Conservatives—especially those with Reform roots—have always disliked the Supreme Court’s 1985 Singh decision. It ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies not just to Canadians, but to anyone who steps foot in Canada—even foreigners who arrive illegally and file refugee claims. Because the ruling specifically required that asylum seekers be granted oral hearings, it lead to the creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent, quasi-judicial body that now determines who does and doesn’t warrant our protection.
Last week, Jason Kenney, the minister of immigration, mentioned that it was high time that Canada give its refugee system a makeover. The topic came up while he was fielding questions about the federal government’s controversial decision to slap visa requirements on Czech and Mexican nationals travelling to Canada, a move made in response to the record number of people from both countries who’ve filed refugee claims here in recent years. It wasn’t the first time Kenney has called for reform.
In a letter to the editor published in the National Post shortly after 9/11, Kenney defended his then-boss, Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day, against accusations he would not pursue a robust policy toward bogus asylum seekers “for fear of being branded racist.” Not true, Kenney wrote. Indeed, using language that echoed Reform party founder Preston Manning’s earlier criticism that Singh tread upon the “prerogatives of Parliament,” he noted that the Alliance had consistently proposed solutions such as “the detention of all undocumented arrivals until their identity is verified,” as well as “overriding the Singh decision” and developing a system that helps “legitimate” refugees, “rather than lawbreakers and queue-jumpers.”
Those were heady, post-Sept. 11 days; that was the Kenney of the Canadian Alliance. Today, he is a Conservative minister, handed the immigration portfolio last fall after a successful stint unfurling the Tories’ newly festive multiculturalism banner, a job that saw him glad-handing voters whose support has traditionally gone to the Liberals. Still, in discussing changes he’d like to make to Canada’s current refugee system, his language is strikingly similar to that old, yellowing letter to the editor—with a subtle change in emphasis. “I’m the minister responsible for over 900,000 people around the world who are patiently waiting in the queue to come to Canada, on average taking five-plus years to arrive here as permanent residents,” he told Maclean’s. “I cannot tolerate a situation where they see people simply getting a plane ticket, arriving here, saying the magic word ‘refugee,’ getting quasi-landed status, getting a work permit and/or welfare benefits. That is an insult to the millions of people who aspire to come to Canada legally.”
As it stands now, Kenney argues, Canada’s refugee system creates “a de facto two-tier immigration system: a slow one for law-abiders and a fast one for lawbreakers.” Kenney appears to have hit upon a different approach to assailing Canada’s asylum system, one that maintains his old unease with Singh but that at the same time appeals to the very constituency that that hardline stance once risked alienating: new Canadians.
The criticisms of Canada’s refugee system are well known—that it is overgenerous, accepts applications from countries with good human rights records, and that its convoluted procedures offer too many rejected claimants too many chances to remain in Canada for too long. Ours is one of only two refugee systems in the world that begins with an oral hearing and, unlike most European systems, doesn’t maintain a list of countries from which applicants won’t be heard (the U.S., for example, was a top-10 source country for refugee claimants in 2007 and 2008). Although it’s rare, rejected claimants who apply to remain here on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or because the situation at home has worsened can prolong their Canadian sojourn by 10 years or more. “The system can be used and abused by anybody with a good lawyer,” says the Fraser Institute’s Martin Collacott.
Then there’s the issue of the adjudicators who process these claims—the members of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)—who too often are selected as much for their political connections as for their credentials. (Recall Steve Ellis, a former Toronto city councillor and Liberal IRB appointee, who gained infamy for allegedly offering to approve a South Korean woman’s claim in exchange for sex; the matter is still before the courts.) Determining how adjudicators are selected is itself a fraught process. When former immigration minister Diane Finley last rejigged that system in 2007, then-IRB chair Jean-Guy Fleury resigned over concerns the changes would further politicize things. His departure was followed by the dramatic leave-taking of five of his colleagues.
The latest fracas over visas is just more bad news for an already troubled system. Ordering the visa imposition for Czechs and Mexicans, Kenney says, wasn’t easy: “I take no joy in the difficult decision we had to make.” Nor have the reprisals been much fun. Mexico has slapped visa requirements on our diplomats. The Czech Republic recalled its ambassador and agitated for the European Union to hit us back. Sweden, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, mused that Canadians visiting Europe should also be required to apply for visas.
Pages: 1 2
