Asylum assault?

Visa regimes that regulate or restrict movement of citizens of two countries appear to live their own lives sometimes. Unfortunately, the necessity to get that visa sticker usually complicates lives and travels of people who were in no way the reason why the visas were introduced in the first place.

The Czechs travelled to Canada freely until 1997 when Ottawa slammed the door due to the high number of asylum seekers. The same issue marred Prague’s relationships with Britain in the past. Apparently, former federal ties were stronger in a certain demographic, as Slovakia had the same problem with Britain, Finland and Belgium – influxes of asylum seekers prompted the harsh response, sometimes in the form of introducing visa requirements. There was an era when keen asylum seekers quickly found a replacement country – sometimes with the help of even more keen for-profit “helpers”. Once the visas were lifted, exodus re-started with varied degree of intensity. Fortunately, within few years it all became pointless since both Slovakia and the Czech republic joined the European Union.

In October 2007, Canada lifted the restriction for Czech citizens and since March 2008, Slovaks could travel to Canada without visas too. Following the pattern known from the past, the Czechs flooded Canada again. And, following all previous exoduses, it’s mostly the Romas who apply for asylum. Or so the Czechs claim, but given their and the Slovaks’ previous experience, it can be taken for granted.

Exodus may sound like an exaggeration, but the word is rather appropriate when things are put into a proper context. In 2008, 861 Czechs sought asylum in Canada. The first quarter of 2009 saw 653 asylum applications (34 succeeded), mostly claimed on the minority related issues. It doesn’t sound like much but it’s more than asylum applications put forward by the Afghans (488), the Iraqis (282) and the Cubans (184). In fact, Czech asylum seekers placed fourth behind the Mexicans, the Haitians and the Colombians. Indirect threat that the visa regime could be reinstated is not entirely out of place.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged that the current state of the affairs might not be entirely Czech government’s fault. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who used what was perhaps a less diplomatic language, called Canadian asylum system “soft” and suggested that the two countries wouldn’t be discussing the issue if Canada reclassified the Czech republic as a safe country of origin. If that was a case, Czech citizens wouldn’t be eligible to apply for asylum. More on that later.

The Lidove noviny (Czech daily newspaper) reminded that Mr Harper had already admitted that the influx is organized. The daily also mentioned a secret expert report that claimed the mass emigration is coordinated by former Czechoslovak citizens living in Canada. If so, this would not be entirely new situation, since similar “agencies” were suspected to be behind past exoduses of Slovak and Czech Romas to European countries. Profiteers or “employment mediators” operate on both sides of the Atlantic which means that both Prague and Ottawa need to cooperate to eradicate their operations or, at least, limit their influence.

The Czech government cannot restrict the right of Czech citizens to travel – to Canada or any other country. However, as Mr. Topolanek noted, the solution would be to find jobs for the asylum seekers in the Czech republic. Another good thing might be to make sure the message “don’t believe the scams” gets across to those who need to hear it the most. Apparently, an abundance of people who lost a great deal of money to the profiteers is not enough to deter new victims.

The Czech side feels that Ottawa should reclassify the Czech Republic’s safe country of origin status. The problem is, the safe country of origin status is a tricky concept, and, according to Canadian ambassador to Prague Michael Calcott, every applications are considered on a case-to-case basis and everybody can apply (source: Czech Television). If so, a change of attitude is necessary. Sure, Czech republic has its problems, but the country is perfectly safe, certainly no less safer than Canada. It’s Canada’s NATO ally. If Ottawa needed any further assurance it should have found it in 2004 when the Czech republic joined the EU, or at the very latest, in 2007, when it joined the Schengen Area, a part of Europe (26 countries) with no border controls, open for the free movement of more than 400 million Europeans.

Count Ignatieff. In.

There will be many lines along which the Conservatives will attack the Liberals in the next election campaign but one will stand out. Having an extensive foreign experience, being known and respected abroad can be played out as a sign that a person with such characteristic is not a good Canadian. Read any Internet forum and the international experience of the new Liberal Party leader emerges as the main objection that disqualifies him from being a prime minister in the eyes of many Canadians. They call it “he lived abroad”. The official campaign will not be different.

