Critical gaps: Uncertain access to education for children in immigration detention centres Evan Stringer

In many countries worldwide, including Canada, children continue to be held in detention facilities pending determination of immigration status or pending deportation procedures. This may occur if authorities deem their families to be a danger to the public, a flight risk, or, in the case of the Canadian legislation, when they lack sufficient identification (s. 55(2) Immigration and Refugee Protection Act). Section 60 of the IRPA affirms that children shall be detained only as a measure of last resort. Nonetheless, the Canada Border Services Agency reported that in 2011-2012, 289 children were detained. While the average stay was roughly one week, other stays lasted over two months (CBC). In 2010, when the MV Sun Sea arrived on the shores of British Columbia, over 40 children- who had just spent three months at sea- were detained for over four months (Canadian Council for Refugees). The practice of detaining children in immigration matters raises many concerns, and indeed the UN has criticized the practice. Countries including the UK, France, Belgium, Sweden and Japan have stopped detaining children who claim or have claimed refugee status, with the UK’s deputy minister calling it a “shameful practice” (CBC). Among the myriad of problems that arise with immigration-related detention is the following: What happens to the education of a child detained for several months?

In view of what authorities presume will be “short-term” detentions, the rationale for failing to provide a cohesive plan of education for a revolving door of children seems more palatable. Nonetheless, a multi-month gap in a child’s education is significant, and contrary to art. 28 CRC, which states that states party shall provide compulsory, free primary education to all. Nonetheless, the IRPA- the legislation which explicitly allows for the detention of children for immigration-related purposes- makes no mention of a child’s right to education while in detention. In Ontario, where many immigration claims are processed, the Education Act stipulates in article 40 that the School Board may conduct an education program in an outside institution, but there is no legislation that mandates this.

Canada’s Detention Guidelines suggest that children detained for more than seven days will have access to a teacher (s. 5.10). However, this does not go far enough to ensure respect for the child’s right to education: First, ministerial Guidelines are not legally binding- they may be departed from in “exceptional” circumstances (which are not defined). Second, recent news items suggest that the guidelines are not being met- in a 2012 article, the CBC reported that one first-grade-aged child placed in detention for five months received only “some art classes” (CBC). At such a critical juncture in a child’s development, education is crucial, and Canada along with other countries that detain migrant children, must carry out thorough reviews to determine whether, in fact appropriate education is being consistently provided, and amend legislation to address current gaps, in order meet their obligations under art. 28 CRC and to promote the best interests of all children in Canada.