VPD Report #1807P03: Access to Police

Home , Police board, Vancouver Park Board, Vancouver Public Library

REPORT TO THE VANCOUVER POLICE BOARD

REPORT DATE: June 27, 2018 BOARD MEETING DATE: July 19, 2018 BOARD REPORT # 1807P03 Regular

TO: Vancouver Police Board

FROM: Drazen Manojlovic, Director, Planning, Research and Audit Section

SUBJECT: Access to Police Services Without Fear – VPD Guidelines ______

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Vancouver Police Board (VPB) receive this report and attached discussion paper and approve the proposed guidelines.

SUMMARY:

The Vancouver Police Board was asked to develop policy that supports the “spirit and objectives” of the City of Vancouver’s (CoV) Access to City Services Without Fear (ACSWF) policy. This policy affords a degree of protection to undocumented migrants by providing access to CoV services without fear that their immigration status (or lack thereof) will be disclosed to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), except where required by law.

The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) has developed proposed guidelines that would provide reassurance to undocumented migrants who are victims, witnesses, or complainants, that their immigration status will not be disclosed to the CBSA (unless certain bona fide criteria are met). The VPD must maintain lines of communication with law enforcement partners, including the CBSA, particularly when VPD members are investigating suspects of an offence.

The VPD believes that the draft guidelines provide access to police services for victims, witnesses, and complainants; and they balance the need for individuals to access police services without fear while allowing the VPD to achieve its mandate, duty, and public safety obligations. The VPD recommends that the VPB approve the proposed guidelines.

DISCUSSION:

City of Vancouver’s Access to City Services Without Fear Policy

In April of 2016, CoV Council unanimously passed the ACSWF policy. The policy applies to services directly provided by the CoV. While it does not specifically apply to the Police, Park, or Library Boards, CoV Council requested that these separate legal entities draft policy, within their mandates, in support of the “spirit and objectives” of the ACSWF policy.

Summary of VPD Consultations with Stakeholders

After a series of consultations with stakeholders, the VPD has developed guidelines for VPD members that support the spirit and objectives of the CoV policy. The draft guidelines provide victims, witnesses, and complainants with reassurance that when they need access to police services, their immigration status will not be of primary concern to the VPD or disclosed to CBSA (unless a defined set of bona fide reasons exist).

Some stakeholders, however, are requesting that the VPD go further and cease ‘collaborating’ with CBSA, and only work with CBSA when legally required. While the VPD is prepared to assist victims, witnesses, and complainants who are undocumented migrants, the VPD is not agreeable to disassociating with CBSA when it comes to individuals that are being investigated as suspects for an offence.

Discussion Paper and Proposed Guidelines

The VPD prepared a discussion paper (attached) that explains the various complexities regarding this issue. The discussion paper summarizes the consultation process, the VPD’s policing mandate, the VPD’s position on (and legal authority for) working with the CBSA, and presents the aforementioned draft guidelines for undocumented victims, witnesses, or complainants. The VPD believes that the draft guidelines provide access to police services for victims, witnesses, and complainants; and they balance the need for individuals to access police services without fear while allowing the VPD to achieve its mandate, duty, and public safety obligations.

If the guidelines are approved, prior to their implementation, the VPD will deliver training to its members on the guidelines’ operational expectations. This training, with input from interested stakeholders, would consist of (but not be limited to) briefings with all operational members. Electronic tools that track employee acknowledgment of the training item would be employed. Furthermore, the VPD would develop external communication to stakeholders to explain how the guidelines will assist them when they need police services; and identify a point of contact if concerns arise.

CONCLUSION:

In support of the “spirit and objectives” of the CoV ACSWF policy, the draft VPD guidelines provide access to police services to victims, witnesses, and complainants, while maintaining the VPD’s mandate, duty, and public safety obligations. The VPD recommends that the VPB approve the proposed guidelines.

