Volume 6, Number 4

IMMIGRATION PART II: Television's Attention to Government Policies

LAST YEAR CANADA ADMITTED A QUARTER MILLION immigrants from almost 200 countries around the world. Families were reunited, refugees gained haven from civil and political persecution, business people chose Canada as their home and as the location for their investments. The nightly television newscasts documented the arrival of these immigrants and the reactions to the changes in Canadian society which inevitably ensued. As one of the primary sources of information for Canadians, television influenced the attitudes towards these immigrants and the government policies which determined the criteria upon which citizenship was granted.

In 1989, major revisions were made to Canada's immigration laws. On Balance analyzed the television coverage throughout that year and found that almost half of CBC and half of CTV coverage provided substantive analysis of the immigration system. The Immigration Act received further amendments on January 31, 1993, designed to streamline the application process and protect Canada from criminals and fraudulent refugee claims. However, these amendments received far less scrutiny.

This On Balance is the second of a two-part study which will analyze the national television coverage of all issues pertaining to immigration from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992. Part I examined the television coverage of individual examples of immigrants and refugees. It found that television focused on their negative experiences even though numerous studies have shown that immigration provides a net benefit for Canadians.

Part I also found that the additional attention given to the human interest stories was at the expense of substantive analysis of the immigration system. Part II will examine the coverage of Canada's immigration policies and continue to compare and contrast the findings of the original On Balance study.

Substantive Analysis of Immigration Act Reduced

THE 1989 ON BALANCE STUDY FOUND THAT 44 PERCENT of CBC and 51 percent of CTV total attention to immigration gave substantive analysis of the government's policies. During that year, major revisions were made to Canada's immigration policies in order to reduce the huge backlog of applicants caused by the system's inability to deal with the increasing number of claims. The majority of the coverage dealt with the changes to refugee policy, the hearing process and the sponsorship system.

In contrast, during the period of this study, the proportion of coverage devoted to explaining and analyzing the policies dropped significantly, with less than one-third of CBC and CTV coverage focusing on the Immigration Act. It is interesting to note that while the House of Commons did not debate any specific policies during most of this time, television news also failed to critically examine either the policies or the effects of the recent amendments.

Figure A compares the networks' coverage of the Immigration Act over the four years. The greatest proportion of the coverage occurred in 1989 when the amendments to Canada's refugee policy were being debated in the House of Commons. Forty-three percent of CBC and 34 percent of CTV total attention to the immigration system over the four years occurred in 1989. In contrast, in 1991, when no specific legislation was being debated by the politicians, the immigration system received only 14 percent of CBC and 10 percent of CTV coverage regarding the government's policies.

Click here to view Figure A: Network Coverage of the Immigration Act, 1989 - 1992

CBC balances assessments of immigration policies

One of the most significant changes in the reporting practices of the networks occurred in their assessments of immigration policies. In 1989, both networks were highly critical of the proposed changes to Canada's refugee policy. On CBC and CTV negative statements regarding the government's policies outnumbered positive statements by a ratio of eight to one.

As Figure B shows, assessments of the government's policies were more balanced during the period of this study. In particular, CBC provided balanced coverage of the Immigration Act, with 46 percent of the assessments praising the government's policies and 54 percent providing a critique. CTV continued to be critical of Canada's immigration policies; 28 percent of their statements consisted of favourable commentary and 72 percent of their statements provided unfavourable commentary.

Click here to view Figure B: Television Attention to Immigration Policies

CBC, CTV critical of refugee policy

As was the case in 1989, Canada's refugee policy received negative attention on both networks. The majority of these statements were made in response to measures which would reduce the number of fraudulent refugees and criminals entering Canada. In order to accomplish these objectives, immigration officers would be given the authority to search, photograph and fingerprint claimants. In addition, it would let Canada return refugees to safe third countries from which they could make their claim.

All of CTV and two-thirds of CBC commentary was critical. For example, on the 15 June 1992 CTV Evening News Roger Clark of Amnesty International expressed his concerns that certain countries would be incorrectly designated as safe. He concluded: "Canada is putting up very effective barriers which in the name of resolving a current problem in effect means that Canada is shirking its' international responsibility."

