What a moment of brief parliamentary harmony. Michael Ignatieff had signaled tacit approval for the proposed reform to Canada’s woebegone refugee system that is so backlogged that by the time they deport some people, they’ve already got Canadian kids. But that may certainly have been premature, as behind closed doors the Liberal Party has angrily rejected the idea of the Conservative reforms.
Now Michael Ignatieff has had to step back from his earlier position, admitting that there is genuine dissent within the party. Apparently a number of MPs, including the entire Quebec caucus, said they wouldn’t support the reform even though the Conservatives agreed to changes requested by the Liberal immigration critic, Maurizio Bevilacqua.
In fact the knives appear to have come out for Mr.Bevilacqua, with media citing unnamed “Liberal colleagues” who privately suggested that the Liberal immigration critic is cozying up to the Conservatives to garner support for a run at the mayoralty of Vaughn.
Ouch. Being rebuked by your own party is bad enough, but anonymously in the media? He must really have made some enemies.
Personally, I think the legislation is a great idea. The system badly needs some reform — any reform — and the idea of creating a safe list of countries is eminently logical. For instance, it would make sense to outright deny any claimants from the European Union, who have 26 other nations they can freely live and work in, if they don’t like their current country.
There’s no need to waste thousands of taxpayer dollars and salaries assessing a refugee claim for somebody from, for instance, the Czech Republic, since they could just as easily go to nearby Slovakia, Hungary, or Austria. But, apparently, that just doesn’t fly with the Liberal Party.
“As a Liberal for the last 25 years, I cannot support any list of designated countries,” said former Liberal immigration minister, Denis Coderre, without providing a reason.
There doesn’t seem to be a good answer. Even the Globe and Mail editorial endorsed the adoption of the new legislation to hasten the removal of applicants who will be inevitably rejected anyway. The Globe lauded the Conservatives for accepting the amendments proposed by Mr.Bevilacqua, and welcomed it as a sign that a “flexible and consensual approach can allow a minority government to accomplish its goals.”
Or not. Is this just another case of opposing for the sake of being in opposition?
Canada has a backlog of 60,000 claims, and delaying reform is really more cruel to the refugees who wind up getting deported long after setting up a new and stable life for themselves and their family. And as though the Liberals needed another good reason, the “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees” has said that a “safe list” of countries is an acceptable concept. The UN, for crying out loud.
It would be nice if Michael Ignatieff would, at this juncture, join the rest of vertebrates in this arrangement, and stand by a bi-partisan political decision that makes sense.
Denis Coderre just wants to expand his coterie of terrorists and their fellow travelers. Only through unchecked and unmonitored inflows of undesirables will he be able to advance the left’s agenda in Canada.
Denis Coderre is a traitor to Canada.
Compromise moves like Mr. Bevilacqua’s and Mr. Ignatieff’s (at least initially) are of course EXACTLY what Canadians should demand from a minority parliament.
I find Mr. Coderre’s position laughable at best. Perhaps he should have said “as a blind partisan I can’t say anything positive about anything from the Conservatives”.
Seriously he can’t think of a SINGLE country in the world he doesn’t trust to refrain from creating refugees that Canada must accept if we’re to be moral people? Really? What about Switzerland, Holland and the UK? We really can’t trust them not to be so abusive to people that our refugee system must hear their cases?
I hope Mr. Ignatieff recognizes such ridiculous positions for what they are, blindly partisan obstructionism that Canadians do not want. How about this statement? “While some members feel differently, I am saying as the leader of the Liberal party that Canada does trust some countries besides ourselves.”
Too snippy?
It’s not very often that journalists catch politicians on the cusp of making a very, VERY big mistake.
Before the Waffle goes ahead and signals opposing legislation with the reforms his own party proposed, he must realize that he’ll be providing the Harper government with the very excuse he needs to call an election. Harper can claim, with the reneged deal, that he has proof that the Opposition is no longer interested in making the government function as it should.
And right now, of all the parties involved, the Tories are in the best position to fight and win an election with a majority. They have the advantages of incumbency, more money than the other parties, and an Opposition that currently has difficulty pulling itself together.
This is the sort of reasoning that the Waffle has to have, if he truly wants the time needed to get his party’s act together.
Does anyone think he’s politically astute enough to realize this?
“It would be nice if Michael Ignatieff would, at this juncture” would actually stand up and show he’s a leader, at least if you’re a Liberal I guess.
Does no-one in this party talk to anyone else except the media ? How did they manage to come up with a set of amendments acceptable to both Bevilaqua and Ignatieff, and apparently also the Conservatives, that the rest of the party had no clue about ?
Wasn’t it the UN who developed the concept of “refugee” as well as the concepts of asylum and safe third countries? Didn’t we all sign on to that UN Convention? Do other countries follow the rules of that convention? Does it not also say that the refugee will seek refuge in the first safe country they arrive in? This mess is the fault of the Liberals who have been tailoring our immigration laws to suit their needs to import thankful liberal voters to this country. My question is this: If we can accept refugees from what would normally be considered a democratic country, could we not then view that country in a different light (ie: undemocratic) and subsequently impose visas on citizens travelling to Canada from that country? (as has been done with Mexico)