[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Christmas in CC's household must be a hoot. "No, you are not getting a pony this year. Daddy was merely aspirational."

Actually growing up my parents wanted to give me a lot of things that they just couldn't afford in the end.  That is perhaps why I know the difference between a well intentioned statement and a lie. 

So yes, most of the discussion in the CC household when I was growing up was aspirational.  And I benefitted greatly from that.

But was it labelled as aspirational like "Little CC, some day we'd like to be able to buy you a skateboard", or was it a promise that turned out to be aspirational like "We're going to buy you a skateboard for your birthday little CC" only for no skateboard to show up?

[crazy canuck]

Christmas in CC's household must be a hoot. "No, you are not getting a pony this year. Daddy was merely aspirational."

Actually growing up my parents wanted to give me a lot of things that they just couldn't afford in the end.  That is perhaps why I know the difference between a well intentioned statement and a lie. 

So yes, most of the discussion in the CC household when I was growing up was aspirational.  And I benefitted greatly from that.

But was it labelled as aspirational like "Little CC, some day we'd like to be able to buy you a skateboard", or was it a promise that turned out to be aspirational like "We're going to buy you a skateboard for your birthday little CC" only for no skateboard to show up?

It was more like in the summer sometime they would say, CC we know you would really like to have x.  We will get it for you for Xmas.  But they didn't have the money to get it for me during the summer or Xmas.  I have no reason to believe that they didn't fully intend to be in a position to get it for me.  But there was always some bill or unexpected expense or loss of a job that prevented it.  Frankly I was mature enough to realize that getting food and clothing was a lot more important than x.

People of good intention can say they will do something fully intending to do it but despite best efforts they are not able to do it.  That is how I look at the Liberal election promise.  A well intentioned promise that they would have achieved if they could and they are actually going to achieve it but just a couple months later.

I think it is of trivial importance that it is being delayed some months.  The really significant thing is that the government is using its best efforts to make it happen.   

[Jacob]

She acted like a shrill idiot, claimed that all cultures are equally valid and at one point argued that there is no qualitative difference between Islamic culture and American culture because there are idiots in America that Maher ridicules...

Oh no! She did not agree that American and Polish cultures are objectively and inherently superior to other cultures! 

No wonder you didn't like her.

[Jacob]

To be fair, the recent Paris attacks changed public opinion a lot and the Liberals are now forced to react to that. In fact, in a democracy, it is key that the government respects public opinion and should be elastic when necessary.

I disagree - the government should not respect public opinion when it is based on irrational fears. That's exactly why I disliked the Con position on Islamic symbols. Assume Viper was right and the suppression of the same was genuinely popular - I would prefer a government to run contrary to public opinion, and have the courage of its convictions.

If I thought the Libs were merely reacting in chicken-little fashion to the Paris attack, I'd think less of them than I do - in my opinion, as you know, the Libs knew or ought to have known their promise could not be kept when they made it, so the Paris attack isn't relevant.

Yeah, I don't think it's a reaction to the Paris attacks to be honest. I think it's a matter of "the process of getting the refugees here, including satisfactory security checks and logistics and so forth means we'll be a few months behind schedule."

The current question on the matter is what degree of confidence the Liberals had in their ability in delivering that promise to the letter. To me personally that's not particularly important, it's the result that matter.

[Jacob]

Out of curiosity, do we have a good source for the actual phrasing of the commitment on Syrian refugees during the election?

There's something of a difference between, say, "we guarantee that 25,000 Syrian refugees will be safely settled in Canada by Christmas" and "we will move as quickly as possible, with the goal of bringing 25,000 Syrian refugee to Canada by the end of 2015."

I mean, the media in general would likely report both as "Liberals promise 25,000 Syrians coming to Canada before 2016" but that's on the media. Do we have the actual wording of the platform available somewhere?

EDIT: my quick google search keeps coming up with Trudeau saying that Canada should accept the 25,000 "immediately" which is a little more vague. I recall the 2015 from the election as well, but haven't been able to find an actual source yet. Looking at this: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/26/canada-votes-how-three-main-parties-would-deal-with-immigration-issue the NDP said "10,000 this year" and the Conservatives said "10,000 by September next year." And elsewhere I found "Trudeau confirms commitment to the goal of bringing 25,000 this year", but to me there's an important difference between a goal and a guarantee.

[Malthus]

To be fair, the recent Paris attacks changed public opinion a lot and the Liberals are now forced to react to that. In fact, in a democracy, it is key that the government respects public opinion and should be elastic when necessary.

I disagree - the government should not respect public opinion when it is based on irrational fears. That's exactly why I disliked the Con position on Islamic symbols. Assume Viper was right and the suppression of the same was genuinely popular - I would prefer a government to run contrary to public opinion, and have the courage of its convictions.