Following this statement, reporter Ken Ernhofer stated: "Immigration Lawyer Doug Miller says the new rules will deny access to Canada's system to legitimate refugees." However, Doug Miller simply stated that: "The new regulations are going to curtail acceptance rates by arguably 50 to 60 percent." While there is difficulty in defining a "safe" third country, CTV provided no evidence that legitimate refugees would be denied access.

Comprehensive coverage on CTV

CBC offered few statements to explain the rationale behind the government's policies. In contrast, CTV provided a special report on the problem of fraudulent refugee claims. On the July 27, 1992 CTV News reporter Craig Oliver stated: "In the last two and a half years 100,000 people have shown up on Canada's doorstep claiming to be legitimate refugees, often with no passports or proof of identity. At Mirabel Airport alone last year, immigration officials say almost every refugee claimant had fraudulent documents or none at all." The report proceeded to explain the proposed legislation and the powers it would give immigration officials to check out the identity of refugees.

Special Interest Group Influences CBC Coverage

ON JULY 30, 1992, IMMIGRATION MINISTER BERNARD Valcourt announced special measures to facilitate family reunification for members of the former Yugoslavia. This program generated significant coverage on both networks. Almost half of CBC and CTV coverage explained the policy. Of the assessments given, CBC provided slightly more critical comments while CTV provided slightly more praise.

Although CBC praised the government's reunification policy for members of the former Yugoslavia, the majority of the commentary focused on claim that Canada was giving special treatment to European nations. On the July 31, 1992 Journal interview, reporter Susan Harada challenged Immigration Minister Valcourt with the statement: "Critics are saying that the government seems to be favouring European refugees over those from Somalia."

The concern that Somalians were not being given the same treatment as former Yugoslavians had been fuelled by an incorrect statement given two nights previously on the CBC's The National. CBC source Nancy Pocock of the Canadian Interfaith Church Office on Refugees gave the false impression that Somalians were being deported. She stated: "For instance, people that are being sent back to Somalia, which is a terrible, terrible country, even worse, I think, than Bosnia, because they have a famine on top of the political troubles from the fighting, and people are being sent back there."

On the July 31, 1992 Journal, CBC also quoted Mohammad Sharmarke of the Canadian-African Newcomer Aid Centre who stated: "There are a lot of people that have been deported. They cannot return to Somalia, nor are they in a position to go to any country that's going to accept them. We are in a very tragic situation."

In the Journal interview Susan Harada asked Mr. Valcourt why Canada was considering deporting Somalis back to their own country. Valcourt responded: "Canada is not deporting anyone to Somalia. In 1990, '91 and '92, three persons have been deported to Somalia, and they were criminals who were excluded under the Immigration Act, and who are also excluded under the Geneva Convention." The federal government had recently attempted to deport one man who claimed to be from Somalia because the government believed he was actually from the neighbouring country of Djibouti.

The CBC's Karen Webb also criticized the government's response to the Somalian refugees. On the May 29, 1992 The National she stated: "The rejection rate (of Somalis) is increasing. For the past two years it's been a little under eight percent. But in the first three months of this year, 13 percent of Somalis are being told they're not bona fide refugees. Each claimant must prove a well-founded fear of prosecution. They think the civil war and starvation of Somalia isn't enough."

Networks fail to report policy changes

While CBC and CTV were disparaging of certain aspects of the government's original legislation, they often failed to report the changes which were made on account of the criticisms. For example, when the government announced on November 13, 1992 that measures would be taken to speed the process of reuniting Somalian refugees with their families, both networks failed to report the story even though they had devoted significant proportion of immigration coverage to criticizing the government for not giving Somalian refugees equal treatment.

Similarly, the networks were critical of the initiative to allow fingerprinting and photographing of all refugee applicants. When the government amended this legislation so that all fingerprints would be destroyed subsequent to the refugee being granted Canadian citizenship, neither CBC nor CTV reported the change.

