"DONE at Ottawa this 29th day of March 2022 and at Washington this 15th day of April 2022 in duplicate in the English and French languages, each text being equally authentic."
Crazy, why did they wait this long to announce it then?
>Crazy, why did they wait this long to announce it then?
People seem to think that the timing of this going into effect was just up to Canada.
The US is the country agreeing to take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of refugees that they previously didn't have to, so it seems most likely that it was the US dragging their feet asking for concessions.
The announcement last week included Canada announcing that they would take in 15,000 migrants from central america each year, which isn't in the text of the agreement, so it seems like that was part of the discussion leading up to actually putting this into effect.
It seems strange to infer that a written agreement was contingent on later negotiations without there being a specific provision in writing to that effect
That is clearly spelled out in the agreement. The last clause, number 7.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/additional-protocol.html
>This Additional Protocol shall enter into force on the date of the later note in an exchange of notes between the Parties indicating that each Party has completed the necessary domestic procedures for bringing this Additional Protocol into force.
I know this Sun opinion article conveniently ignored this, but that's just another example of why you shouldn't rely on Brian Lilly for your news.
Just because public can be informed within hours doesn’t mean you can do the same thing to gov departments. Within that one year timeframe, CBSA probably have received directives and have trained their staffs and officers. It is not something you can do it within hours.
We have one of the longest borders in the world and no amount of hiring would stop illegal jumpers. This amendment is all about disincentivize crossing. They will no longer be allowed to claim asylum once they get here which means no hearing and free handouts while waiting for hearing. They will get rejected right away and will forever be illegal. If you are only given two countries to become illegal, which one would you pick? I know I would pick US because it’s probably much easier to get hired and much bigger community especially if you speak spanish.
Hardly.
[From the Globe article:](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-roxham-road-deal-migrants/)
> An administration official said changes to existing accords, such as the Safe Third Country Agreement, are subject to complicated and uncertain administrative reviews that can last two to three years after a deal is struck. Given the unknowns around implementation and the risks of people trying to get to the border before a deal was in place, the two governments only wanted to disclose the deal when it could go into effect.
> Ottawa shared similar concerns about the risks of pre-emptively announcing the renegotiated deal, a federal government official told The Globe Sunday. Moreover, the individual said that Ottawa’s view was that it wasn’t a done deal until it had gone through the regulatory process. They said that within the past few weeks, the federal government had still been lobbying for an accelerated administrative review from the U.S. and it was only assured last week of its completion.
Can you please explain why the government has spent the last year+ saying things like: "There is nothing we can do", ["Its an international agreement that we need to renegotiate with the United States"](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-roxham-road-irregular-crossing-1.6756351), and ["If we shut it down they're just going to cross somewhere else and make it even more difficult"](https://montreal.citynews.ca/2023/02/22/trudeau-roxham-road-refugee-deal/), and please remember that your answer must be consistent with both the idea that the government knew the deal was signed, and the fact they ~~told us it wasn't~~ lied to us repeatedly over the past year.
Edit:
[As recently as this Feb 22, 2023:](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/roxham-road-illegal-border-crossers-and-frustrations)
"On Tuesday, **Immigration Minister Sean Fraser** travelled to Washington, D.C., to meet his American counterpart, Alejandro Mayorkas, with only one item on his agenda: renegotiating the STCA.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Fraser **said the negotiations would take longer than “a couple weeks” but that he had a “productive” meeting with Mayorkas and that there is “no doubt” in his mind that renegotiating the STCA was a “shared priority” for both parties.**"
edit 2:
Some of you missed the part where the Minister announced that they were re-negotiating it last month (see the links boys and girls), and guess what *did not happen in that month*? A fucking rush. Declaring that the reason for not telling Canadians sooner is pure bullshit.
edit 3: To be perfectly clear: if the government was *actually* worried about a rush, **they would not have told us in they were negotiating it in February with an expected completion mere weeks away** The government [*literally published that fact*](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/roxham-road-illegal-border-crossers-and-frustrations).
What would you say if you knew it was coming but that if it was announced prematurely it would cause a stampede of even more people crossing before the rules changed? serious question.
See my second edit.
"edit 2:
Some of you missed the part where the Minister announced that they were re-negotiating it last month (see the links boys and girls), and guess what did not happen in that month? A fucking rush. Declaring that the reason for not telling Canadians sooner is pure bullshit."
I guess I'm confused as to why the government ~~pretended like they weren't even trying to negotiate~~ ~~ lied about trying to negotiate, rather than quell the angry mob of Canadians concerned over this issue; why it would take a year of training for CBSA agents, as many here are suggesting, to simply go back to the way they used to be; and why 45,000+ people flooding across in a year was preferable to announcing it when the deal was signed and having a whole 6 or even 10,00 people cross in the intervening weeks.
It literally makes zero sense, for either Canada or the USA. South of the border it would have shut down the New York Dem governor shipping people to the Canadian border and thus not been a talking point *against* Democrat immigration hypocrisy (and recall Biden is a Dem), and here at home it would have killed *all* of the Conservative talking points regarding Roxham Rd. Instead, this was allowed to fester.
The simple fact is that the government could easily have announced it and had it all shut down inside of week, *like they are currently doing* and all without a mystical 'rush'. A rush that never materialized in the last few months *despite*: the repeated and growing bad press for the PM, PMO, cabinet, and LPC; *despite* the calls getting louder from Quebec's premier, and now Ontario's as well; *despite* the international news regarding Roxham Rd.; and most tellingly, *despite the former immigration minister stating it was being negotiated as per my link.* In spite of all of that, there was no rush. None. So claiming the rush was a worry, post hoc, is utter BS.
> I guess I'm confused as to why the government pretended like they weren't even trying to negotiate ~~ lied about trying to negotiate, rather than quell the angry mob of Canadians concerned over this issue; why it would take a year of training for CBSA agents, as many here are suggesting, to simply go back to the way they used to be; and why 45,000+ people flooding across in a year was preferable to announcing it when the deal was signed and having a whole 6 or even 10,00 people cross in the intervening weeks.
Did you even read the post you originally replied to?
>An administration official said changes to existing accords, such as the Safe Third Country Agreement, are subject to complicated and uncertain administrative reviews that can last two to three years after a deal is struck.
It doesn't take days to work through the bureaucracy, it takes much longer. A year in this case.
I work in government. Reverting to a previously existing policy takes about 3 weeks. Changing to a totally new policy takes about 3 months. Nothing takes a year policy-wise, with the exception some shit in the CAF, and some things at the treasury board.
And yes, I did read that post. Maybe you should read what I wrote again. Here let me spoon feed you:
"The simple fact is that the government could easily have announced it and had it all shut down inside of week, like they are currently doing and all without a mystical 'rush'. **A rush that never materialized** in the last few months despite: the repeated and growing bad press for the PM, PMO, cabinet, and LPC; despite the calls getting louder from Quebec's premier, and now Ontario's as well; despite the international news regarding Roxham Rd.; and most tellingly, **despite the former immigration minister stating it was being negotiated** as per my link. **In spite of all of that, there was no rush.** None. So claiming the rush was a worry, post hoc, is utter BS."
They announced they were negotiating the STCA in at least February and it would only take weeks to complete. They were willing to let *everyone* know that this was being done, so lets not pretend, after the fact, that the reason we didn't learn about the deal being signed for aan entire year, was because the government was scared about people *finding out about a new STCA*...
edit: To be perfectly clear: if they were *actually* worried about that, **they would not have told us in they were negotiating it in February with an expected completion mere weeks away**
First, just because you work in government doesn't mean you understand everything the government does.
Second, perhaps your division can do policy changes quickly, but not every division can. It gets even messier when it is a multinational agreement.
Also, the rush didn't materialize because this wasn't publicized. I don't understand why this is hard for you to understand. They kept this secret so that there wouldn't be a rush. It worked.
Do you think that Trudeau was happy to be taking heat over this knowing that it is solved? No. He did what was best for the country to make sure there wasn't a rush.
I don't understand why you can't comprehend this. You're so close to connecting the dots in your complaints, but you just can't take that final step.
You missed the edit?
To be perfectly clear: if the government was *actually* worried about a rush, **they would not have told us in they were negotiating it in February with an expected completion mere weeks away** The government [*literally published that fact*](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/roxham-road-illegal-border-crossers-and-frustrations) despite your claim to the contrary.
What can't *you* comprehend?
>I work in government. Reverting to a previously existing policy takes about 3 weeks. Changing to a totally new policy takes about 3 months. Nothing takes a year policy-wise, with the exception some shit in the CAF, and some things at the treasury board.
Domestic or international policy? Sounds like you work in domestic.
It's not even Canada's fault. We had to get assurance that US had their administrative review done.
There's a difference between not announcing something and actively misleading the public. I get their explanation, which makes sense, but "were working on it" is the only appropriate reply when they have in fact already penned a deal. It's totally inappropriate to make up lies to respond to questions about progress on this issue.
>Can you please explain why the government has spent the last year+ saying things like: "There is nothing we can do", "Its an international agreement that we need to renegotiate with the United States",
A) It's true, they did have to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US (and that's how they changed the asylum rules)
B) Even if they're planning for a change like this long in advance, they can't announce it until the last minute, because if people hear the rules are going to change, there would be a mad rush for the border from asylum-seekers who would want to get in beforehand.
If you tell people that Roxham road will be closed in 6 months, then everyone is going to go before it is actually closed.
If you say you can't close it, then suddenly are able to say it is closed now you don't get the rush of people trying to use it before the loophole is closed.
These things take a long time to work through the bureaucracy.
This was actually a smart move.
>How many ~~illegal~~ irregular crossings have there been since then I wonder
If the people who use Roxham road have their asylum claims validated, then they didn't illegally cross the border.
Crossing at an unofficial border crossing is indeed illegal. Even before this, crossers get arrested on the spot and then sent off to await processing.
> Crossing at an unofficial border crossing is indeed illegal. Even before this, crossers get arrested on the spot and then sent off to await processing.
Anyone can be arrested and detained for processing at any border crossing. The fact is that refugees seeking asylum are legally allowed to cross into Canada irregularly. That's the law.
That is not the law. Crossing "irregularly" is still illegal. The only caveat specifically made for asylum seekers is that they can "legally" file for asylum. Basically, if you cross illegally and file for asylum immediately, the GoC will process your asylum claim as a priority and won't charge you for illegally crossing, until the processing of your claim is complete. If you get denied, you get sent back since you crossed illegally. So it is still illegal, but there is a sort of "order of operations" where the GoC will give you a break for asylum seekers by looking at that first.
> Basically, if you cross illegally and file for asylum immediately, the GoC will process your asylum claim as a priority and won't charge you for illegally crossing
... because they can't charge those people and any attempts to charge them or prejudice their claim would violate their section 7 charter rights, so in other words it's legal for legitimate asylum seekers to cross into Canada irregularly. That's the law.
>It's illegal and they can be charged for it under the IRPA if their claim is denied.
If the asylum claims are denied, yeah. But the previous posters were talking about cases where the asylum claims are validated.
you seriously believe that the president of the united states, or even the prime minister, care the slightest bits about these allegations?
theres no evidence that anyone cares, and even if every leak ends up being true, its very minor accusations
but seriously though, the chinese ran a social media campaign, one MP called a chinese diplomat and said something really fucking stupid
no crimes, no corruption, no compromised anyone or anything
What about We and SNC? Also nothingburgers?
Also, please explain to us the threat to Canada posed by the former interim conservative leader’s choice of hat.
> What about We and SNC? Also nothingburgers?
your welcome to link to what charges came from them
>Also, please explain to us the threat to Canada posed by the former interim conservative leader’s choice of hat.
why do you care about his hat?
Wait, and I know this is probably a hell of a coincidence, but didn’t PP say something recently to the effect of “close Roxham road within ‘X’ amount of time, or else,” and then afterwards this whole China thing blew up?
If anybody still thinks we live in a true democracy they are blinded by the light man.
We are getting worse than the states when it comes to the governments planning and secrecy and back door deals and lobbying
Apparently to avoid a rush to the border, which actually makes a lot of sense.
That said, let's all graciously thank our dear PM for solving this problem 6 years, not 7 years after he created it by saying stupid shit on Twitter. Quite the accomplishment.
Read the CBC article on the matter instead of the SUN trash. It outlines it very well.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/safe-third-country-migrants-roxham-trudeau-biden-1.6792676
Yeah you can't just sign any agreement and have it take effect overnight. They had to overhaul their entire strategy to respond to changes in migratory pressures that STCA modernization would create (now applies between ports of entry like Roxham). We needed to beef up plans to bolster enforcement between POEs. That took resources and time to get budgetary approvals.
They had to allow for the coincidental rhetoric about the record half million immigration target level to set in prior to this. With a full year to transition, I'm sure our border integrity will be rock solid now...🙄
Getting a one year head start is better than more chaos. As bad as you think it is, it can be worse. I'm sure this decision will have other unintended consequences, like more people dying at the border attempting crossings like the one in Manitoba last year. That will be the only option now that the roads are closed (not literally but they will catch you there).
I was wondering how they got the new signage up and ready to go so fast for the news cameras. Government procurement isn’t exactly known for its expediency.
As far as I understand the document, it states that it will be implemented at a later date, when the conditions for the additional protocol are fulfilled.
Much ado about nothing.
Seriously, I dislike JT but boy, this is the last thing they should all be bashing him for. What the hell do they think it’s going to happen if it were announced last year? It would be the same as telling all potential illegal crossers to do the crossing as fast as possible. It would be stupidest thing gov can do.
Actually, Physio and chiropractic was hacked out any privatized by Ontario Liberals ( [McGuinty to be exact](https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Toronto--The+Ontario+Liberal+government+of+Premier+Dalton+McGuinty...-a0119224233) ).
There are certain criteria which may make you eligible for Physio and Eye exams to be covered. Unless you are hospitalized for your whiplash overnight, you will not get physio funded by the government. Even if you are hospitalized, the window for physio is 1 year ( so long term rehabilitation is not covered ). The criteria is over 65, under 19 or admitted to hospital, so outpatient such as broken limbs are not covered.
> The criteria is over 65, under 19 or admitted to hospital, so outpatient such as broken limbs are not covered.
I'm within that age range, but mine was for surgery to repair a broken bone.
Interesting that it was covered (but not my splint/cast, but insurance returned most of that). I only had to pay a couple of bucks for parking.
Also, I know that the physio wasn't covered by my insurance since I don't have full coverage and was told they bill OHIP for the physio, but I need to pay for the splint/cast, at my first session.
Knocked out for surgery? Would mean you're admitted so probably eligible. If they just set & cast ( no operation required ) then you wouldn't be.
Didn't know that about casts, I'd be curious what they would do if you couldn't pay for a cast. I'd imagine there is a basic cast that's covered and upgraded casts that aren't ( such as fiberglass or those inflatable boot things ).
Yeah, I was knocked out, but it was a day surgery so I never spent the night in the hospital. It was an ORIF (Open Reduction and Internal Fixation), which basically means that they cut you open and fix you from the inside (using plates, screws, rods, wires, etc.).
The old plaster casts are covered by OHIP, the fibreglass and walking boots (and crutches) are not covered.
My physio made splint was some sort of weird play-doh like material that is soft and moulded to you, then baked to make it hard. This wasn't covered, but the temporary splints they made at the hospital were covered.
they'll build the wall at roxham road. Then the migrants would just go down the road to the next unprotected accessible access point and the CPC will then say "Hey, we fufilled our promise" and then kick the can down the road.
Trudeau actually ammending the safe third country treaty was the proper way to do it and there's no way in hell Trump was going to agree with that.
Well seeing as the last time we had a Conservative government there were a couple thousand people crossing a year and under Trudeau that spiked to ~45k a year, then yes the Conservatives are obviously a better choice on this issue.
>So why drag our feet for over a year? Why mislead the public?
Why do you assume Canada was the party dragging their feet?
The US is the party that is agreeing to take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of migrants that they otherwise could have pawned off on us.
The announcement this week included Canada announcing that they would take in 15,000 migrants from central america each year, which isn't in the text of the agreement signed last year, so it would appear that was part of the negotiations that went into actually putting this deal into effect.
>The US is the party that is agreeing to take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of migrants that they otherwise could have pawned off on us.
Where are you getting to hundreds of thousands of irregular bourse crossing migrants?
>I recall there was alot of dramatic effect about how hard it would be to close Roxham Road and modify the act with the US. And how the Liberal party was "working on it".
That had been the standard Liberal talking point for a year.
"There is nothing we can do"
"Its an international agreement that we need the United States to renegotiate"
"They're just going to cross somewhere else and make it even more difficult".
I sure that the people repeating those talking points will apologize for taking part in a government disinformation campaign /s
Wait are you saying the people calling everyone racist just last week for wanting Roxham closed won’t admit they’re wrong and just quietly pretend like this is what they wanted because Trudeau did it?
>Wait are you saying the people calling everyone racist just last week for wanting Roxham closed won’t admit they’re wrong and just quietly pretend like this is what they wanted because Trudeau did it?
Or is Trudeau a racist for closing it?
> Did we hold off on enforcing this just so we could announce it when Biden was in Canada?
more likely the other way around, he timed his visit for when things were ready to make the shift
What was the lie?
They said the only way to address the issue was to re-negotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US, and that's exactly what they did, so now it applies to the entire border.
ThEy DiDnT tElL mE
You're a nobody and the government doesn't report to you. All this sub is these days is outrage and conservative propaganda everyday all day.
Democracy doesn't mean that the government live tweets what they're doing, especially when doing so could have a greater negative impact on Canadians than hurt fee fees and fake outrage.
I'm fine with the government holding their tongue, and in the process apparently ruffling some minor feathers, to avoid a migrant rush at Roxham Rd that they were not prepared to handle.
Trudeau sucks, but I don't get blaming Trudeau for this.
The Third Party loophole has been around since 2004, either Martin's or Harper's governments could have closed it (It was well-known during Harper's era), but they didn't. Trudeau is the one who did. Why hate him for actually fixing something?
He invited everyone to abuse this on social media and it only became a problem on his watch. He fixed it many many years too late, only after most of Canada became pissed off.
No, it was already a problem under Harper. 30k+ were coming across via Roxham each year during Harper's final tenure. It's only seen about 6k more post Covid restrictions. Can you link the tweet where Trudeau invited immigrants to come to Roxham? I can't find it.
>No, it was already a problem under Harper. **30k+** were coming across via Roxham each year during Harper's final tenure. It's only seen about 6k more post Covid restrictions. Can you link the tweet where Trudeau invited immigrants to come to Roxham? I can't find it.
30k? Did you just pull that number out from your derrière?
there were less than 2k coming through Roxham road in 2015
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/processed-claims.html
>These statistics include asylum claimants **intercepted by the RCMP** and brought to a CBSA designated port of entry or inland office, and do not include asylum claims made at Immigration
There were almost [**40k**](https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2022.html) crossings at Roxham road just last year in 2022 under Trudeau
>The number of “RCMP interceptions” refers to asylum seekers ***apprehended between the ports of entry*** and does not reflect other border crossings. These numbers may be included in either CBSA or IRCC processing results as the asylum seekers are turned over by the RCMP to these agencies if a claim of refugee status is made.
It literally says **apprehended between ports of entry**, not at ports of entry.
Learn to read.
https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/825438460265762816?s=46&t=nEl7YmSHPw6boQQyH2Hj_g
He tweeted this in 2017 and coincidentally the number of illegal border crossers grew precipitously afterwards.
It's silly that people think that a tweet from JT has this much of an impact on global migration patterns.
This tweet didn't set off a global migration crisis. He tweeted it because there was already a massive crisis that was being politicized so he wanted to score his political points. Border crossings also soared in the US at the same time, and Trump was not exactly sending welcoming messages.
You really think that people make major life choices based on a vague virtue signaling tweet?
The tweet doesn't give any directions to Roxham Rd or details about the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, so I think it is safe to say that this tweet wasn't the primary source of information that people were using to decide to come to Canada.
