Why we are Losing our Welcoming Tradition

by Tim Wichert
March 6, 2003
Refugee Assistance

Recent news reports have highlighted the ongoing refugee crisis at the Canada-US border. The border emergency has been created in large part by a dubious American program of racial profiling, targeting men of Muslim and Arabic origin with registration requirements. As a result, many of those without status in the US have opted to seek asylum in Canada, fleeing communities they have lived in for upwards of 10 to 15 years.

With the resulting rush of surprised and frightened families trying to seek refuge in Canada, the Government here has been unable and unwilling to meet our traditional legal and humanitarian obligations. Most of the asylum-seekers are being turned back to detention in the US and uncertain futures. Shelters in the US are overflowing with those awaiting future interview dates with the Canadian authorities. Families have been separated, or left to wait outside during the coldest winter in many years.

In recent years, there has been a trend within many countries, mostly in the West, to raise barriers which keep out asylum-seekers. What is surprising is that Canada is following suit. We are relinquishing our traditional role as a champion of human rights and humanitarian principles for vulnerable groups.

In part, we can blame it on September 11. But in the blind pursuit of greater security, we must be careful not to lose our way. There has been no effort by either Government to look for creative options. Rather than facilitating some kind of an expedited or temporary process to deal with the influx here in Canada, based on legal fairness and humanitarian tradition, we have simply washed our hands of the problem by limiting access.

Many critics have applauded these increased restrictions on Canada's welcoming tradition. In part, they have argued that refugees seeking asylum should wait in line overseas, like everyone else. But these lines are getting longer.

Despite the increase in world-wide numbers of refugees and others in need of protection, our overseas refugee quotas have remained unchanged. In 1994, the Liberal Government reduced these quotas from 13,000 to 7,000. They have remained there since. As we close our borders to refugees, we are not providing alternatives. In particular, we are not increasing spaces for those who do wish to wait in line.

Even more troubling, the Government has been reluctant to facilitate increased private sector involvement in refugee resettlement from overseas. Ever since Canadians opened their doors to the "boat people" of Southeast Asia in the late 1970's, there have been provisions for churches, community groups and humanitarian organizations to "privately sponsor" refugees from abroad. Not only did Canada pioneer this program, but we remain the only country in the world with a private sponsorship program

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in interest within the private sector to get involved. People want to help save lives, to offer refugees a new life, to continue the "Canadian humanitarian tradition". New private sponsoring groups are coming forward every day to get involved.

But the Government has failed to add visa officers or increase resources overseas to facilitate this increasing private sector interest. Private sponsorship numbers have hovered around 3,000 for several years. Yet there are well over 10,000 refugee cases that have been submitted by private sponsors, waiting to be processed by Canadian visa officers.

These troubling trends in Canadian Government policy suggest two things. Firstly, the suggestion by critics that we should slam the door on asylum-seekers - the "queue-jumpers" - and make them wait in line overseas, is inappropriate. Waiting overseas is not a viable alternative.

Further, the Government has been unwilling and unable to open up more spaces for refugees waiting overseas, in order to make it a more viable alternative. Taken together with our lack of creativity in solving the current crisis at the border, the Canadian Government is in danger of losing its footing as an international paradigm for progressive and innovative responses towards refugees.

We have done better in the past, and we should be doing better now.

Top