“Independent” Conservative Immigration Reform Group Promotes Border Accord
In the Globe & Mail, an adviser for a group which bills itself as the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform has come out in favour of the new security perimeter agreement with the United States. As usual, the Globe is very sparing in its gloss on author James Bissett, who is said only to be “a former Canadian ambassador” and a member of the group in question. “Fear not, Canada,” says Bissett: we are at a “historic moment” and the ceding of sovereignty will turn out just fine. He is surprisingly unable to articulate a single strong reason why this is actually a good agreement, aside from vague suggestions that it is only “natural” to pursue integration and that we must calm American fears about Canada being an easy port of entry for terrorists.
Like most think tanks, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform claims to be both independent and non-partisan. It’s certainly not non-partisan. It’s impossible to tell whether it’s independent because it doesn’t disclose potential conflicts of interest.
I have to admit, my real interest came from the fact that this group is supposedly from the “immigration reform” lobby. Normally such groups are campaigning for looser immigration laws, more inclusive of refugees in particular. Actually, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform looks more like a conservative group — even a Conservative/Fraser Institute front group, really, which should surprise no one. It wants to shrink immigration during periods of unemployment, refuse immigrants who might work cheaper than Canadians (including the temporary worker program, which I too despise, though for opposite reasons), make immigrants “integrate” rather than settle in “ethnic districts,” and, most importantly, eliminate immigration and refugee system fraud. I could nod along with a few of those, but this last point is the usual right-wing (and sometimes left-wing) tripe. The refugee system is inclusive because it exists to save lives. The total absence of evidence of large-scale fraud is somehow irrelevant to anti-refugee groups. And here, of course, is why a group like the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform is supporting the North American security perimeter: they fully expect that America’s stricter rules will be jammed into place, superceding Canada’s laws.
Bissett feels that it is “natural” to pursue deeper integration with the United States, and that his opponents are misguided or perhaps even “mischievous.” He suggests that it is much the same as the European Union, ignoring both the deep democratic deficit in that institution as well as the entirely different master-servant relationship that tends to emerge from our alliances with America. He also fails to note the problem which most troubles me: the fact that this is a blatantly anti-democratic agreement which integrationist cheerleaders like Colin Robertson say will be signed before public debate, and which business groups were briefed on while it was supposedly still being negotiated. But who is Bissett, and who is the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform?
As usual, this organization does not identify its principal sources of funding. This makes it very difficult to understand potential conflicts of interest in the positions they advocate. Their webpage indicates they were founded in Ottawa in 2009, and despite being two years old, still shows hallmarks of being an up-and-coming organization that has yet to find its mark. There are numerous errors on the webpage, not the least of which is that advisor Derek Burney’s biography appears in place of advisor Tom Harris’s.
The Board of Directors is made up mostly of right-wingers with connections to the Fraser Institute or the Conservative Party (or both). Martin Collacott is a former diplomat who now is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, for instance. Donald A. George is a retired professor of engineering who seems to be unaffiliated, but chairwoman Margaret Kopala is a former Progressive Conservative candidate who has written for the Conservative C2C journal, while the other director, journalist Peter G. White, is a former Hollinger executive who once served as Principal Secretary to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
The advisers are a similar bunch. One of them, Gordon Gibson, is another Fraser Institute senior fellow, while immigration lawyer Julie Taub takes pains to point out her participation in a Fraser Institute immigration conference in 2008. Herbert Grubel was an MP for the old Reform Party, while Salim Mansur ran as a Canadian Alliance MP in 2000. Barbara Kay and Gilles Paquet are unaffiliated, although Kay is a right-leaning journalist at the right-tilting National Post. John Manion donates to the Conservative Party. He was a senior civil servant during the Trudeau administration, at which time he supposedly opposed the fundamental freedom to enter or leave Canada (the wording in his bio is vague, but this is the only reasonable interpretation of it). After that he moved over to become a senior personnel adviser to, once again, the Mulroney government.
Once again, Derek Burney shows up, too. Burney is yet another old Mulroney adviser (the Chief of Staff), was posted as ambassador to the U.S. during the free trade era, and was brought onboard by Stephen Harper as an adviser, too. He has no apparent interest in immigration, being mostly a trade guy, which of course raises serious questions about whether this ostensibly immigration-focused group is really just a front for anti-Canadian deep integrationists.