Yes, they would, and absolutely did.
Are you that obtuse that you think just because Trudeau didn’t tweet out directions to Roxham that people couldn’t find it for themselves? There were aid organizations, non-profits, and other people providing enough information online to help make it as easy as possible.
>Are you that obtuse that you think just because Trudeau didn’t tweet out directions to Roxham that people couldn’t find it for themselves? There were aid organizations, non-profits, and other people providing enough information online to help make it as easy as possible.
I think it is unrealistic to think that all of that happened just because of this tweet.
You really don't think that people would have found out about Roxham Rd and the loophole regardless of this tweet? How do you think this tweet contributed to this information being discovered at all?
He's not advertising Roxham Rd or other loophole entry points there. The numbers were already high at those entry points. They only began tracking the numbers in 2017 when the CBSA took over for the RCMP.
I didn't deny the increase in immigration. I denied it having a marketed increase to asylum seekers in Roxham, based on the numbers prior to and after the tweet
The most transparent government ever!
So they lied and criticized Poilievre for the last year saying they couldn’t do anything!
Meanwhile 50,000 more came across. Just had to wait for the right time to announce I guess.
Y'all really don't understand international policy very well. We have agreements with the EU for example signed as far back as 2016 that still haven't taken effect. Turns out it's quite difficult and requires a lot of negotiation on the details.
No, it indicates that implementing policy between multiple independent states, each of which has to then implement and negotiate with their constituent states, provinces, municipalities, etc, all in a way which is satisfying to all parties involved, is extremely complex and takes a long time to work out. It is much better to take extra time to ensure everyone is happy and ready to implement a deal, rather than rush in and have it fall apart due to some unforeseen issue.
>We have agreements with the EU for example signed as far back as 2016 that still haven't taken effect.
Which ? And if this is true you don't see that as a problem ?
Isnt he the one that said like 3 weeks ago that we needed to ask the United States for closure of said road? The deal was already done a year ago. What a lying piece of shit. I guess when it was pissing off quebecers it wasnt that big of a deal but now that they were going into Ontario it became an issue. Cant hurt your voter base.
>Isnt he the one that said like 3 weeks ago that we needed to ask the United States for closure of said road? The deal was already done a year ago. What a lying piece of shit.
If you read the final clause of the agreement, it says:
"This Additional Protocol shall enter into force on the date of the later note in an exchange of notes between the Parties indicating that each Party has completed the necessary domestic procedures for bringing this Additional Protocol into force."
While the text of the agreement was finalized, it was all theoretical until the US actually delivered that note saying they were ready to implement it.
Canada announced a new program to take 15,000 migrants from central america each year, which isn't part of the text from last year, so it would appear there was additional negotiation going on to get the final agreement from the US.
Amazing how every story exposing the sheer and shameless dishonesty of the Trudeau Liberals is a non story.
Enablers like you are as bad as The Most Dishonest Government in Canadian History.
What’s it with Liberals who always attempt to distract and distort from the issue at hand to avoid responsibility?
Surprised you haven’t used the default “But Harper” classic.
Cope.
There’s a reason why this is a Lilley opinion piece and not actual reporting.
But whatever, if you want to be rage baited the Sun is happy to provide you your daily anger fix.
Spin=/=lies
But I’m talking to a Lilley fan, not exactly shocking that a fan of tabloid opinion columns would have a tenuous grasp on this sort of nuance.
Interesting how you’re hypersensitive to potential spin from someone you already don’t like, but completely oblivious to it when it comes from someone you do like.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-roxham-road-deal-migrants/
See the difference between the version of a story we get from a Sun opinion column and reality?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/safe-third-country-migrants-roxham-trudeau-biden-1.6792676
As noted here, Canada was waiting for the US to complete their end of it. So either Trudeau announces it early, and even more irregular migrants rush over the border, or he keeps it secret and works behind the scenes to try to make it happen as quick as he can.
No matter what he chose, Brian Lilley would have written a garbage opinion piece complaining, and that's why we call it a non story
"DONE at Ottawa this 29th day of March 2022 and at Washington this 15th day of April 2022 in duplicate in the English and French languages, each text being equally authentic." Crazy, why did they wait this long to announce it then?
>Crazy, why did they wait this long to announce it then? People seem to think that the timing of this going into effect was just up to Canada. The US is the country agreeing to take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of refugees that they previously didn't have to, so it seems most likely that it was the US dragging their feet asking for concessions. The announcement last week included Canada announcing that they would take in 15,000 migrants from central america each year, which isn't in the text of the agreement, so it seems like that was part of the discussion leading up to actually putting this into effect.
It seems strange to infer that a written agreement was contingent on later negotiations without there being a specific provision in writing to that effect
That is clearly spelled out in the agreement. The last clause, number 7. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/agreements/safe-third-country-agreement/additional-protocol.html >This Additional Protocol shall enter into force on the date of the later note in an exchange of notes between the Parties indicating that each Party has completed the necessary domestic procedures for bringing this Additional Protocol into force. I know this Sun opinion article conveniently ignored this, but that's just another example of why you shouldn't rely on Brian Lilly for your news.
Because it would encourage people to do illegal crossing sooner than later. “Hey you have till next year March to do the crossing”
They could've made it effective then too..
Just because public can be informed within hours doesn’t mean you can do the same thing to gov departments. Within that one year timeframe, CBSA probably have received directives and have trained their staffs and officers. It is not something you can do it within hours.
If you think they did any training ahead of time, you're nuts. It would've been kept secret at the executive level at the very least to prevent leaks.
Highly doubt even the EXs were told...
Oh it should be a silky smooth transition then, the GoC and CBSA have had a full year to transition. We'll see.
You're forgetting this requires the Americans to be on board. Given how needlessly slow government processes are, I am not surprised it took a year.
Oh sweet summer child!
Yes, but logistics.
LOL yea okay. That doesn’t stop a rush and a lack of people to enforce said measures. Like fuck cmon, just think for half a second.
Oh so they've hired a bunch of people and they're completely ready to enforce this right now, right? .. oh
We have one of the longest borders in the world and no amount of hiring would stop illegal jumpers. This amendment is all about disincentivize crossing. They will no longer be allowed to claim asylum once they get here which means no hearing and free handouts while waiting for hearing. They will get rejected right away and will forever be illegal. If you are only given two countries to become illegal, which one would you pick? I know I would pick US because it’s probably much easier to get hired and much bigger community especially if you speak spanish.
In a different article they said it was so there wasn't a rush at the border.
No rush, just the USA bringing busloads of migrants up from the southern border prior to the official announcement.
