Overview
Rainbow Railroad, along with the Rainbow Coalition for Refuge,9 has engaged in ongoing conversations with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to develop a Canadian policy framework to address IDPs. Part of this continued ask has been for the government to partner with Rainbow Railroad, either through a public policy, pilot project, or referral mechanism. If protection policies are to reach the most vulnerable persons, SOGIESC NGOs and CSOs must be empowered to refer them.
There have been four main responses from government to date:
1) There are diplomatic considerations.
2) There is a lack of precedence for an IDP policy.
3) Existing mechanisms under Canadian policy should suffice.
4) If there was a pilot, which countries would need this program?
This proposal seeks to respond to all of these issues. To allay concerns about diplomatic relations, this proposal will review changing international norms concerning protection of IDPs. To establish precedence, this report will examine international policy mechanisms for IDPs and points of entry in current Canadian policy that frame an IDP stream as a necessary complementary pathway. In addition, a review of existing Canadian policies will show how they leave out SOGIESC asylum seekers with the most urgent protection needs. Finally, lessons learned from the Source Country Class program will show that using a list of designated countries will continue to provide challenges.
Important note on terminology: While an international standard has previously been to talk about the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex people (LGBTQI+) and, in Canada, LGBTQ2 (to recognize our two-spirit heritage), the changing norm is to be more responsive to localized terminologies and understandings surrounding diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity. As such, this report makes use of the acronym SOGIESC to refer to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics. When referring to Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) who advocate for human rights free from discrimination based on SOGIESC, for brevity this report will use the term “SOGIESC HRDs.” Similarly, for refugees, internally displaced persons, and asylum seekers fleeing persecution on the basis of SOGIESC, this report will use the terms “SOGIESC refugees,” “SOGIESC IDPs,” and “SOGIESC asylum seekers,” respectively.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 9 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
Part 1: Building an Immediate Solution for SOGIESC HRDs
In December 2019, the Prime Minister’s Mandate Letter to Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Marco Mendicino, outlined the government’s immigration, refugee, and asylum priorities. This proposal analyzes two issues raised in the letter:
1) The Minister “will apply Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) in the decisions that you make.”
2) The Minister will “introduce a dedicated refugee stream to provide safe haven for human rights advocates, journalists and humanitarian workers at risk, with a target of helping resettle as many as 250 people a year.”10
The key commitment is to create a dedicated policy, informed by Gender-Based Analysis Plus, to protect human rights defenders (HRDs). The Declaration on HRDs defines a human rights defender as anyone working for the promotion and protection of human rights.11 Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders describes HRDs as “people who, individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights through peaceful means, such as by documenting and calling attention to violations or abuses by governments, businesses, individuals or groups.”12 This broad definition encompasses professional as well as non-professional human rights workers, volunteers, journalists, lawyers, and anyone else carrying out a human rights activity.
In recent years, HRDs have faced increasing vulnerabilities globally and the number of HRDs targeted and killed has reached alarming levels. Earlier this year, Front Line Defenders, a leading international organization in this space, reported 304 HRDs were killed in 2019.13 This section will first outline a number of existing international mechanisms for HRDs, explaining why they are useful and where they fall short. Next, analysis of the proposed Canadian mechanism will show that in order to reach HRDs with the most urgent protection needs, any policy generated here must (a) include spaces specifically for SOGIESC HRDs and (b) extend protection beyond refugees and factor IDPs.
International Mechanisms for HRDs
In the past 20 years, a range of international mechanisms have emerged to provide practical support and assistance to HRDs doing the groundwork at the local level. Part of this support includes mechanisms designed to rapidly respond to emerging humanitarian concerns and provide protection for at-risk in-country HRDs. Examples include:
• ProtectDefenders.eu is the European Union (EU) Human Rights Defenders mechanism, established to protect defenders at high risk and facing the most difficult situations worldwide. It provides 24-hour emergency support and temporary relocation, and is led by a consortium of 12 NGOs active in the field of human rights.14
• In the United Kingdom, the Centre for Applied Human Rights has run the Protective Fellowship Scheme for Human Rights Defenders at Risk since 2008. Since its inception, it has hosted over 100 defenders from 47 different countries. Importantly, applications for the fellowship can only be made via a nominating organization, such as a reputed civil society organization who knows the HRD’s human rights work.15 The Centre does not accept applications from individuals.
• The Protection Plan for Human Rights Defenders at Risk was developed by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) in 2009. The Plan aims to further strengthen protection and provide timely and efficient assistance to HRDs at risk in Asia, through temporary relocation and other types of urgent assistance as well as trial observation missions. The Plan affords temporary relocation for HRDs who are facing immediate and extreme threats to their life as a result of their work.16
• The Scottish Human Rights Defender Fellowship was established in 2018 to support those at risk for their work in protecting human rights around the world. A partnership between the Scottish government and four civil society organizations, the fellowship is hosted by the University of Dundee.17
10 | A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
These mechanisms highlight the ability to act swiftly through immediate temporary relocation. Notably included in these frameworks are HRDs doing their work in-country when the sudden need for safety arises. Unlike the “dedicated refugee stream” of the proposed Canadian model, international systems recognize that the need for swift response is not limited to refugees. But the majority of international protective mechanisms focus on temporary relocation only. Research has shown that rapid temporary relief without complementary pathways to long-term resettlement leaves many people caught between asylum streams.18 Rapid temporary relief, in fact, extends the precarity of HRDs who must struggle to ensure their continued access to safety. Notably, Recommendation 3(g) in I. Action by States of the Human Rights Defenders World Summit 2018 Action Plan urges states to:
Ensure the rapid issuance of visas to human rights defenders who are forced to temporarily leave their habitual place of residence. States should consider establishing a specific facilitated visa procedure for human rights defenders, issue long term multiple-entry visas and encourage the establishment of support schemes by local authorities. States should also ensure the free movement of defenders within and beyond their borders and meet their commitments under the Refugee conventions.19
The key is to not treat HRDs as either/or based on their particular location, but rather make short- and long-term resettlement accessible. By centering protection around refugee rights rather than asylum needs, the proposed Canadian policy has the potential to exclude HRDs with the most urgent protection needs.
