The repressive policies of the Tory's Bill C-4 includes forced detention of certain refugees for one year.
The House of Commons will soon vote at a second reading on the Conservative government’s Bill C-4, or the “Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act.” This legislation sends a misleading and dangerous message to Canadians: that foreigners pose a threat to the country.
From a policy perspective, Bill C-4 is a jaw-dropper. It is advertised as an anti-smuggling bill intended to deter the arrival of refugees that are smuggled into the country. Its provisions, however, mainly target the refugees, rather than the smugglers. The legislation imposes mandatory one-year detention for refugees upon their arrival in Canada, without review by a judge or tribunal. This, however, is only the beginning of the bill’s incoherencies.
First tabled as Bill C-49 last October, the proposed legislation was widely and energetically criticized by refugee groups, lawyers’ associations, faith groups such as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and others. Even the National Post, not known for its pro-refugee positions, was critical, saying the government should consider amending the bill. In the face of unanimous opposition from the other parties, the Conservatives opted not to bring it to a vote.
Yet, after securing a majority government in the May election, the Conservatives brought the bill back virtually unchanged as Bill C-4. Did the government not pause to consider the feedback from so many corners? The opposition to this bill is based not solely on abhorrence to the idea of punishing refugees as a form of deterrence. There are specific and unanswered criticisms of the bill, including that it is illegal, ineffective, and costly.
Many legal experts have pointed out that the bill likely violates, in numerous ways, both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s international obligations. One of the bill’s most blatant Charter breaches is its imposition of one-year mandatory detention without review, just a few short years after the Supreme Court ruled that detention without “prompt review” is in violation of the Charter.
Bill C-4 mimics repressive policies that Australia applied against refugees – perhaps not surprising since Immigration Minister Jason Kenney visited that country shortly before the first version of the bill was tabled. What makes less sense is that the measures most obviously borrowed from Australia (aggressive detention on arrival and prolonged temporary status for recognized refugees) have proven ineffective in deterring arrivals – the Canadian government’s stated goal.
A recent study conducted by the UN Refugee Agency found that there is no empirical evidence that detention deters the arrival of refugees. Nor does denying refugees permanent status deter future arrivals. Australia used to limit refugees to a temporary status, with minimal rights, just as Bill C-4 proposes to do, but they cancelled the policy in 2008, saying that the evidence clearly shows that it “did not have any deterrent effect.”
This bill will also pose significant economic costs. In February 2011, budget figures tabled in the House revealed that the government had already spent $25 million dealing with the Sri Lankan refugee claimants who arrived on the Sun Sea in August 2010 (most of that was spent to keep them locked up). That seems like a significant amount of money, for no demonstrated gain. If Bill C-4 is adopted, the tab will run even higher, what with even longer-term detention. In addition, the government will likely face the costs of a Charter challenge in the courts, where it will have an uphill battle trying to defend detention without review.
The full costs of the bill will be far greater, once you factor in the health, human, and social costs of keeping traumatized people jailed for a year and then separated from their family for five years – the amount of time during which they would be barred from applying for permanent residence, which, in turn, would prevent them from applying to be reunited with their families. An additional cost to all of this will be Canada’s diminished international reputation as a leader in refugee protection.
Those looking for rational explanations for the C-4 provisions from the government shouldn’t hold their breath. The bill seems to be less about achieving serious policy goals, and more about painting refugees and immigrants as fraudsters and criminals as part of a broader Conservative agenda. We’ve seen the publication of lists of the “most wanted” immigrants, whom the public is invited to help catch – first the (wrongly labelled) “suspected war criminals,” and then the “serious criminals.” We’ve also seen the launch of a snitch line, where people can call in and accuse others of obtaining their citizenship fraudulently. And so it goes on.
What we don’t hear much about are the very real challenges facing new immigrants and refugees: the abuses suffered by newcomers (such as the appallingly long delays at the Nairobi visa office), the exploitation of vulnerable temporary foreign workers, or the cases of children deported from Canada without consideration of their best interests.
Through Bill C-4, and in other ways, the Conservatives are unfortunately encouraging Canadians to think of refugees as a problem, rather than inviting us to work to solve the problems that refugees face, as people forced to flee their homes.
Origin
Source: the Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment