G UILLERMO C ASTÁN L ANASPA R UBÉN L UGILDE Y EPES

Introduction to Chapter 7

“[W]hat characterizes contemporary societies is the growing distance between political democracy and socio-economic democracy . . . In short, we are talking of large sections of the population whose real economic, social and cultural conditions of life not only diverge more and more from legal-political representations of equality, but make increasingly fragile their participation in the institutions of political democracy.”

(Poulantzas 2000, 215) What we have to explain is a move toward "authoritarian populism"—an exceptional form of the capitalist state—which, unlike classical fascism, has retained most (though not all) of the formal representative institution in place, and which at the same time has been able to construct around itself an active popular consent. This undoubtedly represents a decisive shift in the balance of hegemony . . . It has entailed a striking weakening of democratic forms and initiatives, but not their suspension.”

(Hall 1979, 15)

“ . . . citizenship has constructed complex and layered levels of inequalities.

These inequalities are created in large part through national state categories of differential membership that accomplish, both materially and ideologically, the racialization of class in Canada. Whether people can feed, clothe, and shelter themselves or not, decide where to live or not, receive health care, educational services, and other social services or not, be protected or not by state forces: all these are significantly affected by their differential placement in various state categories of citizenship and non-citizenship. Notably,

whether one is a citizen, a permanent resident, or a temporary migrant worker is the most important factor in determining if a person will be free or unfree in Canada.”

(Sharma 2006, 142)

Previous chapters have illustrated how the Conservative incarnation of Canada’s settler colonial project vociferously exalts and reaches out to some (read: white and “loyal” “ethnic” Canadian) subjects while marginalizing others. As noted in chapter two, foregrounding the realities of Canada as a settler colonial state enables one to see how what Thobani refers to as “exalted subjects” (2007) reassert their colonial and neocolonial prerogatives. It also helps in assessing

how immigrants, migrants and refugees are treated in a substantive way rather than simply accepting state categories such as “temporary,” “permanent,” “landed” or eventually citizens at face value. Such foregrounding helps one to critically evaluate rather than accept the discourses and boundaries of debate of Canada’s political parties and state officials and to better assess the nature of their political projects.

Employing the notions of Kenneyism and neoconservative multiculturalism, earlier chapters discussed the Conservatives’ attempted hegemonic and disciplinary political project in the realms of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism. The Conservatives sought to achieve an exclusionary “minimum winning coalition” of voters, with “ethnic” and immigrant voters being an important target to permit the party to gain sufficient support to win elections and govern in an authoritarian populist manner. Neoconservative multiculturalism involves both a further hollowing out of the anti-racist potentials of multiculturalism discourses and policies and shifting both its policies and pluralist discourses in (neo)conservative directions. Its novelty is in creatively employing disciplinary and militarist clash of civilizations discourses alongside xenophilic rhetoric and outreach efforts to immigrants and “ethnic” voters to invite them to join the Conservatives’ political coalition. Chapter five, it is worth recalling began with Jason Kenney’s claims of the Conservatives to be the “Party of New Canadians” who seek “unity in diversity.” However in exploring the social relations of immigration advanced by the

Conservatives this chapter continues to show where xenophilic discourses often obscured exclusionary practices. Racialized and ethnicized others have been invited to participate and conform to a conservative settler colonial subjectivity or face discipline, if not outright exclusion should they be unable or choose not to conform to such a vision. Far from an inclusive project, refugees and other vulnerable (im)migrants have been targeted for exclusion as part of the Kenneyist project.

In the last chapter it was discussed how Bill C-24 was exemplary of the Conservative government’s approach in its concentration of power in the hands of the Immigration Minister, increased barriers to -- and greater inequalities -- concerning citizenship amongst those that possess it, and the disciplinary form of a neoconservative, militarist Canadian identity and nationalism it espoused. This chapter will further explore how the party’s settler colonial authoritarian populist project also entails a substantive decline in democracy and intensification of unequal social relations in the Canadian social formation.

Per Hall’s insight, above, the Conservatives’ Kenneyist approach “entailed a striking weakening of democratic forms and initiatives, but not their suspension” in granting themselves further powers through the abuse of -- rather than a suspension -- of parliamentary procedures in these fields. As Hall and Poulantzas respectively argue, the politics of authoritarian populism and statism witnesses a further distancing of the public from processes of parliamentary democracy.

If justified at all, in the politics of Kenneyism this distancing is legitimized by tactics such as the demonization of refugees and other vulnerable (im)migrants and the employment of facile nationalism and assertions of national interests discussed in prior chapters. The Conservatives also sought to target and delegitimize the relative power of their opponents or other parts of government that might restrain them, such as the judiciary.

