The right-wing minority government of Stephen Harper has just introduced Bill C-49.
The "Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act " that, among other things, allows the minister of public safety to declare any group of migrants coming in to Canada, a 'smuggling incident.'
Once deemed a smuggling incident, the refugee claimants can be jailed for at least a year, with no access to health coverage. Their incarceration may be extended, with reviews only possible once in six months. If these asylum seekers gain refugee status, the minister of immigration can choose to revoke their status at any point in the next five years. At the end of the five years, the government wants to be able to assess the conditions in the "home country" and determine their safety, and if found to be safe the refugees can be deported. During these five years, the claimants are not allowed to apply for permanent residence or to sponsor their families. Those whose claims are denied have no recourse to appeal. Those found to be a "human smuggler," defined as someone who "knows or is reckless as to whether an asylum seeker has broken the law" can be jailed for 10 years.
The Globe and Mail has thrown its weight behind it, calling it a "bold move." This, after Canada's premier newspaper reported the Amnesty International declaration that the act is in violation of the Canadian Constitution, as well as the 1951 Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all international treaties Canada is a signatory to.
That the law is illegal, unjust and intended to make asylum seekers suffer is not up for debate. Modeled after Australian immigration policy that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has criticized for having the effect of "discriminating against persons on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin," it is intended to further shut off access to full immigration status for the poor, working class and people of colour around the world.
What is contentious is how we got here. Barely three years ago, one could not have proposed an act in Canadian Parliament arguing for arbitrary jailing of refugees and asylum seekers without causing a massive uproar. Such an act goes against the grain of the myth of multicultural, immigrant-friendly Canada that most Canadians thrive on. How did this happen?
Since the Conservative government has come into power Canada's borders have been slammed shut. People that are allowed in are either on precarious programs, easily deportable, or are western-educated, English speaking, predominantly well-off, able bodied and from hetero-normative families.
Advertising
Immigration Bills, such as Bill C-50 which gave immense arbitrary powers to the immigration minister, the recently passed Bill C-11 which allows the government to declare any country to be "safe" and therefore deny asylum seekers from that country, along with multiple changes snuck in through regulations such as the 4 and 4 rule, where temporary workers who have worked in the country for four years will be banned from the country, are all part of a particular xenophobic project -- a project that is using a five-pronged strategy to ensure that these changes come into effect quickly.
Examining them is key to being able to effectively challenge new attacks, and critical lessons can be learned by other progressive movements.
Spin hate, spread fear, lie
There are certain notions of law, order, system, security and safety that are deeply embedded in Canadian culture. One hears of them in the news, on TV shows, in music, and in schools. When these "values" are declared to be in danger, an immense maelstrom of fear is whipped up.
In the months following the arrival of the ship Ocean Lady with 76 Tamil refugees seeking asylum in Vancouver in 2009, the immigration minister and the public safety minister were publicly calling the asylum seekers "terrorists" before the ship had even landed. Over and over again, they repeated that the migrants were breaking the law; in fact they were not. People fleeing economic, military or environmental havoc come to Canada on fake passports, supported by global networks of so-called smuggling. The queue, that most sacred of Canadian institutions, we were told was being broken. The fact that there is no queue for asylum seekers, and that people are allowed to apply if they show up in Canada, was conveniently forgotten.
Get blessings from the gatekeepers
Canadian multiculturalism has given rise to a particular breed of immigrant service organizations. Communities have been divided into funding sets by ethnicity, language, and geographic location, limiting the capacity of migrants to organize on the basis of shared experience or struggle.
There are "South Asian" organizations, "Latino" organizations, "Filipino" organizations galore. Most of these are funded by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and their paid staff and board members derive power and prestige from their framed photographs with political honchos. So when the immigration minister wants to create an aura of support for their lies and deception, meetings are called with these organizations who, attached to the purse strings, do the ministers' bidding.
Of course, there is no shortage of racist, selfish, rich people in these groups, which makes the task easier. So this past Thursday, the act is announced in Vancouver and on Friday, just one day later, the United Macedonian Diaspora, Armenian National Committee, Taiwanese Canadian Association of Toronto, as well as B'nai Brith released statements in support of the act. The B'nai Brith statement declared that the ministers "took into account the views of the multicultural communities of Canada before drafting this bill and B'nai Brith Canada was pleased to voice the opinions and concerns of the Jewish community on this issue." Other statements declared how the entire Macedonian/Armenian/Taiwanese-Canadian/Insert-Nationality-here community supported these bills. That these organizations have no communication with a majority of the voices they "represent" is completely forgotten. So blatant is this use of purse strings as puppet strings that the Canadian Press just released an article on the issue.
