Conservative “war criminal” round-up a made for TV spectacle

Some groups are only comfortable if they have enemies to fight, real or imagined. If you were wondering how the Conservative government would adjust to having a majority government and a rookie opposition, don’t worry: where they can’t find enemies, they’ll just make them up.

It’s been interesting to follow this drama around the government’s recent “war criminal” round-up, where they flashed names and photos (but scant details) of a so-called “gang of 30” immigrants deemed inadmissible for immigration to Canada for alleged conflict-related activities in their home countries. These people are here but need to be sent home, and the government wants the help of the public tracking down these “most-wanted” persons.

Actually, what has been more interesting is how the Conservatives have tried to pick fights over this program where fights don’t necessarily exist. For example, I think most Canadians agree people deemed ineligible for admission to Canada, particularly if there are questions over their activities in an overseas conflict, should be sent home. I think most of us are in agreement on that central point.

Where there is disagreement though, a point that the government and the haphazard editorial writers at the Globe choose to ignore, is how the government is going about this. It seems abundantly clear this program is less about identifying and deporting alleged war criminals, and more about politics. Creating a media spectacle, appearing “tough on crime” and trying to pick a fight, real or imagined.

For example, there are reports that provincial and local police didn’t learn about this “wanted list” until the government held the press conference, and that there were even known addresses for some of these people. It raises the question, just how hard were immigration authorities really looking for these people?

The government has also taken pains to try to play-up the history and danger these people post to inflame public opinion. If they’re inadmissible they’re inadmissible and they should go, but let’s remember these people haven’t been charged with a crime here or at home. They’re not being extradited. Branding them war criminals approaches hyperbole. Particularly when you’re tarring them with that brush but refuse to provide details, citing privacy reasons.

That this is a public relations exercise is underlined by the near daily press conferences with Harper cabinet ministers trumpeting yet another capture of one of these dangerous fugitives.

It’s become reality television meets the immigration and justice systems. If this pilot episode is a ratings success, expect a four-season renewal to follow. It may be compelling television, but it’s no way to run an immigration system. Particularly when this is a time we should be having an open and frank debate about reforming our immigration system.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Welcome to Canada! Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Or the Cub Scouts?

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has issued a new visa questionnaire with some pretty intrusive questions that will likely be generating controversy soon, and could lead to more visa fights and retaliatory measures against Canada, such as with its ongoing dispute with Mexico.

On Saturday, John Ibbitson high-lighted the issue in the Globe, reporting on the questions related to military service and the objections raised by the Russian government:

But it’s the military questions that bother the Russians most. The new forms require any visa applicant who has served in the military, police or civil defence services to disclose when they served, what unit they served in, where that unit was located and what were their responsibilities.

In Russia, which enforces mandatory military service, providing such information to a foreign government is punishable by up to four years in prison.

Russian and Canadian officials are to discuss the new visa requirements next month. But Mr. Petrov warned that if there is no progress, Russia may retaliate by imposing equally restrictive requirements on Canadians applying for a Russian visa.

“We would be happy not to have that,” he maintained. “But our primary responsibility is to preserve the rights of our own citizens.”

While Ibbitson's story focused on the military questions, I was more interested in something he only mentioned in passing: the question on political membership.

You can download the form as a PDF here. This is the question on political involvement:

4. Were you ever a member of a political party or other group or organization?
Give details of organizations you have supported, been a member of or been associated with. Include any political, social, youth or student organization, trade unions, professional associations. Do not use abbreviations.

So in addition to mentioning my Liberal Party of Canada membership, I guess I'd also have to mention the year in high school I worked at Superstore and was in the United Food and Commercial Workers union. And possibly also my two years in Beavers. I did one night of Cubs, but decided to quit.

The questions on military service are even more extensive.

2. A) Did you serve in any military, militia, or civil defence unit or in an intelligence organization or police force (including obligatory national service, reserve or volunteer units)?

B) Did you receive special training?

C) Did you participate in any form of combat?

I guess I'd have to mention my teenage years in the Air Cadets. No combat, unless you include dodge ball during monthly sports nights.