CTV critiques immigrant integration program

Government programs designed to assist immigrant integration into Canadian society were criticized by both networks. Three-quarters of CBC and all CTV commentary found fault with the integration programs. For example, on the October 25, 1990 CTV Evening News Lloyd Robertson stated: "Of the $500 million dollars promised for immigration today, $200 million will be set aside for that much discussed language training. But critics say that's nowhere enough, as you've just heard. And without the language skills, many of these people coming into Canada may be trapped in jobs that go nowhere."

Immigration Proposals Receive More Coverage

WHILE MANY PEOPLE LIMITED THEIR COMMENTS TO assessments of current government policies, some made suggestions for future immigration policies. As a proportion of total coverage, debate and proposals regarding future immigration policies increased during the period of this study compared to the 1989 study. In the first study, proposals accounted for 0.6 percent of CBC and 2.2 percent of CTV attention. For the period of this study, proposals comprised 6.3 percent of CBC and 2.4 percent of CTV total attention.

CTV calls for increased immigration

As can be seen from Figure C, the majority of the proposals made on CTV were concerned with the level of immigration. Of the assessments given, 80 percent called for increased levels of immigration. CTV sources also proposed making it harder for applicants to qualify.

Click here to view Figure C: Proposals Regarding Immigration

CBC provides mixed proposals

On CBC, there was considerably more debate concerning the level of immigration. Statements which either agreed with increased immigration or disagreed with decreased immigration constituted 54 percent of all proposals given on this issue.

For example, after the announcement on October 25, 1990 that Canada would be increasing its total number of immigrants, with an emphasis on attracting more skilled workers, CBC's The Journal asked Shirley Steward of the Institute for Research on Public Policy why she opposed the government's policy. She stated: "As long as we have a situation where over half of the immigrants coming to Canada have not been selected on the basis for their suitability for the labour market, we had better provide strong labour adjustment programs for that immigrant, or the economic objective that the government thinks is so important will not be achieved."

Interestingly, the opinions regarding the level of immigration posed on television did not correspond to the Canadian public's. In May 1992, a Gallup poll asked over 1000 Canadians if immigration should be increased, decreased or remain at current levels. Only 13 percent of the respondents indicated that they would like to see the immigration levels increased. [Bozinoff, Lorne and Peter MacIntosh (1992) "Nearly one-half of public favours lower immigration," June 9, The Gallup Report.]

CBC sources call for the end of multiculturalism

Of all the proposals given on CBC, the issue of multiculturalism as opposed to assimilation received the most attention. Interestingly, three-quarters of the assessments disagreed with the government's present policy of promoting multiculturalism and three-quarters agreed with policies which promoted assimilation.

CBC's Barbara Frum initiated the majority of the discussion. On the October 25, 1990 Journal she asked author Nazneen Sadio: "Is multiculturalism a useful umbrella to make people feel more at home here, or does it just keep Canadians hyphenated forever." Ms. Sadio responded: "I'm allergic to the word and I think it does. I think it erects these elaborate ghettos from which people have difficulty for many years to assimilate."

The most direct attack on multiculturalism originated with author Neil Bissoondath. On the May 31, 1990 Journal he stated: "Multiculturalism has become a political football and nothing more. It's succeeded in dividing people and kept people divided. It insists on doing that by shovelling money toward one group or another and in the end it contributes nothing." The Reform Party and the Spicer Commission also called for an end to all funding of multiculturalism.

Grandstanding Politicians Make the News

WHEN THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT GRANTED immigrant status to the former Iraqi Ambassador to the United States, Mohammad Al-Mashat, in an unusually short processing period, both networks devoted substantial time and resources to covering the story. While "the Al-Mashat affair" was initiated and concluded in 1991, it comprised almost 20 percent of CBC and CTV total attention to immigration over the three years of the study.

"Rather than providing substantive coverage, the networks focused on the antics of the opposition MPs in the House of Commons committee which was investigating the circumstances surrounding the Al-Mashat affair."

