Dear Concerned Citizen,

The Global Compact on migration is an inter-governmentally negotiated agreement coordinated by the United Nations. It has been a work-in-progress for two years with the final text agreed to this past July. It moves forward to formal adoption by UN members states, save for the United States, Australia and Hungary, this December in Morocco. It is noteworthy that the U.S. and Australia see the Compact as incompatible with their sovereignty concerns while Hungary desires measures that deter, rather than promote, migration. The two worldviews for and against the Compact could not be further apart as the U.N. sees migration as a benefit to all while opponents see it as a risk to security and social cohesion. Here are some of the aspects of the Compact that Canada is about to sign onto, it:

·       affirms the pre-eminence of international law in areas that include national migration policy and due process in dealing with both regular and “irregular” migrants;

·       requires a “whole of government” approach to eliminating discrimination and intolerance of migrants and their families (M-103 ring a bell?);

·       seeks to minimize factors that drive migration through the elimination of socioeconomic factors such as poverty and climate change while funding sustainable development at local and national levels in originating states;

·       sees border management as an internationally coordinated and integrated affair;

·       requires laws that see the provision of basic services to migrants without discrimination on a number of grounds including “political or other opinion”;

·       requires the incorporation of national health and education plans and policies that accommodate all migrants without discrimination in a “lifelong” fashion;

·       requires the minimization of disparities between migrant and host populations;

·       requires passage of laws that penalize hate crimes directed at migrants and the training of law enforcement and other public officials to respond to such occurrences;

·       demands the cessation of funds to media outlets that promote intolerance against migrants and the provision of national and regional complaint and redress mechanisms;

·       requires the promotion of safer, cheaper and easier means of remittance corridors to originating states; and

·       calls for the facilitation of return and readmission to originating states including financial support and the portability of social security benefits and earned benefits from host states.

Make no mistake, this Global Compact, with its promotion of available and flexible “pathways” of migration, means supranational coordination of international border controls. This will not be the first time the world has witnessed such developments as they are resident within the European context of the past few years. It is this context that has seen EU migration policy open up borders to mass Muslim migration from the Middle East and North Africa. The results in areas of security, violent crime, individual rights and finances has been, and continues to be, startling. Is there any reason that similar, supranational efforts at the U.N. level would produce different outcomes for Canada?

The Global Compact, like Motion M-103, has flown under the radar with little public debate before its imminent instatement. As well, it places an inordinate amount of pressure on the host nation to accommodate migrant sensibilities and needs. There is simply no mandate for the migrant to integrate or even consider the possibility that such a capacity might be a part of the migration process. Rather than this, the accepted bigotry of the host population must be “quelled” (M-103) or eliminated (Global Compact). Not great ways to start a “lifelong” relationship between host and migrant communities.

The stakes involved by virtue of the Global Compact are potentially nation-changing and include the type of social dislocation we are beginning to see in Europe. Sure, one might say that the agreement is non-binding since it doesn’t constitute an official treaty or UN Convention but it will establish an international norm regards the governance of international migration. It is norms such as these that can become part of what international law experts call “customary international law,” that, in turn, can inform and shape national laws.

Given the fact that the Compact calls up the need for significant resources to be expended by both federal and provincial agencies and for individual Canadians to sacrifice their right to criticize such policies and expenditures, is it not time to openly debate Canada’s participation in such a venture? At the very least and in line with the health and education burdens the provinces must bear, should the provinces, with Ontario at the fore, not be consulted before Canada can even consider lending it’s signature to such an enterprise?

What to do? It is clear by now that the federal government is simply chasing a U.N. pat on the head as it virtue-signals it’s “Canada’s back” mantra. They will not listen to your concerns over loss of sovereignty, security and individual rights and freedoms. Is it not better to petition a powerful office that is prepared to listen to these concerns and act? Given the fact that the Premier of Ontario has demonstrated his willingness to “rock the boat” and speak truth to power and the fact that Ontario has much to lose in the way of health and educational capacity, it makes sense to approach him and his administration with your concerns.

If you agree, please sign this petition and pass along your support of the adjoining message to Premier Ford and his administration.