CANADA'S ROLE IN THE REFUGEE CRISIS

Debates on Indochinese Refugees in The Globe and Mail,
1975-1995

by HANNAH KLOS

June 2020

Canada never had any particular connection to Vietnam. Unlike the United States, it had never fought in this country. The most it could claim was a role in the implementation of the Geneva armistice of 1954-56. However, when hundreds of thousands of refugees fled Vietnam after 1975, Canada established two categories of immigration to welcome these refugees.1 This was a major change in policy, one that the Canadian press covered in detail. 

Several studies have looked at the media coverage of Canadian newspapers in general.2 Others have analyzed the impact of specific events, such as the Hai Hong or the public opinion in Quebec during the massive arrival of Indochinese refugees. However, there is no specific study that helps us understand how these newspapers reported on the Southeast Asian refugee crisis or how this journalistic coverage changed over time. What do editorial choices tell us and what other issues came up with the question of refugee protection? 

The first part of our research analyzed the rate at which articles were published and the use of certain keywords (refugee, boat people or migrant) to report the crisis between 1975 and 1995.3 In comparison to The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, a Canadian daily newspaper known for its reputable journalists,4 made a specific editorial choice. Unlike The New York Times, which published large amounts of editorials, The Globe and Mail published numerous letters to the editor, allowing it to become a forum for discussion rather than promoting its political vision like The New York Times. This section analyzes in-depth three debates particular to Canadian society that emerged with the Indochinese refugee crisis: the question of the admission of refugees, that of their status as refugees or immigrants, and that of Canada’s role in the global community. 

We also observed that The Globe and Mail’s coverage was structured around three periods. Debates over Canada’s duty to accept Indochinese refugees marked the first period between 1975 and 1978. During the second, between 1978 and 1988, the number of refugees admitted created major controversy, polarizing the Canadian population. In the third period, up to 1995, a rapid decline in interest in Southeast Asian refugees occurred.

1975-1978: Canada and Communism’s Refugees

In early 1975, the news focused mainly on the advance of the Communists towards Saigon and their takeover of the country. During the fall of Saigon in April of that year, the United States welcomed many refugees and asked that Canada accept them too. Ottawa accepted 3,000 Vietnamese refugees.5 

In 1975, few referred to the Vietnamese refugees as boat people in the Canadian press. This term was first used in 1976 to describe the first Indochinese refugees who escaped the region by boat. In an article published on May 2,6 The Globe and Mail took a factual tone to speak of the arrival of Vietnamese refugees. The article concludes, however: ‘[w] e will have to take our fair share of people who might not be able to make their own way,’ […] ‘That is what a refugee movement is all about.'” Despite the distance between the two countries, Canada agreed to help the refugees. In the following weeks, other articles appeared about the newcomers, underlining the fact that the majority of the refugees had relatives in Canada.7

Despite the few refugees accepted by Canada, many reacted to their arrival. Several letters to the editor and editorials revealed different opinions about this in society. The letters to the editor disapproved of the arrival of Vietnamese refugees. The Globe and Mail’s decision to publish them shows that the journal did not want to muzzle these voices. Refugees should spark debate. Some Canadians felt that the responsibility for helping these newcomers should not fall on Canada. Jerry Spiegel of Hamilton, Ontario stated: “(w)ithin hours of Vietnam’s liberation the Canadian government has volunteered to help our poor American neighbours by absorbing 3,000 Vietnamese refugees whose flight was stimulated and at root caused by US policy itself.”8 This letter took a sarcastic tone and shows that Spiegel considers that the refugee problem was created by the United States. Therefore, Canada should not accept 3,000 refugees. Spiegel insisted that Chilean refugees, persecuted since the overthrow of social democracy by Salvador Allende, had not received special treatment when immigrating to Canada. Therefore, the Vietnamese should not be privileged by Canada following American policy.9 

"Vietnamese refugees."The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), May 12, 1975.
"Redemption."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), May 08, 1975.

