Racism In Canada

Although Satzewich & Liodakis (2007) focus on various racial, ethnic, or cultural groups (e.g. Aboriginal or Quebecois peoples), one message seems to resonate throughout the text – those in power craft policy and legislation to maintain their power and control by marginalizing the minority. For example, as Satzewich & Liodakis (2007) point out, legislation was put in place in attempts to “satisfy the French Canadian elite of landlords and Catholic church representatives” (p. 32) and not simply out of respect for diversity; it served as a means to an end (p.32). Similarly, the relative tolerance of Europeans with First Nations and Aboriginal peoples during the fur trade appear to have been motivated economically; when there was less need for

assistance from Aboriginal peoples, a degree of coexistence was replaced with “policies of assimilation” (Satzewich & Liodakis, 2007, p. 39; Satzewich & Liodakis, 2007 pp. 35 & 39-40).

Lastly, immigration procedures and policy in general, as Satzewich & Liodakis (2007) poignantly state, have an “inherent tension...between seeing and using immigrants as a convenient means of solving short term labour market problems and seeing them as [those]...who will contribute to the reproduction of wider social and political relations” (p.44). In reflecting on this quotation, I wonder how far Canada has actually come from our historical racialized treatment of minority groups, or whether our racism is simply less overt. Although not all government relations with minority populations necessarily involved this same dynamic, the seeming prevalence of this trend across the numerous different groups at various times (as described) seems to suggest a more concerning and pervasive problem. I found this article particularly compelling as it linked complex historical events together within a framework of racial tensions and power dynamics. That being said, I would like to have seen some comment as to where we can go from here; as necessary as it is to acknowledge what has happened, this knowledge must be used to alter how we currently approach similar

situations.

In detailing the eligibility criteria and the breadth of numerous immigration programs (both economically and family focused), Ali (2014) presents a perspective that is highly critical of the changes made to immigration policy. In short, as Ali (2014) states, “most of these [immigration] policies are focused at short-term economic gains rather than long-term nation building” (pg. 3). Perhaps no example highlights this economic motivation more than the changes for families who want to sponsor family members to come to Canada (Ali, 2014, p.15). More specifically, the use of “minimum necessary income (MNI) thresholds” (Ali, 2014, p. 15) seems like, as Ali (2014) asserts, an “exclusionary measure” (p.13) cloaked in the guise of protecting the Canadian economy. Although I understand that Canada does not have an unlimited amount of resources to facilitate the reunification of families, I cannot help but think that there has to be another way to protect our economy without creating a hierarchy of immigrants where some are unable to sponsor their families (p.15). On a separate note, despite being aware of the Temporary Foreign Worker program (TFWP), and having encountered a variety of individuals who have been a part of TFWP, I had never fully considered the potential abuses to this program. Despite the rapid expansion of this program, it has not been accompanied by policies to protect these workers (pp. 10 & 12). Their status as ‘temporary’ precludes them from having the same legal protections as a Canadian citizen or permanent resident (Ali, 2014, p. 13). Although, as Ali (2014) acknowledges, there are no easy answers to issues with the TFWP, it does not make sense to me that Canada would continue to increase the prevalence of this program when these “abuse[s]” (Ali, 2014, p.11) are taking place. Perhaps the inaction of the Canadian government to the improving the working conditions of temporary foreign workers reveals the overwhelming financial motivations that underlie Canada’s immigration policies and practices, despite the human costs (Ali, 2014, p.11).

Keung’s (2015a) article attempts to display the apparent gross inefficiencies and inaccuracies of Canada’s immigration process by using cases of alleged Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) mistakes and CIC’s own internal review (para.

6 & 9). The seeming frequency with which mistakes are made in CIC’s application processing seems almost inconceivable, with an internal review finding “human error issues in 617 request letters sent to applicants” (Keung, 2015a, para. 12) out of “996 files processed” (Keung, 2015a, para. 12). However, the article does not expand on the effects of the errors in the review; perhaps the “fail[ure]…to use correct form letters” (Keung, 2015a para. 13) did not substantially alter the content of the letter. That being said, if a majority of these errors in communication between CIC and applicants are having grave consequences for the applicant (such as in the case of Damaris Carzon), then this seems unacceptable for the only immigration-processing agency in Canada (Keung, 2015a, para. 16). As well, I think that part of the difficulty surrounding cases where CIC made an error in the application may be that applicants may not have the financial ability to challenge decisions made because of this error (e.g. deportation); the economic marginalization of many immigrant individuals may limit their ability to secure legal counsel to assist them in appealing any decisions made by

CIC.

Keung’s (2015b) second article was similar in its disapproval of CIC’s processing inefficiencies, although it has a greater focus on delays rather than errors in processing (para. 8-10). I appreciated that Keung (2015b) pointed out the differential delays in case processing between those cases that have economic benefit for Canada (e.g. skilled workers) and “family reunification programs” (para. 8). This assertion seems to point toward the larger issue of differential application processing depending on the perceived benefits that the Canadian economy can receive from an individual’s immigration (Keung, 2015b, para. 8). Yet, I wonder if or how we can compel the government to make non-economically motivated immigration a greater priority. Is it a matter of the public not being informed of the delays in immigration processing, therefore allowing wait times like that in the case of Hazel Penullar’s mother to persist (Keung, 2015b, para. 2)? And are we willing, as a society, to bear the potential economic costs of making family reunification a greater priority or, when it comes down to it, do we share the Conservative government’s focus on the bottom line?