Neoconservatism and its interaction with neoliberalism is a major driver of the

Conservatives’ approach to citizenship and immigration in this context. In terms of continuity, the Conservatives entered office at a time where there had been at least decade and a half long shifts towards neoliberal approaches to immigration policy, including the expansion of the economic class and tightening and shrinking the family class alongside attempts to reduce refugee admissions (Arat-Koç 1999). The temporary foreign worker program was becoming more accessible to employers due to changes accompanying the Immigration and Refugee

Protection Act (IRPA). Thus to some extent these were bipartisan policy orientations shared with the Liberal Party and its prior governments. Simmons, for example, identifies a shared

“utilitarian” neoliberal consensus amongst Canada’s governing parties from the 1990s through 2015 (Simmons 2017, 300; 2010). As will be seen, however, the Conservatives accelerated and intensified such dynamics considerably. A significant intensification of neoliberal trends and more regressive social relations are observable across all categories of permanent immigration and purportedly temporary migration programs under the Conservatives.

As Barass and Shields note, the “hyper-neoliberal” Conservatives under Stephen Harper shifted public discourses from one of “a language of nation-building” to a “‘just-in-time’

competitive immigration system” in the words of former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty (Barras and Shields 2017, 200). As seen in chapter three, the period of “invasion from the margin” and ultimately the truimph of Reform over Progressive Conservative elements in the parties’ eventual 2004 merger saw an unambiguous rejection of Red Toryism that might have had a greater

moderating influence in their approach to citizenship, immigration and refugee protection. The new Conservative Party’s thoroughly neoconservative orientation and its eradication of a somewhat paternalist Red Tory ideology is particularly evidenced in the party’s treatment of refugees. The elimination of this strain of conservatism in the new Conservative Party can be seen in their attacks on the Interim Federal Health Program for refugees, which that had existed since the Diefenbaker Conservative government, and other developments discussed below.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the further distancing of decision making in the realms of immigration and refugee policy from the wider citizenry, and concomitant

concentration of significant power in the hands of the executive in its long term context.

Secondly, this chapter engages in a discussion of shifting social relations and priorities in immigration under the Conservatives. In addition to the decline of democratic decision-making,

another key characteristics of the politics of Kenneyism was the major growth in the use of socially constructed “temporary” workers and a decline in the security of tenure and access to full political rights and freedoms for many (im)migrants and refugees. The areas discussed below address the intensification of neoliberal policy priorities and precarity of immigration in Canada with classed, raced and gendered effects. These include 1) the growth of and significant shifts within the economic class, 2) a reduction of prospects to reunite immigrant families, 3) a diminishment of protection and security for refugees and refugee claimants, 4) the erosion of pathways to citizenship, building on the findings of chapter six and 5) the vast expansion and misleading politics of the expansion of Canada’s temporary foreign worker program under the Conservative government.

It will be seen that while under the Conservatives the total number of persons granted permanent residence remained relatively consistent on a yearly basis (as can be seen in table 7.2) -- which allowed them to campaign on maintaining previous immigration levels -- there were important qualitative shifts within those totals and overall (im)migration trends. Many of these will be discussed below. Consistent with the ideology of Kenneyism described in chapter two, and the tendency of neoconservative governance to shift the balance of power to employers from workers, Canada also witnessed the increase of private sector employer power relative to labour in general and to migrant workers in particular. Developments in this area led to significant political challenges for the Conservative government, however, as will be discussed below.

In this chapter it becomes clear that -- as long as was politically feasible -- those exalted and politically and economically favoured under the Conservatives authoritarian populist project included business and employer groups. On the other hand, it will be seen that those increasingly marginalized included many refugees, temporary foreign workers and new (im)migrants who faced greater barriers to citizenship, family reunification and to participation in Canadian society,

with troubling classed, gendered and raced dynamics. The Conservatives also sought to weaken oversight and accountability for their changes and target their political opponents.

Diminished Democracy and Regressive Social Relations in Citizenship and Immigration As noted in chapter two, the theme of democracy and its further decline has been prominent in discussions of the Harper government. As will be seen in this chapter, while such developments need to be placed in longer term context, the social relations of citizenship and immigration under the Conservatives featured their own particular dynamics of inclusion and exclusion that merit sustained attention. Key aspects of the Conservatives authoritarian populism to be addressed in include a decline in the rights, possibilities and security of (im)migrants in Canada’s economic, political and social life, and their policy making approaches and policies themselves that made Canada’s political system less democratic.

Overall, this chapter considers the question of democracy and immigration in terms of social relations- whether or not societal participation, labour and political rights and a sense of belonging are promoted for those more newly arrived to or reside precariously in the Canadian settler colonial state or whether they are delayed, if not denied. In the context of citizenship and immigration policy this is done with the admittedly rudimentary notion that democracy means- or should mean- giving both voice and societal membership and participation to all those residing within a given social formation. Thus the notion of democracy employed here is used to discuss whether the policies, discourses or sets of policies and discourses pursued in the areas under discussion tend towards more openness and societal participation – in the direction of

participatory and procedural liberal democracy on its own expressed terms- or to towards the opposite pole of authoritarianism or a decline of democracy. Rather than accepting undemocratic processes as not being as abhorrent as those of potential comparison countries, as Abu-Laban has