If I thought the Libs were merely reacting in chicken-little fashion to the Paris attack, I'd think less of them than I do - in my opinion, as you know, the Libs knew or ought to have known their promise could not be kept when they made it, so the Paris attack isn't relevant.

Yeah, I don't think it's a reaction to the Paris attacks to be honest. I think it's a matter of "the process of getting the refugees here, including satisfactory security checks and logistics and so forth means we'll be a few months behind schedule."

The current question on the matter is what degree of confidence the Liberals had in their ability in delivering that promise to the letter. To me personally that's not particularly important, it's the result that matter.

Well, yes. I separate the issues out like this:

1. The results are important and I agree both with the stated goal (to get more refugees into Canada than the last government) and with the methodology (do it right rather than rushing for the sake of rushing). HOWEVER,

2. As an election tactic, making the unqualified promise was at best disingenuous, because the Libs either knew, or ought to have known, it wasn't possible. The promise was clearly made to wrong-foot the Cons, not caring whether it could be accomplished, and it worked.

Now, I can appreciate that someone who really wanted the Cons gone isn't likely to care too much how that feat was accomplished.  However, that's how partisan rot starts in any party: the ends justify the means, so lying becomes merely a tactic, and eventually positively admirable when in a good cause. There is always going to be a certain amount of that in politics, so I'm not saying the Libs lying was a huge deal here - but being unable to see it as that isn't a good sign. It being touted as an example of Liberal "flexibility" and "reality", needless to say, isn't a good sign either. 

[Malthus]

Out of curiosity, do we have a good source for the actual phrasing of the commitment on Syrian refugees during the election?

There's something of a difference between, say, "we guarantee that 25,000 Syrian refugees will be safely settled in Canada by Christmas" and "we will move as quickly as possible, with the goal of bringing 25,000 Syrian refugee to Canada by the end of 2015."

I mean, the media in general would likely report both as "Liberals promise 25,000 Syrians coming to Canada before 2016" but that's on the media. Do we have the actual wording of the platform available somewhere?

EDIT: my quick google search keeps coming up with Trudeau saying that Canada should accept the 25,000 "immediately" which is a little more vague. I recall the 2015 from the election as well, but haven't been able to find an actual source yet. Looking at this: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/26/canada-votes-how-three-main-parties-would-deal-with-immigration-issue the NDP said "10,000 this year" and the Conservatives said "10,000 by September next year."

Can't fond the exact wording, but the pledge was 25,000 by January 1 - complete with security checks. The notion that the security checks would make that impossible was dismissed as Con foot-dragging. 

On Sunday, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau reiterated his pledge to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees by Jan. 1, 2016.

He was pressed on the logistics of such an ambitious move. While conceding it would be a "significant endeavour," he said it was possible with additional case workers in the region and other resources, which he estimated would cost $100 million.

He said that Harper's talk of security concerns was really an excuse for a lack of political will.

"No one is suggesting we should put aside security in order to get this done," Trudeau said during a campaign stop in Halifax.

"Any time Canada has been part of resettlement of refugees . . . security has always been a concern and has been properly addressed," Trudeau said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/20/stephen-harper-defends-refugee-response-as-generous.html

[crazy canuck]

Out of curiosity, do we have a good source for the actual phrasing of the commitment on Syrian refugees during the election?

There's something of a difference between, say, "we guarantee that 25,000 Syrian refugees will be safely settled in Canada by Christmas" and "we will move as quickly as possible, with the goal of bringing 25,000 Syrian refugee to Canada by the end of 2015."

I mean, the media in general would likely report both as "Liberals promise 25,000 Syrians coming to Canada before 2016" but that's on the media. Do we have the actual wording of the platform available somewhere?

EDIT: my quick google search keeps coming up with Trudeau saying that Canada should accept the 25,000 "immediately" which is a little more vague. I recall the 2015 from the election as well, but haven't been able to find an actual source yet. Looking at this: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/26/canada-votes-how-three-main-parties-would-deal-with-immigration-issue the NDP said "10,000 this year" and the Conservatives said "10,000 by September next year."

Here is an article that says the Liberals promised 25k by Jan 1.  The more concrete promise was the amount of funding they would give to the issue - which by current reports they are going to exceed.

The Liberals also promised, if elected, to invest at least an additional $100 million this fiscal year to increase refugee processing, sponsorship and settlement services in Canada, and another $100 million to United Nations refugee and food assistance programs.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/09/05/ndp-foreign-affairs-critic-makes-non-partisan-call-to-end-syrian-refugee-crisis

[Barrister]

Here is an article that says the Liberals promised 25k by Jan 1.  The more concrete promise was the amount of funding they would give to the issue - which by current reports they are going to exceed.