On the other hand, some Canadians believed that the Vietnamese people deserved help. This was the case for Vietnamese Christians and children. In an editorial, the newspaper pointed out that Canadians had to take in Vietnamese and Cambodian orphans. In this article, the author stresses the “goodness” of the Canadian people to entice people to act. The author states: “[a]t best Canada can save only a few of the children of Vietnam and Cambodia who will otherwise die. Surely every effort must be made to do that little… Canadians will be able to live with themselves if they rescue as many children as confusion will allow.“10 In this quote, the word “rescue” reinforces the idea that these people are victims. 

Also, another advertisement urged people to help Vietnamese Christians, affirming that communists would persecute them and that Christians must remain united in the name of God.11 The victims that Canada had to rescue were above all orphans and wayward Christians.

Significantly, the debate began even before the Canadian government had accepted refugees as only 9,151 had been accepted by the end of the period.12 Canadians were not unanimous on the issue and that The Globe and Mail had chosen to reflect this diversity of opinion rather than to take sides. Many wondered if the people leaving Vietnam were victims, while others questioned Canada’s role in this humanitarian intervention. 

1978-1988: Canada Helps the Refugees

Between 1978 and the mid-1980s, the international community became increasingly aware of the seriousness of the humanitarian crisis in the Indochinese peninsula. After an international meeting organized by the UNHCR in December 1978 and another one by the UN, in July 1979, a temporary asylum system in South East Asia and permanent resettlement system in third countries, allowed people leaving Indochina to receive refugee status. In Canada, this was characterized by the creation of new refugee categories and a considerable increase in the number of refugees received.13 This number grew from 3,000 in 1975 to 60,000 by 1980. The Globe and Mail questioned the effectiveness of these UN meetings because it believed there should be a stronger focus on human needs than political issues to resolve the humanitarian crisis.14 

During this period, newspapers mainly used the term boat people to refer to Indochinese refugees. The Globe and Mail recognized that the boat people were victims of persecution and had to be rescued. Between 1978-1980, the newspaper devoted twenty-nine front-page articles to them. This news was therefore particularly important. Some articles explained the horrors experienced by the refugees and demonstrated how these survivors left Vietnam at the risk of their lives. For example, the lack of food and water on boats were prominent subjects. According to an article, refugees considered suicide because life on overcrowded boats was so unbearable.15 The dangers were such that an article headlined: “Girl survives on wreck, but 49 others die.“16 This was precisely why these people deserved protection.

The Globe and Mail was critical of the communist government in Hanoi for creating this problem. In one article, the author put in these terms and explained that Vietnam’s offer to allow the refugees to return to the country was hypocritical because such repatriation was subject to ridiculous conditions.17 Another article stated: “the heart of the evil remains squarely in Hanoi”.18 The article went on to explain that attacking Vietnam did not truly help the refugees. The United Nations conference had been organized to ask the resettlement countries to increase their reception quotas. It declared that the boat people were victims of poverty and the chauvinism of their government. Based on these words The Globe and Mail sympathized with these victims.

Although Canadian public opinion wanted to help Indochinese refugees, based on the letters to the editor published between 1978 and 1980, the subject was nonetheless an object of  debate. Of the 108 letters to the editor written between these dates, 41 focused on whether Canada should help or not. More than two-thirds of the letters supported the arrival of the boat people. The Globe and Mail’s choice to publish letters that presented both sides of the refugee debate suggest that the paper wanted to give an equal voice to both sides of the debate. The Letters to the Editor section became a discussion forum on the Indochinese refugee issue. Their content shows us that this debate was not trying to establish the sources of persecution or the need to protect these people. They discussed first and foremost the impact of these arrivals on Canadian society.

