Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

No. 1 (2021)

Canada - A Long Way To Go: The Designated Country of Origin Policy and Refugee Protection

DOI
https://doi.org/10.25071/2564-4661.23
Submitted
May 24, 2021
Published
2021-09-26

Abstract

The Designated Country of Origin (DCO) policy was a political response to unwanted migration in Canada. Adapted from Europe, Harper took a liking to the EU’s SCO policy after Canada received a large influx of Middle Eastern and Balkan refugees seeking asylum. He adapted it in Canada, renaming it Designated Country of Origin (DCO). Under the DCO, the government of Canada would decide if a refugee's country of origin was dangerous enough to be considered for asylum. If the asylum seekers country is determined as safe, that person would be disregarded and sent back to their country of origin. Many refugees who had already settled in Canada had their files reopened and were told to return to their country of origin. The DCO policy became an integral part of the refugee status determination process in Canada to which some regarded as faulty, inefficient, and unjust. In 2019, the SCO was deemed unconstitutional and violated The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, wanted to create an asylum system that was considered fair and efficient. While it is important for an asylum seeker to prove they are truthful about the facts of their case, the DCO policy represents a climate of hostility towards migrants in Canada. In this piece, it will be argued that the DCO policy is a discriminatory migration tool used to “weed out” what the government deems as fake migrants. This policy could deny international protection to those who are genuinely in need. The DCO proves that the nation has a misleading reputation of being welcoming to all who come. The DCO threatened the human rights of asylum seekers who sought refuge in Canada. 

References

  1. Costello, C. (2005). “The Asylum Procedures Directive and the Proliferation of Safe Country Practices: Deterrence, Deflection and the Dismantling of International Protection?” European Journal of Migration and Law 7: pp. 35-69.
  2. Del Bel Belluz, A. (2012). “An Investigation Of The Relationship Between A Designated Country Of Origin List And Access To Legal Aid In Ontario.” Theses and dissertations. Paper 1312. Ryerson University.
  3. EuroMed Rights, the European Association for the defence of Human Rights (AEDH), and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). (May 2016). “Safe” countries: A Denial of The Right of Asylum. Published jointly by EuroMed, AEDH and FIDH.
  4. Femke, V. (March 2021). “The Presumption of Safety Tested: The Use of Country of Origin Information in the National Designation of Safe Countries of Origin.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 40(1): pp. 106-137.
  5. Goodwin-Gill, G. S. (April 1992). “Safe Country? Says Who?” International Journal of Refugee Law 4 (2): pp. 248-250.
  6. Osgoode Hall Law School. (2017). Law Professors Call for Suspension of the Safe Third Country Agreement. Retrieved from: https://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/news/law-professors-call-suspension-safe-third-country-agreement/
  7. Pappé, I. (2013). The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel. Yale University Press.
  8. van Bruinessen, M. (1991). Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan. Zed Books.
  9. Weiss, P. (April 1954). “The International Protection of Refugees.” American Journal of International Law 48(2): pp. 193-221.