The final advisor is David Harris, and although his bio is missing from the website, I would be happy to fill it in, because I took on his case over at Terrible Depths years ago, when it was still up and running. Harris used to work at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), where he was supposedly a strategic planning chief (the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. has stated he worked there less than a year, and many years ago). After 9/11, like so many former spooks, academics, and simple charlatans, he went private as a terrorism “expert” for the media and other public groups. In this capacity, among other things, he defended security certificates, the Chretien-era monstrosity under which the government illegally claimed the power to arrest any non-citizen and hold them without charge. Before he joined up with the current immigration group, he was working for the similarly minded Canadian Coalition for Democracies, which now seems to be defunct. So was Mansur, for that matter, which seems like an odd coincidence.
In short, it’s not terribly surprising that a “think tank” made up of former Conservative politicians and wild-eyed anti-terrorism ranters would be staking out a position in support of the Conservative government on the subject of eliminating Canada’s sovereign immigration law and allowing the Americans to dictate terms in its place.
Tweet
Jeremy
You know, it’s interesting. I’ve been left wing most of my life, but on this immigration issue, it is only the supposed “right” that is willing to address many of the tough issues where the left, including the environmental movement, is too fearful to tread.
I personally know several of the people mentioned above on the CIPR board. The article above gets it wrong in so many ways, and is so clearfly hateful, I find myslef drifting ever further from my own lefist core.
Bottom line for me is this: if you love Canada as we know it, stand up for it. If you want Canada to change radically, then do it DEMOCRATICALLY. Deep integration may not be handled democratically now, but then again, neither is the mass immigration that may sweep the British and French people aside in the generations to come. I happen to think that is wrong. Dead wrong.
Canadians deserve a Royal Commission and educated debate on massive demographic change without fear of ad hominam attacks and abuse. Canadians should not be forced to live in communities overwhelmed by those from other countries, whether “good” people or not. Brampton, Mississauga, Milton, Richmond, Vancouver. The “indigenous” people there, their communities, they matter.
If you care so much about democracy, if you claim to be unbaised and fair to all people, why do you pick and choose who to care about?
Jeremy
Correction: I know “friends” of the CIPR.
Jeremy
And believe it or not, some ARE traditionally left wing!
Sixth Estate
Jeremy,
Thank you for sharing your feelings.
I’m sorry you feel that this blog is hateful. It certainly isn’t my intention. to cast any aspersions on people who support the CIPR. I’m sure they run the gamut of political views. But I will also stand by my interpretation of certain of the group’s leadership, which is clearly weighted towards Conservatives and includes Fraser Institute types. Of course I do invite you to point out a few of the various errors you say you’ve identified. I care about accuracy.
I think a Royal Commission is a fantastic idea. But in the meantime, several things need to be pointed out. First, nobody is being “forced” to live anywhere in Canada. Second, I don’t know about you, but I am Canadian because of our country’s history of EXTREMELY liberal immigration policies with regard to my ethnic group… so yes, I will be a little hesitant to criticize on this.
I am not anti-democratic, but I don’t think I ever claimed to be unbiased. Nobody can honestly claim to be unbiased. And drawing our country into any major international agreement without meaningful public agreement, when one of the implications is a loss of Canadian sovereignty, is something that I would feel obligated to oppose regardless of whether I felt it would benefit us or not. I think that is a very democratic position to take.
Jeremy
Yes, I would agree that there is a decididly right wing flavour to the CIPR and ties to the Fraser Institute. Unfortunately this gives the impression of a conservative movement. But actually, if you scan the list of their friends, some active folks more on the left are part of the movement as well. I know of two of them who started out strictly as environmentalists but became concerned about immigration when they learned this was, as a matter of fact, the driving force behind population growth, urban sprawl, and drain on resources.
With respect to no one being forced to live anywhere in Canada, I have to agree. People can move. But, I would respond: why should they? Why should Canadians have to leave their homes, neighbourdhoods, and communities? And this, I think, brings us back to what is truly the central thesis of CIPR: immigration policy should advance the interests of mainstream Canadians first and foremost –not special interest groups, political parties, or people from other countries.
You raise an interesting point with respect to Canada’s “Extremely liberal immigration polcies”. First of all, it is true that Canada’s policies are probably the most liberal in the world. We have the highest per capita rate of immigration — double that of the United States. We do not preclude non-traditional ethnicities — as India, China, the Philipines, Japan, and Russia do. And, we provide an immense amount of financial assisstance to newcomers and foreign students. I don’t disagree with all of this, but, let us make no mistake, our policy is extremely liberal compared to those of the rest of the world.