Some inquiry regarding military service is probably appropriate. But remember, we're not talking about immigration here. We're talking about visas for tourists, business travelers and other temporary visitors. Where is the relevance of asking about someone's history of political involvement, unless it directly relates to the purpose of their visit?

Of course, if someone doesn't want to ask these questions, they're free to not come visit Canada. And their country is free to make us answer questions just as obtrusive. Ask the tourism industry how the little tit for tat with Mexico has worked out.

So is asking unnecessarily obtrusive questions really worth the cost in lost business and travel opportunities from visitors bypassing Canada, and increased hassle and inconvenience for Canadians that will face retaliatory measures?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Is the immigration insanity set to come north of the border?

It has been troubling for me to watch the news coverage and commentary around the arrival of a boatload of potential Tamil refugees in Canada this week, and it has left me wondering if I lived in the Canada I thought I lived in after all. Certainly, it seems that a re-examination of what has typically been seen as our values and attitudes is in order.

My concern isn’t necessarily about policy but more about tone, since the government doesn't seem to be doing anything substantive (yet) to back-up their ranting. I’m uneasy about boats arriving on our shores, I believe human smuggling is a heinous crime, and I don’t want terrorists released in our midst. But I also believe we should welcome legitimate refugees, no matter how they get here.

There are short-term and long-term issues here. Short-term, I believe we should process these people through the refugee process; those who meet the criteria (legitimate fear for their safety, persecution, etc.) can stay; those who do not should go. That is happening. The crew should be prosecuted for human smuggling, the ship seized, an investigation to find their sponsors launched, and those people pursued through international legal channels.

Longer-term, I think there needs to be policy changes, both domestic and international.

Complaints that many refugee claimants abuse the system by staying after being ruled ineligible, and that claims take too long to process, are legitimate. This isn’t an issue unique to these Tamils however; it’s a deeper issue with our immigration and refugee system that should be addressed by the government as part of its wider systemic reforms. And if we are being targeted by abusers for the laxness of our system, the answer is simple: fix the system so we're less attractive to those that would abuse it while still welcoming legitimate claimants.

Internationally, we need concrete efforts to deter and prosecute human smuggling. But we also need to look at other initiatives, and examine the root causes of such incidents. For example, working with the UN to improve the situation on the ground in places like Sri Lanka, and setting-up regional refugee processing centres overseas so that claims can be processed and legitimate refugees can come to Canada and other countries legally, without resorting to paying human smugglers for illegal passage.

There are very real issues that can be debated here, from policy reforms to more philosophical questions around what our refugee policy should be. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to be having that debate. Instead, it seems as though the worst tactics of the U.S. Mexican immigration debate are coming to Canada.

We see Vic Toews and Stephen Harper stoking security fears and using the story to try to change the channel from issues that have been hurting them. We see Sun Media going all Rambo, seemingly implying we should sink the next boat that approaches our shores, or shoot them all or something, and warning you they’re stealing our tax dollars and our health care services. And in Toronto, we see mayoral candidate Rob Ford seemingly promising to wall-off Toronto to any further immigration (well, some immigration, to be sure). And he could actually win. And such attitudes and opinions aren’t exactly isolated.

It seems astounding though to be seeing this in a nation of immigrants. Wasn’t it not long ago that this government was apologizing for the Komagata Maru incident, when in 1914 a ship of Indian immigrants was prevented from docking in Canada over laws designed to prevent Asian emigration? Have we forgotten that our laws that prevent us from blocking ships of immigrants from landing were enacted following the shame of the Holocaust and World War Two, when Canada and many other countries barred our doors to Jewish refugees trying to flee the spread of Nazism?

I think we should reform our immigration system to increase capacity, process claims more quickly and ensure denied claimants are sent home quickly. And we should crack down on human smugglers, not human victims.

But let’s not lose sight of our history, our values, and that everyone here is from somewhere else.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jason Kenney to imported poor children: Forced labour and abuse, so what!

You may have read that Britain is apologizing for shipping thousands of poor children off to the colonies in the 19th century, including Canada, where they often faced abuse and forced labour. You may have heard that, on behalf of Australia their Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd had apologized for the abuse and conditions the children faced in his country.