So is that a good thing, or is it a broken promise because their cost estimates were so wildly out of whack?

[crazy canuck]

Can't fond the exact wording, but the pledge was 25,000 by January 1 - complete with security checks. The notion that the security checks would make that impossible was dismissed as Con foot-dragging. 

And for good reason.  The Conservatives promised to bring in 10k over three years.  They claimed they could do no more because of security checks.  Now we are bringing in 25k by March with security checks.  And people are nitpicking that it couldn't be done 60 days sooner rather than the 3 years later the Conservatives insisted on. 

[crazy canuck]

Here is an article that says the Liberals promised 25k by Jan 1.  The more concrete promise was the amount of funding they would give to the issue - which by current reports they are going to exceed.

So is that a good thing, or is it a broken promise because their cost estimates were so wildly out of whack?

It is a good thing they are devoting the resources to keep their promise to bring in 25k.  Remember the original premise of your complaint. 

[Malthus]

Can't fond the exact wording, but the pledge was 25,000 by January 1 - complete with security checks. The notion that the security checks would make that impossible was dismissed as Con foot-dragging. 

And for good reason.  The Conservatives promised to bring in 10k over three years.  They claimed they could do no more because of security checks.  Now we are bringing in 25k by March with security checks.  And people are nitpicking that it couldn't be done 60 days sooner rather than the 3 years later the Conservatives insisted on. 

Once again, the point isn't to approve of the Conservative plan. No doubt they were "foot dragging".

The point is that the very thing hand-waved away by Trudeau - that his plan was unworkable - just happened to be true (and Trudeau knew or ought to have known that).

That's not a nit-pick, that's of the essence. He said 25K by Jan 1 for $100 mil. The reason he said it was to indicate he would move swiftly and decisively, and that concerns to the contrary were non-existent. However, no part of that was possible. The concerns to the contrary were well-founded.   

[Valmy]

Justin Trudeau's delay in resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees may be a smart political move
'We want these families arriving to be welcomed, not feared,' prime minister says
By Chris Hall, CBC News Posted: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET

Justin Trudeau broke a campaign promise on Tuesday. And it might be the smartest decision his fledgling government makes in the next four years.

Sorry. I mean there are perfectly good and justifiable reasons to break a campaign promise. Hell actually keeping a campaign promise is sometimes treated like the ultimate badge of honor. But the reporting here is just hilarious. 'Trudeau broke a campaign promise, all hail Trudeau and his wisdom and brilliance!'

I mean geez. Reality changing a campaign promise is not a brilliant move unlikely to be surpassed over the next four years...or at least I hope not for Canada's sake.

[crazy canuck]

Can't fond the exact wording, but the pledge was 25,000 by January 1 - complete with security checks. The notion that the security checks would make that impossible was dismissed as Con foot-dragging. 

And for good reason.  The Conservatives promised to bring in 10k over three years.  They claimed they could do no more because of security checks.  Now we are bringing in 25k by March with security checks.  And people are nitpicking that it couldn't be done 60 days sooner rather than the 3 years later the Conservatives insisted on. 

Once again, the point isn't to approve of the Conservative plan. No doubt they were "foot dragging".

The point is that the very thing hand-waved away by Trudeau - that his plan was unworkable - just happened to be true (and Trudeau knew or ought to have known that).

That's not a nit-pick, that's of the essence. He said 25K by Jan 1 for $100 mil. The reason he said it was to indicate he would move swiftly and decisively, and that concerns to the contrary were non-existent. However, no part of that was possible. The concerns to the contrary were well-founded.

But it is going to work.  We are going to bring in 25k.  All the winging about the last of them arriving by March is petty at best.

[Malthus]

Justin Trudeau's delay in resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees may be a smart political move
'We want these families arriving to be welcomed, not feared,' prime minister says
By Chris Hall, CBC News Posted: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET

Justin Trudeau broke a campaign promise on Tuesday. And it might be the smartest decision his fledgling government makes in the next four years.

Sorry. I mean there are perfectly good and justifiable reasons to break a campaign promise. Hell actually keeping a campaign promise is sometimes treated like the ultimate badge of honor. But the reporting here is just hilarious. 'Trudeau broke a campaign promise, all hail Trudeau and his wisdom and brilliance!'

I mean geez. Reality changing a campaign promise is not a brilliant move unlikely to be surpassed over the next four years...or at least I hope not for Canada's sake.

I have every hope our current crop of Canadian Trudeau-maniacs will return to a balanced sense of skepticism concerning the government once the 'honeymoon' phase is over.