Also important is that a number of international protective mechanisms leverage CSO and NGO partnerships to identify where vulnerable individuals are experiencing the greatest need. This proposal advocates applying this partnership model to the Canadian stream, with Rainbow Railroad specifically included. As the following requests will make clear, using a partnership model will ensure the policy as issued in the mandate letter HRD policy is effective and efficient, and actually reaches the intended beneficiaries.
Request 1 Include spaces specifically for SOGIESC HRDs
The first component to address is the call to action to develop policy informed by a GBA+ lens. Designing policy using GBA+ means proactively considering and accurately capturing the different intersectional gendered impacts of a particular policy.20 In the context of a policy focused on HRDs it demands acknowledging how defenders who advocate for gender-based equality, including SOGIESC rights specifically, are some of the most vulnerable because of the work they do.21 In the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders (2008), the key message, “Protection and recognition for defenders most exposed to attacks and violations,” states that SOGIESC rights defenders need “specific and enhanced protection.”22 While Voices at Risk notes:
LGBTI HRDs are regularly subjected to harassment and intimidation, arrest, physical attack, negative portrayal in news media and social media, and interference with their lawful exercise of rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Some are killed for engaging in their work. LGBTI HRDs may also experience extreme isolation and a lack of political or social support from others, including other HRDs.23
Protection with regards to an HRD policy demands including spaces dedicated to SOGIESC HRDs. By virtue of their marginalized position, the most vulnerable populations are already positioned to fall through the cracks. Generating GBA+ informed policy, however, hinges on taking a proactive approach, where spaces for SOGIESC HRDs are included from the outset, and the most at-risk HRDs may actually be reached.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 11 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
A GBA+ lens reveals that not all HRDs face the same vulnerabilities, and SOGIESC HRDs are often the most in need of a meaningful HRD protection policy. In 2019, no less than 41 countries introduced or interpreted legislation to systematically dismantle the work of local NGOs defending SOGIESC human rights.24 Justifications ranged from labelling an organization’s activities as, “illegal,” “immoral,” or “against public interest.”25 Outside of explicit criminalization, other states continue to ban and actively discourage the work of SOGIESC rights defenders.26 In the face of these barriers, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has recognized the vital work of SOGIESC HRDs as “an asset of profound value for the global community.”27 While the work of SOGIESC HRDs is local, the impacts are global. At the same time, the Canadian government has made a number of strides in recent years to position Canada at the forefront of global SOGIESC rights advocacy, including most recently its role as co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition.28 Therefore, Canada has a unique opportunity and responsibility to offer asylum specifically to SOGIESC HRDs.
Request 2 Extend protection beyond refugees and factor IDPs
SOGIESC HRDs are especially likely to be overrepresented as IDPs. The majority of HRDs work locally, trying to advocate for changes to the laws and policies that criminalize and persecute LGTBQI+ persons. Most commonly, SOGIESC HRDs form loose collectives and provide a lifeline for LGBTQI+ persons within their countries of origin.
According to the OHCHR, the majority of HRDs are in-country doing the on-the-ground work to advance universal human rights on a local or national level.29 Further, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders has emphasized the particular dangers facing HRDs in states where “(a) internal armed conflict or severe civil unrest exists; (b) the legal and institutional protections and guarantees of human rights are not fully assured or do not exist at all.”30 It is hard to overstate the severity of the implications for HRDs operating where state legislation not only fails to protect, but actively persecutes on the basis of the rights they are fighting to uphold. For many SOGIESC HRDs, operating where legislation criminalizes same-sex intimacy is the reality and is what makes their advocacy work particularly dangerous.31 When social stigmatization and persecution is regional, the ability of SOGIESC HRDs, and SOGIESC asylum seekers writ large, to find refuge in a nearby state is severely reduced.32
Additionally, SOGIESC HRDs who would seek refuge outside their country’s borders may face specific barriers that prevent them from leaving their country of origin. For instance, many cannot gather the means to travel as they cannot rely on their families for support and are barred from accessing traditional employment opportunities. Due to pervasive transphobia, trans women are especially marginalized in this regard and disproportionately at risk of exploitation. The ability to arrange travel can be an issue at both the social and state level, and cis-gender queer women and trans people have reported difficulty accessing travel documents, or leaving their home at all, without the support of male relatives. These examples highlight just a few of the many ways that those facing SOGIESC-based discrimination are specifically prevented from becoming refugees33 and are therefore especially likely to be represented in in-country HRDs and IDPs.
12 | A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
Part 2: Building a Long-Term Solution for SOGIESC IDPs
Part 2 of this proposal (a) outlines normative developments in overseas protection priorities for the internally displaced, (b) presents existing frameworks in international IDP policies, (c) examines opportunities and shortcomings in current Canadian mechanisms, and (d) highlights lessons to be learned from previous Canadian IDP policy through the now defunct Source Country Class program.
Before delving into the different policy frameworks, it is first useful to trace how international considerations of HRDs, IDPs, and those persecuted on the basis of SOGIESC have changed over the last 20 years.
In 1998, following more than a decade of advocacy and negotiation, the UN General Assembly adopted the landmark Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. This was a critical point in the recognition of the vital importance of HRDs, in the legitimacy of human rights activism, and in the need to support and protect those who work tirelessly to uphold human rights globally. However, in order to qualify for the array of international protections offered to refugees, an individual must cross an international border.34 Meanwhile, prime responsibility for protection of internally displaced persons rests with their national governments.35 For this reason, in-country HRDs and IDPs are some of the most vulnerable populations, as they may need asylum but are often left without the international asylum pathways of their refugee counterparts.36 The impacts of these dual streams can be especially harmful for SOGIESC HRDs and IDPs, as states are often the source of their persecution.37
Fortunately, international norms are changing — though at a pace far outstripped by the dramatic increases in IDPs globally. Since the 1990s, there has been growing awareness internationally of the lived experiences and needs of IDPs, which has accompanied dramatic increases in the numbers of people forced to flee their homes.
