CKNW Editorial
for August 12, 1999

One of the advantages of leaving town for a couple of weeks is that you get the last word on a subject.

This past couple of weeks has not been easy as the passions of those who do not like our refugee laws have been visited on me. This is what I get paid for but I must admit the viciousness of some reactions has left me wondering just what kind of a community I live in. As recently as last night my wife and I were abused by, of all people an Englishman, in a restaurant – he followed my car and he and the venomous mate he’s evidently married to continued to abuse us as we drove home. I only mention his Englishness because I am always surprised when someone to whom Canada has offered a haven is so quick to condemn others who were not so lucky in their place of birth. I had to laugh as I saw them – imagine, I thought, having to wake up every morning and see that beside you in the bed … and the remark went for either of them. It even conjured up other nasty thoughts of their required togetherness but we won’t go into that. John Reynolds must be thrilled to pieces to have bits of barnyard droppings like these two as the background of his political support. Easily offsetting this, however, has been the wide support I have received, much of it in very generous terms.

What I come away with is the sure knowledge that a great many people, very much including two North Shore Reform Party MPs do not understand what our laws are and what our responsibilities are. This is more than a bit shocking since they are, in part, responsible for making laws and both of them hope to be the government in due course.

A refugee is defined as a person “who is persecuted or has a well founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” That is the United Nations definition. Canada has agreed to accept such refugees.

It happens, by reason of geography, that the countries most likely to spawn refugees are a long way away from the nations which accept them. It wasn’t always that way but since the fall of the Iron Curtain that’s been the case.

When refugees arrive on our shore they are not trespassers but have come by way of invitation. Once ashore they must demonstrate that they qualify as refugees but they have broken no law in coming to Canada and asking for sanctuary. If, after an appropriate hearing they are not proper refugees, then and then only do they become illegal immigrants and subject to deportation. Hence it is not just insulting but ignorance of the law to call someone seeking refugee status a criminal or bogus refugee because that begs the very question raised by the hearing to be held.

The question of no documentation has been raised by a number of people. I have from the outset been troubled by that but I must tell you that the Federal Court of Appeal has already dealt with the issue and held it to be irrelevant. The law is that whether or not a person is in fact a refugee has nothing to do with the presence or absence of ID … I’m not comfortable with that decision and would support a change in the law. This parliament can easily do if it wishes.

The question of refugee smuggling has been raised. This poses some logical problems. If a person seeking refuge is innocent until proved otherwise, how can it be a crime to deliver him to our shores? Legalistic? Perhaps but it must also be remembered that for all practical purposes a refugee must make it to Canada to be considered. It simply is not practical for a persecuted person to go to a Canadian Embassy and receive refugee status especially since, apparently, our embassies are ill equipped for these purposes. Without meaning to be facetious, refugees can hardly be expected to swim or themselves sail to Canada so there is a market for people who would offer transport. Just as there was for Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

What is the alternative to all this?

We could refuse to take refugee claimants who arrive on our shores but we must then withdraw from the UN Convention. I don’t believe that this would meet with general public approval but it is the only honourable alternative to the hypocrisy which says we support taking refugees unless they actually arrive and worse than arriving, turn out to be oriental.

I believe we can place the onus upon refugee claimants to prove their identity. There must be a safety valve for those who for legitimate reasons cannot provide ID, however. It is clearly within the powers of parliament to make the process faster and, if we wish, get rid of the appeal procedures. I don’t favour abolishing appeals but that is open to us as a solution.

Finally, I have been accused of calling people racist. I have done no such thing. What I have said is two things – first I have accused John Reynolds and accuse him again of pandering to the racist element. In fact his statements run directly contrary to Reform Party policy as enunciated by their immigration spokesman here the other morning. I have also said that if this were a boatload of English refugees fleeing a Caribbean Island gone sour I don’t think there would be one word said. I believe that because the evidence supports it.

The Hungarian Revolution brought thousands of refugees to Canada and they were welcomed – as indeed they should have been. We took countless refugees from what was behind the Iron Curtain without a peep about potential criminals out of anyone. Earlier this year we took several thousand Kosovars without complaint that there may be evil people amongst them. With the arrival of the 123 Chinese we have heard, over and over again, stories about crimes “these people” cause yet with the Hungarians we knew some would be criminals because before the Communists closed the border they let everyone out of jail. We must know by the law of averages that some refugees from European communism and some Kosovars were criminals. The fact remains that the Hungarians as a group have been marvelous citizens, as have most refugees been and as will be, no doubt, the Kosovars. My point is simple – we hear all sorts of noise assuming criminality when the refugees are Chinese yet none when they are white.

In summary, I accuse no one specifically of being a racist nor do I say that arguments of improving our refugees rules are racist. There have been many very legitimate issues raised on the air and in private correspondence. But I maintain that there is a strong racist strain abroad in our society – one only had to see the redfaced verbally flatulent oaf at my table and alongside my car last night to know that - which is the gallery the likes of John Reynolds plays to. They deserve each other.

I have only asked for one thing throughout, namely that we respect the rule of law and the right of all refugee claimants to be given the benefit of the doubt our law provides, pending a decision made after the appropriate hearing. For some, evidently, that’s asking too much.