Author: Drazen Manojlovic Telephone: 604-717-2682 Date: June 27, 2018

Submitting Executive Member: Supt Steve Eely Date: July 11, 2018

2 1

Access to Police Services Without Fear: Vancouver Police Department’s Guidelines for Undocumented Migrants

July 2018

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3 Overview 4 Challenges Faced by Undocumented Migrants when Trying to Access Police Services 4 Access Without Fear: A CoV Policy 4 The VPD’s Policing Mandate 6 ACSWF: VPD’s Consultation Process 7 Inter-Agency Cooperation 8 The VPD and the CBSA: Examples of Cooperation 9 Legal Authorities 9 Conclusion 10 References 12 Appendix A: CoV ACSWF Policy 13 Appendix B: VPD Guidelines 20

Executive Summary Undocumented migrants who are victims, witnesses, or complainants may be reluctant to report crimes and incidents to the police. This reluctance may arise out of a fear that their immigration status may be discovered during the reporting process and they are then reported to immigration officials. As part of its commitment to diversity, the City of Vancouver (CoV) began exploring the concept of an “access to City services without fear” (ACSWF) policy in 2014, and the CoV policy was adopted in April, 2016. The intention of ACSWF is to afford protection to undocumented migrants by providing them guaranteed access to CoV services without fear that their immigration status will be uncovered by CoV employees and disclosed to Canadian immigration authorities. CoV Council asked that the Vancouver Police Board (VPB) consider adopting a policy in support of the ACSWF policy.

The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) has been involved in discussions with the CoV since 2014 on the issue of access to CoV services for undocumented individuals, and has participated in meetings with the Mayor’s Working Group on Immigration (MWGI) and town hall meetings during the development of the CoV ACSWF policy. VPD’s participation also included meetings with stakeholders to examine and discuss options on how the VPD could develop a policy that supports the spirit and objectives of the CoV ACSWF policy.

The enforcement of immigration offenses is not a priority for the VPD, as evidenced by the statistics; in a three-year period (2015-2017), immigration arrests accounted for .01% of all calls for service. However, in response to the CoV Council request, the VPD has developed draft guidelines in which the VPD will not ask about a victim’s, witness’, or complainant’s immigration status, nor communicate with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) regarding their immigration status, during the course of a police investigation, unless bona fide reasons exist. The VPD must maintain contact with the CBSA when it comes to dealing with suspects and keeping the public safe.

Overview Vancouver attracts—in large part due to its openness and celebration of diversity—a significant number of immigrants and refugees, some of whom have uncertain immigration status or lack it altogether. An individual may have “no status” in cases where educational or employment visas have expired, and “uncertain” status may refer to cases where individuals are in the process of seeking permanent residency or refugee status. Further, some individuals may be in Vancouver having entered the country illegally for a variety of circumstances. These circumstances consist of a spectrum of reasons; at one end of the spectrum are families seeking a better life in Canada, and on the other end are individuals who are a public safety risk and have found an illegal means of entry into Canada.

It has been posited that undocumented migrants are limited from accessing municipal government services due to a fear of discovery and deportation (Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Services Agencies of BC, 2014). This inability to access governmental services, it is argued, makes the lives of undocumented migrants more difficult, negatively affecting their health and well-being.

Challenges Faced by Undocumented Migrants When Trying to Access Police Services Undocumented migrants who are victims of crime may, in many cases, remain in a position of victimization or refrain from reporting crimes. This reluctance to report may arise out of a fear that officials will discover their status in the course of the reporting process and deliver them to immigration officials (Deshman, 2009). In addition to this fear having the effect of restricting these individuals’ access to necessary medical care and police protection, the resulting lack of access to municipal services isolates these marginalized individuals from the community at large (Deshman, 2009; Magalhaes et al., 2010).

The challenges faced by undocumented migrants have been well-documented in the literature and referenced in the course of “sanctuary city” discussions across North America. As mentioned earlier, there are a variety of reasons an individual may be undocumented; these individuals may live in fear of being discovered and deported, a fear which can be so pervasive that it may prevent them from accessing municipal services including the police.

Potentially exacerbating the problem, these individuals may have migrated from countries with corrupt or inept police, which may have created a general fear of police and a barrier to access beyond simply the fear of deportation (Deshman, 2009). Alternately, undocumented migrants may come from a culture where social structure, beliefs, or fear of stigma may prevent certain individuals from seeking access to services. Lack of access, whether through fear of deportation or other more explicit barriers such as a requirement of status for services, may also reinforce social isolation in these individuals (Magalhaes et al., 2010).

Access to City Services Without Fear: A CoV Policy As part of its commitment to diversity, and in recognition of the issues undocumented individuals face, the MWGI began exploring the concept of an “access to City services without fear” policy in 2014. The aim of this policy is to afford a degree of protection to undocumented migrants by providing them guaranteed access to CoV services without fear that their immigration status (or potential lack thereof) will be uncovered by CoV employees and disclosed to Canadian immigration authorities. Similar policies, often under the title of ‘sanctuary city’, have been explored and established in other North American cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Toronto, and Hamilton, to

varying degrees of completeness (Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Services Agencies of BC, 2014).