Despite greater awareness, the development of important normative standards and the vital creation of the dedicated mandate, IDPs have little access to durable or long-term solutions. They enjoy no such protection as afforded to those who have crossed a national border as per international refugee law.
Similarly, during the past 20 years, the human rights of LGBTQI+ people has gained attention at an inter-governmental level. Since 2003, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly called attention to the killings of persons due to SOGIESC through its resolutions on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. Emerging out of grave concerns over human rights violations, in 2016, the UN Human Rights Council created the landmark mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.38 In 2018, the IOM acknowledged the particular challenges facing SOGIESC IDPs, including “discrimination, prejudice, violence, difficulty accessing humanitarian services and barriers to articulating their protection needs,” and called upon the international community to do more to protect them specifically.39 In short, the protection of SOGIESC IDPs has become recognized as a global responsibility.
Rainbow Railroad has past cited numerous factors that forcibly displace LGBTQI+ persons in their country of persecution. For those needing to flee due to SOGIESC persecution, neighbouring countries are often far from ideal safe havens; nearby countries often exhibit similar patterns of violence and discrimination directed at LGBTQI+ people. For example, an at-risk LGBTQI+ person in Rwanda would often escape to Uganda, which also discriminates against LGBTQI+ people.
When people do flee across borders to neighbouring countries, refugee camps that provide basic necessities to displaced persons are often dangerous places for LGBTQI+ people. Consequently, many LGBTQI+ displaced persons avoid or flee refugee camps, instead opting to seek refuge in urban centres where they risk arrest, assault, and exploitation. State and civil society organizations that support refugees in these countries may be unresponsive or hostile to LGBTQI+ refugees, and accurate information about available LGBTQI+-positive supports is scarce and difficult to access.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 13 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
While some people are able to flee, there are many factors that prevent persecuted LGBTQI+ people from leaving their country. When considering leaving, many LGBTQI+ people:
• Cannot turn to family for practical assistance, as families are typically hostile. In some cases, lesbians and trans people have documented not being allowed to leave their homes, nor raise funds or arrange travel, without the support of male relatives. Merely asking to travel can raise suspicions;
• Face surveillance that impedes their efforts to organize travel — changes in routine must be hidden from families, communities, workplaces, etc. This dispersed surveillance extends into public spaces (e.g., hotel clerks), state and non- state authorities (e.g., road checks), and organized crime and paramilitary forces; and
• Are subject to additional barriers to employment in their country of origin, meaning that they aren’t able to cover the travel costs associated with escaping their country.
Trans women (an at-risk population within LGBTQI+ communities) are often entirely excluded from the traditional labour market and therefore face a disproportionate risk of entrapment into sex trafficking. These individuals sometimes face surveillance and threats from gangs, making the prospect of escaping their country extremely difficult
In recent years, international migration restrictions have become more stringent, and the penalties for irregular migration have intensified. Many countries that are safer for LGBTQI+ people typically require entry visas, which are often difficult or impossible to attain for nationals of unsafe countries. For LGBTQI+ people, these are exacerbated by a number of factors. They include:
• Lack of employment due to homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia limits visa eligibility;
• In many countries, lesbians and trans people are unable to access travel documents or travel abroad without male relatives;
• Trans people are often unable to access travel documents that align with their gender;
• Trans, gender diverse, and intersex people face heightened scrutiny at borders and often cannot safely access points of border crossing;
• People who are living with HIV may be barred from travel or face a heightened risk of deportation; and
• Bisexual persons are often forced to conceal their identity in order flee. For those who marry and start a family, they may have to flee without their children.
These factors demonstrate while a SOGIESC IDP policy is crucial.
International Mechanisms
Currently, there are no international examples or countries that have adopted an IDP policy. A 2014 study commissioned by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs reviewed existing EU legislation and practice on the issuing of humanitarian visas and concluded that EU member states have implemented a variety of humanitarian visa schemes on specific bases, but no country or the EU as a whole has a clear policy. Key findings from this study include:
• “Nine EU Member States (Belgium, Germany, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom) either currently have or have had schemes for issuing national long-stay visas for humanitarian reasons.
• “Four EU Member States have or have had schemes for issuing LTV Schengen visas for humanitarian reasons (Finland, Italy, Malta and Portugal), including protection-related reasons (Italy, Malta and Portugal) and medical reasons (Portugal).
14 | A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
• “Six EU Member States have or have had schemes for issuing either uniform or LTV Schengen visas and/or national visas for humanitarian reasons, including protection-related reasons (Austria, Denmark, France, Poland, Spain and the Netherlands), medical reasons (Poland) and for family reunification purposes (Austria and the Netherlands).
• “In total, 16 EU Member States have or have had some form of scheme for issuing humanitarian visas — be they national, uniform Schengen and/or LTV Schengen visas.”40
In the United States, while there isn’t a humanitarian visa, under US immigration law, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has discretion to grant “parole” to certain non-citizens to allow them to enter or remain in the United States for specific reasons.41
These examples demonstrate that it is possible to create a designated visa on humanitarian grounds. Canada could establish such a visa or create a policy on IDPs.
Existing Canadian Policy Mechanisms and Related Recommendations
This section examines existing Canadian programs and policies which ultimately lay the groundwork for the creation of a dedicated IDP stream. Included is an analysis of the various refugee resettlement programs, followed by a close inspection of these policy mechanisms: Urgent Protection Program (UPP), Temporary Resident Permits (TRP), and Ministerial discretion. Outlining the limitations of these mechanisms will expose the need for a dedicated IDP stream and show that partnering with NGOs and CSOs would strengthen existing systems.
