Against Refugees and Immigrants

Introduction

As part of its national consultation in November 1997, the Canadian Council for Refugees, with funding from the Court Challenges Programme of Canada, conducted two 3 hour workshops devoted to strategizing and networking on possible court challenges of various discriminatory measures faced by refugees and immigrants. In part these sessions served as a follow-up to the session held during the CCR conference in Edmonton in June 1997. It was hoped that the greater time provided for small and large group discussion would meet the need expressed at the June 1997 session for more opportunity for discussion and more direction and focus to the discussions. An estimated 20 people participated in the morning session and approximately 30 people attended the afternoon sessions.

Morning session - Organizing in Communities

The morning session was geared toward front-line workers in small agencies across the country who may come upon a situation or problem which could become the basis for a court challenge under s.15 of the charter. A short introduction to the session was given by a lawyer with considerable experience in community organizing for the purposes of a legal court challenge to the Immigration Act. The introduction provided a framework for analysis which the small break-out groups could use in discussion of particular fact scenarios. Two case studies formed the basis for the ensuing discussion, first in small breakout groups, and then in the larger group. The case studies were as follows:

(A) Your client, Ms.T., came to see you about her brother who is held in detention at the Metro West Detention Centre. Ms T. and her brother came to Canada from Jamaica about 15 years ago when they were in their early teens. Ms.T. has since become ad Canadian citizen, but her brother never got around to applying. A few years ago, Ms.T's brother was laid off from a factory job he held and he then fell into the "wrong crowd". He was involved in some minor offenses (e.g. car theft) and was sentenced to a few months in jail altogether. Then last year he was arrested again, this time for a drug trafficking. The judge sentenced him to one year imprisonment. After he finished serving his jail time, he continued to be detained because Immigration wants to deport him. Ms.T. said that her brother received some paper from Immigration about certifying him as a public danger while he was detained. His brother could not find a lawyer to help him. Ms.T. has only about $1000 savings and she is willing to use that money to bail her brother, but he has been denied bail.

(B) You are a settlement counsellor and you discover that several of your clients from Ghana have been asked to provide DNA proof of relationship with their children in order to process their sponsorship application. This is true even when the client is able to produce some other proof of relationship. Your clients are unable to afford the test. Some of them have to borrow money to pay for the test in order to continue with their application. Others simply do not know what to do and their cases are therefore being delayed. You decide to investigate this matter further and you discover that the DNA test requirement apparently only applies to people from certain countries. You want to take this issue up with Immigration.

The two case examples allowed for a very broad discussion about problems in Canada's immigration system and also about the problems within our own communities which result in a feeling of powerlessness. Since the majority of participants came from non-legal backgrounds the discussions often focused on issues that are not recognized in the legal context. For example, in the discussion of (A) there was an emphasis on the lack of support within our communities, and in the Canadian society in general, for people who lose their jobs and become depressed or suffer from other forms of mental illness. Racism played a role in this discussion but so too did the failings within our own immigrant communities when dealing with marginalized people and the discouragement of members taking on a more public role and becoming the policy-makers.

The main discussion, dealt with the challenge of winning and maintaining the support of affected immigrant and refugee communities in a court case. This was seen as particularly difficult in cases where the issues pertain to negative stereotypes and images such as welfare dependence or criminality. In spite of the difficulty of gaining such support, the participants felt that it was essential to gain this support. Such support and approval of a court challenge was seen not only as a moral necessity but also in practical terms. It would be necessary once the legal challenge got started for a local organization to house and co-ordinate the effort - both legal and political. Pooling of resources and energy would become essential once the long and costly process of a court challenge gets started. Evidence of discriminatory impact would need to be collected from community members. Thus the support is necessary but the question remains of how to get it and how to keep it.

From the discussion a consensus developed that in order to get community support, members needed to understand that the problems in these cases did not arise due to something that the person did - ie. drug trafficking, lack of money for DNA tests - but rather due to who they are - immigrants, refugees, people of colour, people from particular countries etc. Thus, for example, a white Canadian convicted of drug trafficking, after having served his required jail time, would not then be exiled from his country and forcibly separated from family and friends. In effect it is necessary to educate our communities to understand that such problems could befall any of us and that the consequence of not speaking up may be dangerous in the future as it allows the anti-immigrant sentiment in government and the public to assume that they have even wider support than may be the case. Suggestions for gaining and maintaining community support included:

- strengthen our networks now so that they can be called upon when needed: a coalition can rarely be built overnight.