Generally, the sanctuary city concept promotes the idea that all people living in a city should be able to avail themselves of public services without fear of their participation leading to the involvement of immigration officials. In line with this concept, the MWGI invited key stakeholders to this discussion. In addition to the VPD, these groups included the Vancouver School Board, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, and the Vancouver Public Library. In April 2016, CoV Council unanimously passed the ACSWF policy with the following policy statement: The purpose of this policy is to support access to City services by Vancouver residents with uncertain or no immigration status and who fear detention, psychological and physical harm, or deportation, when accessing services. The policy enables these residents to use municipal services, and do so without fear that the City of Vancouver will ask for and provide information about their immigration status to other institutions or orders of government unless required by law.

The ACSWF policy provides access to certain CoV services without fear that immigration status (or potential lack thereof) will be uncovered by CoV employees and disclosed to Canadian immigration authorities, namely the CBSA, unless there is a legal requirement to do so.

There are three directives resulting from this policy:

1. Access to CoV services will not be dependent on immigration status. CoV staff will not ask for, or otherwise seek out, an individual’s immigration status as a condition of service.

2. Privacy of information will be protected in that all personal information concerning immigration status is not to be requested or gathered whilst providing CoV services (unless required by law).

3. The enforcement of immigration status is not within the scope of CoV services or responsibility, thus there will be minimal, if any, communication with CBSA (unless there is a lawful requirement).

This CoV policy applies to services directly provided by the CoV; while it does not specifically apply to services by the respective Police, Park, or Library Boards, CoV Council asked that the VPB, Park Board and Library Board “adopt a policy which supports, within their respective mandates, the spirit and objectives of this policy” (ACSWF policy p. 1, attached as Appendix A). It should be noted that the Vancouver Public Library Board approved a similar policy on April 27, 2016, while the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation approved a similar policy on November 14, 2016. It is recognized, however, that providing access to CoV, Library Board, and Park Board services is vastly different from the factors affecting the provision of police services.

The VPD’s Policing Mandate Providing public safety and enforcing laws are the primary functions of the VPD, and this applies to all residents regardless of status. As an organization that has advocated for the city’s marginalized and vulnerable residents, the VPD is committed to social responsibility and recognizes the importance of making its services accessible to all residents. In addition, the VPD strives, as part of its stated goals, to build relationships with Vancouver’s diverse communities, including immigrants (2017-2021 Strategic Plan, 2017).

Officer decision-making is rooted in the principles of justification, proportionality, and intrusiveness. The VPD pledges to uphold the Organizational Values of Integrity, Compassion, Accountability, Respect, and Excellence (ICARE) in the course of duties (2017-2021 Strategic Plan, 2017). These Values guide the conduct of police in any situation, irrespective of the immigration status (or any other factor) of an individual seeking police assistance. Maintaining ICARE in all police actions necessarily includes compassion and respect; however, this must be balanced with the obligation for police to adhere to ethical and legal standards and requirements.

The VPD’s priorities are set forth in the VPD’s Strategic Plan, which comprise of supporting our people, engaging our community, enhancing public safety, and fighting crime. While the enforcement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) is not an organizational priority (as outlined in the side bar), municipal police do have a role in cooperating with other levels of government who maintain the primary How often is IRPA Enforced? law enforcement role for any given issue. For example, it may not be the primary role of municipal police to ensure • There were 752,556 Calls for Service the health and wellness of children; however, police clearly between 2015 and 2017 (inclusive). play a role in assisting Provincial authorities in that regard. Similarly, municipal police may not have a primary role in • 103 individuals were arrested under IRPA, enforcing laws related to the environment or natural which accounts for 0.01% of all calls for resources, but there is an expectation that they would service. assist both Federal and Provincial agencies under those • United States nationals were the most circumstances. Assisting Federal immigration authorities, frequently arrested. namely the CBSA, is part of this same expectation as it pertains to cooperation between government agencies and enforcing applicable statutes.

In response to the request from the CoV’s ACSWF policy, the VPD believes that it can contribute to improving the lives of undocumented migrants by improving their access to police services, while also maintaining our commitment to public safety and still appropriately cooperating with our governmental partners. It is with this belief that the VPD began consultations with advocates and CoV officials to examine how the VPD can support the principles of ACSWF while also adhering to our public safety responsibilities.