Not only did stories about Al-Mashat dominate the news in terms of the quantity of coverage, they also were often the first story in the newscast. Almost 70 percent of CBC and half of CTV stories about the Al-Mashat affair were the first story in the newscast. In contrast, only 20 percent of CBC and 10 percent of CTV stories regarding all other aspects of immigration received top billing.

Rather than providing substantive coverage, the networks focused on the antics of the opposition MPs in the House of Commons committee which was investigating the circumstances surrounding the Al-Mashat affair. As Jim O'Connell of the CTV News stated on May 30, 1991, the first day of the hearings: "There's nothing like a little chaos to liven up a parliamentary committee."

Both networks were critical of the government's handling of the situation, with approximately 90 percent of the assessment providing negative commentary. The majority of these statements focused on the fact that Al-Mashat had been given special treatment and that senior cabinet ministers were unaware of the situation.

For example, on May 31, 1991, The National reporter Karen Webb stated: "One thing the new report states is that by April the 8th, a week after Al-Mashat had actually entered the country, but a full month before the news of it became public, copies of a briefing note on the case were sent to the political assistants of no fewer than six cabinet ministers, just in case any of them was asked a question in question period. Apparently, only Pierre Cadieux, who was then the Solicitor General, read his."

The government's initial decision to blame top civil servants also added extra intrigue. On the June 6, 1991 Journal, Historian Jack Granastein explained one of the factors which he believed accounted for the high level of coverage: "If Clark or Barbara McDougall had stood up in the House and said `We made a mistake, we will do better next time,' this would have been a thirty minute wonder and would have disappeared. It's because they stonewalled, it's because the spin doctors got at it, it's because the damage control people tried to put the blame on a couple of bureaucrats, that they're getting the trouble they're getting, and they deserve it."

Regional Coverage Not Representative of Actual Immigration

AS FIGURE D ILLUSTRATES, NEITHER CBC NOR CTV presented an accurate picture of where immigrants and refugees actually settle. For example, while over one-half of all immigrants currently settle in Ontario, less than one-fifth of CBC and CTV coverage focused on this province.

Click here to view Figure D: Television Attention to Canadian Regions

The maritime region was over represented by both networks due to the influx of refugees from Eastern Europe claiming status in Newfoundland. As Peter Mansbridge reported on the January 30, 1991 The National: "It's long been a problem for Newfoundland, refugees seeking a new life in the West, starting their search at Gander Airport. And these days with East Bloc travel restrictions coming down, the scale of the problem is going up. It's now become almost routine for would be immigrants to hop off their plane and refuse to get back on."

CBC's focus on the prairie region was primarily due to a Journal documentary on the questionable practises of an immigrant consultant operating in Winnipeg and the clients he had swindled.

CBC Quotes Immigrants While CTV Focuses on Refugees

Forty-eight percent of CBC and 55 percent of CTV statements originated with the reporter or the anchor. For the remaining statements, the networks utilized quite different sources. Refugees and immigrants accounted for 18 percent of CBC and 15 percent of CTV source statements, excluding reporter and anchor. Interestingly, while the majority of these statements originated from immigrants on CBC, the majority originated from refugees on CTV.

Similar to the findings of the 1989 study, the government was a primary source on CTV but not on CBC. On CTV, statements by the government end the civil service accounted for 31 percent of the total, while on CBC the same sources comprised only 23 percent of the statements made about immigration.

METHODOLOGY

Results are based on a census sample of 129 National, 41 Journal, 7 Prime Time News, 6 Venture, 4 Sunday Report stories as well as 143 CTV National News stories from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992. All stories appearing during that time were coded, representing a total population rather than a random sample of stories.

Three researchers were employed in coding the news stories. The researchers were selected on the basis of their differing political views. To assess the clarity of the research instrument and measure consistency, tests of inter-coder reliability were conducted throughout the procedure. A high level of intercoder reliability (0.90) was obtained.

Any disagreements in assessments by researchers were discussed, and the rating was changed until consensus was reached on all stories. Further information or details on the coding design and methods may be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.