Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Those seeking refuge

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, August 16, 2010 11:17am - 0 Comments

Michael Ignatieff says the government should have been more proactive about the MV Sun Sea, Vic Toews seems sort of to agree, while Keith Martin laments Mr. Toews’ tough talk and proposes a solution.

Martin suggested Canada work with the UN High Commission for Refugees to set up regional processing centres for refugees in Sri Lanka and other Southeast Asian countries.

Canadian immigration officials in those countries could better distinguish a legitimate refugee from a suspected terrorist, Martin said. It would also give refugees a cheap and safe way to come to Canada and strip the profit motive from human smuggling.

Tags: Keith Martin, Michael Ignatieff, MV Sun Sea, Sri Lanka, Tamil, Vic Toews

More by Aaron Wherry

s_c_f

A good idea from Martin. The real fix should be to Canada's immigration laws. In the meantime, regional centres are a good idea. However, the downside to a regional centre is that it's like an invitation for more refugees.

Patchouli

Refugees should be allowed to come here by invitation only?

s_c_f

Not sure how you got that out of my comment.

BC Blue

Wherry acting as Liberal press agent again…funny how he forgot the part where Iffy slags Australia:

“This is Canada, not Australia. That means Canada has principles, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our international obligations.”

Next

Um, what is wrong with stating that we have our own principles, we have a Charter, we have our own laws, we have our own international obligations?

Is any of that even incorrect?

Talk about blowing smoke. You guys just chase one faux-scandal after another. Always trying to make it about someone else. Attack attack attack. Never a discussion about policy. No wonder you are sinking quickly in the polls.

burlivespipe

Don’t confuse BCBlews. Getting rid of the charter is for another backroom CON secret cabinet meeting. Right now its all about the whiny census conscriptors!
Cats

Um no he never said our "own" principles. He laid out a list of things Canada has that Australia doesn't. That's clear from the structure of his statement.

Does Australia not have principles ? Does Australia not have international obligations ?

Meow Meow

Orson Bean

No, Australia is pretty much like North Korea. Except it's got Crocodile Dundee, Nicole Kidman & surfers.

http://onelinecritic.wordpress.com/ DirtyOldTown

You forgot Vegemite.
Orson Bean

My bad. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Il has a secret supply shipped in, along with his Cognac.

tedbetts

Seriously Cats??? You think Michael Ignatieff thinks Australia has no principles? You think Michael Ignatieff thinks Australia has no internationl obligations???

That's bizarre even for you.

You've become like an alleycat screeching over and over all night long prevent decent neighbourhood folk from sleeping, or having reasonable discussions.

Some alleycat needs a boot.

Cats

No I don't think that at all.

I think he made a careless and dismissive remark.

Seriously Ted Betts you think Ignatieff has NEVER committed a GAFFE ??

NEVER ?

He commits one every ten seconds. It was a gaffe. He should apologize!

Dead birds.
tedbetts

Oh Cats. This one is a veritable classic!

So let me get this straight. You are outraged over Ignatieff's comments even though you admit that you admit it is a faux outrage?! You think he has insulted Australians even though you admit even you don't even believe it!?! You think he should apologize for something even you admit he could not have meant!!

I know conservatives suffer from acute serialfauxoutragitis, but this one seems a stretch even for you.
Cats

When did I express any outrage whatsoever ?

I corrected someone who was trying to pretend that Ignatieff did not make remarks insulting to Australia.
I never commented on whether they were intentional or not.

You seem to be accusing people of "faux outrage" that they haven't expressed because it fits one of your precious story lines.

Hardly a classic at all.

Ignatieff is a gaffe machine. This is nothing new. This was a gaffe. Let's not pretend it wasn't.

The responsible thing for him to do is own up to his mistakes and clarify his remarks.

Best fishes.
tedbetts

He should apologize and clarify remarks even an obsessive Iggy hater like you thought were perfectly understandable. Riiiiight.

Another classic Cats.

What's the next faux outrage of the week for you guys? Let me know and I'll bring the popcorn.
Cats

Again with the faux outrage ? Honestly, I don't find Ignatieff relevant enough to bother much getting upset by anything he says.

I just think he'd be an international embarrassment as Prime Minister of the Australian media picked up his insinuations that their refugee policy of turning people away to foreign processing camps is somehow unprincipled or in violation of international obligations.

This guy is supposed to have foreign policy experience ??

If he could ever get his foot out of his mouth.

Cats away!

chet

The liberal apologists here see nothing wrong with Iggy openly suggesting that Australia lacks "principles".

tedbetts

Uh, Chet care to point out where he says the Australians don't have principles please.

Cats

Oh wow.

Now you've joined the apologists pretending Ignatieff did not make a gaffe.

We're not Australia. Here is a list of differences between us: Principles, Charter, International Obligations.

Do you not understand English Ted Betts ?

The guy is lousy at communications. He's a gaffe machine.

Get over it and stop covering for him.

Cats away!

Stewart_Smith

Does anyone know what happens to the ship? i.e. Do Canadian laws allow us to seize vessels that may have been involved in human smuggling?
Emily

Last year we processed 38,000 refugees.

All this yelling about a mere 490 Tamils has been whipped up by the Con govt.

Orson Bean

Yeah the Conservatives invented the whole story. Actually the ship doesn't even exist, the whole thing is being staged by actors on a soundstage.

Just like the moon landings.

Emily

The narrative about it is being whipped up by racist Cons.

Cats

LOL LOL LOL!

I wait waiting for it.

DIng Ding Ding We have a winner.

EMILY was the first to drop the "Racist" bomb!

Wow, explosion just went off. RACIST! There are RACISTS among us !!

Lol.

Anymore ghost stories to tell Emils ?

HIss.

ZestyMordant

Vic Toews, who always seems to come across like the cartoon character Yosemite Sam.

Thank you, I knew I recognized him from somewhere!
Style

Toews says we should do more to prevent refugee ships by stopping them in their country of origin. Ignatieff says we should phone the UN a few days before the boats arrive. You are using a very strange definition of "sort of agrees" here, Aaron.

Great to see Mr. Ignatieff's deepening understanding ot this country though, now he's able to confidently say it's not Australia.

Next

The sort of clearly refers to the fact that Toews agrees that we should be resolving this through other channels before they get here.

Style

That's not what Ignatieff is suggesting. He's just saying the government should have started processing these people before the ship docked. Toews is suggesting the boat should have been stopped in Sri Lanka.

burlivespipe

So is Toes suggesting we invade sovereign countries, blockade them, or just sign wink-wink refugee nudge-nudge deals with rightwing military juntas acting like governments… perhaps its about the ol’ boys club, then?

Style

Toews is responsible for the Canada Border Service Agency, so it's more likely that he's suggesting we post more CBSA officers overseas and have them work closely with local authorities. But he could also be arguing for a global Canadian empire, he certainly isn't denying that after all…

Standing By

As much as I'd like to despise anyone called a "human smuggler", is there really any way that refugees can escape from their Sri Lankan prison camps without resorting to "human smugglers?"

Also, I note that reports seem to indicate that this particular vessel was well organized for the three-month journey, had ample food and water, etc. We obviously aren't talking here about Haitians fleeing on flimsy rafts.

Anyway, I think the governemnt needs to do a better job demonizing the MV Sun Sea captain and crew. I'm starting to think that maybe these people are providing a valuable and humanitarian service to the minority Tamils trapped inside Sri Lanka.

God forbid that thought should take hold with other Canadians. I think they need to bring in Jogn Baird in to do some relief demonizing for Toews on this.

MostlyCivil

It would appear that this ship originated in the Tamil majority area of Sri Lanka. Not so sure about them all being "prison camp" escapees. I'll be quite interested to find out where they all came from.

Standing By

Is there a distinction to be made between "human smuggling" and assisting refugees in escaping from prison camps?

Just wondering.

LiveBloggin Junkie

$45,000

Standing By

So the difference between human smuggling and refugee support is the the price that is charged? Y'know, that just doesn't work for me.

I see "human smuggling" as something odious, that generally involves the capture of people involuntarily, or through false promises, so you can sneak them into a country and then hold them in some kind of bondage or servitude.

What we have in this case are people who paid their money, willingly got on a ship headed for Canada not so they could sneak in and hide, but so as to arrive openly, via the front door, where they could legally claim status as refugees.

