We Canadians aren’t as enlightened as we think we are — and Harper knows that

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/09/2015 (3685 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

When it comes to Canada’s sensibilities about immigration, there is the myth and there is the reality.

The myth is Canada is one of the most enlightened, generous countries in the world. A nation built in large part by the immigrant experience. A culture that welcomes the world’s most vulnerable people with open arms.

The reality, of course, is a lot different.

Although we have a rich immigration legacy, we are a mostly fearful and overly cautious people when it comes to immigration. This is the reality Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is expertly exploiting.

In this week’s Globe and Mail debate, the three main party leaders took a small detour from fiscal and economic issues to talk about immigration policy and the debate over Canada’s role in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis.

In this exchange, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair both did well in perpetuating the myth. Both have called on Canada to honour a United Nations request for Canada to accept from 40,000 to 50,000 Syrian refugees over the next four years. Both have said they would fulfill or exceed the UN request because it is in keeping with Canada’s inherent compassion and generosity.

That left Harper to return fire with a bracing dose of reality.

Since the photo of a dead Syrian toddler — Alan Kurdi, who drowned trying to escape to a safe haven — inflamed the debate over refugee policy, Harper has rejected calls for a massive increase in admissions. Harper has argued Canadians demand anyone fleeing a “terrorist war zone” be thoroughly screened to ensure they do not pose a security risk here.

However, at the debate he went further. After the other leaders accused the Conservative government of restricting health care for refugees — a totally accurate claim — Harper dealt the realism knockout punch.

First, he denied his government had cut services to refugees but then argued refugees do not deserve “a better health-care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive. I think that is something both new and existing old-stock Canadians can agree with.”

His use of the term “old stock,” an outdated and offensive term that implies some Canadians are more Canadian than others, could have been a huge strategic error on Harper’s part in the middle of an election. Fortunately for Harper, he is only saying what many, many Canadians are thinking.

If Harper and his campaign team thought for one moment that a clear majority of Canadians disagreed with his message or language, he’d be in lock-step with Trudeau and Mulcair on admitting more refugees.

But Harper knows that his base and a good number of people who will vote for other parties are scared of welcoming refugees from a country such Syria. A student of history, Harper knows despite the myth of the enlightened Canadian, this country has repeatedly demonstrated we have the same prejudices and fears as other nations. Not worse, but lamentably similar.

From the systematic reduction in the number of European Jews admitted during the Second World War, to the introduction of the Liberal government’s “head tax” on immigrants in the early 1900s, to former Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau’s infamous and thinly veiled allegation that “money and the ethnic vote” cost the Parti Quebecois the 1995 referendum campaign, we are a nation with a proven paranoia about immigration, and a propensity to turn our backs on people in their time of greatest need.

Public opinion polls suggest Canadians are willing to accept an increase in Syrian refugees. But only about a quarter of respondents are fully supportive. That means three-quarters of Canadians are either outright opposed or only modestly supportive and thus, vulnerable to fear mongering. True to form, Harper’s refusal to accept more Syrian refugees has not hurt him overall in poll standings.

Harper’s understanding of the Canadian psyche on immigration is what allows him, in a masterful stroke of irony, to perpetuate a profound and dangerous myth about terrorism and terrorists.

Harper knows most military and security analysts believe the refugee stream is not a tool for the spread of terrorism. And that the overwhelming majority of refugees are people who are genuinely innocent and in need of protection.

As an educated man, he also understands terrorism is not a communicable disease, and its spread can’t be stopped by quarantining people from a particular country. There is no blood test to determine terrorist sympathies. There is no document, no written test, no interview technique to separate the terrorists from the legitimate refugees.

Some security experts argue terrorists are trying to infiltrate other countries as refugees. These are, however, the same people who believe removing your belt, shoes and taking away your 200 ml tube of toothpaste makes flying on an airplane safer.

Harper’s refugee-as-terrorist argument is a corollary to the security-theatre equation: preposterous, mostly meaningless countermeasures used to create the illusion of greater safety and security.

Harper is deftly applying the best practices of security theatre when he suggests terrorists are trying to use the refugee stream to infiltrate Canada, and there are administrative measures that will ensure no one with terrorist sympathies is admitted to Canada.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

It is simply not true, because it is not possible.

The final, most lamentable reality is Harper is not threatened politically by his stand on immigrants and refugees, or his use of regrettable terms such as “old stock.”

Harper knows Canadians are not as enlightened or as compassionate or as generous as we think we are.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.