|
|
|
||||||
 
KAIROS Member of Parliament Lobby 2005:
|
 |
|
In 2005, KAIROS is asking local groups to write to or meet with their MPs to push for action on two areas related to our campaign on refugee rights and human security.
First, we are asking you to demand implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division. This is the main demand of this year’s petition campaign.
Second, we are asking you to demand withdrawal of Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, which is currently under review. This is part of our ongoing work for just peace and true security.
Below you will find a few simple tools to help in this process:
- General tips on meeting with and writing to your
MP
- Background on the Refugee Appeal Division
- Background on Bill C36, the Anti-Terrorism Act
1. Accessing Local Representatives: General tips
on meeting with and writing to your MP
Tips on Meeting With Your MP
- Do your homework to establish where they stand on your issues. Create a plan for the meeting. Be realistic as to what can be covered in one meeting and specific about what you want to ask them to do.
- Assume that they may not be fully versed in the issues at hand, and have not yet made up their minds. Bring them copies of any information required to make an informed decision (eg. relevant press clippings, letters to the editor, etc.)
- Go with others – three or four people is just about the right size for a full and frank exchange of ideas. Relax and approach your MP with courtesy and respect. Involve every member of the delegation in the meeting. Disagree without being disagreeable. Be persistent – there is nothing wrong with repeating yourself. Just try to do it a little differently each time. Stay focused on your objectives.
- Take note of any commitments or comments made.
- Follow up your meeting with a letter expressing thanks for your representative’s time and setting out your understanding of the commitments exchanged.
Tips on Writing to Your MP
- Write the letter in your own words – this has more impact than a mass produced letter.
- Before you begin to write, be sure of your intentions – do you want to inform, or ask questions? Do you need certain actions explained or justified?
- Be as brief as possible – often a page or less is best.
- Be factual and back up your arguments with the most relevant information.
- Identify yourself as a constituent, explain your position, and identify your group. Request a response.
- Keep a copy of any correspondence sent or received for future reference.
Background on the Refugee Appeal Division
2. Implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division
Since September, KAIROS has been promoting a petition calling for
immediate implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division. During
March and April, we are asking KAIROS groups to lobby their MPs
on this issue. Our basic arguments are as follows:
- Canada has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention. We have an obligation not to send refugees back to persecution.
- With a single adjudicator now responsible for deciding on a refugee claim, there is a greater risk of error. Mistaken decisions mean that genuine refugees can be sent back into danger. Refugees need a process to appeal negative decisions to determine if mistakes have been made.
- The Refugee Appeal Division was approved by Parliament as part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is undemocratic not to implement it.
For more detailed information on the issue, please read the backgrounder on the KAIROS petition campaign, available at http://www.kairoscanada.org/e/action/campaign.asp
Why Lobby Now?
KAIROS plans to approach Members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration to present and speak to our petition in the House
of Commons. We would like to have a first presentation on April
4, Refugee Rights Day and continue through to June, when the House
is scheduled to rise. We need your help in that time to build strong
support in the House of Commons so as to maximize the impact of
these presentations.
Target: Your Member of Parliament
We are asking all KAIROS groups to visit their MPs to demand immediate
implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division. Those of you in the
ridings of Minister Joe Volpe, and the Opposition critics, Diane
Ablonczy (Conservative), Bill Siksay (NDP) and Meili Faille (Bloc),
will play a particularly important role in getting our message out.
Our Message: Canadian Churches say now is the time for the appeal
We need all KAIROS groups to approach their MPs to demand immediate implementation of the appeal, citing the following context:
- The churches have been involved in refugee issues for many years, sponsoring and sheltering refugees while also arguing for the protection of refugee rights. Former Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall once said: “the churches will let me know when mistakes are made.” This implies that we play a credible role of conscience for a system that wants to be fair, but inevitably makes mistakes.
- Churches and refugee advocates have been lobbying for implementation of the appeal for several years now. In 2002 and 2003, KAIROS launched letter writing campaigns to ask then Minister Denis Coderre to reconsider his decision to delay implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division. Last summer, following Minister Sgro’s public criticism of the sanctuary movement, church leaders met with the Minister and her staff to say that the real problem was not sanctuary but the lack of an appeal. In September, KAIROS launched our petition campaign. Meanwhile, the Canadian Council for Refugees conducted their own lobby of MPs on this issue last fall.
- The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has endorsed the Refugee Appeal Division. In December 2004, the Standing Committee issued a news release announcing its unanimous support for a Bloc motion which called for immediate implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division (see attached copy of this news release, which includes the text of the Bloc motion).
Lobbying Allies
The Canadian Council for Refugees conducted an MP Lobby on the appeal
issue in October, with participation by member organizations across
the country. Refugee-serving organizations in your area may be willing
to share their lobby experiences or join with you in visiting your
MP.
Answering Tough Questions
The Canadian Council for Refugees Lobby in October identified the following concerns raised by politicians in response to the issue of the Refugee Appeal Division. We need to be able to address these concerns.
Concern: The appeal will “paralyze the system.”
It will add to delays.
Response: A functional appeal process is possible. The United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) surveyed the 21 principal
asylum countries of Europe, Oceania and North America and found
that all but Italy and Canada provide for an appeal on the merits.
The UNHCR, in response to an invitation for input from former Immigration
Minister Elinor Caplan in 2000, gave detailed recommendations for
a process that would be both fair and efficient. Furthermore, refugees
have a right to an appeal, as provided for in our own Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act. We cannot deny legal rights simply because
we think that it will add to delays.
Concern: It will become “just another patronage-ridden
body.”
Response: It is true that political patronage has historically influenced
the appointment of Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) decision
makers. To address the problem of widely varying levels of competency,
Minister Sgro announced in March 2004 a reform of the process for
appointing members to the IRB. It is the job of the current Minister
to ensure implementation of a Refugee Appeal Division with credible
decision makers.