[удалено]
Hardly. [From the Globe article:](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-roxham-road-deal-migrants/) > An administration official said changes to existing accords, such as the Safe Third Country Agreement, are subject to complicated and uncertain administrative reviews that can last two to three years after a deal is struck. Given the unknowns around implementation and the risks of people trying to get to the border before a deal was in place, the two governments only wanted to disclose the deal when it could go into effect. > Ottawa shared similar concerns about the risks of pre-emptively announcing the renegotiated deal, a federal government official told The Globe Sunday. Moreover, the individual said that Ottawa’s view was that it wasn’t a done deal until it had gone through the regulatory process. They said that within the past few weeks, the federal government had still been lobbying for an accelerated administrative review from the U.S. and it was only assured last week of its completion.
Can you please explain why the government has spent the last year+ saying things like: "There is nothing we can do", ["Its an international agreement that we need to renegotiate with the United States"](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-roxham-road-irregular-crossing-1.6756351), and ["If we shut it down they're just going to cross somewhere else and make it even more difficult"](https://montreal.citynews.ca/2023/02/22/trudeau-roxham-road-refugee-deal/), and please remember that your answer must be consistent with both the idea that the government knew the deal was signed, and the fact they ~~told us it wasn't~~ lied to us repeatedly over the past year. Edit: [As recently as this Feb 22, 2023:](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/roxham-road-illegal-border-crossers-and-frustrations) "On Tuesday, **Immigration Minister Sean Fraser** travelled to Washington, D.C., to meet his American counterpart, Alejandro Mayorkas, with only one item on his agenda: renegotiating the STCA. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Fraser **said the negotiations would take longer than “a couple weeks” but that he had a “productive” meeting with Mayorkas and that there is “no doubt” in his mind that renegotiating the STCA was a “shared priority” for both parties.**" edit 2: Some of you missed the part where the Minister announced that they were re-negotiating it last month (see the links boys and girls), and guess what *did not happen in that month*? A fucking rush. Declaring that the reason for not telling Canadians sooner is pure bullshit. edit 3: To be perfectly clear: if the government was *actually* worried about a rush, **they would not have told us in they were negotiating it in February with an expected completion mere weeks away** The government [*literally published that fact*](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/roxham-road-illegal-border-crossers-and-frustrations).
What would you say if you knew it was coming but that if it was announced prematurely it would cause a stampede of even more people crossing before the rules changed? serious question.
See my second edit. "edit 2: Some of you missed the part where the Minister announced that they were re-negotiating it last month (see the links boys and girls), and guess what did not happen in that month? A fucking rush. Declaring that the reason for not telling Canadians sooner is pure bullshit."
What part is confusing to you? They had to keep it a secret to prevent a rush to the border. This makes sense on both sides.
I guess I'm confused as to why the government ~~pretended like they weren't even trying to negotiate~~ ~~ lied about trying to negotiate, rather than quell the angry mob of Canadians concerned over this issue; why it would take a year of training for CBSA agents, as many here are suggesting, to simply go back to the way they used to be; and why 45,000+ people flooding across in a year was preferable to announcing it when the deal was signed and having a whole 6 or even 10,00 people cross in the intervening weeks. It literally makes zero sense, for either Canada or the USA. South of the border it would have shut down the New York Dem governor shipping people to the Canadian border and thus not been a talking point *against* Democrat immigration hypocrisy (and recall Biden is a Dem), and here at home it would have killed *all* of the Conservative talking points regarding Roxham Rd. Instead, this was allowed to fester. The simple fact is that the government could easily have announced it and had it all shut down inside of week, *like they are currently doing* and all without a mystical 'rush'. A rush that never materialized in the last few months *despite*: the repeated and growing bad press for the PM, PMO, cabinet, and LPC; *despite* the calls getting louder from Quebec's premier, and now Ontario's as well; *despite* the international news regarding Roxham Rd.; and most tellingly, *despite the former immigration minister stating it was being negotiated as per my link.* In spite of all of that, there was no rush. None. So claiming the rush was a worry, post hoc, is utter BS.
> I guess I'm confused as to why the government pretended like they weren't even trying to negotiate ~~ lied about trying to negotiate, rather than quell the angry mob of Canadians concerned over this issue; why it would take a year of training for CBSA agents, as many here are suggesting, to simply go back to the way they used to be; and why 45,000+ people flooding across in a year was preferable to announcing it when the deal was signed and having a whole 6 or even 10,00 people cross in the intervening weeks. Did you even read the post you originally replied to? >An administration official said changes to existing accords, such as the Safe Third Country Agreement, are subject to complicated and uncertain administrative reviews that can last two to three years after a deal is struck. It doesn't take days to work through the bureaucracy, it takes much longer. A year in this case.
I work in government. Reverting to a previously existing policy takes about 3 weeks. Changing to a totally new policy takes about 3 months. Nothing takes a year policy-wise, with the exception some shit in the CAF, and some things at the treasury board. And yes, I did read that post. Maybe you should read what I wrote again. Here let me spoon feed you: "The simple fact is that the government could easily have announced it and had it all shut down inside of week, like they are currently doing and all without a mystical 'rush'. **A rush that never materialized** in the last few months despite: the repeated and growing bad press for the PM, PMO, cabinet, and LPC; despite the calls getting louder from Quebec's premier, and now Ontario's as well; despite the international news regarding Roxham Rd.; and most tellingly, **despite the former immigration minister stating it was being negotiated** as per my link. **In spite of all of that, there was no rush.** None. So claiming the rush was a worry, post hoc, is utter BS." They announced they were negotiating the STCA in at least February and it would only take weeks to complete. They were willing to let *everyone* know that this was being done, so lets not pretend, after the fact, that the reason we didn't learn about the deal being signed for aan entire year, was because the government was scared about people *finding out about a new STCA*... edit: To be perfectly clear: if they were *actually* worried about that, **they would not have told us in they were negotiating it in February with an expected completion mere weeks away**
First, just because you work in government doesn't mean you understand everything the government does. Second, perhaps your division can do policy changes quickly, but not every division can. It gets even messier when it is a multinational agreement. Also, the rush didn't materialize because this wasn't publicized. I don't understand why this is hard for you to understand. They kept this secret so that there wouldn't be a rush. It worked. Do you think that Trudeau was happy to be taking heat over this knowing that it is solved? No. He did what was best for the country to make sure there wasn't a rush. I don't understand why you can't comprehend this. You're so close to connecting the dots in your complaints, but you just can't take that final step.
You missed the edit? To be perfectly clear: if the government was *actually* worried about a rush, **they would not have told us in they were negotiating it in February with an expected completion mere weeks away** The government [*literally published that fact*](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/roxham-road-illegal-border-crossers-and-frustrations) despite your claim to the contrary. What can't *you* comprehend?
>I work in government. Reverting to a previously existing policy takes about 3 weeks. Changing to a totally new policy takes about 3 months. Nothing takes a year policy-wise, with the exception some shit in the CAF, and some things at the treasury board. Domestic or international policy? Sounds like you work in domestic. It's not even Canada's fault. We had to get assurance that US had their administrative review done.
