CANADA

Renewed opposition hits final accord

By KERRY McCUAIG

Never has an agreement,
touted so highly for its unanimity,
faced such dissent. The new
Meech Lake Accord, signed by
the prime minister and the 10 pro-
vincial premiers last week, didn’t
make it through the five minutes it
took to announce it before the

House of Commons before the
protests were heard.

While Liberal leader John
Turner has temporarily managed
to muzzle dissent by threatening
to fire those who openly defy the
agreement, at least a third of the
party’s 40 member caucus sat on
their hands when Prime Minister

Mulroney tabled the consti-
tutional text in the House to a
standing ovation. A pair of New
Democrats also remained seated.

Provincial Conservative leader
Larry Grossman promised *“‘a
rough ride’’ for the deal when it
gets back to Ontario, accusing
Premier David Peterson of

‘fragmenting and balkanizing”’
the country.

Manitoba’s Howard Pauley,
who was viewed as the one pre-
mier who might block ratification
because of the accord’s attack on
federal spending powers, was
criticized back home by Liberal
leader Sharon Carstairs for failing

to inject any guarantees into the
final document which would re-
quire provinces to fully imple-
ment federal social initiatives in
order to qualify for funding from
Ottawa.

While provincial New Democ-
rats have been ‘‘cautiously op-
timistic’’, in deference to federal

leader Ed Broadbent who em-

GP targets Tories’
refugee policy .

‘The following resolution was adopted by
the Communist Party’s central committee,
May 18.

The Refugee Determination Legisla-
tion proposed by Minister Benoit Bou-
chard must be stopped in its tracks. Itis a
thoroughly reactionary bill dressed in
Sweet words; it strips away any humani-
tarian ‘content of the previous refugee
legislation. It all but closes the door to
genuine refugees from Central America
while maintaining the ‘‘designated clas-
ses’’ provision established during the
cold war which sees every citizen of the
socialist countries as a potential refugee.

Canada’s immigration policy and its
attitude to refugees has always been con-
Structed to serve the immediate eco-
nomic interests of the dominant sections
of capital whose interests in turn are
served by the government of the day.

The long term development of the coun- ~

try and the impact on the countries of
origin are seldom, if ever, considered.
Thus Canada has a truncated apprentice-
ship program, preferring to import skil-
led artisans from other countries free of
charge, and, while the government of the
day expresses concern at the plight of
developing countries, it plunders their
intellectual reserves by contributing to
the brain drain without any compensa-
tion.

Immigration policy has been unswery-

ingly racist and discriminatory, some-
times nakedly as toward East Indian,
Chinese and Japanese immigrants in the
first part of the century and sometimes
more masked as at present with the point
system for immigration and the proposed
new system for refugee determination.
’ The new bill is not so new. In fact, it is
a return to the shameful record of the
1930’s when state-sponsored anti-semit-
ism prevented hundreds of thousands of
Jews from finding refuge in Canada.

It is no accident that in Auschwitz, to
the thousands of condemned Jews, the
barracks in which food, clothing, gold
and jewelry stripped off the prisoners
was stored was named ‘‘Kanada.”’ It,
like Canada, represented hope, life and
salvation. Both were unreachable. Is
Canada to be returned to the situation
where it is made inaccessible to those
most desperately in need of refuge? _

In most instances, those seeking
haven in Canada originate in countries
where despotism, unrest or civil war is
intimately connected with U.S. eco-
nomic and foreign policy. Yet the U.S.
presently has one of the world’s worst
records for providing refuge. The Tory
government has set about developing “‘a
level playing ground’’ for integrating
Canada into the designs of U.S. imperial-
ism. It appears that the Refugee Deter-
mination Legislation is another cog in
this wheel of integration. Is the hospital-

TRIBUNE PHOTO — PAUL OGRESKO

Demonstrators condemn federal refugee policy in a rally outside wath aoe last on
The Communist Party says the Tory’s refugee policy is “‘not so new. In areturn
the shameful pasta the 1930s ae state sponsored anti-semitism prevent hundreds

of thousands of Jews from finding refuge in Canada.”

ity and humanism of Canadian working
people also up for sale?