How about Canada, which took even more of the poor children than Australia and also treated the children to abuse and labour? Yeah, not so much. It seems Jason Kenney doesn't see the need:

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says there's no need for Canada to apologize for abuse and exploitation suffered by thousands of poor children shipped here from Britain starting in the 19th century.

...

But he says there's limited public appetite for official government apologies for tragic events of the past and no demand for one in this particular case.

Really, Jason Kenney? Let's take this thing piece by piece. First of all, you say there's "limited public appetite for official government apologies for tragic events of the past" and so sorry abused poor kids, no apology for you?

That's rich coming from a minister in one of the most apology-happy governments since confederation. The Harper Conservatives have apologized for residential school abuse, for the 1914 Komagata Maru incident, for the Chinese Head Tax, the internment of Japanese-Canadians during WW II... All worthy and warranted apologies, to be sure, but it seems rich for this government to now to claim apology apathy.

Second, there's no demand for an apology, Jason? What does that mean? It seems the message is maybe Canada has done all kinds of bad things, but if no one is upset enough to lobby us about it then it's not worth apologizing over.

I'm sorry, Jason (opps, I apologized) but that's ridiculous. If something is wrong, then it's wrong. If something warrants an apology, then it warrants an apology. Lobbying or public pressure shouldn't be the deciding factor. All that should matter is if it was wrong, or not.

If you want some angry people with a group name though Jason, how's this:

Sidney Baker, 76, of Home Children Canada, said he also expects an apology from the Canadian government for the treatment of children who were scooped off streets in the U.K. and shipped to Canada between 1869 and 1939. ...

Baker said the victims and their families have never asked for compensation from the Canadian government - only an apology.

He said the group has been told that Ottawa has been working on an apology for some time.

Baker claimed that "between three and half and four million Canadians are descendants of the Home Children."

So there's demand that Minister Kenney insists "doesn't exist" even though the government told this group an apology was in the works. As I said though, public pressure aside, is an apology warranted here? Let's review:

Canadian Citizenship and Immigration says on its website that many of the children, most of whom ranged from eight to ten years of age, came from families of the urban poor who could not care for them properly.

CIC says most of the children were runaways or abandoned, but some were also orphans.

Children were generally sent to Canada without the knowledge or permission of their parents, a move made legal by the British Parliament.

Studies show that more than two-thirds were abused by their patrons in Canada, Home Children says.

According to CIC, it was only after the death of one of the home-children at an Ontario farm in 1895, that Canadians would learn about the British program.

George Everitt Green, a young agricultural labourer from England, died seven months after arriving in Canada, his body emaciated and covered with sores, visible scars of the cruel treatment the CIS says he received from his employer.

Other home children committed suicide in Canada between 1923 and 1924, which prompted an investigation by the British Parliament and led to Canada's Immigration Branch introducing a regulation in 1925 that prohibited charities from bringing children under 14 years of age to this country.

Yeah, sure Jason. No need to apologize for our nation's role in that dark chapter of our history.

For god's sake, do the right thing here. You can even "paraphrase" the Australian speech, if you want. If the Conservatives insist on hewing to Kenney's ignorant, embarrassing and demonstrably false line on this, the only lesson that can be taken is that the Harper government only apologizes when there's an identifiable voter group involved that they can woo.

So, sorry abused poor British kids.

Maybe you should get organized and move to key swing ridings and then Jason Kenney will care about you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Jason Kenney: The election speculation ate my homework

Expect this to become a common, oft-repeated refrain from the Harper Conservatives, however longer the NDP decides to keep their government alive: we'd do great things, but the election speculation ate our homework:

Important reforms to Canada's immigration system ranging from changes to refugee asylum to better regulation of immigration consultants are on hold because of the threat of an election, says Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Kenney made the comment to reporters as he announced the government will fast track immigration and visa applications for citizens of the Philippines impacted by this week's typhoon.

"I have been working on a number of important files, including better regulation of immigration consultants, improvements to the nanny program, the live-in caretaker program and ... reform of the asylum system," he said. "All of those things have been put on hold, indefinite hold, because of the constant election threats."