Targeting a single person for what and who they are has become a standard of the Conservatives’ partisan politics. “Can you imagine a man, who spent years outside Canada to be a prime minister of this country?” will be a follow-up on the last year’s mantra “Can you imagine Stephan Dion to be your prime minister?”. Of course, Canadians do no vote for a prime minister but a potentially decisive number of Canadians does hold a belief that they do as was demonstrated last year during the parliament crisis.

Another point is nationalism. Stephen Harper was very quick in hitting on the very dangerous pseudo-patriotic string during the last year’s parliamentary crisis, the attack that peaked with a pure lie. Harper claimed that the three political leaders who signed the coalition treaty didn’t do so with a Canadian flag in the background. It was pathetic, sure, but heyday patriots bought it as well as a even more pathetic Harper’s follow up (flags pushed aside). Simplifying is the essence of politics but at times it borders on primitivism.

Finally, the Conservatives has become a one-man party over the past few years and simply do not have a candidate that would be on par with Michael Ignatieff. Personal attack, beyond the usual campaign standards, is inevitable.

Harper is a brilliant politician, a master of partisan politics, of the realpolitik. Otherwise he wouldn’t be able to sustain his primeministership for so long with a minority government. But his ability as prime minister ends with divide et impera. And the trouble with this tactics is it works only for Harper and his immediate clique in the Conservative party.

Ignatieff said something very similar at the Liberals’ convention over the weekend when he sent a message directly to Stephen Harper. “For three years you have played province against province, group against group, region against region and individual against individual. When your power was threatened last November, you unleashed a national unity crisis and you saved yourself only by sending Parliament home.”

This, however, is not a mere political, partisan statement. This is a political analysis. But the phrasing is spot on, target audience is Canadian public at its most inclusive definition. Ignatieff is occasionally criticized for being too academic, too scientific and too elitist. He is all those things and it is appreciated where and when necessary. But in Vancouver he proved more-less conclusively that there is a different Ignatieff. The fact that the Conservatives are already targeting his international experience via viral Internet campaign is a definitive proof that Ignatieff and the Liberal party are on the right track. And the only alternative the Conservatives can offer is blatant nationalism.

Mysterious invitation highlights deficiencies of Canadian political system

Did U.S. President Barack Obama invite Canada’s Governor General Michaëlle Jean to Washington or not? GG’s spokesperson Marthe Blouin was quoted as saying that the US president would love to see the Governor in Washington. Since then, Ms. Blouin refused to comment on her own words. The PM’s office refused to comment on that. White House refused to comment on that. Globe and Mail voiced “the word of government circles” that apparently opined that the spokesperson might have exaggerated what Barack Obama actually said.

Under normal circumstances, the matter would be clarified without much ado and delays. If the GG’s spokesperson went overboard with her interpretation of what was said, it would only provide welcomed ammunition for the control-freaks in the PM’s office to use in the supposed conflict between the GG and the PM.

But if the U.S. President had said just what Ms Blouin said he had there’s nothing to clarify because the only party that exaggerated anything were Canadian media running in the overdrive induced in part by the Obama’s visit and in part by the fact they got used to speculate as the information flow from the Harper’s government is channelled with utmost care, i.e. very selectively.

Another point is that there wouldn’t have been a mystery to solve if the Governor General had refused to grant Stephen Harper prorogation of the House of Commons, setting up a very dangerous precedent. And of course, none of that would be an issue if Canada had a modern and democratic political system where all branches of legislative and executive bodies have their powers and competences clearly defined and can control one another by checks and balances.

Is Harper in for a lesson from Obama?

Apparently, everybody who has grown a mouth in Canada has something to say about the upcoming Barack Obama’s visit to Ottawa. Among the cacophony of voices are, however, few with a point. And an agenda. Or, to be more specific, an idea of what the agenda of the US president should be.

Take Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and their report penned by Bruce Campbell, CCPA’s Executive Director. According to the CCPA, the net effect of Canadian stimulus package (worth $40 billion) will be only 0.7% of the GDP, which is quarter of the US package. The budget and stimulus package, though approved by the House of Commons, are more the products of political and economic necessity than general consensus, and it’s in a way normal that the Centre for Policy ‘Alternatives’ (emphasis mine) does not approve of the government’s work.

The CCPA concludes that the conservative government of Stephen Harper is taking a “free ride” on the US stimulus package. In other words, relying too much on the effects US package would have on Canadian economy. Given the “highly integrated and asymmetrical nature of the two economies”, a fancy way of saying that Canadian economy is totally and utterly dependent on the US economy, it will certainly have an impact. Moreover, it will not be limited to the effects of the remnants of “Buy American” clauses, initially inserted into the package by congressmen seriously challenged in geography, economics and common sense. To sum up, CCPA would like to hear Mr. Obama saying to Mr. Harper to do his bit in North American economic recovery.

In the same way, Climate Action Network Canada wants the US President to deliver a lecture on the environment. Stephen Harper has been know for having a very good mutual understanding with both oil industry and George Bush. The latter is now gone resulting in what only few months ago was an unlikely scenario. US President pushing for tougher environmental standards and really meaning it. Which is something that Stephen Harper is not very keen on doing.

In the past, under very different circumstances, Harper could afford to dismiss all similar suggestions coming from inside of Canada. Which was exactly what he did. The problem wasn’t with what all the NGOs, think-tanks, networks and centres were saying, but their suggestions were almost always delivered in a highly academic tone and were, again almost always, highly politically charged. That gave Harper room not for discussion but for dismissing them in an instant.

The way of delivery hasn’t changed. What changed, though, is the US policy which now, in essence, corresponds to what Canadian groups has been pushing for. Harper can afford to play politics in the Canadian parliament and outside, but can’t afford to play the same game with the current US administration. Certainly not on the fields of energy, environment and the economics. Well, Harper can. But Canada cannot.

Conquering West or conquering rural Canada?

While some people were busy falling in love over the Valentine weekend, Canadian Liberals revealed their crush on the West. Or at least that was the idea. Michael Ignatieff went to Saskatchewan, for the first time as the leader of the Liberal Party, with the clear message. The party must embrace the West, it cannot afford to succumb to temptation to run against it, against what it represents. Which means, cowboy values aside, the energy sector, oil, drilling and perceived capitalism.

Ignatieff has very good reasons for the love-thy-enemy approach. Poor showing in the last federal elections cost the Liberals 26 seats in the House. They lost Ontario, which certainly hurt, but west of the Canada’s largest province they managed to get exactly 7 seats – one in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan and five in British Columbia. And zero seats in Alberta. Of course, the seat math distorts the real vote distribution due to the natural democratic deficit of Canadian first-past-the-post election system. Proportional vote would have resulted in a very different House of Commons.

Still, the Liberals would have lost. The Green Shift, or carbon tax plan, which was the lead of the Liberal’s campaign didn’t go down well in oil-rich provinces, for a start, not many people really knew what it was all about and second, it came from the Liberal party, therefore it is probably a socialist idea trying to undermine western capitalism. There’s no love lost and, occasionally, there are talks about Western Canada splitting from the rest of the country. Many dismiss the idea as too marginal, others say that it’s not meant for real anyway, and point out to the Quebec’s secessionist movement instead. With the Bloc Québécois, it is rather simple. Everybody agrees it’s a one province party. They don’t campaign outside Quebec so while other parties’ leaders and candidates are busy flying across 4 and half timezones, Bloc’s folks are enjoying bus trips within the province.

