Tuesday, August 17

GORDON GIBSON

Tuesday, August 17, 1999

IN VANCOUVER -- The arrival in British Columbia of boatloads of illegal migrants is useful for all concerned.

The passengers will be getting what they paid for: the chance to disappear invisibly into the North American economy, after a restful orientation period of Canadian-taxpayer-financed health care, welfare and legal aid. The voyage may have been rough and the conditions of indenture to organized crime severe, but many people are prepared to endure such hardship on the gamble of a better life.

But the situation is useful for Canadians, too. As inhabitants of a lazy political entity that hasn't had a revolution or the need to repel invaders since Confederation, we are such lily-livered, soft-option and infinitely nice people that we absolutely refuse to face any hard issue until our collective noses are rubbed in it. Well, this rubbing has arrived, with new ships reported en route to Canadian waters daily.

Our political masters don't know what to do, not having finished their polling and focus groups. Of course, they know what most British Columbians want, which is the hard line. Variations include pushing the boats back off shore, deporting anyone who has arrived here illegally without further ado, or, at a minimum, detaining the migrants in spartan conditions until the "refugee" charade has been completed.

But what the government strategists aren't yet sure about is how this will play with their Toronto ethnic voters. Although it is increasingly apparent that the people most outraged about all this are legal immigrants who have got here the right but hard way, old habits do not die easily for Ottawa; so it mumbles vaguely about being bound by international conventions as an excuse for inaction.

This is nonsense. Every country has great latitude to interpret international commitments as it sees fit in its own laws and administrative practices. The broad range of immigration systems in existence demonstrates this. In the law of this country, even the Singh decision (in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that everyone in Canada, here legally or not, is entitled to full Charter of Rights protection at once) could simply be set aside or modified by Parliament. No, the failure to act arises not from legal obligation, but from confusion and electoral fear.

No one can put steel in the backs of chameleon politicians, but maybe the confusion can be remedied by some clear thinking. The basic problem is that we Canadians feel guilty about our good luck in living in this country. (We much overestimate our attractiveness; the United States is far and away the destination of choice for most immigrants, including the current boat people. But such is our conceit.)

One way to expunge these feelings of guilt is to share the wealth by allowing others in. That is the softheaded basis of our current immigration policy.

Why softheaded? Reason number one: There are just too many less fortunate people in the world for Canada to share itself equally with everyone. How to choose just a few when the number of needy rises into the billions? If we really want to help, the best policy is massive foreign aid and the removal of all restrictions on imports from Third World countries, to help others help themselves. Simpler still, we could eliminate our national borders and let the world's people migrate as they will. "Wait a minute," says the limousine liberal. "Hard to sell that one."

Reason number two: We ought not to feel guilty. The right way to feel, if you are so inclined, is generous, but that is a very different sort of sentiment. We should not feel guilty because we and our ancestors have earned what we have and we collectively add to and defend that endowment year after year.

Canada is not a rich country because of our resources, though that was once the case. We are wealthy because we respect the rule of law and the fair and free operation of markets, require democratic accountability of our rulers, reward hard work, invest in education and pay attention to technology. Other countries do some of those things better, but we get a passing grade.

None of these aspects of social organization is site-specific. Any country can have these characteristics and benefit from the ensuing wealth. In that sense, if we want to help others we should "export the revolution," as a famous communist used to say about another sort of philosophy. Alas, collectively we seem not to understand ourselves well enough to know why we are rich -- and therefore we feel guilty.

But maybe we can learn from all this. The answers are not complicated. Immigration is good for a country, adding new ideas and dynamism. For general immigration, choose the annual number that the country can comfortably absorb and then select the best you can find from wherever. Make the "family class" very small.

For the refugee category, pick a number according to your generosity. Then take the neediest first. And unless queue-jumpers come from countries we officially certify as barbaric, send them home. Period.
E-mail: ggibson@bc-home.com