Queue the rhetoric: refugees, resettlement and reform.

AuthorLabman, Shauna
PositionCanada

INTRODUCTION

The day before Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) introduced the legislative package to reform Canadian refugee law in 2010, the Ministry announced an expansion of Canada's resettlement program to bring over more needy refugees. According to CIC, the expansion amounted to a potential increase of 2,500 resettlement places per year. (1) That this announcement preceded the introduction of Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act (2) by one day demonstrates two important points. First, refugee resettlement is distinct from refugee law. Second, resettlement now sits in juxtaposition to in-country asylum. This article will chronicle the increasing tendency of the Canadian government to position resettlement against in-country asylum rather than present the two streams of refugee protection in their traditionally complementary roles. The consequence is an evasion and erosion of Canada's international legal obligations to refugees.

Resettlement is defined by UNHCR as "the selection and transfer of refugees from a State in which they have sought protection to a third State which has agreed to admit them--as refugees--with permanent residence status." (3) In 2009, global resettlement offered a solution for 112,400 refugees. (4) This amounts to just over 1% of the global refugee population that sat at 10.4 million at the end of 2009. (5) Three states have traditionally been the leaders in resettlement: Canada, Australia and the United States of America. In total, 24 states offer resettlement programs with yearly resettlement numbers ranging from single digits to tens of thousands. (6) Resettlement is performed by states in recognition of international responsibility-sharing as refugee flows focus geographically in particular regions. There is no international legal obligation to resettle refugees. Resettlement is a voluntary act.

The announced increase in Canadian resettlement numbers was not a legislative change. In fact, the announcement simply amounted to a willingness by the government to increase the number of resettled refugees it voluntarily accepts each year. (7) The announcement for increased resettlement was seen as positive by many refugee advocates. Refugees themselves cheered.8 The Canadian Council for Refugees likewise welcomed the government's commitment to increased resettlement.9 In contrast, the legislated reform received much criticism from refugee advocates. While professing to reduce delays and abuse, it was seen as an attempt to tighten borders and significantly reduce access to asylum. (10) The announced increase in resettlement, in advance of the legislative change has the effect of countering allegations that government reform signals a move away from refugee protection. As the resettlement announcement concluded: "Providing increased support for resettled refugees clearly demonstrates Canada's ongoing humanitarian commitment and affirms our longstanding tradition as a leader in international refugee protection." (11)

Beyond softening the blow of restrictive legislation, the expressed willingness to increase resettlement at the same time that access to asylum is reduced serves to divide refugee flows into two categories of deserving and undeserving. This is a rhetoric that has increasingly crept into the discourse over the last decade but was applied with vigor by the current government in anticipation of the legislative reform. When the boatload of Sri Lankans arrived on the coast of British Columbia in October 2009 traveling in the bottom of a decrepit cargo ship with limited supplies and facilities, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney suggested the arrival of the migrants put Canada at risk of developing "a two-tier immigration system--one tier for legal, law-abiding immigrants who patiently wait to come to the country, and a second tier who seek to come through the back door, typically through the asylum system." (12) The statement belies the fact that Canada does have a two pronged system--an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (13) that legislates the entrance of both immigrants and refugees. There is no back door. There is an immigration door and an asylum door. While there is a clear legal process for entering Canada as an immigrant, it is specifically acknowledged in the 1951 Refugee Convention (14) and by signatories to the Convention, including Canada, that asylum seekers cannot be penalized for illegal entry. The reality is that the asylum system presumes that refugees may lack an alternative to illegal flight.

The difficulty is that refugees are not the only people seeking to enter Canada. Economic migrants may pose as refugees, and security concerns increasingly lead to fears that individuals with ties to crime and terrorism may also enter. A globalized world means that even Canada's once relatively inaccessible borders are now more easily accessed. As a result, asylum seekers have been clumped with other illegal entrants.

Another boat, arriving in British Columbia in August 2010 provided further opportunity to promote the dichotomized rhetoric. As the vessel neared Canadian waters, the Immigration Minister's spokeswoman used its approach to reiterate: "Our government is committed to cracking down on bogus refugees while providing protection to those that truly need our help."...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT