I am of course referring primarily to the fall-out
from the Paris terror attacks, along with related events playing out in
Belgium, Mali, and the Middle East.
These attacks put the politics of the recent federal election campaign in
a new light, in particular the trifecta of security-related issues: Syrian
refugees, Bill C-51 (the Anti-Terrorism Act), and the question of Canada’s
military role in Syria and Iraq.
Comparing how the positions of the main parties looked then to how they
look now is a deeply instructive reminder of just how fleeting the election
frame is, even though it furnishes the mandate for the next four years of
national government.
When Trudeau initially announced his target of 25,000
refugees.in the House of Commons in March, he was acting in accordance with the
Liberal strategy of being bolder and
more exuberant in its promises than the other guys. But he had no way of
knowing how popular this plan would become six weeks before the election, when the photo
of the lifeless body of Alan Kurdi started making headlines. Nor could he know that just three weeks after
the election we would be given so much reason for “pause”. It proved a marked contrast to Harper, who
preferred a smaller and much slower response (10,000 over three years, although another
10,000 was added to the number in September). Trudeau also looked more generous
than the NDP in the short-term, while still keeping most military options open:
The NDP would have granted the UN’s
request to give 10,000 Syrians refugee status by the end of the year, with a
total of at least 46,000 by 2019—alongside a vow to remove the cap on
privately-sponsored refugees—and a complete end to Canadian military operations
in Syria and Iraq .
So who looks better now? After Paris, Mr. Mulcair’s decision to meet
the UN’s request and settle 10,000 refugees by December 31 was proven to have been perfectly responsible
from a logistical and security standpoint, while still being twice as generous
as the Conservatives. Mr. Trudeau looks rather less impressive on that score, and has been forced to back down on the 25,000 promise. But Bill
C-51, and the Liberals’ qualified support for it, still seems a little less reprehensible in the minds of many Canadians. “Balance”, it
seems, is in the eyes of the beholder.
Mark Crawford is a former public servant and a professor of
political science at Athabasca University.
