[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I guess I am not as willing to accept that when the promise was made they "knew" it would not be possible.  According to the story in the Globe the main reason for the delay is that Canada will no longer do security checks after issuing temporary visas but will instead do the security checks before they enter the country.  I am not sure how the Liberals would have known that to be the case or how they could possibly have foreseen the Paris bombing which caused that change in policy.

Lying denotes ill intend.  When someone doesn't keep a promise that does not mean they necessarily lied at the time the promise was made.

It was widely stated at the time of the election that the time-line for the promise was not reasonably possible. That was before the Paris attack. People who actually were working to bring in refugees were saying it was not possible!

http://globalnews.ca/news/2294357/trudeaus-ambitious-syrian-refugees-pledge-unrealistic-immigration-lawyer/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/can-trudeau-settle-25-000-refugees-by-end-of-2015-1.2630521

The notion that it was only recent events that rendered what had previously been possible as impossible (or that Trudeau simply did not know it was impossible when the promise was made) is risible (or reflects badly on his intelligence-0gathering: he certainly ought to have known it, as it was well known by those working in the area).

It is pretty evident that his intent was to make a grandiose promise he knew could not be kept, to contrast his bold forward move with the Conservative's foot-dragging. Once again, not such a big deal, but it is funny that in the 'honeymoon period', people are simply unwilling to call this spade a spade. 

[crazy canuck]

From the article you posted

But a veteran Toronto immigration lawyer says admitting 25,000 refugees is an ambitious agenda he doesn't believe is possible.

That is very different from your claim that the Liberals knew they were lying. 

[Barrister]

I guess I am not as willing to accept that when the promise was made they "knew" it would not be possible.  According to the story in the Globe the main reason for the delay is that Canada will no longer do security checks after issuing temporary visas but will instead do the security checks before they enter the country.  I am not sure how the Liberals would have known that to be the case or how they could possibly have foreseen the Paris bombing which caused that change in policy.

Lying denotes ill intend.  When someone doesn't keep a promise that does not mean they necessarily lied at the time the promise was made.

Crazy canuck, you're a lawyer.  Are you familiar with the phrase "willfull blindness"?

Trudeau knew, or ought to have known, that 25,000 Syrian refugees by December 31st was impossible.

[crazy canuck]

I guess I am not as willing to accept that when the promise was made they "knew" it would not be possible.  According to the story in the Globe the main reason for the delay is that Canada will no longer do security checks after issuing temporary visas but will instead do the security checks before they enter the country.  I am not sure how the Liberals would have known that to be the case or how they could possibly have foreseen the Paris bombing which caused that change in policy.

Lying denotes ill intend.  When someone doesn't keep a promise that does not mean they necessarily lied at the time the promise was made.

Crazy canuck, you're a lawyer.  Are you familiar with the phrase "willfull blindness"?

Trudeau knew, or ought to have known, that 25,000 Syrian refugees by December 31st was impossible.

And you are also a lawyer.  One that needs to have evidence before accusing someone of lying beyond the fact that a promise was not kept.  Both you and Malthus need to renew your knowledge of the law regarding innocent misrepresentation - ie making a promise which at the time a party intended to keep but which they then failed to keep.

[Malthus]

From the article you posted

But a veteran Toronto immigration lawyer says admitting 25,000 refugees is an ambitious agenda he doesn't believe is possible.

That is very different from your claim that the Liberals knew they were lying.

Oh come on. 

From the second article:

Refugee advocacy groups are praising Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau's plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of the year -- but say it may be an impossible task.

About 50 representatives for organizations involved in the resettling of refugees met with federal immigration officials on Tuesday.

Chris Friesen, president of the Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance, was involved via conference call and said he "applauded" Trudeau's plan, but stressed that the country may not have the "ability to properly support" the massive influx of refugees in the "short timeframe."

Refugee advocacy groups are praising Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau's plan to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of the year -- but say it may be an impossible task.

"It really is impossible from our perspective, and working on the ground for many years, to pull this off before the end of December," Friesen said in an appearance on CTV's Power Play.