Refugee protection began to concern more people, but immediately raised the question of shared responsibility within Canada: what should the role of the government be in welcoming refugees? What should be that of the provinces or individuals? The private sponsorship programme that had been created to respond to the Indochinese refugee crisis was a way for Canadians to show their support for the refugees. The government used the success of private sponsorship as a way of reducing the state’s responsibility towards refugees. The Globe and Mail was critical of the government’s position in the article “Ottawa won’t sponsor more refugees“.19 It explains that the government was no longer going to finance the reception of a refugee for each person sponsored after 1979 because the program was an unexpected success. The article criticized this decision because it meant it deferred the responsibility of welcoming 50,000 boat people to the Canadian citizens. In the article “While the refugees wait” individuals and some Canadian groups, especially churches, expressed their desire to help refugees to prove that human life is sacred and deserves to be saved.20 The Government of Canada was supposed to match the number of refugees sponsored by Canadians up to 50,000. However, in December 1979, the government revealed that it would only cover 12,000 of the 26,196 sponsored refugees.21

The National Citizens’ Coalition Case

An advertisement sponsored by the National Citizens’ Coalition22 in August 1979 stirred controversy. This time, it was not just an opinion reflected in the readers’ letters. A group had purchased advertising space in The Globe and Mail to publicize their views on this issue.  At the center of this debate was the question of the responsibility Canadians had towards the boat people. According to the NCC, the government should not accept 50,000 Indochinese refugees because their arrival could harm Canadian culture.23 

About a month after the Canadian government’s announcement it would welcome refugees, the NCC published an advertisement stating that the government should not have committed without consulting the entire Canadian population. The first advertisement was published on August 23. The next day, the reaction made the front page of the daily: “Ad on Asian Refugee Policy Racist, Atkey Says” denounced the NCC’s claims.24 According to the Minister of Immigration Ronald Atkey, the claims made in the advertisement were illegitimate. “Mr. Atkey said last night the advertisement was ‘aimed at destroying this selfless humanitarian effort,’ and accused the coalition of presenting distortions and inaccuracies as facts.” Atkey rejected everything that the NCC had said, but more specifically the fact that the arrival of 50,000 Indochinese refugees would lead to the arrival of another 750,000 Southeast Asian immigrants. The coalition ambiguously responded in a letter to the editor.25 The NCC claimed they wanted to start a real conversation about the admission of 50,000 Asian refugees and that it was necessary to give Canadians the chance to express themselves without risking being labelled as racists. A multitude of letters to the editor were published following the announcement.

"Canada's Great Humanitarian Gesture - The boat people of Vietnam."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Aug 23, 1979.

Several readers of The Globe and Mail reacted to this advertisement. Doug Stewart of Toronto, Ontario called the NCC advertisement racist. He opposed the advertisement and urged Canadians to do the same. According to him, the only people who could agree with the ad would also be racist: “Canadians who find a shift in our cultural pool disturbing.” He said the argument presented by the NCC was discriminatory because it excluded the possibility that another culture could have a positive impact on the country.26 The next day, an Ottawa resident made a more moderate contribution. Mary Dawson explained that although she agreed with the idea that Canadians should know more about the refugees, the advertisement was still racist. “… to say [the refugees] can’t come here because they are Asians and will ‘destroy or completely change’ Canadian society is racist.“27

Also, the statement that the arrival of refugees would trigger a chain migration was strongly criticized. A week after the ad was printed, two letters to the editor refuted this claim. The Globe and Mail published a first letter written by Senator John M. Godfroy. He ridiculed the idea of ​​chain migration: “[t]he statement that the 50,000 refugees will sponsor another 250,000 immigrants from Vietnam is ludicrous.” On September 29, a letter to the editor stated that the NCC’s arguments about cultural shifts that a massive immigration movement could bring about were baseless and that the projections offered were far-fetched.28 It had become increasingly clear that readers of The Globe and Mail did not agree with the claims of the NCC.29

The ad was published in several issues, and each time provoking a reaction from readers. A letter explained that the ad raised doubts about the need to protect victims. It could negatively affect refugees. The NCC’s opinion did not represent the views of Canadians.30

A letter submitted by Peter Tsang, president of the Council of Chinese Canadians in Ontario, challenged the NCC to participate in a public debate to dispel the misinformation that had circulated in the ad. Tsang also insisted on the fact that Chinese-Canadians had contributed to Canadian society in many ways.31

"An Open Letter to Immigration Minister Ron Atkey." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Dec 06, 1979.