More and more democratic minded
Canadians are seeing through the Tory
ussue of lies and deception and see a
cynical effort to exploit the acute sense

’ of job insecurity in Canada to prop up the -

government’s sagging electoral pros-
pects. It is part of the same gambit as the
introduction of the debate on capital pun-
ishment. The larger part of the present
refugee claimants is not white. The gov-
ernment, cynically seeking to boost its
a Sarat lontiys is blowing onto the
of late ism i
oe nt and open megs in

It is claimed by the government that
there were abusers of the previous refu-
gee policy. This may well be true, but it
was not the refugees that were the abus-
ers. Abuse can be handled without mak-
ing the genuine refugees the victims. The
Proposal in the legislation to return
claimants to their country of origin or toa

safe’” third country is unacceptable.
This view is shared by many agencies,
immigrant Communities, or democratic
organizations.

The Communist Party rejects this
legislation and stands with all those who
are calling for new refugee determination
policies that will maintain an Open door
to refugees, will provide for speedy and
fair oral hearings with the right to appeal
in Canada, and will provide for broader
definition of family and for faster meth-
ods for family reunification.

This country needs New Canadians
and will do so for many years to come.
The birth rate and level of immigration
have both declined to a point where, if
present levels are persisted in, the popu-
lation will decline to less than 11 million
people within a lifetime.

Arguments are advanced that immi-
grants take away jobs and contribute to
declining living standards. This is just not
true. While in a particular instance, a
Canadian worker may have been re-
placed by an immigrant, the fact is that
immigration not only created jobs but it
builds the economy by expanding the
home market. Early costs to the state are
more than repaid by a life long payment
of taxes. Immigration also reduces the
percapita costs of government, adminis-
tration and state programs.

Not only are present immigration tar-
gets too low, but they are not even being
filled. In 1986, the targets were under-
fulfilled by 15,000. It is ironic in this light
that 18,000 refugees can be seen as too
many. It is claimed that the refugee
‘‘problem’’ is fast becoming un-
manageable. Last year, there were
18,000 claimants — only one tenth of all
sources of immigration to Canada. The
United Nations estimates that there are
between 15 to 20 million refugees in the
world today. How can 18,000 be touted
as unmanageable especially when ten
times as many refugees were admitted to
Canada between 1947 and 1950, when
the population being only half as big as it
is today, had greater difficulty for
accommodating large numbers of new-
comers.

Canada needs a new look at its mE
tion policy geared to boost the all-
erated BENClopaibt of this bountiful
land. A new immigration policy must be
non-discriminatory, non-racist, linked to
a balanced, planned all-Canadian eco-
nomic expansion and taking into account
the bi-national reality of French and Eng-
lish speaking Canada and the rights of the
Native Peoples.

braced the accord when it was
first brought before the House on
April 30, the party’s growing
Quebec wing after some procras-
tinating came out against it.

Quebec NDP leader John Har-
ney said the accord takes more
than-it gives to French Canada.
He has labeled the ‘‘distinct so-
ciety’’ provision in the agreement
as ‘‘meaningless’’ and issued a
call for self-determination.

One of the strongest challenges
facing the’ accord to date comes
from the Northwest Territories
which launched a legal challenge
under Section 15 of the Constitu-
tion charging the agreement de-
nies full rights to the 75,000 Cana-
dians living north of the 60th
parallel.

The only political party with a
united position on the accord is
the Communist Party of Canada,
which denounced it in a joint
statement in last month together
with the Communist Party of
Quebec.

It called the accord a step
backward, warning that if ratified,
it will be almost impossible for
Quebec, as the home of the
French Canadian nation, to
achieve self-determination.

*“‘The accord will deepen the
crisis of Confederation,”’ charged
CP leader William Kashtan. ‘‘The
only positive side is the slow, but
increased involvement of people
in the issue that has compelled
them to agree that discussions
must continue.”’

How extensive the debate will
be is yet to be seen. Any amend-
ments will require the unanimous
consent of the House of Com-
mons, the Senate and all 10 pro-
vincial legislatures. It will be up to
the federal and each provincial
government to decide whether to
hold public hearings or to take the
issue directly to their respective
legislatures.

In a seven-paged open letter
addressed to the prime minister
and signed by the Assembly of
First Nations, the Inuit Commit-
tee on National Issues, the Native
Council of Canada and the Métis
National Council, Native leaders
outlined how the agreement
would decentralize and fragment
Canada and block any hopes for
Aboriginal self-government.

“It is important to emphasize
our support in principle for
Quebec and for appropriate
constitutional consensus within
Canada,” the letter reads “* ...
but the rights and status of -
Aboriginal peoples must not be
prejudiced.”’

A coalition of national groups
has demanded that the agree-

ment be put to a free vote in every
legislature, but not before public

hearings have been held in every

mi province.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 10, 19876 5