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