In December, the National Citizens’ Coalition published a new advertisement showing an original communication strategy. It summarized the responses received during their original announcements. It treated these responses like any data collected for scientific purposes.32 This second advertisement proclaimed that 26.7% of Canadians wanted to accept zero refugees and that 63.6% believed that 25,000 or less would be acceptable. The ad also claimed that 43.6% of Canadians believed that private sponsorship should not be allowed. These responses argued that the arrival of Indochinese refugees was not beneficial to Canadien society, which seems surprising when considering the letters to the editor published in The Globe and Mail. The NCC appeared to publish their statistics as if they were the results of a census of public opinion and not a collection of responses received from their first advertisement. 

After this advertisement came out in December, two more letters to the editor appeared in the Globe and Mail. On December 8, Brant Fotheringham, a refugee relocation coordinator, asked readers if it was possible that 63% of Canadians could be opposed to the protection of Indochinese refugees. Fotheringham believed in policies that valued human life and hoped that Canadians, who lived in a privileged country, would share this view.

In another letter, a member of the Thunder Bay Friends of Refugees stated that 50,000 refugees was too low a number and that Canada could have taken more. He wondered why it was necessary to stop welcoming people who needed help. He believed that even if the government could no longer afford to pay to resettle refugees, private sponsorship should be unlimited. “There are still people here who want to help, and there are still people there who need that help. Why can’t we take in more?“33 He defended the possibility of allowing Canadians to save as many Indochinese refugees as possible.

The NCC did not appear to view the boat people as refugees. They showed that they were more concerned with the integration of the boat people as immigrants, rather than the refugees’ security. The coalition was concerned first and foremost with the impact of the boat people on Canadian society.

1989-1995: The Importance of Helping Refugees Worldwide

During the 1980s, the Canadian public opinion gradually shifted its attention from the Indochinese refugees to other humanitarian crises, particularly in Central America.34 In 1989, a United Nations conference reassessed the situation of the boat people. States decided to end automatic refugee status guarantees to the people arriving in the camps. The most significant event of this period was the forced repatriation of refugees from Hong Kong camps, where the boat people were now treated as illegal migrants. 

The biggest issue affecting Indochinese refugees was their repatriation. Towards the end of 1989, the United Kingdom decided to repatriate migrants living in Hong Kong refugee camps to Vietnam to stop the flow of new arrivals. Over the entire period, only one article demonstrated a certain hostility towards the Vietnamese survivors. Accordingly, people were taking advantage of the system. Refugees “[were]… taxing the patience of the government [of Hong Kong], which justifiably complains that [… they] have been forced to shoulder the refugee burden.”35 

However, the overwhelming majority of articles on this subject were very critical of forced repatriation. This time, it was not letters to the editor that debated this question. The Globe and Mail itself opposed London’s decision and published editorial articles as well as front-page articles on the topic.36 An article quoted the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs: “There should not be forced repatriations, that the emphasis should be on encouraging voluntary repatriation.“37 Immediately after the first repatriation, Britain decided to pause further repatriations. According to another article, Thatcher appeared to react to public outrage following the first deportation. But London rejected such an interpretation.38

Another article covered the media coverage of the first Vietnamese returning through a voluntary repatriation program set up by the UNHCR. The author spoke of the highly political context of this humanitarian crisis. “The Indochinese peninsula has been one of the principal battlegrounds on which the great international powers waged their wars of interest and ideology”39 For The Globe and Mail, these people were victims of international politics. They had to pay the price of a confrontation between the two blocs of the Cold War. The journalist explained that with the end of the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, the political tensions would dissipate. The article concluded that Canadians still had other responsibilities ahead of them. While they had accepted tens of thousands of Indochinese refugees, they should now extend their support to those who chose to stay in Vietnam. The country’s poverty was therefore a major challenge for the international community.