ACSWF: VPD’s Consultation Process The VPD has participated in discussions led by the CoV since 2014 on the issue of access to CoV services for undocumented individuals. The VPD participated in meetings with the MWGI and attended ‘town hall’ meetings during the development of the CoV ACSWF policy.

In addition to the discussions described above, the VPD met with stakeholders three times since the summer of 2016 to examine and discuss options on how the VPD could develop a policy that is in the spirit of the CoV ACSWF policy. Discussions focused on issues faced by undocumented migrants in accessing police services, the legalities of VPD officers enforcing the IRPA, data specific to how often VPD officers undertake such enforcement, and the value of having policy versus guidelines (to name a few issues discussed).

The VPD has consistently stated that undocumented migrants who are the victims of or witnesses to crime should not be fearful of coming to the police for help. The VPD’s primary concern is investigating the crime that they are the victim of or the witness to. For example, for a person who has over-stayed their student or work visa and has been the victim of a sexual assault or domestic violence, it is crucial that they know that their immigration status is almost irrelevant to the VPD during the course of that investigation. It is the investigation of the offense and bringing the perpetrator to justice that is far more important to the VPD than the victim’s or witness’ immigration status.

The advocates asked the VPD to commit in writing to never asking about a victim’s or witnesses immigration status, or communicate with the CBSA for that purpose, during the course of an investigation. An absolute prohibition on such inquiries was not possible, as there may be lawful, bona fide scenarios where such queries and communication become necessary. However, the VPD responded by developing guidelines that go beyond the needs of only victims and witnesses, by adding ‘complainants’ to the type of persons who would need police help. “Complainants” is a term used by police to describe someone who requests police assistance or attendance – an example in this context might be an undocumented migrant whose family is kept awake as a result of a noisy neighbour – they would be considered a complainant. These guidelines were discussed and agreed to by the advocates, who attended the discussions in October, 2016 (see Appendix B).

The VPD believes these guidelines tangibly demonstrate the VPD’s desire to encourage and re-assure undocumented migrants who are victims, witnesses, or complainants to come to the VPD for help. The VPD also believes that this is fully consistent with, and supportive of, the CoV’s ACSWF policy. Further, in the fall of 2017, a document authored by several legal groups (some of whom have participated in our consultations), in their call for justice reform priorities for BC, recommended to the Provincial Government that “municipal police and the RCMP to implement strong Access Without Fear policies to ensure that victims of crime and witnesses feel safe to come forward to police”. The VPD guidelines go further, as they ensure that victims, witnesses, and complainants feel safe in seeking help from the VPD.

The VPD also suggested, which was accepted by the stakeholders, that a main point of contact be identified within the Department for ease of access by interested stakeholders. This point of contact would be similar in concept to that of the VPD’s LGBTQ2s+ Liaison Officer. The purpose of the point

of contact would be to establish a consistent, “face-to-face” relationship with stakeholders and open lines of communication with regard to undocumented migrants’ policing needs.

Inter-Agency Cooperation The VPD should not terminate our cooperation with CBSA as cooperation may be required when dealing with suspects. In the course of conducting investigations and fulfilling their central obligations, including (but not limited to) crime prevention, preservation of the peace, and the protection of the public, police officers often rely on information that is provided by other sources including witnesses, complainants, informants, pre-existing agency information, and other law enforcement agencies. The willingness of other parties to lawfully share potentially useful information is often instrumental to an organization’s ability to respond to events, proactively prevent future crime, apprehend dangerous offenders, or identify and question persons of interest.

The VPD cannot relinquish powers of arrest and agree to never work with the CBSA – particularly when it comes to a person who may be a legitimate threat to public safety. The effect of completely detaching partnerships would negatively impact important work such as cross-border investigations, human trafficking, organized crime, drug trafficking, etc.

The VPD has developed guidelines to alleviate the fears of victims, witnesses, and complainants – those people who need to access police services; however, the VPD cannot agree to disassociate with the CBSA, nor can we agree to remove our officers’ ability to contact the CBSA if they feel the need to check with the CBSA about a suspect or if bona fide reasons exist (defined in Appendix B) while dealing with a victim, witness, or complainant.

