What is Bill C-4?

Bill C-4 is a bill, originally introduced in Parliament by the government on October 21, 2010 as Bill C-49, and reintroduced on 16 June 2011 in the new parliamentary session. If it is approved by Parliament, it will make significant changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, affecting the way refugee claimants are treated in Canada.

 

What is the purpose of Bill C-4?

The government has said the bill is about stopping smugglers bringing people illegally into Canada. But in fact the bill mostly contains changes that will punish not the smugglers, but instead the people they are smuggling, including refugees who need to get into Canada to save their lives.

 

How does Bill C-4 punish refugees?

Under Bill C-4, some refugee claimants, including refugee children, will be jailed for a year, without anybody reviewing whether they should be kept in detention or released. Also under Bill C-4, some refugees, even after they have been accepted as refugees by Canada, will be kept with a temporary status for 5 years. During these five years, they will not be able to bring their family (spouse and children) to Canada and they will not be able to travel outside Canada.

 

Which refugees are punished under Bill C-4?

Under Bill C-4, the Minister can “designate” a group as an irregular arrival. Clearly, the government would like to designate refugee claimants that arrive by boat, such as the Sri Lankan Tamils on the MV Sun Sea that arrived in British Columbia last summer. But the bill does not say that the refugee claimants must have arrived by boat in order to be designated. A group could be designated even if there was no smuggling involved. Once a group is designated, everyone in the group is punished.

 

Does Bill C-4 respect the Charter?

No. All of Canada’s laws must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees basic rights. Several aspects of Bill C-4 likely do not respect the Charter. For example, Bill C-4 says that designated persons are detained for one year without review. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently clearly stated that detention without review for long periods is contrary to the Charter. If Bill C-4 is approved by Parliament, it could be challenged in the courts, and the courts would probably decide that some parts of the Bill are illegal because they do not respect the Charter. But while the courts are deciding the case, refugees would suffer in detention.

 

Does Bill C-4 respect international law?

No. Canadian laws must also respect international human rights conventions that Canada has signed, and which make up international law. These include the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many parts of Bill C-4 do not respect one or more international conventions. If Bill C-4 is passed, Canada will therefore be failing in some of its international obligations.

 

How does Bill C-4 violate international law?

The following are only some of the ways in which Bill C-4 violates human rights protected by international law:

 

Punishing refugees for illegal entry: The Refugee Convention says that governments must not impose penalties on refugees for illegal entry (article 31).  But Bill C-4 does exactly this, by punishing “designated” persons in various ways, including by detaining them.

 

Arbitrary detention: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that governments must not detain anyone arbitrarily. Arbitrary detention is detention without the proper legal protections – for example, detaining people without giving them the possibility of having a review of their detention by an independent judge. Bill C-4 does exactly this, by saying that designated persons must be detained, without possibility of review for one year.

 

Separation of families: Various international conventions say that governments must protect the right of families to be united. The Convention on the Rights of the Child says that governments must respond quickly to applications for family reunification (article 10). But Bill C-4 does the opposite, by denying designated refugees the right, for five years, to apply to reunite with their children overseas.

 

Right to travel: The Refugee Convention says governments must give refugees a travel document in order to allow them to travel outside the country (article 28). But Bill C-4 denies this right to designated refugees, for at least five years after they are accepted as refugees. This would prevent them, for example, from visiting a sick family member in a third country (a country other than Canada or the refugee’s country of origin).

 

Best interests of the child: The Convention on the Rights of the Child says that governments must take into consideration the best interests of any child affected by a decision (article 3). But under Bill C-4, some children could be deported from Canada without any consideration of their best interests. This is because the only way to have the best interest of a child considered is through an application on “humanitarian and compassionate grounds”, and the bill denies designated persons, including children, the opportunity for five years to apply for “humanitarian and compassionate grounds”.

 

Will Bill C-4 discourage people from using smugglers?

No. People turn to smugglers because they are desperate – often because they are persecuted and need to escape. Also people who flee as refugees rarely know about the laws in the country to which they go. Research conducted in the UK has shown that refugees don’t choose their destination based on the policies in place: many did not specifically choose the UK as a destination, and hardly any knew about asylum policies in the UK before they arrived.[1]

 

Have the policies punishing refugees in Bill C-4 been tried before?
Yes. Australia has tried these policies and they failed. Australia tried large scale, long-term detention of refugee claimants. They also denied them permanent status even when granted refugee status. The policies resulted in refugees, including many children, being traumatized by their experiences in detention. The Australian Human Rights Commission found that children in Australian immigration detention centres had suffered numerous and repeated violations of their human rights. Far from discouraging people, depriving refugees of their right to family reunification appears to have caused some people to arrive by boat, as later boats brought the wives and children of refugees in Australia unable to bring their families through legal channels.[2] The Australian public was deeply divided, with many previously unengaged citizens joining a grass-roots network to protest at their country’s inhumane treatment of refugees. In the past three years, Australia has moved away from the policies of detention and temporary status for refugees.

 

Canada has also tried denying refugees permanent residence. In the 1990s, thousands of Somali and Afghan refugees were prevented from becoming permanent residents. Under the Undocumented Convention Refugee in Canada Class, they had to wait 5 years in order to become permanent residents. During that time they could not be reunited with their families, could not travel outside Canada, could not pursue post-secondary education and generally could not get on with their lives. The policy was a disaster for the individuals and the communities affected. The policy was challenged in the courts on the basis that it was discriminatory, and the government eventually agreed to end the policy.

 

What should be done to Bill C-4?

Members of Parliament should call for the withdrawal of or vote against Bill C-4. The government should address the problem of smuggling in ways that do not punish refugees.

---