Yes, I can't "prove" they were lying, as in "beyond a reasonable doubt". Not unless someone uncovers a memo from Trudeau outright stating "aha, I'm gonna lie about this, muahhaha! And you can't stop me!"

OTOH, where people who are in favour of his plans (and so have no reason to make him look bad), and are actual experts in the actual field of refugee resettlement (allegedly over 50 of 'em), are all saying 'this is great but it's impossible', and after the fact it does turn out to be impossible, it seems to me to be a reasonable inference based on the objective evidence that they either outright knew it was impossible,  or simply didn't care whether it was possible or not.

[crazy canuck]

You are overstating your case Malthus.  You posted an article where ONE guy said that HE didn't think it would be possible.  I can tell you that a number of NGO's operating around here thought, until only recently, that it was achievable.  Accusing someone of lying and being willfully blind is serious.  You and BB are making these allegations with hindsight.

[Malthus]

You are overstating your case Malthus.  You posted an article where ONE guy said that HE didn't think it would be possible.  I can tell you that a number of NGO's operating around here thought, until only recently, that it was achievable.  Accusing someone of lying and being willfully blind is serious.  You and BB are making these allegations with hindsight.

Actually, I posted TWO articles. Of which you evidently only read ONE. 

The reason I posted TWO articles, and not ONE, was to show that the issue was pretty widely known, and not just the crotchets of one source. 

Yes, I believe that the Liberals were lying about this. No, I do not regard this as so terribly serious. Politicians lie all the time. The Liberals are not immune.

[viper37]

Read the news.

Once again I find myself compelled to ask, what news are you reading?

Here it says we are locating them on military bases:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-bases-preparing-for-arrival-of-early-refugees-1.2670773
Do we agree that it is true or not?  If yes, read on, if no, no point in going further.

Now, military bases are unable to handle so many people. The free room they have, it is cadet rooms, for the summer.
http://www.thewhig.com/2015/11/23/cfb-kingston-prepares-accommodations-for-expected-influx-of-syrian-refugees

CFB Trenton Commanding Officer Col. Colin Keiver said, last Thursday, personnel are busy wintering barracks used by the summer air cadet training program at the west end of the base.

So, they wintering barracks.  Do we agree here that it is true?

Next, what it is the process of wintering a barrack that was not made for winter?  First, you need insultation.  Then you need heating.  The most effective way would be to link those barracks with the central heating system used by the base, but that requires a lot more time than 2 weeks if you want to do things properly, so we need electrical heating that would not represent fire hazard.
Do we agree on that?  If not, no point reading past there.  If you deny these facts, I can not do anything for you.

Next step.
Insulation of the barracks for 10 000 people within 3 weeks (Christmas time is coming, refugees need to be here before Christmas vacation, otherwise, lots of bureaucrats would have to be paid double time) + installing electric heating in a conform way that is not going to result in a fire hazard usually takes a lot more than 3 weeks, and you have to add extra time to finish the walls once the electricity is redone inside these barracks.

Also, don't forget that 15 000 more are coming during January and February, at a time where many bureaucrats in all departments (including defense) leave for the southern tropical islands, so delays are to be expected everywhere due to people being absent.  That would make it problematic to process the work that need to be done, hire contractors if needed and pay them in a timely manner.

So what will happen here?  Things will be rushed.  There may be fire hazard (yes, it's just a hazard, a probability something bad would happen, it is not a certainty, but we have seen it happenning in Europe, despite taking a lot more time to build accomodations) and there will definately be gaps in the insulation.  It has to be done carefully, otherwise air will infiltrate itself (technically, it's the warm air going outside, so it would be exfiltration).

What we will have are poorly heated and insulated barracks in which we will house refugees that were in refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey, two places much warmer than Quebec city or Kingston.


My next post will adress the time they will have to spend there.

