Thank you.
I would like to start by thanking you for inviting me to testify today. I understand that I have about 10 minutes. I'll probably need 15.
Since this is the first time I'm testifying before you, I think it's a good idea to tell you a little bit about my professional background in relation to the matter we are looking at today.
As you know, I am an associate professor with the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. For over 20 years, I have worked or dedicated a part of my professional and scholarly activities to the protection of sexual minorities, particularly in the area of refugee rights.
I have published many papers on the claims of sexual minorities. I designed a training session for the commissioner of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, and I have given it a number of times since 1995. I also recently acted as an expert witness in a consultation convened in Geneva by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on protecting sexual minorities.
My work has focused particularly on the process of determining the status of refugees here, in Canada, in other words, on claims made in Canada. For some time, I have been interested in the issue of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender refugees who are overseas and who are eligible for resettlement in Canada.
Actually, I'm currently working with a group of individuals who are planning to sponsor a refugee, gay or lesbian, as part of the program for sponsoring refugees through the group-of-five process.
In anticipation of my testimony, I obviously looked into the meetings that you have already held with a number of other witnesses. I am going to try to focus my remarks on issues that have perhaps not been discussed in depth and that could, I hope, be of added value to your study.
I think it is unnecessary to spend much time reviewing the situation of sexual minorities in Uganda. The first witnesses you had before the committee presented the situation very eloquently, but it is important to maybe mention that since your last meeting, one of the most outspoken gay rights advocates in Uganda, David Kato, was beaten to death with a hammer in his own home.
While we can't be completely sure of the circumstances of this murder, David Kato certainly knew that he was a marked man. In October 2010 the Ugandan newspaper Rolling Stone published an article that included photos and whereabouts of gay men and lesbians, including Mr. Kato and other well-known activists. Recently a lesbian activist, Julian Onziema, did an interview with the BBC in which she indicated she feared she could be the next victim.
Until significant political, legal, and social changes occur in Uganda, I think all LGBT individuals have reason to fear for their lives, so the committee's decision to study this issue is very timely and important.
It is my understanding that you're most interested in exploring the ways Canada may come to the assistance of individuals who urgently need to flee homophobic persecution in Uganda. A previous witness suggested that there are several hundred members of the Ugandan LGBT communities who are in desperate circumstances.
I don't doubt that there are certainly individuals in Uganda who have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their sexual orientation or their sexual identity. A Canadian intervention would certainly be beneficial for these people and would mesh very well with our humanitarian values. But I think that there are a number of obstacles to accomplishing that objective, although I would hope they aren't insurmountable.
I'm going to address three issues that I think are the most important.
The first issue I wanted to raise was the issue of the immigration mission in Kenya. As you've been told by previous witnesses, any program set up to assist Ugandan LGBT will come up against the significant delays experienced by all applicants who must proceed through the Canadian immigration mission in Nairobi. A 2009 report by the Canadian Council for Refugees states that the Nairobi office stands out for its extraordinarily long processing times. It serves a huge area and processes a large number of applications, and many believe it is under-resourced for the task it faces.
I mentioned that I'm working currently with a group that intends to apply to privately sponsor an LGBT refugee to Canada under the group-of-five process. We're currently working with an established refugee organization to identify a specific individual who needs urgent resettlement.
While we would consider a Ugandan LGBT individual a likely candidate, given the terrible circumstances in the country, we have been told by credible refugee organizations working in Uganda and Kenya that they will not, under any circumstance, refer an LGBT individual for resettlement in Canada because of the unacceptable delay in processing private sponsorship at the Nairobi mission, so Ugandan refugees fleeing homophobic persecution are currently being referred for resettlement only to the United States and some European countries, instead of Canada, a country with one of the best records on LGBT rights. Unless a Ugandan LGBT refugee finds himself or herself in another region with faster processing times, the efforts of Canadians to sponsor such refugees are likely fated to fail or at least to raise serious disappointment.