The importance of sharing information between law enforcement agencies has also been well- documented in the literature. As Plecas, McCormick, Levine, Neal, and Cohen (2011) note, information sharing between law enforcement agencies facilitates effectiveness and efficiency, optimizes the use of diminished resources, and provides a quicker and deeper understanding of the circumstances surrounding an event. Further, information sharing between agencies “has the ability to improve law enforcement agencies’ ability to detect and prevent/respond to criminal activity” (Plecas et al., 2011, p. 121), helping officers and agencies become better able to fulfill their obligations as stated above. There are several notable examples in recent Canadian and international law enforcement history evidencing these benefits, wherein the sharing of information within and between agencies facilitated investigations, apprehensions, and convictions of dangerous offenders that would otherwise not have been possible.

This inter-agency cooperation is also in line with VPD’s commitment to the British Columbia Police Code of Ethics, which guides police officer conduct and relationships with the public and police partners. In particular, the Code emphasizes the importance of police partnerships in order to develop “an open, just, and impartial justice system”. The BC Police Code of Ethics is specifically relevant to our partnership with CBSA, as it states:

…we must always strive to cooperate with other public service professionals in order to advance the public good. This involves the sharing of information in a relationship-building manner that celebrates the interdependent nature of professionals in promoting the goals of the justice system. This information

sharing must balance confidentiality needs and due process with the needs of professionals, who are working for justice and the common good.

Ethics Committee of the BC Association of Chiefs of Police, ‘British Columbia Police Code of Ethics’.

The cooperation between the CBSA and VPD is in line with the separate and distinct goals of both agencies.

The VPD and the CBSA: The Need for Cooperation While protecting Vancouver’s residents and visitors is the VPD’s primary function, maintaining effective relationships with Provincial and Federal law enforcement agencies is crucial to enhancing public safety, not only in Vancouver but for the rest of BC and Canada as well. There are many examples, ranging from individual crimes to organized crime or national security matters, where cooperation with CBSA was necessary to ensure public safety. For example, one incident involved a sex trade worker who was abducted and violently sexually assaulted by the suspect who was in the country illegally. CBSA advised VPD officers that the suspect was detainable under IRPA and over the next few days, officers were able to finalize the case and recommend charges to Crown Counsel while the suspect was in custody (as opposed to potentially fleeing).

This example is not intended to imply that undocumented migrants are more prone to criminality than any other type of resident – the VPD rejects any such labelling of undocumented migrants. The purpose of this example is to illustrate the importance of how law enforcement agencies need to cooperate. By acceding to the demands of some advocates and not cooperating with the CBSA, the VPD would be remiss in not contacting the CBSA when we have the opportunity to during an investigation, and that person later goes on to commit a more serious, perhaps violent offence. Police inaction can also be dangerous to public safety.

Legal Authorities Some advocates have also opined that VPD officers enforcing IRPA is not lawful unless it’s under a tight set of conditions. With respect, the VPD disagrees with this legal interpretation. A legal review conducted by CoV Legal Services concludes that under IRPA, peace officers have two primary authorities:

1) The power to arrest without a warrant, which comes from s. 55(2), where the (peace) officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person, being a foreign national, is inadmissible and is a danger to the public or is unlikely to appear for examination, an admissibility hearing, etc., and 2) The power to arrest with a warrant comes from s. 142. The arrest is mandatory in that it states one "shall, when so directed by an [immigration] officer''. After arrest, a peace officer must have the ability to check with CBSA officials in order to determine whether or not to exercise the powers above, and therefore by necessary implication police have the power and authority to share the person's name and date of birth with the CBSA.

Police have a legal duty to execute warrants, and any policy which eliminates the ability of police to exercise these powers would render the power/law to be ineffective. Police have the lawful ability/authority to ask questions of any person whom they encounter, including asking their name

and date of birth (however, a person is not compelled to answer - absent a duty to do so). Where the power granted to a peace officer allows discretion (s .55(2)), provided that the conditions exist for the exercise of that power, police policy should not unduly limit the proper exercising of that discretion. In short, the VPD’s enforcement of IRPA, with or without warrant, and the VPD’s professional relationship with the CBSA, is completely lawful.

The VPD has, until recently, had three written agreements with the CBSA:

1) Governing the process when the CBSA has a detainee and requires the temporary use of the Vancouver Police Jail (originally dated in 2009); 2) Governing the role of a CBSA officer who is a direct liaison between CBSA and the VPD for investigative matters (2006); and 3) Governing the lawful process when CBSA requests information that the VPD possesses (2006 and discussions are pending).

With regard to the first MOU listed above, during the course of discussions with the CBSA the VPD learned that the majority of CBSA detainees were apprehended at the Vancouver International Airport (YVR). While the VPD supports temporarily housing CBSA detainees who were apprehended in Vancouver, the VPD is concerned about the additional risk the VPD is assuming by housing those CBSA detainees who were not apprehended in Vancouver. As such, on December 15, 2017, the VPD advised the CBSA that effective July 1, 2018, the VPD will no longer accept CBSA detainees who were apprehended outside of Vancouver.

Concurrent to the VPD’s notification, the CBSA has implemented a number of national steps that has reduced the amount of detainees (including at YVR). Notwithstanding these steps, the CBSA requested an extension to the VPD’s notification and, to allow CBSA to secure alternate holding facilities, the VPD agreed to extend the deadline to December 31, 2018.

The second MOU is of concern to some advocates. Its origin stems from the mid-2000s where there was an influx of DTES drug traffickers who were in Canada illegally, and at the time, it was felt having immediate day-to-day access to a CBSA officer would be valuable. As the presence of those traffickers waned, the CBSA officer’s role evolved into a point of contact for VPD organized crime investigations, with occasional support to VPD Patrol officers.

Concerns were expressed by stakeholders that the VPD was conducting ‘joint patrols’ with CBSA, which was not the case. The CBSA officer mostly worked with Organized Crime Section detectives and would, upon request, attend Patrol incidents to assist in an investigation where the CBSA could be helpful. Nonetheless, the VPD is sensitive to the concerns of the advocates and has cancelled this agreement. The VPD will, however, still contact the CBSA for investigative purposes.

Discussions to begin updating the third MOU began and were contingent upon the approval and implementation of the proposed guidelines. In June 2018, the CBSA advised the VPD that they were rescinding the existing MOU (signed in 2006) as it is outdated. The VPD has accepted this notification and the MOU is rescinded.

In total, two of the three MOUs with CBSA have been rescinded and the lone remaining MOU will be amended by the end of 2018.

Conclusion The protection of the public is without question the primary objective of the VPD, and this applies to undocumented migrants. The enforcement of immigration laws is not the central focus of the VPD; rather, the VPD’s priority is maintaining public safety and law enforcement.

The VPD acknowledges that undocumented migrant victims, witnesses, or complainants may not contact the police out of fear that their immigration status may be discovered in the course of an investigation. In pursuit of our policing objectives, the VPD emphasizes that we do not discourage any individual from coming forward to report crime or seeking police assistance, regardless of their immigration status.

The VPD’s guidelines provide victims, witnesses, and complainants with reassurance that when they need access to police services, their immigration status will not be of primary concern to the VPD (unless the bona fide reasons exist). If the guidelines are adopted, prior to their implementation, the VPD will deliver training to its members on the guidelines’ operational expectations. This training, with input from interested stakeholders, would consist of (but not be limited to) briefings with all operational members. Training records will be kept to acknowledge member knowledge of the guidelines. Furthermore, the VPD would develop external communication to stakeholders to explain how the guidelines will assist them when they need police services and identify a point of contact if concerns arise.

In support of the “spirit and objectives” of the CoV ACSWF policy, the VPD guidelines provide access to police services to victims, witnesses, and complainants, while adhering to the VPD’s mandate of public safety and law enforcement.

References

Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies (AMSSA) of British Columbia. (2014). Sanctuary cities—History & overview info sheet (issue 13). Retrieved from http://www.amssa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AMSSA-Info-Sheet-Issue-13- Sanctuary-Cities11.pdf British Columbia Police Act, RSBC 1996, c 367. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96367_01 City of Vancouver. (2016). Access to city services without fear (ACSWF) policy for residents with uncertain or no immigration status. CLAS, PIVOT, West Coast LEAF, BCCLA. (2017). Justice reform for BC. Retrieved from https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/3078/attachments/original/1504 071949/Justice_Reform_For_BC_%281%29.pdf?1504071949 Deshman, A. (2009). To serve some and protect fewer: The Toronto Police Services’ policy on non- status victims and witnesses of crimes. Journal of Law and Social Policy, 22(1), 209-235. Ethics Committee of the BC Association of Chiefs of Police. (2005). British Columbia Police Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.jibc.ca/sites/default/files/police_justice /pdf/JIBC_signing_final_web.pdf Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-2.5.pdf Magalhaes, L., Carrasco, C., & Gastaldo, D. (2010). Undocumented migrants in Canada: A scope literature review on health, access to services, and working conditions. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 12(1), 132-151. Plecas, D., McCormick, A., Levine, J., Neal, P., Cohen, I. (2011). Evidence-based solution to information sharing between law enforcement agencies. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(1), p. 120-134. Vancouver Police Department. (2017). 201-2021 strategic plan. Retrieved from fhttp://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/vpd-strategic-plan-2017-2021.pdf

Appendix A ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES WITHOUT FEAR (ACSWF) POLICY

FOR RESIDENTS WITH UNCERTAIN OR NO IMMIGRATION STATUS

A. POLICY STATEMENT: *Note: This policy may apply to the following City services: The purpose of this policy is to support access to City services by Vancouver residents with uncertain or no immigration status and who fear detention, psychological Fire and Rescue Services and physical harm, or deportation, when accessing services. The policy enables these residents to use municipal services, • Fire prevention and and do so without fear that the City of Vancouver will ask responding to medical calls for and provide information about their immigration status • Providing emergency to other institutions or orders of government unless required preparedness information and support by law. Community Services This policy applies only to services provided by the City of • Tenant Assistance Program Vancouver* and is consistent with the City’s core values of • Licensing and inspections inclusion and safety for all residents. Utilities and Public Works

The Government of Canada has jurisdiction over • Providing basic services – immigration policies and regulations including law sewer, water, drainage enforcement activities related to border management • Providing garbage collection, and immigration control. As these activities are under composting, and recycling services the jurisdiction of the federal government, this policy • Maintaining and enhancing relates only to the area of access to municipal services street infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the City. General Government • Permits and enforcement • Providing information, B. CONTEXT: engagement channels and customer service (website, in person and 3-1-1) The vast majority of people enter the country through authorized channels; however, their immigration status sometimes changes for a variety of reasons, including This policy does not apply to sponsorship breakdown, a denied refugee claim or expiry of Police, Parks or Library services. study or work permits. However, these agencies will be asked to adopt a policy which People with uncertain or no immigration status have supports, within their respective precarious access to health care, education, social services, mandates, the spirit and legal rights and employment, and experience constant stress objectives of this policy. and fear of deportation, social exclusion and isolation, and separation from family. Women of uncertain or no immigration status are more vulnerable to poverty, Further to Council Report unemployment, domestic violence and abuse, and are less Recommendations, as and when likely to access information or seek support services. As any policy in support of the spirit victims or witnesses of crime, people of uncertain or no

immigration status are less likely to report to police for fear of exposure and possible deportation.

Immigration status is a social determinant of health, and such fears prevent people from seeking the support they need from government and community agencies of all types.

The City of Vancouver is committed to respond to the diverse needs of people arriving and living in Vancouver, inviting their participation and engagement in the life of the city and providing welcoming and safe access to services provided by the City. This policy supports the City’s mission to “create a great city of communities that cares about our people, our environment, and our opportunities to live, work, and prosper”. Further, the policy is also aligned with the following:

• In 2007, City Council committed to “fostering an *Note: this is from part of the open, welcoming and safe environment to people of “Vision and Value Statement all cultural backgrounds”, and which ensures that Concerning Immigrants and “newcomers have equitable access to all the services Refugees”, proposed by the provided by the City”, including those with temporary Mayor’s Working Group on status*. Immigration, and adopted by City Council in 2007.

• The Healthy City Strategy (HCS)* was adopted by City Council in 2014 and is guided by a vision where the City and community partners are “creating and continually improving the conditions that enable all of us to enjoy the highest level of health and well- being”. Key goals of the HCS are to ensure “Vancouverites have equitable access to high-quality social, community and health services” and “Vancouverites are connected and engaged in the places and spaces that matter to us.” The HCS Action *The HCS can be found at Plan, adopted by City Council in 2015, includes an Vancouver.ca/HealthyCity4All action that the City “examine regulations, policies, and processes that affect our relationships with and between residents – past, present and future.”

C. PRINCIPLES

The following principles are consistent with the City’s Code of Conduct and will guide the conduct of City staff in relation to this policy.

1. Integrity: Employees are the keepers of the public trust and must uphold the highest standards of ethical behavior.

2. Accountability: Employees are obligated to answer to the responsibilities that have been entrusted to them and the decisions they make.

3. Responsibility: Employees must act responsibly, within the law and within the authorities of the Vancouver Charter.

4. Leadership: Employees must demonstrate and promote the key principles of the Code of Conduct through their decisions, actions and behaviour.

5. Respect: Employees must conduct public business efficiently, with decorum and with proper attention to the city’s diversity.

6. Openness: Employees have a duty to be as open as possible about their decisions and actions by communicating decision-making processes, encouraging appropriate public participation and appropriate means for providing feedback.