The journalistic coverage of The Globe and Mail became increasingly interested in other issues. In March 1990, a front-page article was published on the refugee crisis.40 This article was the first in a series called “the dispossessed” which described the global refugee situation. The first article focused on Indochinese refugees because it was fresh in the memory of Canadians. The rest of the series focused on other humanitarian crises abroad, demonstrating that the Indochinese crisis was only part of a global refugee problem. This article explained that the UNHCR needed help in tending to the 15,000,000 refugees worldwide. It underlined that the world refugee situation extended beyond Indochina.

Conclusion

The journalistic coverage analysis of The Globe and Mail during the Indochinese refugee crisis is important because it helps us to understand the reactions of Canadians. It also allows us to draw several conclusions.

First, readers of The Globe and Mail discussed whether the Vietnamese refugees deserved to come by Canada. Canadians did not understand why the Vietnamese refugees were more important than those coming from elsewhere. The idea of ​​prioritizing one humanitarian crisis over another was therefore not unanimous. 

Additionally, we can see that The Globe and Mail made singular editorial choices in its media coverage. The Globe and Mail chose to deal with the refugee issue through letters to the editor. It decided to be a forum for discussion but neglected by this same choice, the possibility of moderating the debate and making its voice heard.

Finally, it can be observed that Ottawa’s decisions polarized the Canadian opinion on this matter. The debates caused by the National Citizens’ Coalition’s advertisements are an example of this reaction. These discussions show us that the protection of refugees set off a series of debates on a wider range of questions. The first question is who has the responsibility for hosting the refugees. The second is to ask whether Canadians should think of welcoming refugees differently than immigrants.

