SEARCH
Refugee reforms miss the mark
Posted in: News & Updates by Erika Strong on June 21, 2010
Hamilton, ON—The 2nd Annual Symposium on HIV, Law and Human Rights opened our eyes to many issues we had not thought about before. The focus of the conference was on HIV, but this virus is multi-dimensional and influences many different people. One of the topics that came up was a discussion of Bill C-11, legislation to reform Canada’s refugee system. The government has decided that the entire process needs to be streamlined and overhauled.
The current Canadian refugee system does contain some positive attributes and is respected internationally. It has an independent expert tribunal with excellent documentation, minimal detention of refugee claimants, an active resettlement program and gender guidelines. However, there are deep flaws within both the current system and the proposed reforms.
The current reforms proposed for Bill C-11 are meant to expedite the process for all refugees and speed up the removal of “bogus” refugee claimants from “safe” countries. The underlying problems with the refugee system and its reforms are a lack of understanding, disempowerment and its undertones of racism and discrimination. There are several problems which need to be addressed:
Hearings will be too expedited Having hearings within two months will become very problematic for refugees who have experienced traumatic events, who cannot have their documents sent to Canada in time, or who simply do not trust the system. Leo Johnson, Executive Director of Empowerment Squared and a refugee himself, recalls the problems he had with the application timelines. “The interview process I went through to eventually get to Canada lasted five years, all the while I was living in the most deplorable conditions. Some of our friends died during that process,” he explained. “However, the Canadian government does not see a need to expedite that part of the application. Rather, when we are living in Canada, with shelter, food, security and stable surroundings—that’s when they decide the process needs to be sped up.”
The main reason behind this proposed change of course comes down to cost. According to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, it is estimated that each failed asylum claim costs taxpayers $50,000, and that these reforms would reduce the cost to $29,000 per claim. Then, the Government of Canada says it will increase the Resettlement Assistance Program funding to $54 million to help the ‘successful’ candidates integrate into Canada. All of this sounds great (if it actually happened), except when contextualized. “How much are we spending on the G20 Summit?” asks Johnson. “We are able to locate funding to entertain world leaders but cannot afford to share our resources with people who need it to survive.”
Civil servants as first-instance decision makers One positive of the Canadian system was that the expert tribunal was independent. Other refugee systems using public officials have proved unsuccessful and often lead to overturned cases and appeals. Why would Canada attempt something that already fails in other countries? Johnson also recalls how he faced inexperienced immigration officers for years and is appalled at this suggestion. “This is the equivalent of saying refugees are not worth the resources to have well trained and experienced people make decisions which could be a matter of life and death,” he believes.
Safe country list The safe country list is being expanded to include more countries. If someone is from a place on the safe country list then they will not be allowed to make an appeal once his/her application has been rejected. The problem with this lies in deciding what exactly constitutes a “safe” country. People can still live in dangerous circumstances, no matter what country they are from. For example, the Romani people may live in democratic and “safe” countries such as Italy, but that does not mean they are illegitimate applicants. This can lead to many problems for someone who is forced to go back to a place where they feel completely unsafe.
In the past the protocol has been to assess whether it was safe for failed applicants to return to their home country. However, because the length of time between an applicant’s rejection and actual deportation was deemed too long, the solution is to bar people from re-applying for a year once they have been rejected. The severity of this policy can be explained by looking at someone living with HIV. Many claimants come to Canada hoping to receive HIV treatment. If they have been in Canada and have been receiving anti-retroviral drugs, being deported can have serious health implications. This can also be a life or death situation for other applicants.
Language The language used in Bill C-11 and by Hon. Jason Kenney, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is where racism and discrimination is most evident. Minister Kenney has used words such as “bogus” to describe claims that do not fit the narrow requirements for refugee status. This is an offensive and unprofessional word to use to describe refugee applicants.
The discourse that is used by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration largely impacts society’s view on refugees. This language will then be picked up by the media which then thinks it is appropriate to use phrases like “refugee crisis” and state that refugees are “invading” Canada. Refugees are also often defined by race, increasing the divide between those who are white and those who are not. Using race means that immigrants are racialized, foreign and definitely not white. This is xenophobic and creates an air of suspicion in society.
Christopher Kiely, from Raise the Hammer, elaborates on the significance of immigrants in our society. “The inclusion of new immigrants is vital for a city…New immigrants become essential components of a more natural form of urban development,” he explains. “It should be of great concern…when anyone who faces prejudice on an often daily basis…finally braves the daunting task of climbing the ivory tower only to get kicked off the ladder before they even have a firm grasp on the bottom rung.”
Ultimately, changes to Bill C-11 miss the mark completely. Although they may be in the best interest of some, they do not make the process easier or safer for refugee claimants. Until the government wakes up and realizes that refugees have a right to be here, deserve respect and need to be empowered, all further changes will be inadequate and useless
Comments
Thank you for articulating this so well. What this government is doing regarding refugees and new immigrants is, quite frankly, appalling. It not only affects those coming to Canada, but those already living in Canada — not in a positive way.
Comment by Another Canadian on August 9, 2010 at 7:45 am