Beside the
Globe's chorus of propaganda on March 31
and April 1st
essentially saying "we need new refugee
legislation and we love this" ,
Peter Showler's Op Ed in the Citizen
March 31 is at least informative.
He describes refugee status decision
making sympathetically. However,
his message "all countries
mean well" in seeking fast and fair
decisions on refugee status is a
bit too generous.The truth is closer to
Showler's position when
he notes that inadequately resourced
decision making is among the
reasons to justify changes.
I
have the
advantage of having heard this same
chorus for change with the same
rationale several times over the years.
Before the 1989 changes, the
Immigration Appeal Board ran a backlog
and had delays - surprise - that
was a major rationale for changes. The
text books say the IAB
backlog was inefficiency. That may
be in part true. But an
equally reasonable hypothesis is that
the then IAB was under resourced
just as the IRB was under resourced with
lack of appointments in the
Fall 2009 lead up to these
late March 2010 legislative proposals.
Despite the 1989 backlog, access
to
the then IAB was granted to all
claimants without the then "leave" test
by the Supreme Court's Singh et al
decision April 4 1985. As the court
said in that decision, administrative
convenience is a poor argument
for
limiting rights. The Globe still cannot
understand that - which is sad
for a major national newspaper!
Holding
back funds
for tribunals and courts is an old trick
for generating a rationale for
changes in law wanted for other reasons.
Since the best metaphor for
international affairs is kids in a
school playground, the Globe may
come closer to the real rationale for
the changes than most when its
writers note that Canada doesn't want to
be the sucker on the block.
Europe has "safe country of origin" - so
let Canada have one too.
Canada doesn't want to attract refugees
more than them. And while we're
at it, let's cheapen things down a
bit. The GLobe seems mortified
that Canada should have to pay for a
refugee procedure which, of
course, is what the 1951 Convention
relating to the status of refugees
requires. So the Globe is content
cheapening. And Canada is
moving towards the US model of
terribly independent asylum decision
makers - after all the government
got away
with terribly independent adjudicators
making for foreigners what are
really habeas corpus decisions -
prision review decisions
normally made by a court judge.
I
am at a loss for
the Globe writers' uncritical chorus of
support for this miserable
rights restricting bundle over the last
couple of days. Jeffrey Simpson
or the editors can be expected to go
into a doctrinaire rant when it
comes to the Supreme Court doing its job
or on refugee legislation. The
editors managed to get the usual
Globe dig at the Supreme Court.
for upholding refugee rights -
trying to make sure no doubt it
remains only "once
upon a time...." Margaret Wente can
sometimes find a warm hearted
thought for some refugee family - but
not on this legislation. She's
into a rant about scam artists. Abuse
has been another big theme since
1989. And Wente just knows intuitvely
that
Hungary can't produce all those
refugees. Not hard to imagine why
Germany was a difficult call for our
forebears in the 1930s, is it?
Funny how Canadians are never told by
the Globe about the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees' views. Or
even the UNHCR views on the
European model which Canada is somewhat
emulating in teh Safe Country
of Origin. One would think that
mattered. And the Globe isn't too
forthcoming on human rights body
thinking either - unless it is to pass
on to us the government thinking
about those UN human rights people. The
government of course says they
just don't understand Canada and that
they keep getting it all wrong.
Even the Globe's stand on the
prorogation of parliament, which I
happen
to agree with, was taken largely
uncritically and with little
thoughtful rationale.
The
CCR made the
points the media needed to hear well.
It's not the fault of NGOs if the
media seem ill-informed and ignorant on
the legislation. The media were
told
the backlog was a put up job based on
delays in appointments - a put up
job used many times before. They know
refugee status (and expulsion)
should be based on individual decision
making. But the Supreme
Court
gave the government a strong signal when
it failed to hear the appeal
of
the outrageous Federal Court of Appeal
decision on the issue of Safe
Third
Country. So the government can now
rightly suppose that they can move
beyond that to listing Safe Countries of
origin - countries which
cannot be expected to produce refugees -
putting any refugees
from such countries at a big
disadvantage - civil servant decision
makers followed by no paper appeal on
the merits.
They predict NGOs will make a lot of
noise but it sounds as if
the Globe editors already know all the
questions and answers -
they imply they will ignore
what they expect from NGOs.
So for NGOs it's back to
doing the best possible with refugees
-tinkering with another
miserable set of legislative changes.
In
times like this
one really appreciates a critical free
and informed press (sarcastic!).