Fake it till you make it
Almost all the immigration press conferences and media statements herald their actions as being in response to calls from the "public." At the press conference announcing the proposed act, Minister Jason Kenney declared, "We cannot afford to allow these smuggling operations to undermine public support for our fair and generous immigration system."
The "public" he argued was losing faith in the Canadian immigration system and this act was needed to restore it. The fact that the "public" skepticism was generated by ministerial statements labeling those arriving as terrorists rather than asylum seekers is never exposed.
The invocation of a "public sentiment" even before the public has had a chance to respond to the act sets the terms of public debate. The notion of smugglers was drummed up for two years before the present bill was proposed. Similarly, the notion of queue jumpers was being used in government media releases as far back as 2007, before the 2009 refugee amendments were introduced. This constant assertion of "people's desires" is backed by right-wing think tanks such as the Fraser Institute and the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform.
Similarly, the ministry is presently drumming up public fear against so-called "fake marriages" and it is quite likely that legislation will be tabled to further discriminate against family sponsorship.
And then there is the ‘Opposition'
The first set of racist immigration laws under the Conservatives were sneaked in through a budget bill (Bill C-50). Voting against C-50 would have meant an election, which neither the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc Quebecois wanted. Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, established a list of so-called "safe countries", and a process where asylum seekers from these countries could be discriminated against (thus fundamentally revoking the basis of the refugee arbitration process which is centered on assessing individual cases of risk).
This Bill faced little resistance. The opposition was offered a public debate already churning out the Tory poison, and the ability to make minute changes while accepting the spirit of the Bill. They quietly complied. With an elaborate spin machine now under way for Bill C-49, even "progressive" candidates like Olivia Chow responded to the "human smuggling" bill by calling for more money to be given to immigration enforcement thugs.
There is the law, and then there is regulation
Once new immigration legislation is passed, with some minor amendments squeezed in, it continues to be changed through "regulations." The immigration minister can announce changes to law through regulations published in the "Canada Gazette," that then automatically become law in 90 days. Late last year, the Tories put out regulations stating that migrant workers that had been in the country for four years would be banned for the next six.
This would concretize the production-line quality of the temporary work program, where migrant workers are brought in, worked to the bone, and then tossed out after four years, to be replaced a by a new crop.
This was never discussed in parliament or committee, simply printed and then made law. The same has happened under Bill C-11, where the minister can arbitrarily and through regulations decide what countries are safe. What this means is that even if a slightly "better" act is passed due to "opposition intervention," it can continue to be tweaked to include more and more anti-immigrant measures.
So, now what?
This model is working. Immigration is the test case, and an ideal one. Shifting blame to immigrants and outsiders in the face of a shrinking economy and inevitable cuts to public spending is a tactic as old as democracy itself.
But the same model of media spin, building false community support, brow beating opposition and using bureaucracy to impose harsher laws is also working to jail more people, particularly youth, to cull the rights of First Nations communities, to drum up support for free trade agreements where necessary, and to expand Canada's control over the Arctic and other marine ways. It is essential that these measures be fought. Or what seems like a distant possibility today might be Canada's lurch-to-the-right reality tomorrow.
Syed Hussan is a Toronto-based writer, researcher and activist involved with migrant justice, indigenous sovereignty and alter-globalization movements.
Canada is a democratic country. As such the will of the majority is what will be. And the majority of Canadians want more control of who is allowed into our great country. This means that only those whom we chose will be allowed the privilege of entrance. It will be applied to people of ALL races, ALL colours, ALL descents, ALL nationalities and ALL ethnicities. No type of favouritism will prevail.
To those who don't agree: We can allow people who have illegally entered our country to stay but it will be up to you to: provide shelter, provide food, provide clothing, provide medical care, provide legal aid, provide pocket money et cetera et cetera. Are you willing to put your own resources where your mouths are? I'll bet you aren't. Until you are hold your tongues and learn how the democratic system of government works.
Excellent article, Syed. Thank you!
The Harper government in no way acts, or has acted on "the will" of the majority. Ever. They were neither elected by a "majority" nor do they have an actual majority of seats in Parliament. This new law breaks several international laws. This matters. It can't just be brushed over, as if all those silly international conventions on the human rights of people who just happen to be refugees vis a vis the West, simply don't matter.
As for people entering Canada illegally, very few people who are in Canada without status entered illegally. And they are working difficult, precarious, often dangerous jobs, under the table (yes, illegally). But there are employers who seek them out. Where is the "outrage" towards employers who deliberately hire folks who they know have no status just so they can pay them less than the legal minimum wage in Canada? Targeting the most marginalized is typical in this age of ultra-supreme conservatism, but its logic fails, consistently.
If someone is working hard, and paying taxes on goods they purchase, why shouldn't they benefit from other benefits that Canada accords to citizens? Some folks are here for years, decades, without the "legal" status to be in Canada.
