Public policy considerations are what Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is citing as the reasons for new ministerial powers to bar certain people from coming into Canada.
Kenney’s proposal is included in the contentious Bill C-43, which has passed second reading in the House of Commons and is currently being examined by the Commons immigration committee. The bill is a set of provisions to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Canadians who care about the balance of powers and the nature of government should be worried about Kenney’s expansionist hopes, as well as the new bill, the Faster Removal of Foreign
Criminals Act.
Canadian border services already has the power to bar individuals from the country if they violate certain standards. So what exactly motivates Kenney to want to expand this power for himself? What does he mean by “public policy considerations?”
“There’s definitely a lot of murkiness in this,” says Omar Hameed, a former access and equity officer with the Canadian Arab Federation, an organization that advocates for immigrants and
refugees.
“There’s an authoritarian air about it, and it’s at least partially aimed at altering public opinion in Canada in favour of the Tories.”
Hameed notes that he is worried about Kenney’s “power grab” as a move to limit dissenting voices and define the limits of
discussion.
Kenney tabled two weeks ago what he says are a set of “narrow criteria” to demonstrate why the expansion of his authority is necessary. He insists that countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia have already given their immigration ministers the very same
authority.
Unfortunately, these guidelines are still vague. They stipulate that Kenney should bar corrupt foreign officials from countries upon which Canada has imposed sanctions, and people who promote terrorism, violence or criminal
activity.
Kenney says that the recent barring of Pastor Terry Jones, the American cleric behind “International Burn a Koran Day,” is further proof that he should be given the powers he requests.
Concern for Bill C-43, with a Conservative majority in the Commons, is predicated largely on how Kenney will interpret the terms of his “narrow criteria.” Canadians can only assess this by his past behaviour on this front.
For instance, in March 2009, Kenney used his contacts and rapport with the Canadian Border Services Agency, as well as his own influence, to ban British MP George Galloway from entering Canada on the grounds that Galloway violated section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which among other things bars foreign nationals who are a deemed a security risk to Canada.
The minister cited Galloway’s delivery of $1.2 million in aid earlier that year to Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip (under an Israeli embargo) via Galloway’s “Viva Palestina” delegation as a case of providing material support for the Hamas party which governs the Gaza Strip. Canada designates Hamas as a terrorist group.
Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley issued a judgment on the ban, in which he found that Kenney’s campaign was based primarily on distaste for Galloway’s political views, in particular his assistance of Palestine.
“Kenney’s just trying to make official what he and his office do on a regular basis already,” says James Clark, a central organizer of Galloway’s tour in 2010 and now a PhD candidate at York University.
“He’s trying to bury his office’s approach in legislation and provide cover for himself by portraying this request as a progressive move.” Clark, who is also an organizer with the Toronto Coalition Against the War, notes that Kenney’s packaging of his proposals as a way to exclude problematic figures such as Jones is highly
dubious.
The minister has in previous years also cut funding to the Canadian Arab Federation, which used to provide job search workshops and ESL classes for a large number of new Muslims (among others) in Canada.
Salmaan Khan, a colleague of Clark’s at the Coalition, and a student at Ryerson University, agrees with this assessment. He says that it is inaccurate to see Kenney’s “consolidation of power” as something new. Rather, he notes, “it’s more of the same, and Kenney’s approach will remain the way it is now with or without Bill C-43.”
Kenney’s attempt to assume for himself the powers of “negative discretion,” and ban whoever he sees fit from Canada is yet another testament to the Conservative government’s
authoritarian streak.
There are already mechanisms within Canada’s federal bureaucracy, namely border services, to deal with individuals who pose security threats to Canadians.
Turning away Jones was a decision made by the border services, which cited the potential for violent protest given Jones’ prejudices. A good decision or not, it was a choice made by a body that operates at arm’s length from other centres of authority within the Canadian political system.
To conflate this bureaucratic process and concentrate powers into the hands of one man is a way of bypassing the separation of powers and disregarding the gap between bureaucratic process and political whim.
No matter how narrow Kenney says his criteria will be, Canadians should be wary of attempts to consolidate the powers of exclusion in the hands of a single
politician.