Urgent Protection Program
The Urgent Protection Program (UPP) allows Canada to rapidly respond to referred refugees who are in urgent need of protection through resettlement.42 This program covers Convention refugees as well as Country of Asylum Class individuals who are eligible for urgent protection because they are “under threat of refoulement, expulsion, prolonged arbitrary detention or extra-judicial execution.”43 Also included are “those who are facing a real, direct threat to their physical safety, which could result in their being killed or subjected to abduction, rape, sexual abuse, violence or torture.”44
The inclusion of the Country of Asylum Class beyond the Convention refugee is an excellent start to expand protection measures to asylum seekers who are in the greatest need of protection. That said, the problem is that even Humanitarian
Protected
Persons Abroad are just that, abroad. Nearly all of the reasons cited in the legislation for why someone might require urgent protection through resettlement, are the very same threats facing SOGIESC IDPs. That is, the only difference between these two groups is the geographic location in which they experience these threats, which acts as the determining factor as to whether they qualify for the UPP. As mentioned previously, LGBTQI+ individuals are often socially, economically, legally, and politically marginalized by social and state forces so as to be actively prevented from leaving their countries of origin. Recognizing these barriers exist, without also providing positive mechanisms to overcome them, means that the exclusion of SOGIESC IDPs from the UPP effectively reinforces the discrimination excluding them in the first place. While any expansion of who is entitled to Canadian protection pathways is positive, the mechanism often falls short for the in-country asylum seeker. If UPP is to be an effective tool for SOGIESC protection, it must proactively prepare for LGBTQI+ persons in need.
In consultation with UNHCR, Rainbow Railroad understands that a significant number of UPP requests are from LGBTQI+ identified persons; therefore, explicitly earmarking SOGIESC cases would be advantageous.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 15 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
Request 3 Make SOGIESC NGOs and CSOs such as Rainbow Railroad referring partners of the Urgent Protection Program
UPP cases may be referred only through “UNHCR or another recognized referral organization.”45 The fact that SOGIESC NGOs and CSOs have yet to be made recognized referral partners currently limits the mechanism.
The government has asserted that “Canada stands by its close collaboration with UNHCR as the international expert is best placed to identify individuals in urgent need of protection under this program.”46 Despite this, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, has acknowledged that in order “to ensure that LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees are protected wherever they are” UNHCR needs to “hear from and join up forces with individuals and organizations that have expert knowledge on this issue.”47
In order to reach the most vulnerable people who are Country of Asylum Class (Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad), SOGEISC NGOs and CSO must be made referral partners. To reiterate, SOGIESC refugees face a number of barriers to accessing UNHCR. For the most marginalized communities, secrecy and non-disclosure are often the keys to survival. In these cases, organizations that specifically work on SOGIESC issues and with LGBTQI+ people directly have the unique capacity to reach these individuals and connect them to safety. In the case of urgent protection, the ability to act swiftly is critical and often life-saving. Therefore, partnering with SOGIESC organizations will strengthen this mechanism as it currently exists, better connecting the most vulnerable Country of Asylum Class refugees to the protections they need.
In 2019 alone, Rainbow Railroad received over 2,800 requests for help — the majority of whom were IDPs.48 Rainbow Railroad has the experience in vetting requests to be a complementary referring partner to UPP and is willing to work in partnership with UNHCR.
Request 4 Build and fund a dedicated stream for internally displaced persons
In place of a dedicated stream for internally displaced persons, the following two mechanisms exist:
1) Temporary Resident Permits
Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs), which are intended “to facilitate travel in urgent situations, on an exceptional basis,”49 are important because they offer a clear effort to expand the scope of who is in need of protection beyond the refugee. With regards to defining who is entitled to avail themselves of Canadian protection pathways, this is an excellent step in the right direction.
Designated officers are authorized to issue TRPs when it is “justified in the circumstances,”50 and the reason to enter Canada is compelling.51 One key justification is under “humanitarian and compassionate grounds.”52 At first glance, these grounds would appear to be a viable option for SOGIESC IDPs. However, officers must also consider whether their decision upholds the spirit of the legislation. The legislation is intended to act as a measure of last resort, but in 2018, the government issued 7,132 TRPs.53 The frequency of TRPs being issued alone illustrates how this “exceptional circumstances” measure has outgrown its intent. The TRP is meant to operate as a kind of fail-safe; using it as a systematized solution fundamentally changes the function of the mechanism. Moreover, several interviewees in the 2016 Government of Canada report Evaluation of Temporary Resident Permits suggested that the TRP “is no longer being used only for exceptional circumstances and instead is being used more regularly for administrative purposes.”54 Importantly, “the impact of using the TRP in this way is it has potentially led to a departure from the TRPs purpose and intended use.”55
While TRPs are clearly necessary, this mechanism also highlights the fact that when exceptional measures become practiced solutions, it is the result of failures in both the lack of developed policy mechanisms and consequently in the fail-safe measure itself. As will become apparent, government relying on override mechanisms as systems responses for IDPs in particular is an established pattern.
16 | A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
2) Ministerial discretion
Another last-resort response is Ministerial discretion: in exceptional circumstances the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship may use discretion under Section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). However, the legislation also notes that the IRCC “will not assess risk factors such as persecution, risk to life, cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.”56 Despite this caveat, this public policy option is frequently touted by the government as its response to calls to establish more substantial protection mechanisms for IDPs.57
Under Section 25.1 of the IRPA, the Minister may examine the unique circumstances of a foreign national and decide to grant them “permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations.”58 Section 25.2 serves a similar function, allowing the Minister to make exceptions if they believe “it is justified by public policy considerations.”59 Notably, the public policies are meant to be used only as exceptional measures.60
In 2016, a report submitted to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration called on the government to establish a policy pathway for “persons in need of protection and residing in their country of origin similar to the Source Country Class.”61 In response, the government referenced how the public policy mechanisms specifically allow “for the resettlement of internally displaced persons,”62 and as such, creating a new class was unnecessary.63 Despite this assertion, the government also admits that “given the discretionary and exception [sic] nature of these provisions, they are more useful in addressing the unique circumstances of an individual case, rather than the needs of a vulnerable group of persons.”64 Therefore, public policy measures designed specifically to function in extreme cases where other protection mechanisms have failed are also intended to serve as the sole mechanism to address the needs of IDPs.
