Narratives on Arrival: The Framing of the Syrian Refugee Crisis in Canadian Parliamentary Debates

Abstract

Between 2013 and 2016, the Syrian refugee crisis captured the attention of the Canadian media. As citizens and political parties began calling for greater resettlement efforts, debate raged in Parliament. This paper examines how the Syrian refugee crisis was framed in Canada’s parliamentary debates. Using the qualitative analysis software QDA Miner, this research performs a text analysis of the frames used on refugees in parliamentary debates from 2012 to 2017, and is supplemented by a literature review examining Canada’s relationship with refugees, the media, and the dominant narratives employed around refugee issues. This paper seeks to address: What were the most common frames used during parliamentary debate to describe refugees? Do the frames vary by political party? How did Canada’s largest political parties frame the crisis? How did the framing change over time? How does Canadian political framing compare with framing by mainstream media? My primary framing questions revolve around how refugees are depicted and represented, and on what grounds should Canada respond to the crisis (if at all). The most dominant frames on the depiction of refugees were of the victim frame, particularly as vulnerable, passive refugees lacking agency. Other popular employed included refugees as bogus ‘queue-jumpers’ or illegal migrants, as well as economization frames. On how and why Canada should respond, themes of humanitarianism, Canadian values and international obligations were all present, as were concerns with security and absorptive capacity. I also analysed how the debate varied by party affiliation, and over time, finding that the Conservative party was distinct in particular, and that the debate shifted from refugees as hapless victims to their resettlement and access to services. Keywords: refugee*, frame*, question period, narrative, humanitarian, securitization