WHAT’S NEXT

Continue to the next article

Jump to a list of links and references for further reading

References

  1. Molloy, Michael. 2020. "How Canada Defined Indochinese Refugees: Principle and Pragmatism"
  2. Duarte, Filipe. 2019. “Background Paper On The Archival Media Research: Toronto Star And The Globe And Mail (1975-1985)."Greenberg, Joshua. 2000. "Opinion Discourse And Canadian Newspapers: The Case Of The Chinese Boat People". Canadian Journal Of Communication 25: 517-537. Marcus, Dara. 2013. “The Hai Hong Incident: One Boat's Effect On Canada's Policy Towards Indochinese Refugees.”Pagé, Geneviève. 2015. “How Many Is Too Many? the Canadian and Quebec public debate on the massive arrival of Indo-Chinese refugees, June to December 1979”. Masters, University of Quebec.
  3. Klos, Hannah and Sickert, Sophie. Forthcoming."Changing Perceptions" https://boatpeoplehistory.com/
  4. Doyle, Richard J., and Jessica Potter, and Sasha Yusufali, "Globe and Mail". In The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Article published July 02, 2009; Last Edited April 10, 2017. https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/globe-and-mail
  5. Molloy, Michael. 2020. "How Canada Defined Indochinese Refugees: Principle and Pragmatism"
  6. 'Normal Immigration Rules Waived: Canada to Move Quickly' on 3,000 Viet Refugees."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), May 02, 1975. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239453002?accountid=14569.
  7. "95 Refugees Arrives Today in Toronto."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), May 09, 1975. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239615176? accountid = 14569. JOHN PICTON Globe and Mail Correspondent. "100 More Vietnamese to Arrive Today in Toronto, Montreal."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), May 15, 1975. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1
  8. "Vietnamese refugees."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), May 12, 1975. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239516049? accountid = 14569.
  9. Ibid.
  10. "The Ultimate Humanity."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Apr 05, 1975. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239519581?accountid=14569.
  11. "Redemption" TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), May 08, 1975. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239614965? accountid = 14569.
  12. Molloy, Michael. 2020. "How Canada Defined Indochinese Refugees: Principle and Pragmatism"
  13. Ibid.
  14. "While the refugees wait."(1979 Jul 19). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current)Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239269213?accountid = 14569
  15. Makin, Kirk. «Plight of 2,500 Vietnamese Aboard the Hai Hong: No Food Or Water, some Tried to Burn the Ship»The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Dec 14, 1978. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1238418956?accountid=14569.
  16. «Girl survives on wreck, but 49 others die.» (1979, Mar 02). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239249601?accountid=14569
  17. «Refugees.» (1979, Jun 29). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1313740357?accountid=14569
  18. «While the refugees wait.» (1979, Jul 19). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current)Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239269213?accountid=14569
  19. Staff. (1979, Dec 06). “Onus put on public groups: Ottawa won't sponsor more refugees."The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239291719? accountid = 14569
  20. "While the refugees wait."(1979 Jul 19). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239269213?accountid = 14569
  21. Staff. (1979, Dec 06). “Onus put on public groups: Ottawa won't sponsor more refugees."The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239291719? accountid = 14569
  22. "Canada’s Great Humanitarian Gesture - The Boat People of Vietnam” http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239273514? accountid = 14569.
  23. Ibid.
  24. Jefferson, James. “Ad on Asian Refugee Policy Racist, Atkey Says."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Aug 24, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1323675128? accountid = 14569.
  25. "Letters to the Editor." The Globe and Mail (1936-2016), Sep 28, 1979. https://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview / 1239281895? Accountid = 14569
  26. Stewart, Doug. "Letter to the Editor 1 - no Title."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Aug 28, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239267541? accountid = 14569.
  27. Dawson, Mary. "Letter to the Editor 1 - no Title."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Aug 29, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239270561? accountid = 14569.
  28. Anderson, Bob. "National Appeal may Stir the Blood but Not the Reason."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Sep 29, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239220266? accountid = 14569.
  29. "Ludicrous Claim about Refugees."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Aug 30, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239277756? accountid = 14569.
  30. Anderson, Bob. "National Appeal may Stir the Blood but Not the Reason."TheGlobe and Mail (1936-Current), Sep 29, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/ docview / 1239220266? accountid = 14569.
  31. Tsang, Peter. "Chinese Statistics Refute Claims." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Oct 03, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview / 1239286381? Accountid = 14569.
  32. "An open letter to immigration minister Ron Atkey" The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Dec 06, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1239291449?accountid=14569.
  33. "Letter to the Editor 1 - no Title." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Dec 08, 1979. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview / 1291290882? Accountid = 14569.
  34. «Canada shifting refugee focus, axworthy says.» (1983, Jan 12). The Globe and Mail (1936-Current) Retrieved from http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1238559217?accountid=14569
  35. «The Boat People's Logjam of Misery." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Jun 14, 1989. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1237723397?accountid=14569.
  36. Forbes, Donald. «UK Delays Vietnamese Repatriation from Colony." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Dec 13, 1989. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1237203646?accountid=14569.
  37. Pomfret, John. «Hong Kong Deports 51 Vietnamese Boat People." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Dec 12, 1989. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1237203625?accountid=14569.
  38. Forbes, Donald. «UK Delays Vietnamese Repatriation from Colony." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Dec 13, 1989. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1237203646?accountid=14569.
  39. «An Exhausted Vietnam Ponders Change." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Mar 13, 1989. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1313749437?accountid=14569.
  40. Malareki, Victorl. «Millions in World Taking Refuge as Strangers in Strange Lands." The Globe and Mail (1936-Current), Mar 31, 1990. http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/docview/1144147700?accountid=14569.