And, I very much appreciate that you might be hesitant to critize a policy which allowed you to become Canadian. However, to this I would respond that the only way for you to reward the country which gave you a new home, is to put it first. Put Canada first. Not the interests of people in other countries applying here, no matter how “nice” and good they may be. Putting Canada and Canadians first is the very definition of loyalty and patriotism. Repay Canadians, those who actually did you the favour, do not put us second behind people living outside our boarders.
With respect to the lack of democracy around deep integration, I would agree. Let’s face it, Canada is more democratic in name than in practice. I’m sure we could agree on that in discussion of numerous examples.
Sixth Estate
Thank you for continuing this conversation.
I think you’ve misinterpreted my point, Jeremy. I was born here. But the people I am descended from are Canadian precisely because there were basically no hurdles to becoming Canadian at that time… at least for white people. Our country is what it is because of that inclusiveness. I’m simply not convinced that continuing immigration at this point is harming Canadians.
I certainly do put Canada first. That’s why I oppose anti-democratic international agreements and why I worry about a new organization with the leadership that CIPR has. I imagine it is conceivable that immigration could rise to the point that Canadian political culture is negatively affected by it — not because of the economic expenses (which are not that large) but because of the influx of people with dramatically different political values. That’s probably my inner leftist talking, actually — I see that the Conservatives, for instance, feel that conservative newcomers are a natural constituency for them.
But the main point is that right now I think immigration from the rest of the world is not a serious threat to Canada, whereas ceding of sovereignty in the Canadian-American context is and always will be an urgent threat, requiring constant vigilance from all Canadian nationalists. The editorial which prompted my post here suggested that integration with America was an acceptable tradeoff for stronger immigration controls that would come along with that agreement. I strongly disagreed, on the grounds I’ve laid out.
That, in turn, prompted me to inquire into what CIPR was. At which point I found, as I suggested, the apparent influence of integrationists like David Burney and the American-funded Fraser Institute. Which disturbed me, to say the least.
Jeremy
I’m not against continuing immigration. I’m against indefinate, perpetual high numbers to the point that the French and English are effectively overwhelmed in regions of the country in which they reside or in the country overall. To be fair, that standard should apply to “minority” communities as well.
Do you really want Victoria to turn into Mississauga? And everywhere? Don’t get me wrong, I actually like Mississauga. I also have friends and family members from quite a few backgrounds, and some mixed background myself. This is not about bigotry. But, there has to be limits for the sake of social cohesion, national character, Canadian values, the environment. And that is what is missing from the plan and discussion — a limitation on Canada’s population growth and long term cultural and demographic outlook.
If you truly value democracy, you will at least appreciate that the 35% or so of Canadians who actually want massive social change have no right to intimidate and lobby their preference through. It’s just plain wrong. It’s highly unethical.
Yes, the super high immigration levels probably will eventually shift the entire country to the right, politically. Read: Rob Ford. But again, whether one likes or agrees with all the people coming here or not is not the only issue. Whether the public wants the change — for whatever reason they choose — THAT is reason enough to taper it down and balance it out to levels consistent with other countries of the western world.
With respect to deep integration, I’m not really sure why this would be a bad thing, yet. But I would agree that there needs to be more political discussion.
Sixth Estate
Jeremy, you’ve hit on a point that probably should be discussed more, and would be a good element of a royal commission — national identity and immigration. Indeed, when I look at the CIPR’s list of objectives, I agree with at least three (eliminate the temporary worker programs, scale back other ways of exploiting cheap foreign labour as well, and ensure proper programs for social integration). Where I get nervous is when we talk about supposed refugee fraud and other issues.
But where I get especially resentful is when I see people in CIPR leadership who have no real history on the immigration issue, plenty of history on the free trade and integration issue, AND (as happened here) start trying to wed the two together. Because in my mind, whatever possible future threat might be posed by immigration is easily dwarfed by the continuous threat of America to the south. I am definitely concerned by that, since it is always will be the most urgent threat to our democracy and our independence. And when an immigration group appears to promote a free trade agreement because one of the consequences would be accepting American immigration standards, I get concerned.
I appreciate that you’re reserving judgement on deep integration. I respect that. But in my opinion the threat is more urgent because, if implemented, it would (a) represent a decrease in the policy options legally available to our elected officials, who would be tied to the terms of this agreement; and (b) open us to further influence from the American government, whom I doubt would feel similarly burdened by the letter of international treaties. It would also further the current race to the bottom in terms of tax rates and the resulting fall to the bottom in terms of government-funded universal services like healthcare and education.
What I definitely still object to, though, is your suggestion that I’m trying to force the debate in some way through intimidation. I’m prepared to be a fair loser on a subject the majority of Canadians have a definite difference of opinion with me on (provided it is Constitutional). But think tanks are lobby groups, too, and I definitely reserve my own right to point out where their leadership comes from. A tie to the Fraser Institute, for instance, would be an automatic black mark for any organization, even if I agreed with them. The Fraser Institute is a disreputable group.
Jeremy
Sorry for the delay.
But, why be nervous about concerns about refugee fraud? Who could possible agree with people fleecing the system, lying to get into Canada on false pretenses? The whole point of having rules to determine who comes in as a refugee and who does not is to set healthy boundaries. It shows self-respect.
With respect to CIPR leadership, are you trying to suggest that the real agenda is some kind of freer trade?? That makes no sense. They have taken on the toughest of all political issues…how could this bold move possibly conceal an agenda for freer trade, which is a far safer topic?? That doesn’t make sense.
You feel that the threats from future immigration are vague? I must ask: where do you live???? Living in the GTA as I do, it is the very real liklihood that the entire country will come to reflect the GTA, that proves to me the threat this massive transformation potentially has for Canada’s culture as we know it. I’d be surprised if
you live in the GTA or Vancouver…
The concerns you raise with respect to deep integration are interesting and I will note them.
With respect to intimidation, I was not referring to you or this website. I was referring to people — many of whom I have DIRECT EXPERIENCE with — who call people with concerns about the limits of immigration as racist/xenophic/prejudiced. Just try asking the logical question in public sometime — for whatever reason — and see the response you get. This code of silence and paranoia is a disgrace to critical thinking and democracy. In fact, it is exploited by all kinds of people for their own agendas. Don’t believe it because of what I say — see for yourself.
Sixth Estate
As for apparently senseless leadership in CIPR, well, I’m confused too. That’s why we’re having this conversation. A CIPR spokesman, identifying himself as a CIPR spokesman, wrote an article about the importance of deep integration with the U.S. via the latest variant of the SPP. Now that confuses me for a couple reasons, first because he’s tying refugee policy with trade policy (i.e. with the agreement), and second because weakening control on our longest and most important border, with the country that poses the most immediate threat to Canadian sovereignty, strikes me as an odd choice for someone supposedly worried about external forces shaping Canada’s future.
So, I looked for reasons to explain this. My first point, I believe, was that they seem to feel integration with the U.S. is an acceptable tradeoff because it will force us to erect higher walls against immigrants — except for American immigrants, I should point out, since Europe was invoked as a model. I said it wasn’t an acceptable tradeoff.
Second, and here I think is where you’re implying I’m wandering off on a conspiracy theory tangent, I observed that CIPR’s leadership seems strangely skewed towards people who DON’T have much of a history of expressing opinions on immigration, of any kind, but DO have a substantial history of pressing for free trade and continental integration. Possibly I’m paranoid, but so far at least I think what I’ve said is indisputable.
Where I acknowledge I’m on thinner ice is trying to speculate about why this bunch of people have now, in the midst of an integrationist debate, suddenly taken up the new position expressed by CIPR as a whole, and are basically saying that money should be allowed to move freely but that actual people shouldn’t be allowed to. And I can’t help but wonder whether a few people are involved in CIPR because they think integration will be easier to sell to Canadians if it’s presented as protecting us from foreigners and refugee fraud, rather than as a wholesale sell-off of Canada to American hegemony.
Now, I’ll freely admit — and have before — that this doesn’t reflect the views of all people who support CIPR. I don’t think I ever suggested otherwise. If they want to have a discussion about what the appropriate limits are on immigration, I’d love to that discussion. But it has to be in the context of Canadian sovereignty, not ceding power to the Americans, and it certainly can’t occur in the presence of untrustworthy hacks associated with the Fraser Institute.
Jeremy
SixthSense,
I am sorry, but you are clearly fixated on one single issue — deep integration — at the expense of another major issue of our time that you know very little about — immigration.
I would suggest learning far more about the immigration issue before conflating the two together. You might end up fine tuning your arguments.
Also, when the arguement is not aimed at evidence and logic but rather people themselves, it fails to be convincing. Simply arguing that proponents of a thing are wrong because of previous arguments on different issues, political affiliation, or worse, who they are, really only proves how much you dislike soomeone, not what is best for Canada.
Honesly, the better approach would be to stick to deep integration, educate, and present evidence. That is what might pursuade me anyway. But the ad hominem approach honestly just seems purely partisan.
Sixth Estate
I’m not sure what is partisan here, Jeremy. I certainly have no loyalties to any political party.
And, as I’ve said before, you’re quite right that we shouldn’t conflate deep integration with immigration policy. Which is precisely where the CIPR leadership and me apparently disagree.
What I have now tried to explain to you, repeatedly, is that one single point. A CIPR spokesman suggested that an appropriate way to improve Canadian immigration policy would be deep integration with the U.S. I pointed out that this is “resolving” one potential problem by creating an even bigger and more immediate one, and then I pointed out that there are people in positions of leadership at CIPR who have a long history on the integration issue and no apparent history, until now, on the immigration one. I don’t think I’m paranoid to point out that this is very convenient for them.
Jeremy
1. You are not partisan in the sense of literally representing a Party, obviously. But, you take it as self-evident that association with the right wing is inherently negative. THAT’s partisan.
2. But, you never demonstrated that the CIPR leadership conflated issues of immigration and deep integration. You merely referr to an article by James Bissett, who is one of the CIPR leadership. Silly Rabbit, but that doesn’t mean he was representing the CIPR at the time. A simple search on Google on James Bisset’s articles shows anyone a slew of articles and opinions that having absolutely nothing to do with the CIPR. This guy’s been writing on political issues for decades. Honestly, man, think a little. You think if we review the articles by all the other CIPR leadership we won’t find diversity of opinion on a variety of issues?
3. Yes, I am familar with the overt argument you are intending to make. But, the themes in your thread suggest other assumptions. Those are what I am addressing. Just because a research group or individual is affiliated with the right (or left) wing really isn’t convincing at all. If you really think about it, frequently there is wisdom inherent in several perspectives.
Sixth Estate
1.) Being right-wing isn’t inherently negative. I can accept that (although I will point out when an issue-specific group seems drawn from one wing, be it left or right). Being associated with the Fraser Institute is a much bigger black mark in my books, I can assure you.
2.) In that article, Bissett’s gloss specifically identified him as a CIPR guy. And the CIPR website says Bissett is an official spokesperson (along with Collacott, a Fraser fellow). I put 2 and 2 together and got 4.
3.) Yes, that’s true, and I’ll direct you to the numerous points in the comments and the article where I attempted to point out why my argument is not JUST about ties between CIPR leaders and other groups, but about why those connections might be significant.
Jeremy
1) Well,I can agree that the Fraser Institute has some credibility problems. Actually, it was when they took on immigration that my respect for them escalated. Before that, I thought they were just peddling predictable viewpoints. Few else seem willing to ask the question: what is the cultural and demographic future of Canada that is best for the Candians here now?
2. I know you’re reading between the lines and I’m not disputing ties to the right at all. I’m just saying being right is not inherently bad. In fact, them taking on the immigration issues makes the right look a whole lot more attractive in an era when all the left seems to do is put people in other countries and on waitlists ahead of Canadains, and fail to challenge that New Canadians desire for expanded numbers and political power can come ahead of the interests of the Canadian born that the whole Mass Immigration project is supposed to benefit.
3. Well, personally, I’d be willing to seriously consider the benefits of deep integration if it did work in favour of protecting Canadians culture and society as I know it. But to be honest, nothing on the CIPR website at this time indicates this to be the case. Maybe many of those mentioned support DI for reasons of their own. But, it’s unfair to discredit CIPR because of their right-wing affiliation and an article by Mr. Bissett. There’s just too much at stake CIPR into it.
The Sixth Estate » Ayahuasca and Climate Change
[...] very often. Quite the opposite; a few months ago, one commenter was convinced that I was naively opening the country up to foreigners. Ironically, it seems that among my readership, pointing out that the medicinal value of [...]
wake up
I think you should do some research on the chinese centric political party by the name of the nation alliance party that hs emerged out of richmond bc encouraged by the sheer numbers of immigrants in that city. Could be a sign of things to come. The new national unity issue?
shawn
Hi; I am writing a book on Canada’s immigration system. It’s being fixed next year when new arrivals will have to show documentation that they are able to speak English. They will also be given a job offer as well.
I have done 6 debates on these and other controversial issues. I have read the comments above thus far. In 2002, we had a labor force of 6.5 million workers(ages 19 to 64) and 520,000 unemployed workers. In 2012, we had 18.7 million people (ages 19 to 64) out of a total of 34 million citizens and 1.4 million unemployed workers. The 6 debates are on ==> youtube ==> Shawn Dalton
Sixth Estate
shawn — Intriguing. Out of curiosity, who exactly are you saying is going to give every immigrant a job offer? Are you saying they must have one in hand in order to qualify?