This escape plan might violate our immigration procedures, and I appreciate that the people who organized this escape might be doing it for money. But still, this is hardly what I would consider "human smuggling."

MostlyCivil

Again, let's try and confirm the "prison camp" staement, shall we?

Standing By

Agreed. That is my current impression.

However, the question relevant to their status as refugees is whether the minority Tamils are being systematically discriminated against by their government, which I gather represents the majority Sinhalese group.

If so, then I presume they may have a legitimate claim to refugee status.
MostlyCivil

Indeed. I'll be quite happy that they go through the standard refugee claimant process. Ain't perfect, as they say, but it's a pretty impossible job to background someone from a war-torn country. One suspects a lot of hands have dirt on them in a civil war, and when the authority that grants travel documents is also the recent winner of the war, it adds a new layer of complexity.

burlivespipe

On a large scale, the CONs support that kind of business acumen. In fact, while its lacking a ‘bribing a dying elected official’ angle, it could have been part of Stephen Harper’s autobiographical 12-step plan to rise to power, once he gets off the can and finishes that hockey book…

Next

Seriously, what is wrong with stating that we have our own principles, we have a Charter, we have our own laws, we have our own international obligations?

Is any of that even incorrect?

Talk about blowing smoke. You guys just chase one faux-scandal after another. Always trying to make it about someone else. Attack attack attack. Never a discussion about policy. No wonder you are sinking quickly in the polls.

Standing By

What was incorrect, in my view, was suggesting that there was some sort of fix that could have been done before the refugees arrived that would have avoided the whole problem. I think that's nonsense.

Am I being too hard on Ignatieff on this? I hope so, and hope that it will soon be clear that there is no magic solution, and that he supports Canada's traditional generous approach to refugees.

From a policy standpoint, I don't see a lot of alternatives: either you deal with refugees patiently and humanely, according to international and Canadian laws, or you do what Australia is doing. I respect the fact that Ignatieff rejected the Aussie approach.

Anyway, my assumption is that the Harperites intended to let these refugees enter, but hoped to then focus on exposing them all as criminals and terrorists, while treating them harshly so as to amuse and entertain their base, while not offending many other Canadians.

That it hasn't gone this way shows that, when it comes to persuasive communications, even the Tamil diaspora organizations are better at it than the Harper government.

Stewart_Smith

This ship appears to be better than most, only 1 passenger died during the trip. It is not at all clear what could be done to prevent dangerous crossings, however since Canada is being used as a magnet to encourage people to risk this trips, we should try to mitigate the damage.

That said neither Ignatieff nor certainly Toews has articulated a practical plan for what could be done.

burlivespipe

Harper’s doing his best to stem the tide of these refugees… by delivering substandard, science-unfriendly and anger-driven government, soon people will be looking to Madagascar as a safer haven…

hollinm

No one wants to demonize these poor people. However, the fact is we cannot have ships or planes arriving with loads of people claiming refugee status. It is not fair to those who are trying to enter the country legally and it invites other people who want to jump the queue to come in Canada. I bet you the tamil refugees could care less about the census Wherry.

Emily

Or as Mackenzie King said, in sending the St. Louis, a ship carrying 900 European Jews fleeing Hitler's Germany away….'none is too many.'
Standing By

hollinm wrote: "No one wants to demonize these poor people."

I say BS to this. That was exactly the plan. Toews spent days telling us it was a boatload of criminals, terrorists and human smugglers.

That he has failed to do this successfully just shows how incapable the Harper government has made itself in credibly communicating anything to Canadians.
tedbetts

While I do think there ought to be limits to the overuse of the Ship St. Louis as a kind of emotional blackmail argument for policy today, it is nevertheless a poignant example of what Hollinm and Toews and the Conservatives want to happen now. There is no other simple way to put it. Every refugee claimant, illegimate or legitimate, will be "not fair to those who are trying to enter the country legally".

Immigration policy and refugee policy really ought not to be discussed together because they are wholly different issues. By conflating them, a conservative is saying that all refugee claims are invalid attempts at jumping the immigration lines when the reality is that many/most claims are real with real life and death consequences to those they claim are merely trying to jump the immigration queue.

Which is not to say let them all in and let them all land, which is no doubt what they will claim I am saying and the Liberals are saying, but that there are better solutions out there, that helping to save a life is a positive good that has nothing to do with immigration.

