Sun Sea

The response to the two boats, especially the Sun Sea, was massive.1 The passengers were subjected by the government to prolonged detention, intensive interrogation and energetic efforts to exclude them from the refugee process, or to contest their claim if they succeeded in entering the refugee process. [...] Others in the media challenged the xenophobic response to the Sun Sea, calling for the rights of migrants to be respected and drawing comparisons to boats of refugees seeking safety in the past, such as the St Louis. [...] If the Immigration Division (of the Immigration and Refugee Board) ordered release, they should look into seeking a stay of the order (meaning to ask the Federal Court to delay the release of the person while the CBSA challenged the decision). [...] They could do this because the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act leaves it up to the Minister (or his delegate) to decide when identity is satisfactorily established.14 In the case of the Sun Sea passengers, CBSA continued to declare that the Minister was not satisfied of the identity of the passengers of the Sun Sea even after secure identity documents had been obtained and verified.15 In on [...] In other words, it is not for the Immigration Division to decide whether the Minister’s suspicion is reasonable.17 13 NHQ Direction to the Pacific Region concerning the detention reviews in the case of the Sun Sea migrants, undated but apparently shortly after the arrival of the Sun Sea, available at Vancouver Sun, “CBSA directive on Tamil migrants: Detain, detain, detain”, Chad Skelton, 4 August