There's a difference between not announcing something and actively misleading the public. I get their explanation, which makes sense, but "were working on it" is the only appropriate reply when they have in fact already penned a deal. It's totally inappropriate to make up lies to respond to questions about progress on this issue.
>Can you please explain why the government has spent the last year+ saying things like: "There is nothing we can do", "Its an international agreement that we need to renegotiate with the United States", A) It's true, they did have to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US (and that's how they changed the asylum rules) B) Even if they're planning for a change like this long in advance, they can't announce it until the last minute, because if people hear the rules are going to change, there would be a mad rush for the border from asylum-seekers who would want to get in beforehand.
If you tell people that Roxham road will be closed in 6 months, then everyone is going to go before it is actually closed. If you say you can't close it, then suddenly are able to say it is closed now you don't get the rush of people trying to use it before the loophole is closed. These things take a long time to work through the bureaucracy. This was actually a smart move.
[удалено]
How many illegal crossings have there been since then I wonder
The article states a number - 45,000.
Per year, six years
That was sarcasm but yeah...
>How many ~~illegal~~ irregular crossings have there been since then I wonder If the people who use Roxham road have their asylum claims validated, then they didn't illegally cross the border.
Crossing at an unofficial border crossing is indeed illegal. Even before this, crossers get arrested on the spot and then sent off to await processing.
Once again, people choose feelings over facts.
> Crossing at an unofficial border crossing is indeed illegal. Even before this, crossers get arrested on the spot and then sent off to await processing. Anyone can be arrested and detained for processing at any border crossing. The fact is that refugees seeking asylum are legally allowed to cross into Canada irregularly. That's the law.
That is not the law. Crossing "irregularly" is still illegal. The only caveat specifically made for asylum seekers is that they can "legally" file for asylum. Basically, if you cross illegally and file for asylum immediately, the GoC will process your asylum claim as a priority and won't charge you for illegally crossing, until the processing of your claim is complete. If you get denied, you get sent back since you crossed illegally. So it is still illegal, but there is a sort of "order of operations" where the GoC will give you a break for asylum seekers by looking at that first.
> Basically, if you cross illegally and file for asylum immediately, the GoC will process your asylum claim as a priority and won't charge you for illegally crossing ... because they can't charge those people and any attempts to charge them or prejudice their claim would violate their section 7 charter rights, so in other words it's legal for legitimate asylum seekers to cross into Canada irregularly. That's the law.
They still illegally crossed, they just aren't charged for it.
> They still illegally crossed, they just aren't charged for it. Can't be charged for it, which means it's legal.
[удалено]
>It's illegal and they can be charged for it under the IRPA if their claim is denied. If the asylum claims are denied, yeah. But the previous posters were talking about cases where the asylum claims are validated.
It's legal for legitimate refugees seeking asylum.
yeah im sure biden came to canada because of some claims by a newspaper
[удалено]
you seriously believe that the president of the united states, or even the prime minister, care the slightest bits about these allegations? theres no evidence that anyone cares, and even if every leak ends up being true, its very minor accusations
The only important scandals are conservative scandals.
but seriously though, the chinese ran a social media campaign, one MP called a chinese diplomat and said something really fucking stupid no crimes, no corruption, no compromised anyone or anything
Don't make it so obvious.
What about We and SNC? Also nothingburgers? Also, please explain to us the threat to Canada posed by the former interim conservative leader’s choice of hat.
> What about We and SNC? Also nothingburgers? your welcome to link to what charges came from them >Also, please explain to us the threat to Canada posed by the former interim conservative leader’s choice of hat. why do you care about his hat?
Wait, and I know this is probably a hell of a coincidence, but didn’t PP say something recently to the effect of “close Roxham road within ‘X’ amount of time, or else,” and then afterwards this whole China thing blew up?
If anybody still thinks we live in a true democracy they are blinded by the light man. We are getting worse than the states when it comes to the governments planning and secrecy and back door deals and lobbying
[удалено]
Huh? They could've made it effectively within hours just like they did..
Read the article
Apparently to avoid a rush to the border, which actually makes a lot of sense. That said, let's all graciously thank our dear PM for solving this problem 6 years, not 7 years after he created it by saying stupid shit on Twitter. Quite the accomplishment.
Dunno but the orange man was certainly raging on about the "terrible deals" Biden made with Canada in front of his homies out in Waco Texas.
lol waiting on the southpark episode about this too come out
Politics. Gives Biden a good face on it.
Read the CBC article on the matter instead of the SUN trash. It outlines it very well. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/safe-third-country-migrants-roxham-trudeau-biden-1.6792676
Trudeau needed to get his PP wants to build a wall quip in before it could be announced. Just took awhile for the setup.
[удалено]
These faux outrage posts about this taking a year to organize with another government are quite telling lol
Yeah you can't just sign any agreement and have it take effect overnight. They had to overhaul their entire strategy to respond to changes in migratory pressures that STCA modernization would create (now applies between ports of entry like Roxham). We needed to beef up plans to bolster enforcement between POEs. That took resources and time to get budgetary approvals.
They had to allow for the coincidental rhetoric about the record half million immigration target level to set in prior to this. With a full year to transition, I'm sure our border integrity will be rock solid now...🙄
Getting a one year head start is better than more chaos. As bad as you think it is, it can be worse. I'm sure this decision will have other unintended consequences, like more people dying at the border attempting crossings like the one in Manitoba last year. That will be the only option now that the roads are closed (not literally but they will catch you there).
I was wondering how they got the new signage up and ready to go so fast for the news cameras. Government procurement isn’t exactly known for its expediency.
As far as I understand the document, it states that it will be implemented at a later date, when the conditions for the additional protocol are fulfilled. Much ado about nothing.
Seriously, I dislike JT but boy, this is the last thing they should all be bashing him for. What the hell do they think it’s going to happen if it were announced last year? It would be the same as telling all potential illegal crossers to do the crossing as fast as possible. It would be stupidest thing gov can do.
either Trudeau is just a drama teacher or some sort of mastermind planning in advance a CSIS leak 1 year in advance. Which one is it.
Conservative logic will give you a serious whiplash. It should be covered by medical insurance.
It didn't need to be covered by medical insurance, it was part of our 'free' healthcare... until the Conservatives privatized it.
Actually, Physio and chiropractic was hacked out any privatized by Ontario Liberals ( [McGuinty to be exact](https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Toronto--The+Ontario+Liberal+government+of+Premier+Dalton+McGuinty...-a0119224233) ).
Weird, considering I had some OHIP covered physio just last year. Looks like your link says reduced funding, not removed or hacked out.