Umm, why Jason? The Conservatives have been governing with a minority for nearly four years now. Minorities mean the constant threat of elections. But that doesn't mean you stop governing, and it doesn't mean you can't get things done. And it hasn't stopped the Harper Conservatives from doing plenty of other things.

So it's pretty silly for Kenney to be blaming election speculation for putting any plans for immigration reform on hold. It tends to give more credence to my earlier speculation about his desire to "manufacture a crisis" in the immigration system. If he trying to worsen the situation to build a case for unpopular reforms?

No doubt this will be fed into their next "parliament isn't working so we need a majority to do stuff" narrative, notwithstanding the fact that on this issue they haven't really tried to do it yet anyways.

Fact is, I agree reforms are needed, although I'm sure Jason and I will disagree on the details. But rather than blaming election speculation, rather than playing political games, Kenney should just put his proposals on the table and have a debate with parliament and with Canadians on the best-way forward.

A real debate on important issues? Probably too much to hope for.

P.S. Still waiting for Kenney's thoughts on his colleagues bashing the idea of pension support for senior citizen immigrants.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

And suddenly Jason Kenney goes quiet

The Conservatives are jumping all over a little private members bill introduced recently by Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla. It's similar to a bill quietly introduced by former Liberal MP in the last parliament, that won support from the BQ and NDP before dying on the order paper when the Harper Conservatives forced the last election. It's a bill that deals with pension benefits for immigrant seniors:

The minority Conservative government is in full opposition mode over a Liberal MP's private member's bill that would allow immigrant seniors to qualify for Old Age Security after spending only three years in the country.

Of course, as is their practice, the Conservatives are actively spreading fear and misinformation about the proposal. Diane Finley (she who spread propaganda that inflated the cost of the Liberal EI reform proposal by several billion dollars) is up top her own tricks again, telling people the proposal would confer full benefits on immigrant seniors after three years, when that's just not true:

Under her proposal, Dhalla said, immigrant seniors who have lived in the country for three years would qualify only for partial OAS benefits of $38.77 a month — nowhere near the maximum payment of $516.96 a month collected by native or foreign-born residents who have lived here for 40 years.

So, Conservatives spread misinformation and distort the truth, nothing new there.

But what is interesting is that, as the Conservatives "quietly rub their hands in glee", as Finley hits the media to distort the facts once again, and as the Conservatives paint images of entitled immigrants feeding at the public through as red meat for their base, we're not hearing a word from Jason Kenney.

Yes, Jason Kenney, the Conservative immigration minister, he who has made it his mission (and a fairly successful one, at that) to make Conservative inroads with immigrant communities. Kenney, who was never misses a cultural or immigrant-related event.

Where is Jason Kenney on this issue, as Finley goes to town on the truth and his Conservative colleauges stoke-up the anger over the notion of givign immigrant seniors even minimal pension benefits? Why isn't Kenney joining in the Conservative chorus denouncing Dhalla's proposal?

One wonders what Jason's new friends have to say about his old friends.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maybe Jason Kenney is manufacturing an immigration crisis

Sorry Jason Kenney, but it appears I wasn’t alone in my tin-foil hat wearing when it comes to the suggestion your government may be trying to manufacture a crisis in the immigration system to push through a dramatic overhaul of the system.

From an interesting article in Embassy Mag, here’s former IRB chairman Peter Showler, rebutting Kenney’s contention that the Conservative dithering on filling vacant IRB slots was NOT a major contributor to the current immigration backlog:

Just four years ago however, Mr. Showler points out that the IRB had an inventory of approximately 21,000 claims, with a capacity to decide 25,000 claims annually. But because the government has failed to reappoint experienced members and fill vacancies left by departed members, the IRB is now saddled with a backlog that exceeds 65,000 claims.

And here’s Audrey Macklin, an associate professor at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law, going even further and stating it even more clearly:

"[The government] manufactured the backlog," Ms. Macklin said. "You have a situation where the government took a system that was functioning, broke it, blamed asylum seekers for breaking it, and is now using that as an excuse to dismantle the entire system. There's something pernicious about that, and disingenuous at best."