- encouraging NGOs and community groups to make contact and maintain contact with relevant Members of Parliament and Ministers so that they have a better chance of getting an ear to complain to when necessary and also so that the MP's are aware of who their constituents are.

- stop looking at judicial and political remedies as separate strategies, both should be co-ordinated so that they complement each other.

- when speaking out against a discriminatory policy in a particular community and to the general public show both the short term effects and the long term deterioration of Canadian society which it implies (e.g. fingerprinting of welfare recipients and refugee claimants).

- when building networks, ensure that alliances between different communities and constituencies are made so that the problem cannot be dismissed as a problem that only affects a select group of people e.g. "that's just a Jamaican problem".

- better relationships need to be established between the legal community (rather than concentrating on individual lawyers) and immigrant and refugee communities in order to present discrimination against refugees and immigrants not just as a problem for the affected communities but also a problem for a country and legal system that prides itself on fairness and humanity.

Afternoon Session - The Head Tax: Lessons learned

The afternoon session was used as a forum to discuss the advocacy around the Head Tax issue - both past and present and what the future strategy should be. Andrew Brouwer from the Ad Hoc Coalition against the Head Tax attended the session to give a summary of the community advocacy that had been done to date. He also discussed some of the strengths and failings of the campaign. Connie Nakatsu is a Toronto lawyer who has received funding from the Court Challenges Programme to develop the basis for a legal court challenge. She attended the session and provided the group with a summary of what had been done to date on the legal front.

Past Community Advocacy and Lobbying Efforts

1. The "Head Tax Tool Kit" was developed for use in Public education and helped to put the head tax issue in the context of Canada's record of racism in Immigration.

2. Grass-roots organizing took place, especially in the Toronto area. This included public demonstrations with the co-operation of the Toronto Coalition Against Racism (TCAR), unions and NAC.

3. Approximately 50 000 postcards protesting the Head Tax, addressed to the Prime Minister were distributed nationally.

4. A Multi-Faith solidarity letter/statement on the head tax was developed and publicised.

5. Letters were sent to the Prime Minister and to the Immigration Minister which led to a 11/2 hour meeting with Mr. Sergio Marchi who was the Immigration Minister at the time. It became clear that the rationale of deficit cutting from the Finance Ministry had made it "impossible" for Mr. Marchi to abolish the Head Tax. This position has more recently been confirmed even more strongly by the current Minister of Immigration, Mme. Robillard.

6. Representations were made in opposition to the Head Tax to the Immigration Standing Committee.

7. The UNHCR was requested to make a statement denouncing the Head Tax. This did happen to some extent.

8. A statement was made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission denouncing the Head Tax.

9. Representations were made to those working on the alternative budget and they did actually abolish the head tax for the purposes of their unofficial "budget".

10. Lobbying efforts were directed at Metro Council (Metropolitan Toronto) to adopt a statement opposing the Head Tax. This was successful in that the Council adopted a statement requesting that the Head Tax be rescinded.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Campaign

The Right of Landing Fee is still in existence today. The main change has been a deferral in its payment to closer to the landing date. Currently the idea of a tax credit to offset some of the impact of the head tax is "on the table".

The group still feels that the head tax is a good issue for public advocacy because it is simple, clear, has good resonance with Canada's history, and has been successful in gaining good public opinion. However it is possible that the Coalition was too centred on Toronto. Another recent problem has been that the new Minister of Immigration has refused to even acknowledge the existence of this issue. In contrast, the former Minister was at least willing to discuss it.

Part of the problem could be that by buying into the government's excuse of deficit reduction and approaching the Finance Committee for help, the group got away from the focus on effect on people. However, it may be a good time now to look at the finance angle, since the Liberal Party seems to be looking for ways to spend the "fiscal surplus". This issue did get some positive publicity in the mainstream press and there was support among some MPs. We should build on this foundation and increase grass roots education by making better use of the Head Tax Tool Kit and also by continuing the political lobbying efforts to ensure that the issue remains on the table in the political arena.

