CKNW Editorial
for May 4, 2000

It's time to talk about refugees again, folks, and that means it's time for me to declare where I stand. I don't mind being called all sorts of names - that's what I'm paid for ... but I think I'm entitled to ask that I be called the right bad names and that what I believe in not be distorted.

Canada many years ago subscribed to the United Nations definition of refugee which, shorn of all the adjectives, simply says that when a person seeks asylum with us under a reasonable apprehension of serious discrimination in his homeland we will grant him refuge. I've had people write me to say that the United Nations is an undemocratic place etc etc and that may be true but it's beside the point. We have adopted one of its principles to be our policy and we can un-adopt it any time we like. It is not the United Nations making our judgments - it is the Canadian government. If it is our wish that we not take in refugees, or only take them from certain places, or if we want to diminish the definition in any way, we can do so as a sovereign nation. So Rafe's point number one is simply this - we must live up to our undertakings or amend or repeal those obligations.

Refugees, by definition, do not land on one's doorstep by traditional, legitimate means. Refugees are running away from something and take their refuge as best they can. In the old days when churches were sanctuaries the person seeking refuge didn't knock on the priest's door and seek permission to enter - he went into the church as quickly as he could.

So Rafe's point number two is that refugees must, in order to be refugees, arrive at the point of refuge without the normal ceremonies. For those who argue that refugees ought to go to Canadian embassies or consulates in their home country ignore the utter impracticality of that plus the admission by the government that our embassies and consulates simply are not equipped to permit this.

There are a huge number of people entering Canada claiming to be refugees, the vast majority of which come in by plane though the ones by boat get the media attention. There is, by a wide margin, a disproportionate number coming from one province of China which has a history of exporting its people to North America. It would defy all logic and common sense to assume that all these people would qualify as refugees.

Rafe's point number three. We cannot decide in advance that all these people are not legitimate refugees for a couple of reasons. First off, China is, after all, the home of Tiananmen Square and is still a repressive Communist country that actively discriminates against all of its citizens in some ways and many of them in special ways, such as women pregnant with their second child. Second, we have accepted the legitimacy of some of the refugee claimants and we surely cannot go down the road of deciding in advance that all people from a certain place are, ipso facto, not refugees. When refugee claimants come to Canada, the determination of their status takes so long that by the time we get around to rejecting and expelling them, they have put down roots, married, had children, got jobs so that they can then claim landed immigrant status on compassionate grounds.

Which leads to Rafe's point four.

Because of all of the forgoing, and assuming that we aren't going to change the definition of refugee we work under we must find a way to make judgments about the status of refugee claimants quickly and effectively. That is the only avenue open to us. We can't sink their boats. We can't ship them home once they claim refugee status because they have yellow skins therefore must be illegal. We must, under the laws of Canada, determine in accordance with the law, just what their status is. There is no way around this except to break our own law.

Assuming that Canada is not going to change the definition of refugee under which we operate, and assuming that we are going to continue being a country under the rule of law, we have but two options left ... either we say who cares? ... and allow anyone who reaches our shores to stay. Or we have a process in place. If we are to have a process then it must be one which works fairly, thoroughly and expeditiously.

Which gets to Rafe's final point. You cannot blame the refugee claimants for wanting to leave home and to try to get into Canada. This is natural, as witness the thousands of Mexicans who cross the Rio Grande every year into the United States. And you cannot have even a government taking the law into its own hands. In fact you particularly can't have a government taking the law into its own hands.

This means that you do some common sense things. You have, at the airport points of debarkation, an immigration person who photocopies the papers of everyone who gets on that plane, a process which would take seconds only.

That cuts back the identification work in Canada to zero. Secondly, you incarcerate, in civilized circumstances of course, refugee claimants until the determination is made. Thirdly, you put in place enough immigration people as it takes to make prompt but fair determinations along with an appeal process that is the next thing to instantaneous. Be clear on this ... I'm not talking about drumhead justice. The process must be studiously fair.

Now ... this will mean a lot more money spent. But the point is this. If we have this kind of process in place and it is seen to work, bogus refugee claims will dramatically diminish very quickly.

The bottom line and at the end of the day and such other clichés as we can think of is this - either we refuse to accept refugees, all refugees, or set up procedures to make the proper determinations. If it is the latter, and we do not choose to put sufficient resources into the effort, we should stop bitching and simply ignore the boat people and the thousands more who arrive by plane.