 
Canada: 2005 report to the World Council of Churches’
Global Ecumenical Network on Uprooted Peoples
Contents
Canada’s report on country specific concerns to the World
Council of Churches Global Ecumenical Network on Uprooted Peoples
2005 general meeting. Submitted by Tanya Chute Molina, Refugee and
Migration Program Coordinator, KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice
Initiatives.
 |
Current challenges in the work of solidarity with
uprooted people
|
|
 |
 |
In Canada, both government policy statements and the mass media
have tended to foment public hostility towards uprooted people by
making unfair and unfounded links between refugee claimants and
security concerns, and by lashing out against so-called abuse of
the system by “bogus refugees” and “economic migrants.”
The post 9-11 security agenda is clearly in evidence with the increased
use of security certificates to detain non-citizens, the creation
of the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) to assume immigration
enforcement responsibilities, the increase in budget allocations
for detention, and the implementation of a Safe Third Country Agreement
that has virtually closed down the border to asylum seekers looking
to enter Canada from the United States.
Canadian churches, working together through KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical
Justice Initiatives, have chosen to focus their education and advocacy
efforts for 2005-2006 on two major themes: a) the post 9-11 security
agenda and its impact on refugee policy, and b) globalization and
migration. With regards to the security agenda, KAIROS prepared
a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on detention issues
in Canada. This submission - part of a larger report developed by
a task force of the Canadian Council for Refugees - will be presented
to the Committee on the occasion of its revision of Canada in the
fall of 2005. Canadian churches have also been working to support
the Canadian Council for Refugees and Amnesty International in spearheading
a legal challenge to the Safe Third Country Agreement. Since migration
is a relatively new area of concern, the focus here is on educating
the church constituency about the root causes of displacement, the
limited rights enjoyed by temporary workers and non-status migrants,
and opportunities to act for change. A ten part fact sheet series
is under development, as well as a video on the challenges faced
by non status persons in Canada.
Other areas of work have included a brief to the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration on obstacles and delays to family
reunification for refugees and migrants, as well as a mass petition
campaign for implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division, which
would give refused refugee claimants the merit based appeal that
they are entitled to by law. The petition campaign included building
alliances with parliamentarians from all four major parties, who
presented the KAIROS petition in the House of Commons.
 Top
of page
|
Detention issues in Canada
|
|
|
|
Post 9-11 security concerns have contributed to a significant
increase in detentions in Canada. New budget allocations made
by the government in December 2001 as part of the security response
included increased amounts for detention. From 1997 to 2002, the
number of people detained for immigration reasons grew a dramatic
41%, from 5401 to 11 509. For 2003-2004, the figure was a startling
13 413 (Citizenship and Immigration Canada statistics). The UN Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, in a press release issued on June
16, 2005, stated concern at the wide net cast by Canadian immigration
officers in detaining people on grounds of identity and flight risk.
Despite the increased surveillance post 9-11, only about 1% of detainees
are actually held on security grounds. For those who are held on
security grounds, there are serious concerns about the way in which
evidence is managed.
Security certificates: The increased use of security certificates
in recent years has raised serious concerns about racial profiling
and violation of due process rights. The security certificate provision
of the immigration legislation allows the government to detain and
deport a permanent resident or other non-citizen without showing
them or their lawyer the evidence against them. This makes it very
difficult, if not impossible, for security certificate detainees
to defend themselves. At present, at least five people are being
held in detention or house arrest on security certificates: all
of them are Muslim and Arab men.
Detention on identity grounds: Under Canadian immigration
law, an immigration officer can detain a foreign national if not
satisfied of the foreigner’s identity. However, NGOs report
that immigration officers often have unrealistic demands regarding
the quantity and quality of identification documents that should
be carried by refugees. Montreal advocates report cases where documents
from economically depressed countries have been rejected on the
base of ink or paper quality. In one case, the detainee submitted
a birth certificate, drivers license, national identity card and
two school diplomas, but still was not able to convince the immigration
officer of his identity. In other cases, refugees have been asked
to contact their embassy to obtain a passport, without any consideration
of the possible implications for a person fleeing persecution or
for loved ones who remain in the home country.
