Our arms still open to refugees

OTTAWA - IT WAS a long way to come in such squalid conditions only to bring out the worst in some of us. In those summer months when boatloads of Chinese migrants were beating against British Columbia's Pacific shores, it was as if we had forgotten who we are and where we came from.

Canadians who routinely open their hearts, wallets and communities to the world's oppressed were suddenly andpublicly exploring another, less generous, part of our national character.

There were calls for draconian measures, including suspending rights we take for granted. There were suggestions that Canada's borders are so porous that the country would be swamped by some of the 50 million who are the world's refugees, displaced persons and economic migrants.

More worrying still for the federal government, the high-profile problem of West Coast refugee claimants immediately - and illogically - threatened Ottawa's plans for dealing with future employment shortages by increasing immigration levels.

This movie has played here before. Pressure built to toughen the refugee system in 1986 when 152 Sri Lankans were rescued from leaky lifeboats off Newfoundland and a year later when 174 Sikhs came ashore in Nova Scotia.

Then, as now, critics claimed Canada is a patsy among nations, a soft touch for illegal immigrants and the crime rings that bring them here and then exploit them. It is true this country's refugee system can be improved and soon will be. But it is also true the system reflects Canadian values and is widely considered one of the best in the world.

Put simply, anyone who isn't a known terrorist or criminal is guaranteed a formal hearing after they land in Canada and claim to be a political refugee as defined by the United Nations. That process takes an average of about 11 months and leads to a claimant being accepted as a legitimate refugee or rejected and sent home.

Canadians strongly support the protection of individuals from state abuse but are much less sympathetic when crime organizations take advantage of this country's good intentions.

What happened last summer is that Canadians, with considerable help from the media, focused less on the human stories of people who braved the Pacific in rusty trawlers and more on what seemed like an attempt to jump immigration queues. In fact, there was much less to the migration story than met the public eye.

Dramatic and photogenic as the interceptions on the high seas were, the trawlers and their passengers were no greater threat to Canada's borders or refugee system than the 25,000 migrants who arrive annually at the country's air and land ports. But they drew attention to those migrants who know they won't meet the test for refugee status and simply disappear on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.

The timing could hardly have been worse for a government determined to put a fresh and positive face on immigration. On Aug. 14, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dumped Lucienne Robillard from the portfolio in favour of Elinor Caplan, a seasoned Ontario politician with strong roots in diverse Toronto.

Caplan had two early objectives: build public support for plans to increase immigration targets to 500,000 annually from 225,000, and deal with backbench concerns that tougher standards are keeping constituents from bringing family members here. Instead of promoting immigration strategy, Caplan found herself defending the refugee system.

While immigration and refugee policy are as different as chalk and cheese, public perceptions of problems in one spill into the other. With the Reform party breathing heavily and Parliament set to resume Oct 12, Caplan must restore confidence in the refugee system before she can convince Canadians that more immigration makes sense.

Caplan isn't talking, but the obvious way to do that is to get tough on those who abuse the system while protecting the rights of those legitimately seeking safe-haven here.

Among the favoured options are detaining refugees smuggled to Canada, tougher penalties for smugglers, a streamlined process to eliminate economic migrants and frivolous claims, closer regulatory co-operation with the U.S. and offshore screening for claimants.

Whatever method she chooses the message will be the same: Canada's arms are open to refugees but it is willing to use its fists on those who try to take advantage of us. If the message reaches its target, Canadians will be more interested in the people than the process the next time a rusty trawler breaks over our horizon.