I noted in a previous meeting that the possibility was raised of departmental representatives offering an information session in Toronto to members of the Canadian LGBT communities about private sponsorship so that they could assist Pride Uganda Alliance International in efforts to resettle refugees. I would caution, however, that any such session should offer realistic information about private refugee sponsorship applications to be processed through Nairobi.
I can tell you that the group I am working with right now has, sadly, decided to exclude any refugees, many of them from Uganda, who have to pass through the mission in Kenya.
In my view, the best way to assess LGBT refugees in Uganda is to address the reasons for the delays in the processing times in Nairobi, primarily the fact that targets for private sponsorships are too low in relation to the demand and the need in the region.
I would urge the committee that in recommending any action in support of LGBT Ugandans, whether it involves a refugee resettlement program or a special in-country process, you ensure that current resources in the Nairobi office are not reallocated towards such measures but that additional resources are drawn upon; otherwise, we will penalize other deserving and needy refugees, who will see their processing times increase, and even their chances at resettlement decline, as resources are redirected to another group, no matter how deserving LGBT refugees may be.
In my view, the only equitable and just way to assist LGBT Ugandans is to ensure that any allocation of private sponsorships of LGBT be added to the current number of private sponsorships allowed to file in Nairobi; that the number of permanent resident visas for LGBT be added to the already too-small target established for Nairobi; and if any in-country resettlement program is created, that any satellite office established in Uganda be supported by additional resources, rather than by transfers from the existing insufficient human resources in the Nairobi office.
I want to raise a second issue. I think that you have spoken with other witnesses about the source country class. This is a category or an option that could serve the needs of LGBT individuals who cannot leave the country to escape the persecution.
I share the concerns of other witnesses. This program does not seem to have met the objectives that were established when it was created. The program has not evolved since it was implemented, in part because the executive regulatory process is onerous and not very flexible, the list of countries doesn't reflect the current situation, and the resettlement criteria is geographic, in other words, it relies on a list of countries. In the case we are interested in, the selection should instead be based on a social group and not on a geographic region.
Although this is precisely the program that could meet the needs of LGBT Ugandans, the regulatory reform that is required is so large in scope and could not be completed in time to respond to the humanitarian emergency that you are currently studying.
But I would like to point out a program that was recently put in place by the Canadian government that establishes special measures for a specific group, the group of Afghans who are exposed to a risk because of their work in support of the Canadian mission in Kandahar. It's basically a special program that aims to resettle Afghans who worked for Canada and who are now facing a particular risk. I might be wrong, but I think that this special program was based on section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
I'll read what this subsection of the Immigration Act provides:
The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person 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 public policy considerations.
So I presume that the minister could consider that some members of the LGBT community in Uganda are facing a risk that justifies, in the public interest, the creation of a special program for their resettlement in Canada that would be similar to the program for Afghan interpreters.
I encourage you to evaluate this option by keeping in mind my previous comments, namely, that all new resettlement programs should be accompanied by additional resources and not use the existing resources in Nairobi.
The last point I want to make is that since this is a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I would like to suggest that the situation of sexual minorities in Uganda is likely to improve if pressure is brought to bear on the government of Uganda.
While your current examination has rightly focused on the urgent need to help specific individuals through resettlement programs, I would like to encourage you to expand your inquiry to examine the extent to which Canada has used all available foreign policy tools to urge Uganda to protect sexual minorities. It may be useful to invite representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss the various measures available to Canada through foreign and international development policies to encourage Uganda to meet its human rights obligations. At the very least, we should be convinced that we have responded in the strongest possible way to the legislative proposal to extend the death penalty to sexual minorities.
Ultimately, I'm convinced that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Ugandans wish to live peacefully and safely in Uganda rather than be forced to flee as refugees. Anything Canada can do to move Uganda towards this goal is surely to be encouraged.
I am willing to take your questions. Thank you.