The Bloc Québécois is the only province-based party but they’re certainly not the only regional one. The Conservatives dominate in the West and while they’re not a single-region party, the West is certainly a single-party region. Unlike Quebec with surprisingly inspirational popular vote distribution (Bloc – 38.1%, Liberals – 23.7%, Conservatives – 21.7%, NDP – 12.1%). Compare that to Saskatchewan (Conservatives – 53.7%) and Alberta (Conservatives 64.6%)…

The Liberals were pushed, with the great help from themselves, out of the West. But they also lost touch with the most of Canada. With few exceptions, their main sources of votes were city centres. Urban jungle seems to be the winning battleground but there’s still Canada beyond the downtown quarters.

That Canada is very different. It may not have the western energy mentality, but it’s certainly less academic about everyday life. Embracing the West is good, but embracing Canada would be even better, for the Liberals and for the country. Michael Ignatieff, the impersonation of intellectual powers and academia, must find the way how to embrace the whole country without becoming Stephen Harper in the process.

Ignatieff won

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper did a perfect job in the past few weeks. For the most part of the time, he kept himself to himself. It may be hard to quantify the effects, nevertheless, it was a significant contributor to seemingly seamless sail the government had in paving a parliamentary road for the budget. Canada’s financial plan that forecasts a $33.7 billion deficit in 2009/10 fiscal year was passed by the House of Commons on Tuesday evening with only New Democrats and Bloc Québécois MPs voting against.

This is where things get interesting. OK, Harper got it right. Not necessarily when it comes to the budget itself because, thanks to his attitude and passion for power games, Canada lost few crucial months in getting the country’s finances adapted to the challenges of global economic crisis. But in the post-prorogation weeks, he stayed quiet. The proverbial bitter pill was digested during the winter break and Jim Flaherty partook most of it anyway. But it doesn’t mean that Harper lost control of the party.

Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe did his job perfectly, he stands for his party and Quebec. In fact, being in the opposition and representing his province, he couldn’t get it wrong.

Now, Jack Layton… By voting against the budget, even the New Democrats’ leader behaved as expected, but only from his partisan point of view. Few hours after Michael Ignatieff, a fresh leader of the Liberal Party, announced his semi-conditional, probational support for the budget, NDP launched an attack against Ignatieff. That was short sighted at best. Yes, Ignatieff appeared to have reject the idea of the coalition, but Layton decided to kill it off. Lack of maturity? Or just an example of petty partisanship?

There was more to the NDP-Liberal coalition than just the need to get rid of Harper, but that was apparently beyond the reach of Jack Layton. If only he could get up from his kitchen table for a while…

Finally, it was Michael Ignatieff who did the best job in the most complicated circumstances. There was the budget, then the coalition and finally Liberals’ MPs for Newfoundland and Labrador, a classic example of a conflict between the interests of a party and those of the MPs’ constituents.

Ignatieff managed to get the most of everything. He forced the Conservatives to submit themselves to the regular scrutiny, which is significant given the fact that they still have minority in the House of Commons. Using words such as “ransom” or “gunpoint” may be slightly overboard but, at the same time, let’s not forget that the Conservatives voted for the Liberals’ amendment.

As for the Coalition, it was supposed to be a second option and was supposed to stay hanging around as potential threat. It’s regrettable that short-fused Layton didn’t get it, but given his eagerness, he still may jump on board if the opportunity to form a coalition government re-appears.

Finally, by allowing Newfoundland and Labrador MPs to vote against the budget, Ignatieff confirmed, that unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party is not the party that revolves around a single man with, at times disturbing, authoritarian tendencies. Allowing the vote was, according Tom Flanagan, Harper’s former advisor, a sign of weakness. “Harper would never do something similar,” said Flanagan as quoted in the Globe and Mail.

Yes, he wouldn’t. And that’s the most important thing.

Enforcing the vote on the six MPs and alienating the province’s electorate would have done much more damage to the party. All mature political parties do contain factions but their leaders tend to have enough common sense to keep the party united when it really matters. Ignatieff’s decision didn’t change the outcome of the vote, in other words, it didn’t really matter how the “rebelling” MPs voted. In the whole budget tale, Newfoundland issue is the only Harper’s victory.