What we need to do is stand up to this draconian, oppressive, racist and retrograde policy and SAY NO to the Harper government.
Dear Maysie,
You are incorrect on each of the points you bring up in your comment. But there are many misguided Canadians who are falling into the trap into which you have fallen. The trap has been ingeniously set by the Trilateral Commission and the Bildeburg Foundation. They would love to see the world as a one country, one economy entity. By homogenizing the population of the planet, as would eventually be done by the so-called "international conventions on human rights" to which you refer, the profits reaped by The Corporations of the World would be unimaginable. And this would send the population of the world into a depth of poverty never in history seen before. Your naive, ill-informed statements, although made with a good compassionate heart by you and thousands like you, do not see these implications on a global scale. You should rethink your position. If you don't you are privy to leaving a very, very bleak world to your ancestors.
Wow, an international conspiracy set on "homogenizing the world population"! I had no idea. Thank goodness we have Canada as the last bulwark against such an insidious attack. Surely our nationwide fleet of Tim Hortons, Canadian Tires and Molson Canadians will protect us from the blandness and monotony threatened by a few hundred starving, desperate poor.
Or, perhaps we can recognize that we have already opened our borders to the world--we'll take their rice, their coffee, their chocolate, their oil, their gold, their diamonds, their electronics--but we won't take their people, not even a handful. Indeed, in the case of the Tamil refugees, we will endorse the murderous Sri Lankan regime, declare any the desire for liberty "terrorism" and take a leading role in facilitating the immiseration of the Tamil people. And then turn them away from our borders with hand wringing about being full up with immigrants already (there are about 30 million of us, I suppose) and that refugees fleeing war, persecution, poverty will have to "wait in line" like everybody else (despite the fact that there is no "line" for refugees. That's the point of accepting them.)
But continue with your racist, fascist braying about racial "homogenization," or your authority myths which posit white Canadians as the gatekeepers of human decency. It's exactly the song Jason Kenney (and other brownshirts) hope you'll keep singing as Harper and his band of thugs takes every last benefit and resource history has won for you and gives them to his cronied friends while you're distracted like a terrified mongrel by a handful of brown people who share your interests, your hopes and your humanity.
Oh, and superb article Syed. Thank you.
Hey Catchfire,
What on earth does accepting a country's rice have to do with accepting silicone mask-wearing Air Canada passengers? The answer from anyone with a brain and capable of logical thought is NOTHING. And the word racist has devolved into a catch-all for communist jackasses. I guess if someone said they don't particularly like Mexican food it would make them a racist against all people of Latin ethnicity by your criteria.
I can see why you would think that, AIC, since you have no capacity for complex thought. Paired with your obsessive compulsion to return to a site where your racist, caricaturish views are so clearly not welcome, it makes a nasty cocktail.
Canada claims to (or used to claim to) welcome refugees fleeing from other countries. Why does it matter the manner in which refugees seek asylum, except to titllate those who read the news for entertainment rather than edification, or to serve as useful diversions for racist immigration ministers and those with security fetishes? In truth, it does matter, since it puts paid to the myth that Canada is a "welcoming" place to refugees, rather than an increasibly xenophobic nation which wallpapers its deteriorating international reputation with a collective hallucination satisfactory to our national ego and conscience.
Of course global economy is relevant to global migration. This is not a difficult point. Why do we value the free truck and exchange of goods more than that of people? It seems we are increasingly unable to think of humans moving across the globe in non-commodity terms? Anyone who comes here against the will of our governments must be the fruits of human trafficking or terrorists, says Harper and Kenney. The West has such an appetite for "exotic" commodities created by the labour of foreign workforces paid a pittance, but when those same workers come here to improve their lives, we suddenly have no time or words for them, our mouths full of acai-banana smoothies and Madagascar vanilla lattes. Don't worry, I don't expect you to make that connection. It's hard to abandon the racist fantastical veil one has relied upon your whole life.
Someone pointed out to me your confusion of "ancestors" for "descendents" above. Perhaps you're more aware than I give you credit for of the bleak world our ancestors left us from the generations of colonialist and capitalist exploitation. Certainly the racist legacy they've left you seems to be causing you a lot of pain and angst. Maybe it's best to concentrate on a more just and peaceful future than the painful past which causes you so many problems.
There's gratitude for you. A thoroughly satisfying ass whacking by any standard was delivered here in this thread, of the sort that should be reserved for paying customers only, and not even a thank you.
One last thought:
...but not all classes, it would seem. The poor must suffer and die where they came from, lest our poor aggrieved 'patriot' lose a few pennies to additional taxation. Or it can become a purely charitable effort, for which supporters like myself are to pay.
...which I for one will happily do, as soon as the patriot volunteers his wages to pay for the war he endorses, and most Canadians oppose. That is how his version of democracy works, isn't it?