Clearly there is a need for a developed solution or else the Source Country Class would not have been created in the first place. Suggesting that a discretionary case-by-case public policy override makes the creation of a new class unnecessary ignores the reality of the global IDP crisis. In 2018, 3,746 people were admitted as permanent residents under “humanitarian and other” grounds.65 These numbers show how this mechanism has become “a catch all for inadequate policies.”66 According to the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR), humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations are consistently “offered as the solution to problematic policies,”67 and “using H&C to fill the gaps in blunt policies is not working well.”68
Section 25 Ministerial discretion is important because it does explicitly cover IDPs. However, this is another measure designed for exceptional cases operating as a systems response. In short, case-by-case public policy is not a solution. Of those left behind under this model, it most glaringly fails the most vulnerable among them, such as SOGIESC IDPs. The overreliance on Section 25 provisions is just further evidence that a dedicated stream to protect the most vulnerable IDPs is urgently needed. This dedicated stream will ensure Canada adopts a program that is proactive and less reactive in nature.
A systematic analysis of existing mechanisms in Canadian policy showed why they presently fall short of meeting the protection needs of the internally displaced and particularly fail the most vulnerable among them. Any mechanisms designed for non-refugees are supposed to operate on an ad-hoc basis to respond to extreme circumstances. These are important measures, but reactionary fail-safe mechanisms are designed to operate when systems responses fail, not to function in their place. The reality is that the vast majority of those seeking refuge are IDPs, and SOGEISC asylum seekers are particularly likely to be overrepresented among them.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 17 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
Precedent in Canadian IDP Policy
There is precedent in an IDP policy. Before the third refugee class was Protected Temporary Residents, it was the Source Country Class.69 A program which allowed “Canada to resettle persons who [were] in a refugee-like situation but remain[ed] in their country of origin.”70
The policy indicated a principled “shift toward protection”71 as Canada was one of the only states with a legal protection mechanism specifically for IDPs.72 However, in 2009, then Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) conducted an internal review of the Source Country Class,73 and in October 2011, it was repealed.74
CIC cited three main reasons for the repeal: (a) people were left ineligible because they were not from a designated source country; (b) without capable referral organizations, direct access became the norm instead of the exception; and (c) without capable referral organizations, even in source countries vulnerable people were unable to access the program. Using a lesson-learned approach, the government could reignite the spirit of the Source Country Class, “to be a flexible tool for humanitarian intervention, capable of responding to a variety of populations and situations,”75 without repeating the issues that led to its repeal.
1) People were
left ineligible because they were not from a designated source country.
In order to qualify for this protection measure, individuals had to apply from one of six designated source countries.76 The list of countries changed only four times since 1997, with its most recent update in 2002.77 To update the list required regulatory amendments, triggering a lengthy process that was counterproductive to the very purpose of the class: rapid response to humanitarian crises.78 In response, a key community recommendation, including from the Canadian Bar Association (CBA)79 and the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR),80 was to make the class universal. Moreover, the CBA and CCR further raised that the act of naming countries itself generates the very “political and diplomatic” issues the government is trying to avoid.81 Across the board it was agreed that the source country list was a flawed mechanism of evaluation for performing resettlement from a protection lens. The key mistake was defining the most vulnerable people by country, rather than an in-depth informed knowledge of who these people actually are, wherever they may be. Therefore, using a partnership model here is critical to inform which individuals need the most urgent help, regardless of country of origin.
2) Without capable referral organizations, direct access became the norm instead of the exception; and
3) Without capable referral organizations, even in source countries vulnerable people were unable to access the program.
These issues both point to how the mechanism could not function properly in practice because the partnership organizations needed to refer candidates were simply not well-enough established or capable of responding. The end result was that the class was inefficient and ineffective. According to CIC: “By repealing the source country class, the resettlement program will be streamlined to focus on partnerships that can deliver protection to those who are most in need.”
On this point, community feedback recommended limiting applications to only those referred by appropriate international organizations, which are best placed to make them.82 Thus, beneficiaries of this stream would reflect where need is greatest, regardless of location. Unfortunately, while “CIC had intended to use a referral organization…there were no organizations willing to refer source country class applicants without funding and no funding was available.” In order to make a genuinely functional mechanism, however, the government must not only work with partners who have the ground-level knowledge and connections, but also be willing to ensure it is operational. Designing an implementation strategy without providing the funding to operationalize it means the system was designed to fail.
Despite its limitations, the Source Country Class is the only recent Canadian policy to offer substantial protection to in-country asylum seekers. Calls to create alternative arrangements for those no longer protected under the repealed class have yet to be addressed, as government claims public policy provisions should suffice. But fail-safe mechanisms are not a stand-in for dedicated solutions. Reigniting the spirit of this legislation, Canada must create a long-term IDP policy using a universal approach that effectively harnesses the knowledge and resources of capable referral organizations.
18 | A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
Part 3: The Case for Partnership with Rainbow Railroad
The majority of people fleeing persecution globally are IDPs. Since the majority of human rights defenders operate at the local and national levels, they are often working in place where and when violence erupts against minority groups and the people who defend them. Furthermore, SOGIESC HRDs and asylum seekers face added barriers to finding refuge in neighbouring states, and those who would seek out this option, may be specifically prevented from doing so. Therefore, where persecution on the basis of SOGIESC is a regional phenomenon, crossing borders is an unreasonable expectation that does not reflect lived realities. When the social climate has become unlivable or state-sponsored violence breaks out in crackdowns, SOGIESC HRDs and IDPs become prime targets in situations that may demand immediate evacuation. In these cases, the grounds for asylum can and should be claimed, but as they are still in-country, these individuals are not covered under the current protection stream proposed by the government.
Principles of protection, rather than refugee status in the strictest sense, should be used as the basis for providing asylum pathways and should inform the generation of policies to reach and protect the most vulnerable people. Generating a durable Canadian solution for LGBTQI internally displaced persons and working with SOGIESC NGOs and CSOs such as Rainbow Railroad must be the next step on this path.
Request 5 On HRDs and IDPs – Create a referring partnership with SOGIESC NGOs and CSOs such as Rainbow Railroad
Partnering with organizations that have the specific knowledge and experience working on SOGIESC human rights issues is a key aspect of making the policy effective and operational.