Blue

Thank-you for reminding us that there is a difference between immigration policy and a refugee policy. Only a cynical and evil Conservative would think that a potential immigrant to Canada would use a refugee claim as a means to jump the queue.
And thanks for pointing out that the evil Hollinm`s and Toews` of the world would like that ship to take those Tamil people back to be slaughtered in their homeland just like our beloved PM King did almost 70 years ago to the people on the good Ship St. Louis.
Oh, and those Conservatives are trying to destroy the country.

tedbetts

Well, Blue, I wouldn't go as far as you do and call them "evil", but if you think they are you are certainly entitled to tell the world that you think they are evil. I also don't think they are out to destroy the country, but again if you do, I respect your right to hold the opinion that the Conservatives are out to destroy the country.

Mike T.

Plus one billion.
http://onelinecritic.wordpress.com/ DirtyOldTown

There's always the Komgata Maru. Harper even apologized for it recently, I believe.

burlivespipe

StatsCan made him do it…

Blacktop

Nothing in the Charter gives any protection to these people off-shore is there? So they should be screened off-shore. In fact I rather like Austarlia's approach. We are becoming a sink-hole for whatever.and It takes eons to process them and by that time they've likely diosappeared into the mist that is cheap undocumented labour., sheltered by theri friends and relatives. Perhaps Emily could cry for our native indians. Charity begins at home.

Emily

Perhaps you could learn about the agreements we already have in place.

'Canada is obliged to not return people to their home country if they face persecution there under an agreement signed in 1969 that's set out in the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. The decision came in the aftermath of the Second World War, a result of the consequences faced by thousands of Jewish people who tried to flee Germany but were refused entry by other countries.'
Standing By

Blacktop wrote: "We are becoming a sink-hole for whatever."

If Canada wasn't such a sink-hole, my "whatever" ancestors would likely have starved to death in Ireland during the famine.

I guess the lumber and land companies who recruited them to come to Canada, and who forced them to pay off their passage as indentured servants, were just "human smugglers." Too bad Vic Toews wasn't around to fume at them.

Kevin

There would have been no fuming, trust me. Your ancestors were white.

MostlyCivil

You may wish to read up on the long and varied history of cultural relations in North America over the last couple on centuries. Or even the last few decades.

The Jews were white, as were the Irish, the Hungarians, Ukranians, Poles, Italians etc. All had to deal waith varying levels of racism. The Irish had it pretty bad, in their first days coming over. The Jews were as white as snow, and yet that didn't help them land. Do a little reading, and you might be unpleasantly surprised at how many of the "white" race were first treated here.

amherstvw

My Irish half agrees with you. Meanwhile my French quarter is warring in my bosom with the Scots.
My Irish guys were not just white, they were Orange … (cheering heard in far-off Ireland)

And I thought Jason Kenney was Minister of Immigration. I suppose after all that hard work courting new immigrant votes, one would be silly to be seen impartially applying Canada's refugee and immigration policies.

Uh … do we still allow immigration ? … I have not kept up with the announcebots and re-re-re-announcebots.

MostlyCivil

You're a secret papist, that's why!

Papist!

Mike T.

It's not the offshoredness, it's the actions of the Canadian governmetedness that invokes the Charter.

Style

I'm pretty sure there are righs and freedoms in Australia too, but somehow they can turn away ships….Are Aghan detainees protected by the Charter? Does it require an extradition treaty with Afghanistan to transfer them? Can they challenge that decision in our courts?

Mike T.

Australia does have rights and freedoms to some extent, but not ones with constitutional authority. It would be interesting to see what, legally, would happen if we used force to prevent a boat of refugee claimants from docking, but once they've started the process they get procedural fairness.

to the extent that the Canadian government is involved in holding Afghan detainees, the charter may indeed be invoked (see the Khadr line of cases esp. the Supreme Court's decision).

Style

The rights and freedoms have consitutional authority, they just aren't neceesarily written out explicitly. It's equivalent to the UK's unwritten constitution.

And Khadr was never in Canadian custody, his Canadian citizenship was the basis for that chain of cases.
Mike T.