And piling-on, the Mexican government contends it was the very fact that the system was becoming so backlogged and claims delayed due to the IRB vacancies THAT CAUSED the spike in Mexican immigration claims:

Without enough members, the processing time has slowed—something the Mexican government points to as the root cause of the multiplying number of cases from Mexico in recent years. In 2008, more than 9,400 Mexicans filed refugee claims in Canada, making it the number one source country for refugee claims.

"Organizations have taken advantage of Canadian response times to assess refugee claims, where excessive delays have become appealing in the filing of illegitimate cases," the Mexican government said in a statement on July 13.

It’s almost like a chicken and the egg situation: is the system backlogged because there’s more Mexicans, or are there more Mexicans because the system is backlogged?

It’s increasingly clear to me, however, that the Conservatives, at the very least, have deliberately worsened this situation we’re now in. What they intend to do with their manufactured crisis, I suppose, we’ll have to wait and see.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Canada's immigration system: Problems, yes, but what's the fix?

I can't say I've ever closely looked at the ins-and-outs of Canada's immigration system. I have a few broad ideas of what I think it should be: open, but within reason. Welcome to those with skills and education we need that are looking to make a contribution and build a better life. Welcome to those fleeing genuine persecution and strife. Priority for family reunification. And better recognition of foreign credentialing.

But really, I think like most Canadians by birth I have little to no idea how the system actually works, beyond vague ideas and the exaggerations proffered by those on either extreme of the debates.

I bring this up, of course, because of the decision this week by citizenship and immigration minister Jason Kenney to add two countries to the list of those that we require visas from to visit Canada: the Czech Republic and Mexico. It's a significant decision, one which has generated strong reaction in all three countries and one with potentially far-reaching consequences.

Kenney's argument essentially boils down to this: the immigration system is hopelessly backlogged, immigration applications from these two countries have spiked in recent years, they make up the bulk of the application pool, and the bulk of the applications are rejected as ineligible. But it costs time and money to process them, and meanwhile other, more worthy applications are greatly delayed. Instituting visas will help to weed out the false applicants, and make the system work more quickly for genuine applicants.

In isolation, I can agree with that. If two countries are disproportionately clogging the system, that's an issue we should deal with. But I'm not convinced a visa requirement is necessarily the way to do it. Are there other options? I honestly don't know. Maybe there's not. But requiring visas has a range of spin off impacts, so its a question to consider carefully, balancing the pros and cons.

And on the wider problem of the immigration backlog, I agree again that something needs to be done to fix the system. But the system wouldn't be so badly backlogged if Kenney and his successors, Diane Finley and Monte Solberg, hadn't continually dithered so badly over the years on appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The chronic under-staffing of the IRB has been a major contributor to the backlog in the system.

That's what sparked my tweet this morning that led to my Twitter exchange with Kenney, when I pondered whether Kenney was attempting to "manufacture a crisis" in the immigration system. My thinking being, let's say the Conservatives want to made substantial, philosophical changes to the immigration system. They need to build public support. There may be some systemic issues with the system, but not enough to build a mood for change. But let IRB vacancies build to create a chronic backlog and hey, the system's broke, we've got to do something! Then throw in some visa fireworks, and the mood for change becomes strong.

Conspiracy theorish? Perhaps, but it's not really that far fetched. And it worked for John Snobelen. Well, at least until he talked about it. What I'm more concerned about though is just what change they might have in mind. So far, Kenney has been vague on the details. But when I think back to the comments from the Conservatives on dual citizens, or the rescue of citizens from Lebanon, I worry.

While we wait for though, some thoughts on the Czech Republic and Mexico.

Czech Republic

Yes, there's been a spike in immigration applications from the Czech Republic. But is there a valid reason for it? The answer would seem to be quite possibly yes, with the reports of an increasingly hostile persecution by some elements in Czech society of their Roma population. Humanitarian immigration has always been a fundamental part of our immigration system, and so we do have a moral obligation if there is genuine persecution.

