Backgrounder/Booklet

What We Want for Refugees: Four faces, four values

Summary

We want refugees to be treated fairly and honourably, in a process that is independent and affordable. These are Canadian values and treating refugees in this way is good for Canada and good for refugees. Check out this two-page overview to find out more about our vision for refugees in Canada and what we can do together to achieve this. 2 pages, 2011.

http://ccrweb.ca/en/4faces-4values

Issues
Resettlement
Private sponsorship
Refugee protection in Canada
Discrimination/oppression
Myths
Format
Backgrounder/Booklet

Myths and Facts 2011

 

Myth 1: Refugee claimants are “queue jumpers”.

False. There is no queue for refugees. International law guarantees to people fleeing persecution the right to go to another country and seek asylum – that is why we have a refugee determination system.

If your life is in danger, you run. You don’t stand still and wait for help to come to you. Different rules apply to refugees because their lives are at stake.

These different rules were adopted following the Second World War when many countries, including Canada, had closed the door on Jewish refugees. Canada recently commemorated the tragic turning away of the MS St Louis, many of whose passengers were killed by the Nazis after Canada denied them entry. We do not want to go back to those days.

Myth 2: Refugees are required to make a refugee claim in the nearest or first country they reach.

False. International law says nothing about where refugees must claim. Refugees do whatever they can to reach a country they hope will be safe – and that country has an obligation to protect any refugees on their territory.

In the case of Sri Lankan refugees, almost none of the countries in their own region have signed the Refugee Convention and many of them offer little or no protection to refugees. In Thailand, for example, Sri Lankan refugees face at best a precarious life without status, or else arrest, detention and possible return to Sri Lanka. Staying in Thailand is not a solution.

Since Canada is far from most places that refugees are fleeing, very few refugees can make it here. It would be unfair to suggest that even those few should not come here, but rather go to other countries that already receive many more refugees than Canada.

Myth 3: People who use smugglers are less likely to be refugees in need of protection.

False. People fleeing persecution often have no choice but to turn to smugglers to help them escape. What would you do if your life was threatened and you needed to get out?

How people arrive in Canada tells us nothing about why they left. To decide if they need our protection we need to know why they left and what dangers they would face if they returned.  We have a refugee determination system to find this out.

Many –  maybe most – refugees have used smugglers to get to Canada. This is true whether they came by plane, land or boat. There has been a lot of focus on the fact that passengers on the MV Sun Sea may have paid smugglers. But this is just as much the case for refugee claimants who did not arrive by boat – so why the fixation on the boat?

Myth 4: Smugglers are increasingly targeting Canada.

Where is the evidence for this?  Refugees using smugglers to get to Canada is nothing new.

The number of refugee claimants arriving in Canada has been going dramatically DOWN (10,000 fewer in 2010 than in 2009).

Myth 5: Harsh policies will stop smugglers and asylum seekers arriving by boat.

It is unfair and immoral to punish refugees in an attempt to deter smugglers. It is also not going to work. Refugees are fleeing desperate situations and will do whatever they need to do to save their lives. They rarely know anything about the policies in place in the country they arrive in – sometimes they don’t even know where they are going.

Australia tried the strategy of punitive measures to discourage refugee arrivals: it didn’t work. When the Australian government abolished their “Temporary Protection Visas” in 2008 they explained that they had not achieved their intended purpose: “The evidence clearly shows, however, that TPVs did not have any deterrent effect. Indeed, there was an increase in the number of women and children making dangerous journeys to Australia.”[1]

“Temporary Protection Visas” are almost exactly what is proposed in Canada’s Bill C-49. Why would we want to adopt a policy that has already been shown to fail elsewhere?

Myth 6: We have to be particularly cautious with the Sri Lankans arriving by boat because they might be terrorists or criminals.

There is no reason to think that wrong-doers are more likely to arrive by boat than by other means. No sophisticated terrorists are going to put themselves on a long and uncomfortable boat trip, knowing that they will be subjected to intense scrutiny by the government.

The government is putting a lot of time and resources into investigating the passengers who arrived on the MV Sun Sea. It is not clear that this is rationally justified. The long-term detention and disproportionate investigations are costing the tax-payer a lot of money.

Myth 7: The UN has said that Tamils are no longer at risk in Sri Lanka.

False. In July 2010 the UNHCR issued new guidelines that recognized the evolving situation in Sri Lanka.[2] They advised that it is no longer necessary to presume that Tamils from the north are at risk, but they also said that all claims by Sri Lankans must be examined on their individual merits. They note that groups potentially at risk of persecution in Sri Lanka include journalists, human rights activists, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals and persons suspected of having links with the LTTE (Tamil Tigers).

Myth 8: Canadians are asking for harsh measures against people who arrive by boat.

The harsh measures in Bill C-49 have been rejected by all opposition parties and condemned as illegal and punitive by a wide range of faith, rights, labour, community and legal groups.[3] The government did no consultation prior to tabling the bill and many of the groups said to support the bill were later revealed not to be fully behind it or to be extremely marginal.[4]

Most Canadians of course want to be tough on smugglers, but Bill C-49 punishes refugees. The Canadian Council for Refugees firmly believes that most Canadians do not want refugees, including children, to be jailed as punishment for seeking protection.

What is really going on?

The arrival of almost 500 claimants by boat certainly represents a logistical challenge, but it is not a crisis. The boat arrivals represent only 2% of the claims made in Canada last year. We have laws in place to deal with such situations. The long-term detention of the passengers, including mothers with children, is not justified by the facts.

Unfortunately we are seeing in Canada a pattern of anti-refugee rhetoric, familiar to many other countries. In Australia and in Europe politicians have promoted myths and fear-mongering about refugees as a way of tapping into racist and xenophobic popular sentiments, in order to win votes. This is a short-term strategy that is destructive to society. Why would Canada follow such a negative example?

Governments have a responsibility to defend our legal obligations towards refugees and promote the positive value of a welcoming refugee policy.

 

[1] Fact Sheet 68 - Abolition of Temporary Protection visas (TPVs) and Temporary Humanitarian visa (THVs), and the Resolution of Status (subclass 851) visa, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Canberra. Revised 9 August 2008. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/68tpv_further.htm

[2] UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Sri Lanka, 5 July 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c31a5b82.html

[4] Globe and Mail, “Human smuggling bill endorsements not all they seem”, November 7, 2010, Heather Scoffield, http://bit.ly/bKdo1Y.

Summary

A two-page brief to address myths circulating about refugee claimants in Canada, especially the passengers of the MV Sun Sea who arrived in 2010.

Priority
Recommended
Issues
Myths
Format
Backgrounder/Booklet

Proposal for legislative amendment to protect trafficked persons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this proposal is to advocate for legislative changes to ensure that there is a permanent and fundamental change in policy so that trafficked persons in Canada are protected.

Currently the only provisions in the law relating to trafficking serve to a) criminalize trafficking, b) promote the detention of trafficked persons.  There is nothing in the law to protect the human rights specifically of trafficked persons.

The Temporary Resident Permit guidelines announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in May 2006 are of limited usefulness in protecting trafficked persons.  In particular, the guidelines impose an unreasonable burden of proof on the person who must convince an immigration officer that he/she is indeed a victim of trafficking in persons.  Furthermore, the mandatory involvement of law enforcement agencies deters trafficked persons from applying because of concerns about the potential consequences of such involvement.

While their primary purpose is to protect trafficked persons, these proposals would also serve broader anti-trafficking objectives.  Providing trafficked persons with alternatives undermines the traffickers who depend on victims that can be exploited.  On the other hand, Canadian government policies that offer no protection to the trafficked serve the interests of traffickers because they give trafficked persons no viable alternatives other than remaining in a situation of exploitation and give credibility to the traffickers’ threats about the consequences of failing to comply with them.

Finally, the proposal also serves the goal of promoting gender equality, given the gendered aspects of trafficking, which differentially impacts women and girls, exploiting their vulnerability within society, both in Canada and around the world.

PROPOSALS

  1. Add to the objectives of the Act (s. 3) the objective of protecting the human rights of trafficked persons.
  2. Definition: The definition of trafficking will be the internationally agreed definition in the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol).
  3. Children: Children are among those who are trafficked.  In addition to the general provisions to protect them as trafficked persons, special measures are required to reflect their vulnerabilities and needs as children.
  4. Non-conditional protection: Measures to protect the rights of trafficked persons will in no way be conditional on the person providing testimony or other assistance or cooperation in prosecution.
  5. Temporary protection: Where an immigration officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been trafficked into or within Canada, the officer will issue the person a special temporary protection permit for trafficked persons, valid for a period of 6 months.  This permit will entitle the holder to the same benefits as a refugee claimant (including access to Interim Federal Health program, work permit, study permit).  If the person decides to apply for permanent protection, the temporary protection permit will be valid until a decision has been made on permanent status.

The following factors will be taken into account in deciding whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has been trafficked:

A. the person’s allegations that they have experienced treatment that may correspond to the definition of trafficking;

B. facts about the person’s arrival in Canada or situation within Canada that suggest that the person may have been trafficked;

C. representations from a credible non-governmental organization that believes that the person may have been trafficked.

D. the fact that the person does not believe that they have been trafficked will not negate other evidence of trafficking (given that trafficked persons often deny that they have been trafficked).

E. where the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that the person is a child, any evidence suggestive of trafficking will be sufficient to constitute reasonable grounds for suspecting that the child has been trafficked.

The test of “reasonable grounds for suspecting” is a low standard and does not require that all the evidence be assessed, although there must be some credible evidence for believing that the person might have been trafficked. A single piece of evidence is enough to meet the standard, unless clearly contradicted by other evidence. The intention is to give the benefit of doubt to the potentially trafficked person with respect to temporary protection. The temporary status provides the conditions for a fuller evaluation to be made, if necessary.

In the case of a child, the immigration officer will be responsible for ensuring that the child is placed immediately under the protection of child protection services and has access to necessary services including counselling.

The immigration officer will have the discretion to extend the validity of the temporary permit for a further six months, if circumstances warrant (i.e. if there continue to be reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has been trafficked and for any reason the person has not been able to make decisions for the future within the initial six months).

  1. Interviewing by enforcement: Trafficked persons being considered for a temporary protection permit will not be interviewed by enforcement officers unless necessary for specific law enforcement purposes.  Where interviews are necessary, enforcement officers will be guided by clear instructions on conducting such interviews, designed to ensure sensitivity to trafficked persons.  The instructions will include a requirement that enforcement officers must clearly state that temporary protection is not contingent upon cooperation during the interview.The instructions will also direct officers to ensure that the person is accompanied by an NGO representative, if the person so wishes.  Officers conducting such interviews will have undergone training on interviewing trafficked persons.
  2. Permanent protection: Trafficked persons will be eligible for permanent residence in Canada through a special class.  To meet the class, persons will:
    • establish on a balance of probabilities that they have been trafficked into, within or through Canada, and
    • face hardship if removed from Canada, taking into account the best interests of any child affected by such removal.

Factors to take into account in determining hardship include:

A. risk of physical harm from traffickers

B. risk of re-trafficking

C. psychological and/or physical impacts of the experience of trafficking  (including mental and physical health consequences)

D. social isolation or stigmatization as a result of having been trafficked (e.g. marginalization of women who have done sex work)

E. children who have been trafficked should be given permanent protection, unless it is shown that it is in the best interests of the child not to remain in Canada.

F. where compelling reasons exist, arising out of the atrocious abuse suffered as a trafficked person, the applicant who expresses a desire to remain in Canada will be deemed to meet the test of hardship.

G. persons who cooperate with Canadian authorities in regard to a prosecution of their traffickers are presumed to be at increased risk if removed from Canada and thus to face hardship.  Cooperation means providing all information requested by the authorities except where disclosure of the information would place the trafficked person or other persons at risk of harm. The outcome of the prosecutorial process is irrelevant to the assessment of the person’s cooperation.  The fact that a person chooses not to cooperate with a prosecution shall not count against the person in the evaluation of their application for permanent residence.

Applicants for permanent protection will not be refused without benefit of an interview and the right to counsel.

Members of the trafficked persons class will be exempt from the Right of Permanent Residence Fee and inadmissibility bars in the same way as Protected Persons.

  1. Family reunification: Members of the trafficked persons class will have the right to include family members both inside Canada and outside Canada, as do Protected Persons.
  2. Non-prosecution of offences: Amend s. 133 to protect trafficked persons from prosecution for offences related to entry into Canada (as currently for refugees).
  3. Detention: Amend Regulations s. 245 (flight risk) and s. 249 (special considerations for minor children) to remove reference to trafficking connection as a factor in favour of detention.

Back to trafficking campaign page

Summary

This proposal calls for legislative changes to ensure that there is a permanent and fundamental change in policy so that trafficked persons in Canada are protected. Factsheet. 2007.

Issues
Trafficking
Format
Backgrounder/Booklet
Subscribe to Backgrounder/Booklet