Not so, the role of Canadian officials in questioning him also featured prominently. While the citizenship definitely helped, it may not be an essential element as long as you are dealing witht he Canadian government.
Style

You're more right than you let on – the actions of the Canadian government seem to be the SCC's concern in these cases: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/20….

This makes a great deal of sense. The case also outlines that, while the Charter doesn't always apply to Canadian government actions outside of Canada, there are specific circumstances where it would. For example, if our treatment of detainees does not accord with our international obligations or with fundamental justice. Thanks for the nudge to actually read through the case.
Olaf

Just for clarify, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by common law (in Australia) can generally be overridden by clear legislative pronouncements. So in this case, the court might rule that the government can't deny individuals under their care procedural fairness where the government agents weren't acting under clear powers granted to them by legislation (their actions would be ultra vires), but the government could then legislate (or promulgate regulations pursuant to legislation) that made their intention clear.

The UK is different, as the Human Rights Act allows courts to declare government action inconsistent with the UKs human rights committments (which the government normally accedes to, but isn't legally required to as is the case here or in the US), and I believe they have a treaty obligation to abide by the pronouncements coming out of Strasbourg regarding the European Convention on Human Rights. So it has a more 'strong form' of judicial review than Australia, where Parliament is relatively free to legislate as it will.

In short, and for what it's worth, I agree with Mike T. (despite my better judgment). :)

Orson Bean

One of the big reasons that Canada is considered such an attractive destination for refugees — and human smugglers (who have their clients claim refugee status) — goes all the way back to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Singh case in the 1980s. Basically, the decision says that the Charter applies to anyone as soon as they stick their little toe on Canadian soil. Once that happens, they get the full array of procedural protections under the Charter — no summary proceedings, etc. Canada is simply a much more attractive place to make a refugee claim as a result. Unless Singh is overturned, which is extremely unlikely, we will continue to be a favoured destination.

Emily

Actually, it goes back to WWII.

''Canada is obliged to not return people to their home country if they face persecution there under an agreement signed in 1969 that's set out in the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. The decision came in the aftermath of the Second World War, a result of the consequences faced by thousands of Jewish people who tried to flee Germany but were refused entry by other countries."

Orson Bean

Canada is limited in what it can do there, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in the Singh case. Singh basically stands for the principle that we can't "overly streamline" our refugee-determination system. The same Charter protections and principles of "natural justice" apply to refugees as apply to Canadian citizens. So, for example, some sort of summary procedure that does not amount to a full hearing on the merits would likely not pass the tests set out in Singh.

Many experts directly attribute the backlogs in our system to the Singh decision. Our only alternative is to pour more money into the system so we can hire more adjudicators, investigators, etc. I don't consider invoking the Charter's notwithstanding clause to be a realistic alternative — it would be, among other things, politically toxic.
Emily

It should take less than 5 minutes.

Next!

Stamp!

Next!

true north

That was the sound of travel visa stamp ''Back'' to Sri Lanka "…….That was just toooo easy !……..

Emily

I'm sorry, I don't find it funny that sending people to their deaths is considered 'toooo easy'.

true north

I don't think sending people to their death is funny either…But making fun of your reply was…..But you knew that, right ?

Emily

If you say so.

Style

But rubber-stamping the entry of criminals and terrorists into Canada, that's hilarious.

true north

Indubitably….
madeyoulook

Well, allowing a five-minute maximum for "(Stamp) – Next!" is hilarious. Does anyone expect such expedited processing by a PSAC-represented bureaucrat to take less than a half hour per?
true north

No not as a rule, but I have seen them kick it up a notch around personal assesment time though .

Sick of It

So I take it you are a refugee? Why don't you get a job and pay taxes like the rest of us?

Style

Do you really want him taking the job of a decent Canadian? I think you should specify that he should have brought his job with him from wherever he's fleeing. Lousy tax-grubbing, job-stealing refugees.

chet

Iggy openly suggests another country, a close ally and important democracy on the world stage,

lacks "principles".

And Wherry whitewashes it.

Precisely because it is completely unbecoming of a head of state (the position Iggy's applying for).

Newsworthy? Absolutely. Bad for the Liberals? Of course. So under the carpet it goes.

Today's "progressive" media.

In other totally unrelated news, Gallup has conducted another study which shows trust in our media is at all time historical lows.