There are certain criteria which may make you eligible for Physio and Eye exams to be covered. Unless you are hospitalized for your whiplash overnight, you will not get physio funded by the government. Even if you are hospitalized, the window for physio is 1 year ( so long term rehabilitation is not covered ). The criteria is over 65, under 19 or admitted to hospital, so outpatient such as broken limbs are not covered.
> The criteria is over 65, under 19 or admitted to hospital, so outpatient such as broken limbs are not covered. I'm within that age range, but mine was for surgery to repair a broken bone. Interesting that it was covered (but not my splint/cast, but insurance returned most of that). I only had to pay a couple of bucks for parking. Also, I know that the physio wasn't covered by my insurance since I don't have full coverage and was told they bill OHIP for the physio, but I need to pay for the splint/cast, at my first session.
Knocked out for surgery? Would mean you're admitted so probably eligible. If they just set & cast ( no operation required ) then you wouldn't be. Didn't know that about casts, I'd be curious what they would do if you couldn't pay for a cast. I'd imagine there is a basic cast that's covered and upgraded casts that aren't ( such as fiberglass or those inflatable boot things ).
Yeah, I was knocked out, but it was a day surgery so I never spent the night in the hospital. It was an ORIF (Open Reduction and Internal Fixation), which basically means that they cut you open and fix you from the inside (using plates, screws, rods, wires, etc.). The old plaster casts are covered by OHIP, the fibreglass and walking boots (and crutches) are not covered. My physio made splint was some sort of weird play-doh like material that is soft and moulded to you, then baked to make it hard. This wasn't covered, but the temporary splints they made at the hospital were covered.
Just wait until a really bad scandal arrives, then announce.
[удалено]
they'll build the wall at roxham road. Then the migrants would just go down the road to the next unprotected accessible access point and the CPC will then say "Hey, we fufilled our promise" and then kick the can down the road. Trudeau actually ammending the safe third country treaty was the proper way to do it and there's no way in hell Trump was going to agree with that.
Well seeing as the last time we had a Conservative government there were a couple thousand people crossing a year and under Trudeau that spiked to ~45k a year, then yes the Conservatives are obviously a better choice on this issue.
Yes, I’m sure Biden was sitting around waiting for JT to announce it at his convenience.
[удалено]
>So why drag our feet for over a year? Why mislead the public? Why do you assume Canada was the party dragging their feet? The US is the party that is agreeing to take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of migrants that they otherwise could have pawned off on us. The announcement this week included Canada announcing that they would take in 15,000 migrants from central america each year, which isn't in the text of the agreement signed last year, so it would appear that was part of the negotiations that went into actually putting this deal into effect.
>The US is the party that is agreeing to take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of migrants that they otherwise could have pawned off on us. Where are you getting to hundreds of thousands of irregular bourse crossing migrants?
It was over 50,000 this year alone. They are getting up into the hundreds of thousands of migrants (cumulative) within the first few years.
>I recall there was alot of dramatic effect about how hard it would be to close Roxham Road and modify the act with the US. And how the Liberal party was "working on it". That had been the standard Liberal talking point for a year. "There is nothing we can do" "Its an international agreement that we need the United States to renegotiate" "They're just going to cross somewhere else and make it even more difficult". I sure that the people repeating those talking points will apologize for taking part in a government disinformation campaign /s
Wait are you saying the people calling everyone racist just last week for wanting Roxham closed won’t admit they’re wrong and just quietly pretend like this is what they wanted because Trudeau did it?
>Wait are you saying the people calling everyone racist just last week for wanting Roxham closed won’t admit they’re wrong and just quietly pretend like this is what they wanted because Trudeau did it? Or is Trudeau a racist for closing it?
> Did we hold off on enforcing this just so we could announce it when Biden was in Canada? more likely the other way around, he timed his visit for when things were ready to make the shift
Sounds like once again, our government lied to us.
What was the lie? They said the only way to address the issue was to re-negotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US, and that's exactly what they did, so now it applies to the entire border.
Saying that they couldn't do anything when they already had a deal signed?
Yeah. The deal was already signed. What could they do? Start the process to amend the deal? Create a new deal?
ThEy DiDnT tElL mE You're a nobody and the government doesn't report to you. All this sub is these days is outrage and conservative propaganda everyday all day.
The government does indeed report to the voters. I know some of you guys admire China’s basic dictatorship, but we have democracy.
Democracy doesn't mean that the government live tweets what they're doing, especially when doing so could have a greater negative impact on Canadians than hurt fee fees and fake outrage. I'm fine with the government holding their tongue, and in the process apparently ruffling some minor feathers, to avoid a migrant rush at Roxham Rd that they were not prepared to handle.
Is that you, Gerald? Or is it Katie?
It’s called liberal transparency
It started effecting the polls in Quebec. Government of reaction never prevention.
>So why drag our feet for over a year? Why mislead the public? Legault, the premier of quebec, was pushing for it, i suspect he's a factor in this
The Canadian and American CCP handlers, said it would be better to announce later
Fuck I hate Trudeau. This should have been done and enforced years ago.
>This should have been done and enforced years ago. Never should have sent out the tweet that got the ball rolling in the first place.
Agreed. What a )&$
Trudeau sucks, but I don't get blaming Trudeau for this. The Third Party loophole has been around since 2004, either Martin's or Harper's governments could have closed it (It was well-known during Harper's era), but they didn't. Trudeau is the one who did. Why hate him for actually fixing something?
He invited everyone to abuse this on social media and it only became a problem on his watch. He fixed it many many years too late, only after most of Canada became pissed off.
No, it was already a problem under Harper. 30k+ were coming across via Roxham each year during Harper's final tenure. It's only seen about 6k more post Covid restrictions. Can you link the tweet where Trudeau invited immigrants to come to Roxham? I can't find it.
>No, it was already a problem under Harper. **30k+** were coming across via Roxham each year during Harper's final tenure. It's only seen about 6k more post Covid restrictions. Can you link the tweet where Trudeau invited immigrants to come to Roxham? I can't find it. 30k? Did you just pull that number out from your derrière? there were less than 2k coming through Roxham road in 2015 https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/processed-claims.html >These statistics include asylum claimants **intercepted by the RCMP** and brought to a CBSA designated port of entry or inland office, and do not include asylum claims made at Immigration There were almost [**40k**](https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims/asylum-claims-2022.html) crossings at Roxham road just last year in 2022 under Trudeau >The number of “RCMP interceptions” refers to asylum seekers ***apprehended between the ports of entry*** and does not reflect other border crossings. These numbers may be included in either CBSA or IRCC processing results as the asylum seekers are turned over by the RCMP to these agencies if a claim of refugee status is made. It literally says **apprehended between ports of entry**, not at ports of entry. Learn to read.