But at the same time, we're one country and we can't handle the entire population. And that can't be the answer alone anyways. The Czech government has a responsibility to its citizens, and if they're abdicating it we have an obligation to speak-up. And where is the European Union here? Why aren't they acting on the Roma issue? When I read about the EU threatening retaliatory measures against Canada for the visas I want to say hey, bite me EU, why don't you address the root cause here: Roma persecution in the Czech Republic.

So, I'm conflicted. I'm tempted to say let them all in, but we can't handle those numbers and at the same time, it's like we're letting the EU and the Czechs abdicate their responsibilities and just dump it on us.

And then there's the likely retaliatory measures requiring visas are likely to bring, from trade sanctions to requiring visas for Canadians to lost tourism revenue. I think just slapping visas seems like an inadequate solution. We need to find a way to weed the genuine immigration claimants from the fakers, accept those fleeing genuine persecution, and at the same time pressure the EU and the Czechs to act so the climate improves and the exodus ends.

The Harper government seems unwilling to go down this road though. The official Canadian line seems to minimize the Roma claims, and some more extreme Conservative commenters outright mock them. Instead, we seem determined to just turn a blind eye and slam the door shut, and that's reprehensible.

And usually wouldn't be tolerated by most Canadians, were there not a crisis being manufactured...

Mexico

The Roma issue has been ongoing for some time, but Mexico's inclusion caught me and, I think many causal observers, by surprise. They're our NAFTA partner. A popular vacation destination. When we hear about Mexican immigration problems its usually in the US where its a right-wing hot-button. And while they're building border fences, even they haven't considered visas.

Here the hit for us is likely to be tourism-related. I know lots of Canadians venture south and, frankly, Mexico needs the dollars so I don't see them slapping a retaliatory visa requirement on Canadians (except our diplomats, perhaps). But apparently many Mexicans vacation and study in Canada, its a large industry, and with the tourism sector already hurting because of the down economy, the visa requirement is going to cost the industry at a time it can ill afford to be taking any hits.

And its not just the visa requirement, which on some grounds you can make an argument for. But you need to have the infrastructure in place to process and issue visas without making it a huge pain in the ass for people. I read somewhere than the only place in Mexico to get a visa is in Mexico City at the Canadian embassy, and people were camping-out outside to get them. That's crazy, and most people won't suffer through that. But with the cutbacks the Conservatives have made to the foreign affairs budget over the years, its not surprising.

Wrapping-up

While I can understand the arguments for why visas may be necessary, even if I don't agree with all of them, the fact is this is just addressing the symptoms, and its not going to fix the issues in the end. We should be looking at why people are trying to flee these two countries in abnormal countries in the first place. And we should be looking at how we can reform the immigration system to better handle and process claimants, so we don't have to throw these kinds of walls up.

In today's modern world, walls aren't the answer anymore.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Twittering on immigration with Jason Kenney

Over the course of the day I've exchanged a few tweets back and forth with Conservative immigration Minister Jason Kenney on Twitter, on the topic of his recent announcement of visa requirements for visitors from the Czech Republic and Mexico.

I'll have more to say in length about this decision, the myriad consequences, and what it may mean for our immigration system, at a later point, when I have the time to compose a lengthier commentary.

But for now, I did want to share by Twitter exchange with Kenney for those of you not on Twitter, and say that while I naturally disagree with him on many things, I give Jason credit for embracing the medium and using it to engage those of other viewpoints. It's good to see.

P.S. I'm pretty jazzed about the tin-foil hat comment. That's going on the "Praise for A BCer in Toronto" greatest hits board, for sure.

Me: Have a feeling @minjk is channeling John Snobelen by manufacturing a crisis in immigration system. ? is, what will he do with it? #cdnpoli

Kenney: @BCerInToronto Take off the tin foil hat.No "crisis," but serious, longstanding problem: taking 2+yrs to finalize refugee claims isn't good

Me: @MinJK I agree changes needed, although not sure what they should be. But the still unfilled IRB positions are only worsening the situation.