Detention on grounds of flight risk: Canadian immigration
officers can also detain on the basis that the person is unlikely
to appear for their next hearing or for removal. Immigration officers
often conclude that asylum seekers are unlikely to appear, given
their stated fear of persecution if deported. The UN Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention states: “We are concerned that this
line of reasoning leads, in practice, to persons being detained
on the basis of having claimed refugee status.” This is in
clear contravention of the principle of non-discrimination.
Discrimination and racial profiling: Canadian detention
practices are discriminatory in that they disproportionately target
boat arrivals for enforcement, as compared to other “illegals.”
In 1999, 4 ships carrying 599 Fujianese people arrived on the west
coast of Canada. Canada detained most of these people on the basis
of flight risk. Eleven spend over a year and a half in detention.
Some suffered inappropriate treatment, including handcuffs and leg
shackles, punitive isolation, and inadequate access to translation,
information, or counsel. Five women were severely beaten at the
Prince George Correctional Centre.
There are also serious concerns of racial profiling post 9-11.
On August 14, 2003, the RCMP arrested 19 Pakistani men in a controversial
pre-dawn raid. Though all allegations of terrorism were eventually
dropped, the men continued to be held in maximum security for several
months. Most were deported. No statement of exoneration has ever
been issued to clear their names.
Prolonged detention: There is no formal time limit for immigration
detention in Canada. Detainees experience major obstacles to securing
their release, resulting in long periods of detention. While immigration
legislation gives detainees the right to a review by a senior immigration
official within the first forty-eight hours of detention, some detainees
wait up to eleven days for their first review. Even when the review
demonstrates that all identity requirements have been met, the grounds
for detention sometimes simply shift to flight risk. In the city
of Toronto, even after detainees have proved their identity, they
are still required to pay bail in order to secure their release.
Bail requirements are unevenly applied across the country. There
is an urgent need for more flexible release mechanisms.
Access to counsel is a major problem for immigration detainees.
Provision of free legal services is uneven since legal aid is administered
at the provincial level. Even where legal aid is available, detainees
have difficulty finding a lawyer willing to take on a detention
case on a legal aid certificate and travel to the detention center.
This is particularly true for those detained outside of major centers.
This has a major impact on the quality and therefore the chance
of success of asylum applications, when these are completed in detention
without adequate assistance.
A related issue is access by NGOs to detention facilities. Given
the reality of limited access to counsel, NGOs try to fill the gaps
by visiting detention centers and assisting claimants with completing
asylum applications. In the past, these NGOs had access to a complete
list of immigration detainees. However, the Toronto Refugee Affairs
Council reports that the Canadian Border Services Agency now refuses
to provide detention workers with this information, on grounds of
security. This makes it very difficult for NGOs to monitor detention
and deportation practices.
Detention conditions are another area of concern. Many immigration
detainees are held in provincial correctional facilities. Only in
the provinces of Ontario and Quebec does the federal government
run detention facilities exclusively for immigration holds. The
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has expressed concern that
immigration holds in Canada, who are not held on criminal charges
or serving a sentence, are held in custody among persons in the
criminal process - sometimes over long periods of time. In some
provinces, this automatically implies detention in maximum security.
Such treatment, together with excessive use of handcuffs, is extremely
detrimental to the mental health of asylum seekers, who may have
experienced torture while in detention in their home countries.
Furthermore, there is inadequate attention to the needs of vulnerable
groups such as children and youth. NGOs report instances where separated
children have been detained for up to nine months with minimal access
to schooling or exercise. Youth have also experienced abuse by other
inmates in cases where immigration detainees have been held together
with juvenile delinquents.
Churches advocating for detainees: Churches are highly involved
in ministry to immigration detainees. In Toronto, the Quaker Refugee
Service and the Catholic FCJ Refugee Centre work together to maintain
a weekly presence in the urban detention centers, where they offer
a compassionate ear and assist asylum seekers in completing the
paper work required to apply for refugee status. In Montreal, a
Presbyterian minister is involved in visiting immigration detainees
through Action Refugies Montreal. In Vancouver, Sister Deborah Isaac
is involved in monitoring the detention conditions experienced by
children and youth. Church groups like these presented to the UN
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention during its visit to Canada
in June of 2005, highlighting many of the issues raised above. KAIROS:
Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives built upon this work in
preparing its submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on detention
issues. This submission will be presented to the Committee in the
fall as part of a larger report developed by a task force of the
Canadian Council for Refugees.
Top
of page
|