Rainbow Railroad has demonstrated it has the capacity to identify HRDs in conflict, as it has become a global leader in the LGBTQI+ movement. Rainbow Railroad is a member of nearly every major international LGBTQI+ network, including board membership at ILGA, and membership at the Commonwealth Equality Network, the Equal Rights Coalition, the Dignity Network, the Amsterdam Network, and the Council for Global Equality. Moreover, Rainbow Railroad has direct experience facilitating the necessary escape of SOGIESC HRDs.
It is important to recognize that the local work of SOGIESC HRDs must be facilitated to the fullest extent possible. In the face of COVID-19, the resilience of SOGIESC human rights defenders has played a critical role in helping LGBTQI+ communities survive. Rainbow Railroad’s recent report The Impact of COVID-19 on Displaced LGBTQI Persons captures how small grassroots organizations of SOGIESC HRDs continue to provide vital support to those facing persecution.83 However, there comes a point when the work of SOGIESC HRDs becomes too dangerous and evacuation is a necessary, life-saving measure. In these situations, partnering with SOGIESC NGOs and CSOs is the best way to get fast, accurate information about the protection needs of the most vulnerable HRDs in a given moment.
Given the unique vulnerabilities of SOGIESC HRDs and IDPs and Rainbow Railroad’s unique capacity to relocate LGBTQI+ persons facing imminent danger, we believe we are equipped to handle a referring partnership that takes the lessons learned from previous interventions. We understand that we would:
1) have to agree to specific vulnerability criteria established through this agreement,
2) have rigorous screening protocols in place,
3) agree to confidentiality of specific missions, and
4) partner with Canadian-based organizations on resettlement supports.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 19 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
In recent years, a number of crackdowns targeting LGBTQI+ people and SOGIESC HRDs have occurred in Azerbaijan, Brunei, Egypt, Hungary, Tanzania, and Uganda, among other countries. Rainbow Railroad has responded by providing emergency assistance and relocation to persons at risk, and support for civil society groups on the front line. The selected case studies illustrate the violations experienced by LGBTQI+ people and those who defend them, and Rainbow Railroad’s ability to help individuals find safety.
(i) Chechnya84
Since 2017, Rainbow Railroad has worked closely with the Russian LGBT Network to respond to the crackdown in Chechnya. Our staff visited Moscow shortly after the first reports began to emerge and supported local partners to identify persons affected. We co-funded a network of safe houses dedicated to those fleeing the region.
The true scale of these abuses and subsequent crackdowns remains unknown. However, it is estimated hundreds of people were detained across a variety of locations where they were tortured for periods ranging from several hours to several weeks. Many were raped, beaten, and waterboarded among other serious abuses resulting in some being killed or disappeared. Many were returned to their families and “outed.” Many accounts repeat that police or state actors instructed families to “deal with” the situation, implying individuals should be subjected to “honour killings” in order to maintain the “respect” of both the family and the republic.
Despite the issue being raised by numerous countries individually and collectively, regional and international bodies such as the UN and special mandate holders, the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, has consistently denied these events occurred and has rejected the existence of LGBTQI+ persons in Chechnya. Persons responsible have yet to be held accountable for the abuses committed, and impunity prevails.
To date, in partnership with numerous governments, Rainbow Railroad has relocated or resettled more than 70 LGBTQI+ individuals and rights defenders originating from Chechnya and the Caucasus affected by the crackdowns.
(ii) Egypt85
According to public opinion surveys, 95% of Egyptians do not accept LGBTQI+ identities and do not believe society should progress with acceptance of their rights. The Egyptian penal code is used to target LGBTQI+ people with frequent arrests for “immoral” or “indecent” behaviour. The Egyptian police can be extremely violent and work with state actors to seek out SOGIESC activists and allies.
In 2017, the famous Lebanese band Mashrou’ Leila performed for 30,000 people in the capital of Egypt, Cairo. The lead singer of the band, Hamed Sinno, is an openly gay cisgender man. In an act of solidarity and pride, a group of young LGTBQI+ persons held up a rainbow flag at the concert while Sinno sang. A widespread, state-led anti-LGTBQI+ crackdown immediately followed. Conservative media outlets and religious leadership condemned the activists, and 60 individuals were arrested in the immediate aftermath — many more would be identified and arrested in the following weeks and months.
The state has been accused of countless human rights abuses against those arrested, including police performing anal examinations, which violate the United Nations Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Convention on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Persecution based on SOGIESC has not significantly changed or improved since the crackdown, and individuals are still being targeted, imprisoned, tortured, and abused at the state and community level. Rainbow Railroad continues to receive regular requests for help, but options for persons to be evacuated have been limited due to the complexity of relocation of internally displaced persons from the Middle East. To date, over 20 LGBTQI+ people and HRDs from Egypt have been relocated by Rainbow Railroad.
20 | A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
(iii) Jamaica86
In 2006, TIME magazine dubbed Jamaica “the most homophobic place on earth.” While local activists and movement building have improved the situation over the past 14 years, the country remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to be LGBTQI+.
Sodomy, or “buggery,” laws criminalize same sex intimacy, and the police are known to actively target members of the LGBTQI+ community. The trans community is particularly vulnerable to sexual and physical violence as well as poor access to employment, housing, and healthcare resulting in precarious living conditions. Many LGTBQI+ people experience homelessness or displacement. Rainbow Railroad caseworkers frequently work with individuals who have been brutally attacked, sexually harassed or assaulted, burned with acid or fire, received death threats, or faced gang violence in their neighbourhoods.
Due to this violence, LGBTQI+ people and HRDs have been forced to flee the country. Unfortunately, this situation reflects a regional phenomenon in the Caribbean, where multiple countries continue to implement colonial-era discriminatory laws. Rainbow Railroad has relocated nearly 300 people from the region in the past two years.
(iv) Tanzania87
Tanzania is one of the 35 countries on the African continent that criminalizes LGBTQI+ individuals, with “homosexual acts” punishable with up to 30 years to life in jail. The LGBTQI+ community in Tanzania has faced a long history of intolerance. However, harassment and violence has increased markedly in recent years with frequent arrests of LGBTQI+ people and HRDs including legal representatives.