Concern: Refugee claimants are ‘illegals’
and ‘disreputables’ who are out to cheat the system.
Response: Assuming that a refugee claimant is out to cheat the system
is like saying that someone is guilty until proven innocent. It
is the role of the refugee determination system to analyze the evidence
and decide whether a refugee claim is valid. In order for this system
to work properly, there needs to be a process to correct errors.
Otherwise, genuine refugees can be sent back to persecution, in
violation of Canada’s international obligations under the
1951 Convention. In 2004, 40% of all refugee claims heard at the
Immigration and Refugee Board received a positive decision, accounting
for 16 005 persons deemed in need of Canada’s protection.
Concern: Refugees already have too many appeal options.
Response: In July 2004, Minister Sgro was quoted in the media as
saying that refugee claimants have “between 6 and 20 avenues
of appeal.” This has led to a great deal of public confusion
about the Refugee Appeal Division. The reality is that a merit based
appeal process does not exist. When a refugee claimant is rejected,
they do have access to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). This
examines the probable risk to them if deported but does not review
the merits of their claim to refugee status. Less than 10% of these
cases are allowed to stay in Canada. A rejected claimant can also
file for permission to take the case to the Federal Court. However,
this is a review of legal process, not the merits of the case. Most
people are not even given permission to take their case to court.
The last option is to make a Humanitarian and Compassionate Application.
This is completely different from a refugee decision and based on
different criteria, such as attachment and establishment in Canada.
The acceptance rate is again very low and people can still be deported
while their application is being processed. What we are advocating
for is the merits based appeal provided for in the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act. The law is there – let’s implement
it.
3. Review of Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act
KAIROS and many other social justice organizations have been opposed to Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, since it came into force in December 2001. Bill C-36 was brought into effect in a time of crisis and in response to perceived risk and elevated public fear. Some of the elements of the law violate basic constitutional and international human rights norms.
Why Lobby Now?
Parliament is currently conducting a mandatory review of Bill C36.
KAIROS has made a submission to this process. Now is the time to
tell your MP that you also have concerns about this bill.
Target: Your Member of Parliament
We are asking all KAIROS groups to visit their MPs to demand immediate
withdrawal of Bill C36. Those of you in the ridings of Minister
Anne McLellan and Opposition critics Peter MacKay (Conservative),
Serge Menard (Bloc) and Joe Comartin (NDP) can play a particularly
important role in getting our message out.
Our Message: In the Name of Human Rights, Withdraw Bill C36
Human rights are at the heart of KAIROS’ vision of global security. When the Anti-Terrorism Act was introduced, KAIROS feared that Bill C-36 threatened to undermine the rights of Canadians and the culture of public trust so essential to true security and effective democracy. While we recognize that C-36 aims to protect Canadians, we believe that the Act itself undermines true security by violating basic constitutional and international human rights norms. For this reason, the Anti-Terrorism Act should be withdrawn.
While its use over the last three years has been infrequent, we continue to be concerned that the Act’s reach and scope exceed that necessary for citizens’ protection. We are concerned that:
- Bill C-36’s definition of terrorist activity is far too broad and open to abuse. It can include legitimate forms of dissent that have nothing to do with terrorism. The use of C-36 to raid the residence of Aboriginal activists in Port Alberni confirms the dangers of the malleable nature of this definition. As long as C-36 continues to be in place, there is no guarantee that future federal or provincial governments or local police forces could not use the provisions to crack down on those engaged in legitimate protest. We are also concerned that C-36 influenced the interpretation of “terrorism” in Canada’s immigration legislation, resulting in heightened surveillance and detention of non-citizens. While immigration security certificates predate the Anti-Terrorism Act, there have been an increased number of certificates issued since this Act was passed in December 2001.
- The lack of due process for those detained under security certificates is unacceptable. KAIROS is deeply concerned by the lack of due process for those detained under a security certificate. Immigration lawyers are having to mount a defence for their clients without knowing the specific allegations and evidence against them. As an organization currently engaged in a campaign for refugee rights, we are also gravely concerned that the Anti-Terrorism Act contributes to an atmosphere hostile to refugees, where the focus is increasingly on keeping people out of Canada rather than offering protection. Since 2001, we have seen increased budget allocations for immigration detention and increased attention to enforcement, notably through the creation of the Canada Border Services Agency.
- The Anti-Terrorism Act contributes to an atmosphere hostile to visible minorities and refugees. The disproportionate representation of Muslims and Arabs among those currently being held on security certificates raises the issue of racial profiling. Article 83.18 of C-36 states that the court may consider, in determining whether an accused participates in terrorist activity, whether the accused “uses a name, word, symbol or other representation that identifies, or is associated with, the terrorist group.” In a media context that associates Islamic faith and Muslim identity with terrorism, this is tantamount to justification of racial profiling. Since C-36 Canadian Arabs and Muslims have reported examples of “visitation tactics” by security officials that are troubling and discriminatory, and which have the result of limiting these communities’ legitimate political expression and democratic participation.
- The procedure for establishing a list of terrorist groups and for de-registering charities because of an alleged relationship to those groups is dangerously flawed. Canadian churches have funded and continue to fund many groups working for peace and human rights around the world which have been branded "terrorists" simply because they opposed dictatorial or unjust governments. Canadian churches are not in the business of financing terrorists. In fact, given their long history of grassroots experience in countries, the churches and their partners may often be better positioned than the federal government to recognize whether or not a group has terrorist links. However, given the imprecise definition of terrorism and the lack of procedural fairness for groups and charities with alleged linkages to these groups, organizations like KAIROS and the Canadian churches are concerned that they may be wrongly accused of aiding terrorism.
Top
of page |
|