting or perhaps all of it occurs while they’re still overseas. Let’s remember that the Syrian refugee situation has been ongoing since the Harper years, it’s just that his position was to ignore the problem.
A few other things of recent note … all the provincial premiers got together recently for security and climate discussions with Trudeau. It was the first time in nine years that such a first ministers’ conference had occurred, not coincidentally the time that Harper was in power. He would meet with them one-on-one, but never as a group. So the atmosphere was congenial and praise for Trudeau among the premiers was abundant. And then all of them are going to the Paris climate conference, another first that never happened under Harper, whose participation at these events was limited to his own goons, whose attitude was confrontational and intentionally counterproductive. So far, Trudeau continues to impress. 
As an aside to that Globe article, it is against policy for a domestic contract to specify that a under certain terms a person may not get divorced (although a judge can delay a divorce until support is dealt with) or to specify that a woman must bear children. I’ve come across these demands (and other demands that most Canadians would find grossly offensive) a few times from people from Saudi Arabia looking to make marriage contracts.
Well, no, the previous government’s position was to bring in… 10,000 refugees. So in fact the vetting process, which involves cooperation with UNHCR, is not something they just slapped together in the last few weeks. It has been an ongoing process, before and after the election, done by the same apparatus of state no matter who’s in Ottawa. All that changed was the new government pledged to bring in greater numbers before December.
Yes, that was exactly my point, that the vetting process has been ongoing for quite some time. What I meant by the previous government “ignoring the problem” was that it was difficult to discern any progress – we certainly know what the previous government thought about immigrants in general and niqab-wearing Muslims in particular – I’m thinking of bullshit like this:
Immigration Minister Chris Alexander hangs up on As It Happens
Canada’s Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, facing a series of tough questions about how many Syrian refugees have made it into the country, hung up on Carol Off, the host of CBC Radio’s As It Happens.
The As It Happens interview with Alexander began with a discussion of immigration reforms contained in Bill C-24, something Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati had criticized on a previous show, before moving on to questions about Syrian refugees.
“What has happened to the 200 government-sponsored refugees from Syria that you’ve committed to bringing into Canada?” Off asked Alexander, noting it’s a question the show has been trying to obtain an answer to for months. Alexander responded by saying around 1,150 Syrians have received “Canada’s protection,” before adding that the government expects to surpass its commitment to bring in 200 sponsored refugees. When asked where the 200 refugees are, however, Alexander did not give a firm answer.
UNHCR had and has a backlog of refugees being processed for security, etc.
Both old and new governments have quotas. The Harper quota was less than half that of the Liberal’s quota.
I don’t think you can base an analysis entirely on population numbers.
While there’s a lot of public denial of the implications, a big part of the USA is in an agricultural & water crisis. After decades of unsustainably high agricultural output, we now face the double whammy of running out of fossil water and having more droughts due to climate change. The western half of the country may be sending refugees out itself within a generation.
The USA is still a large, rich country that can take some refugees, but there’s some rumbling economic anxiety that makes it harder. This is consciously expressed in racist and sectarian terms, making it seem silly, but the actual causes are there.
I have to admit 25,000 doesn’t seem huge to me. It’s huge if you’re trying to do it in six weeks. It’s stupid, actually.
But if you take an appropriate amount of time - some degree of haste is merited but practically FedExing people from one refugee camp to another is a little much - is 25,000 people in a huge country with 34 million people really all that many people? We absorbed twice as many Vietnamese boat people in a poorer country with two thirds the population and in an sense that mattered hardly noticed it.
I don’t really care what the USA does or doesn’t do, that’s their business. I think Canada can absorb 25,000 refugees with shocking ease.
Well it appears we now have one that’s isn’t qualified, Chrystia Freeland, Minister for International Trade. Or maybe she’s just not ready.
I saw her on Maher the other night and just shook my head in disbelief as to how she represented Canada. She really made a fool of herself and of our country.
I wonder how many more Cabinet Ministers are like her, just not ready?
After all, it’s 2015, they should all be qualified.
or on YouTube:
Well, mileage may certainly vary. I did not think she was that bad. Could have been better of course, but if this is the worst you can come up with… Pretty small beer, my friend.
Who exactly would you propose would be a better minister for International Trade, and what qualifications do they hold?
Agreed on both fronts.
I also find it quite comical that the CPC folks seem to get absolutely confused when the Liberals changed their minds based on new world events and a thorough briefing. It’s like they have never encountered anything like this before, and are simply puzzled by anyone who examines evidence and then can change course. It’s baffling to them.
Not qualified or ready for a talkshow thats weapon free with regards to hard questions, possibly. Qualified , or not for her job is a different thing. So far its hard to tell, if there is a party line that has to be adhered to, with no deviation or she was speaking to another audience.
Declan
You misspelled “I disagree with her point of view”. And Chrystia isn’t the first and won’t be the last to disagree with Bill Maher’s position on Islam. American religious scholar Reza Aslan notably takes the same position as Chrystia.
If I wanted an impartial assessment of Chrystia Freeland or her performance on that show I wouldn’t get it from an ideologue like Barbara Kay nor would I get it from a hotbed of right-wing advocacy like the National Post. Judging by the tone of your last two posts and your parroting of the Conservatives’ “just not ready” attack ad punchline, you appear to be a disgruntled Harper supporter so I wouldn’t get it from you either. I don’t share the belief that in order to be a competent Minister of International Trade one has to be an Islamophobe. Freeland is an accomplished journalist with a background in economics, a Rhodes scholar, and winner of the Gelber Prize for non-fiction reporting on foreign affairs for her latest book, a New York Times bestseller. I think she’ll do just fine as Minister of International Trade.
I think it’s okay for everyone to admit Freeland looked really terrible on Bill Maher’s show. Her performance was a talking-point repetition of the worst kind. Maybe Barbara Kay isn’t your kettle of fish but she was right if she said Freeland looked awful on Bill Maher, because she did look awful. She didn’t seem as if she could even keep up with the conversation. One does not have to be a “Disgruntled Harper supporter” to see a bad performance when it’s given. I love the Blue Jays but I don’t pretend they didn’t lose the ALCS.
But that said, I really don’t give a hoot how Chrystia Freeland does on Bill Maher because going on edgy talk shows isn’t really her job. I am sure if she was asked to play in the Grey Cup as the Ticats’ starting left tackle she’d do very poorly, but that reflects not at all on her suitability as a cabinet minister.
What I find fascinating about this argument is that so far the Trudeau government is being credited AND ripped by its supporters and detractors almost entirely on the basis of its PR skills. Trudeau was slick and cool introducing his cabinet so yay. Freeland blew a panel discussion on the USA’s eleventh-most-popular talk show, booo. The Liberals say they’re going to bring in refugees, yay! They’re backtracking on whether the F-35 will be considered, boo!
I’ll save my cheers or boos for actual performance.
Agreed.
Initially, I was not happy that the Liberals were in control of a majority government. But then I figured, “well, they now have 4 years, and NO EXCUSES, so let’s see how they do. I’m going to hold their feet to the fire.”
It’s too early to assess how they’re doing. Yet the usual suspects were all over them a few days after the election, before the government were even sworn in.
If she were asked to play for the Tiger-Cats, I would expect she would decline due to her presumed inability to play at that level. If she did accept the offer, then I would expect her to shine.
She accepted the offer to appear on a talk show coming from another country, therefore I would expect her to shine, especially in front of a foreign audience. She may have done better on Maher than she would on the football field, but in the end, she fumbled the ball.
Guess she just isn’t ready.
Yup. She’ll have to find another career other than as an American infotainment show guest.
She needs some coaching on how to argue in public.
We can certainly agree that neither of us gives a hoot what anyone thought of how Freeland did on Maher’s show, least of all Barbara Kay whose only credential is being a right-wing op-ed writer, unless you count being censured for journalistic malfeasance by the Quebec Press Council to be a credential. I pointed out that Freeland has an impressive background and was therefore probably a good choice for the position. Time will tell because as you say, the proof is in the performance, but the rationale for choosing her for Cabinet isn’t hard to see, except maybe for disgruntled Harper zealots – the same ones who’ve criticized appointing climate scientist Kirsty Duncan as Minister of Science or Catherine McKenna as Minister of the Environment and Climate Change because … well, surely a man could do a better job – especially a man with nice far-right ideologies and a tendency to be contemptuous of science! :rolleyes:
But as far as how she did on that show last Friday, I wouldn’t say she scored any big argumentative hits or convinced Maher to change his mind, but I didn’t see any basis for the scorn some seem to be throwing her way, and I say this as someone who’s closer to Maher’s viewpoint than to hers. Consider this: she first appeared on the show on February 20, 2009. Then she was invited back on February 26, 2010, January 14, 2011, July 15, 2011, April 20, 2012, October 26, 2012, January 31, 2014, November 21, 2014, and then again November 20, 2015. If she’s so terrible at this, why was she invited nine times to a top-rated show that has ten Primetime Emmy nominations?
Agreed. All I can say is I like everything I’ve seen so far. The one policy that I had some reservations about, the refugee program, is the one that’s been appropriately revised.