In October 2018, Paul Makonda, the Regional Commissioner of Dar es Salaam, announced plans to form an “inter-agency task force” or “surveillance squad” comprising members of the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority, the police, and the media to identify and arrest LGBTQI+ people in the country. LGBTQI+ persons and HRDs have been driven underground. In collaboration with numerous local and international human rights organizations, Rainbow Railroad launched a joint response including both advocacy and direct intervention. Rainbow Railroad continues to monitor the situation for those still facing victimization and statelevel persecution.
Conclusion
In each of these examples Rainbow Railroad operated with a mix of complex negotiations, and mechanisms to help these individuals get to safety — including having discussions with the Canadian government. A referral partnership, based on government criteria, would maximize resources and increase the likelihood of success in these interventions. And while we are making the case that such a policy be universal, it is understandable that a pilot project might be a logical first step at a partnership.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 21 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
Footnotes
1 UNHCR, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2019, 2020, p. 2, https://www.unhcr.org/statistics/unhcrstats/5ee200e37/unhcr-global-trends-2019.html.
2 UNHCR, Global Trends.
3 “Who We Help,” UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.ca/what-we-do/who-we-help.
4 OHCHR, “COVID-19: The Suffering and Resilience of LGBT Persons Must Be Visible and Inform the Actions of States,” news release, May 17, 2020, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25884&LangID=E.
5 Rainbow Railroad, The Impact of COVID-19 on Displaced LGBTQI Persons, June 2020, https://assets.website-files.com/5996edc0ab717100012bd6a9/ 5ed90f74afac27b1e4fb9e1c_Link%201.pdf.
6 “Who We Help,” UNHCR.
7 UNHCR, “As Global Displacement Grows to Nearly 80 Million People, Canada Shows Itself to Be a World Leader in Refugee Resettlement: UNHCR Report Shows,” June 18, 2020, https://www.unhcr.ca/news/global-displacement-grows-80-million-people-canada-world-leader-refugee-resettlement.
8 ONHCR, “Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,” https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/srhrdefenders/pages/declaration.aspx.
9 The Canadian Rainbow Coalition for Refuge is an umbrella organization of LGBTQI+ refugee resettlement organizations in Canada. Its steering committee consists of Calgary Rainbow Railroad Station (End of the Rainbow Foundation), Capital Rainbow Refuge, Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, Rainbow Railroad (co-chair), Rainbow Refugee (co-chair), and the Rainbow Refugee Association of Halifax.
10 Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Mandate Letter, December 13, 2019, https://pm.gc.ca/en/ mandate-letters/2019/12/13/minister-immigration-refugees-and-citizenship-mandate-letter.
11 OHCHR, Human Rights Defenders: Protecting the Right to Defend Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 29, April 2004, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ FactSheet29en.pdf.
12 Global Affairs Canada, Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders, 2019, https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_ development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/rights_defenders_guide_defenseurs_droits.aspx?lang=eng#a2_1.
13 Front Line Defenders, “304 Killed in 2019 Defending Land, Indigenous Rights,” February 1, 2020, https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/news/304-killed2019-defending-land-indigenous-rights.
14 “EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders,” International Service for Human Rights, April 18, 2008, https://www.ishr.ch/news/eu-guidelines-human-rightsdefenders-0.
15 “Protective Fellowships for Human Rights Defenders,” Centre for Applied Human Rights, University of York, https://www.york.ac.uk/cahr/defenders/protectivefellowship.
16 FORUM-ASIA, “Protection Plan for Human Rights Defenders at Risk,” September 30, 2010, https://www.forum-asia.org/?p=7302.
17 “Scottish Human Rights Defenders Fellowship,” University of Dundee, https://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/research/projects/details/scottish-human-rightsdefender-fellowship.php.
18 See Martin Jones, “Protecting Human Rights Defenders at Risk: Asylum and Temporary International Relocation,” The International Journal of Human Rights 19, issue 7 (September 2015): 935–660, https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2015.1075304.
19 Human Rights Defenders World Summit 2018 Action Plan (Human Rights Defenders World Summit 2018, Paris, France, October 29–31, 2018), p. 8, https:// hrdworldsummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/EN_Action-Plan-2.pdf.
20 “Gender-Based Analysis,” Government of Canada, last modified October 25, 2016, https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/treasuryboard-submissions/gender-based-analysis-plus.html.
21 Canadian Council for Refugees, “Comments on Proposed Elimination of Source Country Class,” April 18, 2011, https://ccrweb.ca/en/comments-proposedelimination-source-country-class.
22 UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, UN Doc A/63/288 (August 14, 2008), Annex, Paragraph 8, https://undocs.org/A/63/288.
23 Voices at Risk.
24 Lucas Ramón Mendos, State-Sponsored Homophobia 2019: Global Legislation Overview Update (Geneva: ILGA, December 2019), p.14, https://ilga.org/downloads/ ILGA_World_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_report_global_legislation_overview_update_December_2019.pdf
25 Mendos, p. 14.
26 Mendos, p. 14.
27 OHCHR, “COVID-19: The Suffering and Resilience of LGBT Persons.”
28 “The Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, 2-Spirit and Intersex Persons,” Government of Canada,” last modified July 7, 2020, https:// www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/rights_lgbti-droits_lgbti.aspx?lang=eng.
29 OHCHR, Human Rights Defenders, p.3.
30 OHCHR, Human Rights Defenders, p.10.
31 Mendos, p. 47.
32 For more on this, read Rainbow Railroad’s “Proposal to Become a Referring Partner to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to Support Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs),” https://drive.google.com/file/d/17zIKsreA6ZSq0fOXHQU3MDSGqKZ-g4vK/view.
33 Rainbow Railroad, “Proposal to Become a Referring Partner.”
34 Global Protection Cluster, “Fact Sheet on Internal Displacement,” https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/gp20/fact-sheet-on-internal-displacement.
35 Global Protection Cluster.
36 Global Protection Cluster.
37 Global Protection Cluster.
38 OHCHR, “Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/sexualorientationgender/pages/index.aspx.
39 IOM, “UN Migration Agency Statement on International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHOT),” https://malta.iom.int/un-migration-agencystatement-international-day-against-homophobia-and-transphobia-idahot.