[crazy canuck]

You are overstating your case Malthus.  You posted an article where ONE guy said that HE didn't think it would be possible.  I can tell you that a number of NGO's operating around here thought, until only recently, that it was achievable.  Accusing someone of lying and being willfully blind is serious.  You and BB are making these allegations with hindsight.

Actually, I posted TWO articles. Of which you evidently only read ONE. 

Guilty as charged

The reason I posted TWO articles, and not ONE, was to show that the issue was pretty widely known, and not just the crotchets of one source. 

Yes, I believe that the Liberals were lying about this. No, I do not regard this as so terribly serious. Politicians lie all the time. The Liberals are not immune

It was at least widely reported in the press that it would be difficult.  That is a very different thing from it was widely known that what the Liberals were saying was false or untrue.  Put another way if the Liberals had pulled it off would you also claim that the person who offered his opinion that it would be difficult to achieve was also lying?

[viper37]

So. the Canadian government talks of refugees being there for a "few weeks" only.
That is silly.

Here is an interesting part:

However, Notley said that cities such as Edmonton and Calgary are already facing waitlists for subsidized housing, and they may have to find more "creative" ways to house refugees and turn to the federal government for support.

She added that settling in "little isolated places" in province is out of the question.

This is for Alberta, but the situation is very similar all accross the country.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-bases-preparing-for-arrival-of-early-refugees-1.2670773

Do we agree that it will be very difficult to resettle 25 000 people in canadian cities that already have waiting lists for affordable housing?  If you believe all is required is to wave a magic wand, no need to proceed further.

Next.
We have a porous border with the US.  Yes, it is a fact, if you want to cross illegally in one country or another it is very easy.  What is difficult is for the law abiding citizens to cross said border.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-france-shooting-usa-canada-idUSKBN0TD0BL20151125

Here we have informed people saying Canada will have to cut corners in its security checks:
http://www.euronews.com/newswires/3088317-canada-sticks-to-refugee-plan-but-security-pressures-mount-after-paris-attacks/

The plan by newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seeks to complete in six weeks a process that can take up to two years in the United States

Do we agree that this is a fact?  Six weeks or 3 months to do something the US usually does in 2 years, that's the same problem.  Canadian efficiency has its limits, especially with a Liberal government in power.

The Canadian plan will entail background checks that include biometric and fingerprint checks, as well as health assessments. Some screening will have to be done after the refugees arrive in Canada given the short time frame.

That could create vulnerabilities, said one recently retired Canadian intelligence official, since a refugee could already be in the country by the time any red flags are raised by the screening.

"You can't say that when you cut some corners and speed up the system that it's completely risk-free," said the former official, who has knowledge of the immigration system.

The ex-official said it was unclear if the refugees would immediately be free to settle in Canada or would be detained in some way pending the screening.

A current Canadian intelligence official said there was "a clear risk" given the pace at which security screeners would have to work to interview, select and process such a high volume of applicants.

And again, US concerns:

Rand Beers, former deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said that weaker security screening north of the border would be a worry.

"There would be a concern for anything that is less than our screening, and even we would say that our screening isn't perfect," he said.

And because you will (falsely) claim, as many have done, that UNHCR has its own security process:

"It is a slow process," said a Western diplomat in Beirut, whose country has taken in Syrian refugees. "The UNHCR doesn't do its own security checks."

Canada's Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said there were domestic laws to deal with those who fail the screening process conducted after their arrival in Canada. The process of deporting refugees can be legally difficult and lengthy.

The two Canadian intelligence sources said such an outcome posed headaches for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), which would then have to monitor the individuals.

"You could end up with CSIS having to place 20 agents tracking him for years to come," said the retired intelligence official.

Here, only a partial French text:
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/11/21/refugies-syriens-le-gouvernement-trudeau-rassure-le-voisin-americain
Ralph Goodale had to give assurances to the Americans that there would be a thorough security screening on all syrian refugees.  Something that usually takes 18-24 months.  So either we let them go in the nature and possibly lose their tracks, or we keep them in camp.