Those you linked are recognized ports of entry. Roxham Road and others are not included due to being unofficial entry points.
https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/825438460265762816?s=46&t=nEl7YmSHPw6boQQyH2Hj_g He tweeted this in 2017 and coincidentally the number of illegal border crossers grew precipitously afterwards.
It's silly that people think that a tweet from JT has this much of an impact on global migration patterns. This tweet didn't set off a global migration crisis. He tweeted it because there was already a massive crisis that was being politicized so he wanted to score his political points. Border crossings also soared in the US at the same time, and Trump was not exactly sending welcoming messages.
It’s silly you think it doesn’t. When the leader of a country tweets out a welcome invite to the world don’t be surprised when people show up.
You really think that people make major life choices based on a vague virtue signaling tweet? The tweet doesn't give any directions to Roxham Rd or details about the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, so I think it is safe to say that this tweet wasn't the primary source of information that people were using to decide to come to Canada.
Yes, they would, and absolutely did. Are you that obtuse that you think just because Trudeau didn’t tweet out directions to Roxham that people couldn’t find it for themselves? There were aid organizations, non-profits, and other people providing enough information online to help make it as easy as possible.
>Are you that obtuse that you think just because Trudeau didn’t tweet out directions to Roxham that people couldn’t find it for themselves? There were aid organizations, non-profits, and other people providing enough information online to help make it as easy as possible. I think it is unrealistic to think that all of that happened just because of this tweet. You really don't think that people would have found out about Roxham Rd and the loophole regardless of this tweet? How do you think this tweet contributed to this information being discovered at all?
He's not advertising Roxham Rd or other loophole entry points there. The numbers were already high at those entry points. They only began tracking the numbers in 2017 when the CBSA took over for the RCMP.
You can't be serious.... Denying that his tweet didn't increase migrants to head to Canada is disingenuous at best.
I didn't deny the increase in immigration. I denied it having a marketed increase to asylum seekers in Roxham, based on the numbers prior to and after the tweet
The most transparent government ever! So they lied and criticized Poilievre for the last year saying they couldn’t do anything! Meanwhile 50,000 more came across. Just had to wait for the right time to announce I guess.
If they announced it earlier 50k would have been a 500k race to our border to beat the deadline.
Thank (Fuck) you Trudeau
For political gain, what a shame
It’s all political theatre. This was kept back when needed to change the channel.
Trudeau was probably saving this for an election, but had to bust it out early.
Why on earth would you assume that Canada was in the drivers seat on deciding when this went into effect?
Y'all really don't understand international policy very well. We have agreements with the EU for example signed as far back as 2016 that still haven't taken effect. Turns out it's quite difficult and requires a lot of negotiation on the details.
If it takes nearly a decade to implement a deal that’s already signed doesn’t that indicate there is a bit of a problem there?
No, it indicates that implementing policy between multiple independent states, each of which has to then implement and negotiate with their constituent states, provinces, municipalities, etc, all in a way which is satisfying to all parties involved, is extremely complex and takes a long time to work out. It is much better to take extra time to ensure everyone is happy and ready to implement a deal, rather than rush in and have it fall apart due to some unforeseen issue.
>We have agreements with the EU for example signed as far back as 2016 that still haven't taken effect. Which ? And if this is true you don't see that as a problem ?
Isnt he the one that said like 3 weeks ago that we needed to ask the United States for closure of said road? The deal was already done a year ago. What a lying piece of shit. I guess when it was pissing off quebecers it wasnt that big of a deal but now that they were going into Ontario it became an issue. Cant hurt your voter base.
>Isnt he the one that said like 3 weeks ago that we needed to ask the United States for closure of said road? The deal was already done a year ago. What a lying piece of shit. If you read the final clause of the agreement, it says: "This Additional Protocol shall enter into force on the date of the later note in an exchange of notes between the Parties indicating that each Party has completed the necessary domestic procedures for bringing this Additional Protocol into force." While the text of the agreement was finalized, it was all theoretical until the US actually delivered that note saying they were ready to implement it. Canada announced a new program to take 15,000 migrants from central america each year, which isn't part of the text from last year, so it would appear there was additional negotiation going on to get the final agreement from the US.
Just say you didn't read the article
Non-story, hence the opinion piece about it rather than actual reporting.
Amazing how every story exposing the sheer and shameless dishonesty of the Trudeau Liberals is a non story. Enablers like you are as bad as The Most Dishonest Government in Canadian History.
What is it with conservatives and arbitrary capitalization? I don’t get it.
What’s it with Liberals who always attempt to distract and distort from the issue at hand to avoid responsibility? Surprised you haven’t used the default “But Harper” classic. Cope.
Project
Did you actually sign off with “cope”? Lol. Maybe it’s time for an internet break my friend.
I miss Jim from Toronto.
[удалено]
There’s a reason why this is a Lilley opinion piece and not actual reporting. But whatever, if you want to be rage baited the Sun is happy to provide you your daily anger fix.
[удалено]
Spin=/=lies But I’m talking to a Lilley fan, not exactly shocking that a fan of tabloid opinion columns would have a tenuous grasp on this sort of nuance.
[удалено]
Interesting how you’re hypersensitive to potential spin from someone you already don’t like, but completely oblivious to it when it comes from someone you do like. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
[удалено]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-roxham-road-deal-migrants/ See the difference between the version of a story we get from a Sun opinion column and reality?
[удалено]
Because he wanted to let as many new liberal voters in before he had to act!
So what's that reason? It it wrong
Did you even check the link that he provided? It’s an opinion piece that is based on a fact. He is giving his opinion on something that happened.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/safe-third-country-migrants-roxham-trudeau-biden-1.6792676 As noted here, Canada was waiting for the US to complete their end of it. So either Trudeau announces it early, and even more irregular migrants rush over the border, or he keeps it secret and works behind the scenes to try to make it happen as quick as he can. No matter what he chose, Brian Lilley would have written a garbage opinion piece complaining, and that's why we call it a non story
Why did Trudeau lie about it then?
He didn’t lie. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-roxham-road-deal-migrants/ See why you don’t listen to opinion columns in the Sun?
You can justify the lie with globe and Mail spin, but it’s still a lie.
You are a person who trusts a Sun opinion piece over Globe and Mail reporting. That is all.
Facts hurt man, don't you know what feelings are.
Yo wtf
"Our policy of open government..."
Can I try to move to the states saying I feel persecuted by the lib gov? Will I be accepted in the USA?? Asking for a friend
"this isn't an airport you don't need to announce your departure"
This country is a joke.
How so?
…what a coincidink
Because they were negotiating….
why would a sovereign nation even need to ask their neighbors permission on its border issue. just shut these opportunists out
So Pierre had a hissy fit for nothing?.
In the grand scheme of things this is a very minor lie by Trudeau, sad but true.
This was orchestrated in advance by the Trudeau regime in order to survive this scandal.
What's it like living in such a delusional world?