40 Ulla Iben Jensen, Humanitarian Visas: Option or Obligation? Study for the LIBE Committee, 2014, p. 41, http://www.epgencms.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/upload/ eb469bdf-0e31-40bb-8c75-8db410ab13fc/Session_2_-_Study_Humanitarian_visas.pdf.
22 | A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights
and Internally Displaced Persons PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
Defenders
41 American Immigration Council, “The Use of Parole Under Immigration Law,” fact sheet, January 24, 2018, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ research/use-parole-under-immigration-law.
42 “3.4 Urgent Protection Program,” 3. Additional sponsorship opportunities, Government of Canada, last modified November 2, 2018, https://www.canada.ca/en/ immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/guide-private-sponsorship-refugees-program/section-3.html.
43 “3.4 Urgent Protection Program.”
44 “3.4 Urgent Protection Program.”
45 “3.4 Urgent Protection Program.”
46 House of Commons, “Government Response to the Report of the House Of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Entitled LGBTQ+ At Risk Abroad: Canada’s Call to Action,” June 2017, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/report-12/response-8512-421-264.
47 UNHCR, “IDAHOT: UNHCR Launching Consultations on LGBTI Refugees’ Rights,” news release, May 16, 2019, https://www.unhcr.org/news/ press/2019/5/5cdd901b7/idahot-unhcr-launching-consultations-lgbti-refugees-rights.html.
48 Rainbow Railroad, “Proposal to Find New Points of Collaboration with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to Support Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs),” https://drive.google.com/file/d/12fq3NMEDJSaQSSOWHdIS9rygFuF_KrbG/view.
49 House of Commons, “Government Response to the Report of the House Of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Entitled LGBTQ+ At Risk Abroad: Canada’s Call to Action,” June 2017, https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/report-12/response-8512-421-264.
50 “Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs): Background and purpose,” Government of Canada, last modified April 10, 2015, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigrationrefugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/permits/background-purpose.html.
51 “Temporary resident permits (TRPs): Eligibility and assessment,” Government of Canada, last modified June 28, 2019, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigrationrefugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/permits/eligibility-assessment.html.
52 IRCC, Evaluation of Temporary Resident Permits, November 2016, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/ evaluations/temporary-resident-permits-2016.html#itm-0-b.
53 Marco E. L. Mendicino, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, 2019 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2020, Annex 2, Table 2, p.35, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ircc/migration/ircc/english/pdf/pub/annual-report-2019.pdf.
54 IRCC, Evaluation of Temporary Resident Permits s 4.3.
55 IRCC, Evaluation of Temporary Resident Permits, s 4.3.
56 “Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds,” Government of Canada, last modified September 13, 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugeescitizenship/services/refugees/claim-protection-inside-canada/after-apply-next-steps/refusal-options/humanitarian-compassionate-grounds.html.
57 House of Commons, “Government Response to the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled Distress Call: How Canada’s Immigration Program Can Respond to Reach the Displaced and Most Vulnerable,” https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CIMM/report-6/ response-8512-421-95.
58 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27, s 25.1, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/page-7.html.
59 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27, s 25.2.
60 Government of Canada, Guide 5291 - Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations, last modified April 30, 2020, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigrationrefugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/guide-5291-humanitarian-compassionate-considerations.html.
61 House of Commons, “Government Response to the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled Distress Call.”
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Mendicino, 2019 Annual Report, Annex 2, Table 4, p. 38.
66 Canadian Council for Refugees, “Call to Ensure Adequate Support: Precarious Status Migrants Should Not Be Left Behind,” May 5, 2020, https://ccrweb.ca/en/ issues/humanitarian-and-compassionate.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 “Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,” P.C. 2011-1162, October 6, 2011, http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/ p2/2011/2011-10-26/html/sor-dors222-eng.html.
70 IRCC, “Operational Bulletin 347: Repeal of the Source Country Class of Humanitarian-protected Persons Abroad,” October 7, 2011, last modified May 3, 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/bulletins-2011/347october-7-2011.html.
71 “Canada,” Country Chapters – UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, July 2011, revised February 2018, p. 3, https://www.unhcr.org/3c5e55594.pdf.
72 Canadian Council for Refugees, “Comments on Proposed Elimination.”
73 “Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.”
74 IRCC, “Operational Bulletin 347.”
75 IRCC, “Operational Bulletin 347.”
76 IRCC, “Operational Bulletin 347.”
77 IRCC, “Operational Bulletin 347.”
78 “Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.”
79 The Canadian Bar Association, letter to Debra Pressé, Director of Refugee Resettlement, Refugee Affairs Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, April 28, 2011, https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=ff87f7c8-c096-4a71-8162-a4767ace2bf4.
80 Canadian Council for Refugees, “Comments on Proposed Elimination.”
81 The Canadian Bar Association, letter to Debra Pressé; Canadian Council for Refugees, “Comments on Proposed Elimination.”
82 The Canadian Bar Association, letter to Debra Pressé.
83 Rainbow Railroad, “The Impact of COVID-19.”
84 “Chechyna,” Rainbow Railroad, https://www.rainbowrailroad.org/what-we-do/chechnya.
85 “Egypt,” Rainbow Railroad, https://www.rainbowrailroad.org/what-we-do/egypt.
86 “Jamaica,” Rainbow Railroad, https://www.rainbowrailroad.org/what-we-do/jamaica.
87 “Tanzania,” Rainbow Railroad, https://www.rainbowrailroad.org/what-we-do/tanzania.
A Proposal to Develop More Durable Solutions for LGBTQI+ Human Rights Defenders and Internally Displaced Persons | 23 PARTNERING WITH RAINBOW RAILROAD: FIVE REQUESTS TO CANADIAN POLICY-MAKERS
RAINBOW RAILROAD 401 RICHMOND STREET WEST, SUITE 360 TORONTO, ON M5V 3A8
RAINBOW RAILROAD USA 601 WEST 26TH STREET, #325-41 NEW YORK, NY 10001
www.rainbowrailroad.org