Kenney: @BCerInToronto Fair point. I've made 33 appointments & 10 re-appointments to the IRB. Its now @ nearly 85% occupancy, and will soon be @ 95%

Kenney: @BCerInToronto But even if the IRB was operating @ full occupancy for the past 3 years, there would still be a huge backlog.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If Stephen Harper made an honest immigration ad...

...it might look something like this.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper gets it wrong, again

Apologies for the blogging hiatus of late. I’ve just been swamped at the place they pay me to write, and I’m also concerned that blogging might cause heart attacks.

I did want to briefly pop my head up though to address these comments from Deceivin’ Stephen:

"I know the Liberal party wants to go back to what they consider the good old days, the good old days where backlogs just kept getting longer, where one needed special access to government members, where, frankly, they gave priority to strippers in terms of immigration policy," said Harper, referring to a 2004 controversy over former Liberal immigration minister Judy Sgro's decision to award a visa to a Romanian exotic dancer.

Little problem there Steve. The backlog has actually gotten much larger under the Conservative watch, because you’re not appointing enough adjudicators. Must be having trouble finding enough Conservative partisans to fill the roles.

Canada's backlog of refugee claims is soaring to record numbers due to the government's failure to appoint sufficient adjudicators, says the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The backlog has ballooned along with the number of board vacancies since Prime Minister Stephen Harper took office in February 2006.

…In its recent report to Parliament, the board projects that the number of pending claims will soar to 62,300 this year. That's more than triple the line-up when Harper took office and well beyond the previous record of 52,325 pending claims in 2002.

…The board was taking an average of 11.7 months to process a refugee claim when the Harper government took office. But Goodman says the processing time is "significantly affected'' by the lack of adjudicators and is now approaching 16.5 months.

So if it was the good old days under the Liberals, backlog wise, then it must be double happy days now. And on the stripper issue, as I showed about a year ago that dog just won’t hunt.

Oh, and I agree with Telegdi. It’s a horrible bill, and I wouldn’t vote for it either. As for a party that agrees it’s horrible and votes for it in first reading anyway, pledging to fix it in committee? Sounds like a nice plan. But I agree with Dan. I’d say those words could come back to haunt them, but I’m kind of numb to it by now.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Je me souviens

Stephen Harper on immigration today:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper heaped praise on Canada's record of both accommodating and integrating immigrants, rejecting the notion that the country is facing a crisis involving newcomers who won't embrace Canadian values.

“Notwithstanding the debate in Quebec and some of the debate during the Ontario election campaign, I first of all think immigrants come to this country to belong to this country,” Mr. Harper said in a lengthy answer. “I also think that the Canadian approach to this, which is a mixture of integration and accommodation, for lack of a better term, is the right approach.”

And Stephen Harper in immigration just six years ago:

"You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from Eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society."
- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, in Report Newsmagazine, 2001.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Northern exposure

Interesting story on Salon.com about U.S. military deserters from the Iraq coming to Canada, and how under Steve Harper’s Conservative government the environment is decidedly less welcoming than it was back in the day. Some troubling examples as well of Canadian authorities working on the behest of the U.S. Army to track down, arrest and even harass deserters.

Northern exposure
American soldiers are fleeing the Iraq war for Canada -- and U.S. officials may be on their trail. North of the border is no longer the safe haven it was during the Vietnam era.

By Gregory Levey

May 3, 2007 | TORONTO -- One morning in late February, Canadian police arrived at a house in the small town of Nelson, British Columbia, and arrested Kyle Snyder, a U.S. soldier who had gone AWOL from the Army. Snyder, a former combat engineer who left the United States in April 2005 to avoid deployment for a second tour in Iraq, was detained for several hours but never charged with a crime. It remains unclear why he was arrested.

The local police said they were told to detain Snyder by the Canadian Border Services Agency but acknowledged that the immigration agency was not their "original source" for information on Snyder. In fact, Snyder was released after a Canadian immigration official contacted the local police and informed them there was no basis for Snyder's detention. After he was back home, Snyder said he was told by Josie Perry, the Canadian immigration official who ordered his release, that his arrest had come at the behest of officials from the U.S. Army.
(more)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers