British Columbia

Rally on immigration marks
renewed rise of racism

It could be dismissed as paranoia. Or
xenophobia. But it boils down to racism,
and it was being promoted at a public
forum on immigration in Vancouver last
week.

The forum was sponsored by the newly-
formed British/European Immigration Aid
Society, which states that Canada’s sup-
posedly British and European culture is
threatened by a steady influx of non-
European immigrants.

Speakers at the meeting didn’t exactly
come across like Doug Collins, the racist
commentator who routinely attacks non-
whites, or a Ku Klux Klan rally. But they
were symptomatic of an alarmingly increas-
ing movement attacking immigration polic-
ies — a movement whose rise parallels the
recent reactionary changes to Immigration
Canada’s admission procedures.

The movement appeals to popular preju-
dices, but its leaders are establishment
figures — prominent business people con-
sidered the pillars of the community.

An audience of some 200 heard former
immigration appeal board member Charles
M. Campbell call for an end to “this non-
sense,” his term for Canadian immigration
laws which he held responsible for a declin-
ing influx of Europeans into this country.

Campbell was the keynote speaker on a
rostrum which exhorted listeners in the
Scottish Hall in south Vancouver to lobby
MPs and immigration bureaucrats to dras-
tically cut immigration by non-Europeans.

Several audience members roared their
approval at the remarks, and one person
even spoke in defence of convicted hate-
pediar Ernst Zundel. But others blasted
the newly formed British/European Immi-
gration Aid Foundation for promoting a
racist view of immigration.

“This organization is based on ethnic

criteria,” Andrew Halper, a Vancouver
immigration lawyer, commented angrily
outside the meeting. “Their idea of a quali-
fied immigrant is someone of hardy British
stock.”

Halper had taken to the microphone to
criticize Campbell’s speech, including his
urging that the government use its new fast-
track system to weed out “the phonies”
among refugee claimants.

The new system is supposedly designed
to clear up the immigration “backlog,” but
critics, including immigration lawyers, say it
denies claimants a fair hearing and furthers
an essentially racist character of federal
immigration laws.

Campbell, a former executive with sev-
eral mining corporations, retired vice-chair
of the Immigration Appeal Board, and
former University of B.C. senate member,
attacked federal immigration policy which
since 1978 has allowed landed immigrants
to bring in family members.

Many of these, he claimed, are poorly
educated, speak no English and hence are
unsuited to adapt readily to Canadian life.

Campbell contrasted this with a 1982 pol-
icy which restricts entry for “independent”
applicants to those who seek work for
which no qualified Canadian is available.

“One effect of this was to reduce immi-
gration from the United Kingdom from
20,000 to 5,000 annually,” he said.

Campbell, who was spoken on the issue
several times to local service clubs and who
regularly writes to newspapers espousing
his views, cited two cases where “qualified”
applicants for citizenship who are Cauca-
sians were turned down.

As for refugee claimants: “There are
probably 70,000 who are not refugees. For
me the appropriate initial target would be to
discourage half of them.”

Former Vancouver mayor and unsuc-
cessful federal Tory candidate Jack Volrich,
who chaired the meeting, followed up
Campbell’s comments with an attack on the
immigration point system. He drew gasps
from the redneck element by reporting that
occupations such as physicist and chemical
engineer get a zero rating by immigration
officials, while ‘“‘funeral directors get the
maximum 10.”

It was the kind of selective fact quoting
that characterizes such arguments. Unans-
wered was the obvious question of whether
Canada needs — and apparently the fed-
eral government concludes it does not —
citizens of other countries to fill such jobs.
But it was designed to bolster the founda-
tion’s key claim that those of European
derivation tend to be “qualified” to settle in
Canada, while non-Europeans tend not to
be.

But qualifications appear to be less a
concern of the British/European Immigra-
tion Aid Foundation than “character.” A
pamphlet distributed at the meeting states
that the organization aims to “do some-
thing positive to promote and preserve the
British/European character of our nation.

“Our essential concern has to do with
present trends and directions which dis-
courage immigration from British/Euro-
pean nations while favouring immigration
of.peoples often very or totally different in
backgrounds and lifestyles. If these present
trends continue, and if policies are not con-
sidered and reshaped, then there may soon
be a ‘new minority’ in Canada: us,” the
foundation states.

Their pamphlet calls Britons and other
Europeans, “the real nation-builders.”

Several people who commented during
question and answer noted the obvious:
that “real” Canadian culture belongs to the

JACK VOLRICH former mayor
promoting European immigration aid
group.

Native peoples; that “‘nation-builders” must
certainly include the Chinese, among whose
contributions are the construction of Cana-
da’s national rail system and labouring in
the mines that Campbell at one time
headed.

The foundation’s comments are much
like those of J.V. Clyne, former B.C.
Supreme Court justice and long-time chan-
cellor of the University of B.C. In a recent
Vancouver Sun article, Clyne was quoted as
saying, “The number of Asians in Van-
couver has grown enormously. You go out
to the east end and you think you’re in
China .. .I think in another 50 years we’ll be
a different people.”

Clyne is a founder of the Immigration
Association of Canada, another organiza-
tion that wants to cut non-European immi-
gration, and was described in the Sun article
as an “informal” member of a group of
Vancouver business people promoting
more immigration from Great Britain.

Foundation spokesperson Rex Werts
said his organization was incorporated last
November and was formed by ‘‘25 to 30”
individuals.

Werts said the foundation is aiming to
expand its operations in central Canada.

Vancouver tenants are demanding rent
controls. I think their demands are justi-
fied. We have a tight housing situation in
the city and some landlords are taking full
advantage of it to squeeze their tenants for
all they are worth.

of 1988. New construction of houses and
apartments didn’t even begin to fill the
need. The vacancy rate is down to 0.5 per
cent which means landlords can charge
just about any rates they want. People in
search of rooms have no choice but to pay,
even when they can’t afford it. Buying a
new home is out of the question for most
tenants — last year alone house prices
climbed by 20 per cent.

This issue came up at Vancouver city
council’s meeting on Jan. 17. Presenta-
tions were made by both tenants and land-
lords.

The current situation regarding rental
legislation is this:

In 1974 the NDP government intro-
duced an Interim Rent Stabilization Act
and a new Landlord and Tenant Act.
These provided for the creation of the
office of a rentalsman with authority over
all landlord-tenant matters, including
allowable rent increases. It was a form of
rent control.

The legislation also gave exclusive con-
trol over landlord-tenant relations to the
province. This meant Vancouver could
not longer enter this field.

In 1984 the Social Credit government
abolished this legislation. In its place the
government introduced new laws which

Some 31,000 people moved to. the-
Lower Mainland in the first nine months-

Council playing politics over rent controls

provided for a government-appointed
arbitrator to handle disputes. Failing this
tenants could go to the courts.

The new legislation included some con-
trols over the frequency of rent increases,
but no controls over the amount. The
intent and purpose was to protect land-
lords and effectively abolish any form of
rent controls.

The submission of the landlords to city
council on Jan. 17, voiced by the Building
Owners and Managers Association of
B.C., claimed that “there have been very
few instances of rental gouging” and that
in most cases rent increases were “below
the inflation numbers for the past four
years.”

It admitted, however, that “the market
determines rents” and that “rent increases
are never tied to base costs.” This is
another way of saying that landlords are
charging all that the market can bear and
that rent increases have little to do with
actual costs.

David Lane, appearing for the Tenants
Rights Coalition, pointed out that 37,500
people are expected to migrate to Greater
Vancouver in 1989, adding 20,000 new

households to an already tight market and
reducing the vacancy rate still further. He
also noted that many rent increases are in
the 20-40 per cent range.

Lane also exploded the myth promoted
by the Building Owners and Managers
Association that “developers need a
higher rent level in order to justify con-
struction of rental accommodation.” The
facts, Lane said, are that “rental construc-
tion during the time of rent controls did
not grind to a halt or even slacken. In fact,
the best two years in the last decade for
rental housing completions were during
the period of rent controls. Housing con-
struction is now in a major slump, despite
rent controls being lifted five years ago.”

On behalf of Vancouver tenants, Lane
asked city council for a “rent review sys-
tem where tenants facing unjustified rent
increases have the right to appeal to some
kind of rent review board, and the land-
lords would have to justify the rent
increase on the basis of real incurred
costs.” He also asked that the city take
some leadership and ask for the power to
institute a city-run rent review system.

standable even if it isn’t justified. They

full well that the Social Credit government

admitted as much in the debate. This

we're not beaten yet. It’s not a dead issue by

Ald. Bruce Eriksen moved the motion,
backed by the two other Committee of
Progressive Electors aldermen — Libby
Davies and I — that we ask the provincial
government for authority to set up a rent
review system.

Mayor Gordon Campbell and his Non
Partisan Association aldermen quickly
voted that down. Their dilemma is under-

didn’t want any part of a system that was
opposed by their landlord backers.

The NPA did support a motion asking
the provincial government to consider a
rent review system. But this was just play-
ing politics. The NPA is opposed to any
form of rent controls and the NPA alder-
men were just passing the buck, knowing

would turn it down. NPA aldermen

motion was just a way of getting off the
hook.
So now we’re back to square one. But

any means. The housing and rental crisis
in the city with our huge influx of popula-
tion will get worse.

If council really went after the provin-
cial government and demanded in no
uncertain terms that the city be given the
right to establish a rent review board, the
province could hardly ignore us. To do so
would get the Social Credit government
into serious political trouble. It can’t
ignore political realities either.

I think this is the way to go. Turn the
heat on both city council and Victoria till
we get some action.

2 « Pacific Tribune, January 30, 1989