Development of the Legal Court Challenge

Some funding has been received in order to develop a basis for a court challenge. The two main problems are that it has proven difficult to find litigants who are willing to carry through on this project and there has been great difficulty in getting current data. The government has proved unhelpful in supplying data, for example, the government has indicated that they do not keep statistics of refugees who do not receive permanent residence. There has also been the problem of documenting how people who do manage to pay the head tax actually come up with the money. In this regard it will be necessary to analyze the distribution of funds under the federal ROLF loan programme. Most importantly, most refugees, and others who feel the impact of the Head Tax, feel too vulnerable to come forward as litigants. In order to get case development underway, it will be necessary to find a way to compile data on the adverse effect of the Head Tax. Ideally we need to collect affidavit evidence from those affected or from service providers in the cases of people who have left the country.

Discussion: The Future

Many of the members of the group present had been involved in the advocacy around the Head Tax to some extent and were anxious to know what had happened to this issue. It was generally felt that after a promising and energetic start, the Ad-Hoc Coalition Against the Head Tax had dwindled to the point that very little recent community activity or lobbying had occurred on the Head Tax issue. On the legal side work had also slowed down due to the difficulties in finding appropriate litigants and collecting data. There was a consensus that the two sides (legal & community) of the anti-Head Tax "lobby" had become to some extent estranged and needed now to discuss together what shape their advocacy would take in the future. Those who had been involved in the Ad-Hoc Coalition against the head Tax were anxious to find out how they could complement and contribute to the legal effort. Thus the group stayed together and points of action were developed.

The most important point to come out of the discussion was that there needs to be an ongoing formal link between the group of people working on community advocacy and those working on the legal court challenge. This link would allow the two sides to co-ordinate their activities more effectively and provide support to each other when needed. A core support group would also need to be developed around the court challenge so that one person could be identified as the "central clearing" house through which all information could be collected. Names of interested participants were collected in order to begin the core group.

1. The most immediate task of the core group would be to develop a questionnaire to gather evidence on effects of the Head Tax and then to administer it in agencies. The questionnaire would need to be developed by someone with social science training and before it could be administered people would need to get training on how to administer it. The question was raised of whether CCR would help in identifying the national network and provide a forum to develop the questionnaire and/or to give training.

2. The group should make a list of people in government to lobby on this issue, including the Finance Minister and all the urban caucus chairs. The new Human Rights Commissioner should be approached to ensure that he is on record as against the Head Tax.

3. We need to recognize that community organizing is good in itself and not just for the sake of the Head Tax issue. Therefore the Head Tax can be brought up as an example when talking on other issues. The Head Tax Tool Kit which had been developed by the Ad-Hoc Coalition needs to be put to better use, and in order to do this we need to determine who the right people are to do the community organizing and how to bring them to this table.

4. There should be ongoing and formal communication between the people doing community advocacy and those working on the legal challenge so that community events can be timed with important dates for the legal challenge. There should be an attempt to revive the Ad-Hoc Coalition in order to serve as the "core/support group".

5. We will probably have to apply for further funding to hire a person to co-ordinate public education and collection of data. The Canadian Foundation for Race Relations was seen to be a good possibility for the funding.

Conclusion/Post-Script

Since the meeting in November 1997, the Ad-hoc Coalition against the Head Tax has been re-invigorated and now meets regularly once again. A team has been finalized to push forward on the case development phase of the court challenge ahead. A formal structure of co-ordination has been developed between the community organizers and the legal people. Avvy Go has agreed to be the link between the two aspects of Anti-Head Tax advocacy. CCR has been identified as the ideal initial network in which to deliver the new impact questionnaire which has been developed and is being reviewed by a social scientist. There is a tentative plan for further questionnaire development or training to take place in a workshop in late May or early June 1998. The Immigration Legislative Review Report did not recommend removal of the Right of Landing Fee but it did recommend the establishment of "a working group with organizations representing the interests of clients to examine the rationale for the Right of Landing Fee." Therefore, if this recommendation is implemented, forces opposed to the Head Tax may actually have an real opportunity to effect change. Thus it will be necessary for the core group, and for the CCR more generally, to look at the Head Tax issue and the court challenge as a more long term strategy. Meanwhile, we should continue with lobbying and grassroots organizing and education efforts so that we will be ready if we are asked to participate in any working group on this issue.