Tories attacking migration compact from wrong angle
One hundred and sixtyfour countries agreed to the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration on Monday in Morocco. And while the ship has long since sailed, in theory, there are quite a few things in there that Canadian conservatives might have gotten behind.
Signatory countries “aim to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, while reducing the incidence and negative impact of irregular migration.” The Tories have been demanding precisely that along the New York-Quebec border for two years.
Signatory countries support the “eradication” of human trafficking, and international cooperation to “facilitate safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration.” They declare support for various skills-based migration schemes designed to address labour market needs, “including temporary, seasonal, circular, and fast-track programs.”
It’s Tory immigration policy in a nutshell.
Moreover, not only is the document “non-legally binding.” It also “reaffirms the sovereign right of states to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction.”
Of course, there are also quite a few things in the compact of which Canadian conservatives might naturally be leery — starting with its very existence. In its 13th paragraph, this 34-page nonbinding document essentially proposes fixing humankind. “Migration should never be an act of desperation,” it declares. “We must work together to create conditions that allow communities and individuals to live in safety and dignity in their own countries.”
That’s some feat even before you start perusing the list of signatories: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar …
There is no reason for conservatives to apologize for their general skepticism of these aspirational multilateral exercises, or of the UN as a general concept. The fact that it’s non-binding — as various Canadian academics joined forces to insist last week — really isn’t a very compelling argument for ratifying it.
Canada’s commitment to multilateralism transcends parties, but whereas Liberals tend to see signing a non-binding commitment as an accomplishment in its own right, Conservatives tend to see it as meaningless if there’s no follow-through. Again, they’ve nothing to apologize for there. Failure is in no way redeemed by a previous non-binding commitment not to fail — rather the opposite, in fact. And in the case of the migration compact, Canada is already doing just about everything signatory states are committing to do.
Well, sorry — its defenders insist it commits us to nothing, so we must sign it.
Alas, these aren’t the Tories’ headline objections. They’ve joined other refusenik countries, mostly European, in portraying the compact as an attack on national sovereignty. “It gives influence over Canada’s immigration system to foreign entities,” Leader Andrew Scheer said last week. (“Entities” adds an especially conspiratorial frisson, I think.) “Canadians, and Canadians alone, should make decisions on who comes in our country and under what circumstances.”
Scheer did hit on one valid criticism: that the compact “attempts to influence how our free and independent media report on immigration issues.” He refers to paragraph 33(c), which suggests states “promote independent, objective and equality reporting … by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology.” It’s gross: There is nothing any government anywhere in the world should do to promote independent reporting except allow independent reporting to occur.
Yet in the same sentence, Scheer again warned the compact “could open the door to foreign bureaucrats telling Canada how to manage our borders.” Former Conservative immigration minister Chris Alexander called it out as nonsense. The most compelling opinion any Tory seems able to muster in support is that of Anne Peters, director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, who argues the compact is “not legally irrelevant.”
Peters also argues “the compact will not generate legally binding obligations,” though, and distinguishes it from documents like the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, which eventually found its way into Canadian law (as National Post’s John Ivison recently observed). “In contrast to the Migration Compact, the Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration looks much more like a treaty with short and clearer provisions,” she writes in a blog post at the European Journal of International Law.
In short, the Conservatives should have been able to mount a vigorous case against ratifying a document, the best case for which seems to be: “why not?” Instead, fronted wholly unconvincingly by the dimpled and hopelessly inoffensive Scheer, they seem determined to dip a toe in the ongoing battle between globalism and nationalism.
It’s not at all convincing. It’s like they’re playing a schoolyard version of the culture war that’s roiling the United States and Europe, confident that Canada’s strong and stable consensus around immigration will prevent it from blowing up for real. I suspect they’re right about that. It’s the same sort of tactic to which Alexander stooped with his “barbaric cultural practices” tip line, for which he has since repented. But it’s unserious at best, and I’ve seen no evidence it’s what Canadians — conservative or otherwise — are looking for.