More on the same:

Asylum seekers will be interviewed, biometric data will be controlled, their past corroborated in Canadian and international databases. "We will detail the various stages of control when the full plan will be announced. But it will be strong and we want to ensure that the quality of the security check in the end is to go, "said he said in press briefing.
This control process currently takes 12 to 18 months. Said it will take official announcement to clarify the anticipated delay. "But it will be much, much shorter," said Mr. Goodale certified. The minister raised the possibility last week that part of the checks to be conducted once the refugees on Canadian soil. "Our goal is to do the bulk of the work before the newcomers arrive," he said Wednesday.

Original in French:

Les demandeurs d'asile seront rencontrés en entrevue, les données biométriques seront contrôlées, leur passé corroboré dans des bases de données canadienne et internationale. « Nous détaillerons les différentes étapes de contrôle quand le plan complet sera annoncé. Mais ce sera robuste et nous voulons nous assurer que la qualité de la vérification de sécurité, au final, est au rendez-vous », a-t-il dit en point de presse.

Ce processus de contrôle prend actuellement 12 à 18 mois. Il faudra attendre ladite annonce officielle pour préciser les délais anticipés. « Mais ce sera beaucoup, beaucoup plus court », a certifié M. Goodale. Le ministre avait évoqué la possibilité la semaine dernière qu'une part des vérifications soit menée une fois les réfugiés en sol canadien. « Notre objectif est d'accomplir la plus grande part du travail avant que les nouveaux arrivants arrivent », a-t-il affirmé mercredi.
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/455670/refugies-l-objectif-reel-d-ottawa-prendra-plus-de-temps


What we have is either the government rushes the job to push the refugees out of the camps or it sacrifices security despite all the talks it had with the Americans and their worries, in a time where politicians are making milleage on this issue.

The next logical step is that the Americans could likely increase even more our border security, make longer checks, more screening.  That means a net loss for our exporting companies.  All because our PM wants to rush things.  For no real reasons.

We certainly need to help refugees, but we need to help them in a decent manner and facilitate their integration to the country.

[viper37]

And this measure is going to cost 1.2 billion$ over 6 years, according to the government.  Using general accounting rules of the public sector, that really means 4billion$.  In an apparently depressed economy, according to Liberal supporters at least.

[viper37]

how they could possibly have foreseen the Paris bombing which caused that change in policy.

again acting like lawyers.
You don't wait for extreme circumstances to happen before fixing a problem, you tackle the issues as they arise.  That is good governance.  Even Martinus would agree with me.  On the taclking issue at least.

[viper37]

You are overstating your case Malthus.  You posted an article where ONE guy said that HE didn't think it would be possible.  I can tell you that a number of NGO's operating around here thought, until only recently, that it was achievable.  Accusing someone of lying and being willfully blind is serious.  You and BB are making these allegations with hindsight.

there are a myriad of newspaper articles saying it was impossible, during the campaign and before the Paris attacks.

[crazy canuck]

You are overstating your case Malthus.  You posted an article where ONE guy said that HE didn't think it would be possible.  I can tell you that a number of NGO's operating around here thought, until only recently, that it was achievable.  Accusing someone of lying and being willfully blind is serious.  You and BB are making these allegations with hindsight.

there are a myriad of newspaper articles saying it was impossible, during the campaign and before the Paris attacks.

And so we now take the position that every time a government says something is possible and there are doubters that if it does not come to pass the government was necessarily lying?

A lie is a intentional act folks.  You may jump to the conclusion that the Liberals made the promise with malice of forethought knowing that what they were saying was untrue.  But I need some actual evidence first.  Think of it this way.  If it was such a blatant lie why didn't anyone accuse them of lying during the election.  The answer is very simple,  its because the lot of you are using hindsight.

[Josephus]

Doesn't the NDP's tax plan largely match or are less than what Klein set them at?  Just correcting the last decade plus of disastrous PC rule.

Uh, no?

The centre piece of Klein's plan was a flat tax.  Which was promptly destroyed by the NDP.

And rightfully so.