7. Equity: The policy addresses the principle of service equity so all residents, particularly those facing the greatest barriers, can access City services without impediment.

8. Intersectionality: A “for all” lens will help ensure that initiatives pursued are both universal for all and focused on specific populations most vulnerable to health inequities. Individuals will not be viewed in a monolithic way, by recognizing the complexity of the lived realities of individuals who experience marginalization on multiple and intersecting grounds.

9. Transparency: The City must work with citizens and the wider community to ensure that residents understand which services are covered by this policy and which, delivered by other jurisdictions, orders of government or non-profit agencies, are outside its scope.

10. Partnership*: Effective implementation of the *Note: the development of this spirit and objectives of this policy will require policy has sought input from continuous engagement with the City’s three community organizations, City’s civic agencies - the Vancouver Police Board, the advisory bodies, other authorities Vancouver Park Board, and the Vancouver Library including VPD, VPB, VPL, VSB and Board. VCH.

D. LIMITATIONS:

This policy applies to those services directly provided by the City. The City will continue to work with other governmental authorities, including Vancouver Police Board, Vancouver Library Board, and the Vancouver Park Board, to align access without fear policies and practices, where appropriate.

E. PROPOSED POLICY FRAMEWORK:

1. Scope:

As with all citywide policies, the Access to City Services Without Fear policy will guide the actions of the City including elected officials and all City staff.

2. Definitions:

Immigration Status

Vancouver residents have diverse immigration status, including those with Canadian citizenship, permanent residency, temporary residency, and uncertain or no status. For the purpose of this policy, we refer to two specific categories of status: individuals with no immigration status and those with uncertain status.

a. No Status The term is used to describe individuals who reside or work without authorization, who have no immigration status, or who are generally referred to as ‘undocumented’, i.e. their documentation is not accepted or recognized by the state and therefore the individuals have no lawful status of residence. For example, newcomers arriving in Canada through regular channels may come to a point where their visa has expired, or find that their circumstances have changed such that their visa is no longer valid. Typically, these individuals have very limited or no access to resources and support.

b. Uncertain Status For the purpose of this policy, uncertain status refers to individuals with pending and/or unknown immigration status. For example, an individual who has received a negative decision in their refugee application, and is actively appealing that decision, would be

deemed to have uncertain immigration status. Typically, these individuals have very limited or no access to resources and support.

Refugee

The following is adapted from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 1951 Refugee http://www.unhcr.org Convention*: The UNHCR has, since adopting the Individuals, who owing to a well-founded fear of being 1951 Refugee Convention, persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, included Sexual Orientation and membership of a particular social group or political Gender Identity in their Guidelines opinion, are outside the country of their nationalities, for International Protection. and are unable to, or owing to such fear, are

unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.

3. Policy Directives:

The three policy directives are as follows:

a. Access to City services is not dependent on immigration status

City services will be provided regardless of immigration status. Further, City staff will not ask for or otherwise seek out an individual’s immigration status as a condition of providing city services, unless the provision of such services has a legal requirement to obtain such information.

b. Privacy of Information

The City will carefully uphold and enforce privacy legislation to ensure that any and all personal information concerning immigration status is not requested or gathered in the course of providing City services unless required by law.

The City is not aware of any City services requiring the collection of immigration status information. However, in the event that personal information concerning immigration status is required to be collected, the City will only collect same after ensuring that the person required to give it is aware of the requirement and then only in accordance with applicable privacy and disclosure laws.

c. Relationship with Canada Border Services *Note: the Act can be accessed Agency, CBSA online: http://laws- The role of CBSA is to administer and enforce the lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/ Immigration & Refugee Protection Act* and regulations. Accordingly, the voluntary disclosure of immigration status and enforcement of immigration law is outside the scope of the City’s jurisdiction, and City staff are not responsible for the enforcement of immigration law and is not permitted to disclose personal information as a general rule except in accordance with the law. These exceptions could include a court order, subpoena, or other legally binding requirements.

F. IMPLEMENTATION:

1. Creation of Access To City Services Without Fear Guidelines: The effective implementation of this policy will require the creation of guidelines for City staff.

The City will engage with community partners and individuals with lived experience to assist in the development of the Guidelines.

2. Align with existing City’s review and complaint mechanism: The City’s existing review and complaint mechanism will be used to ensure no one is denied access to services based on their immigration status.

3. Provide staff training to ensure effective implementation of this policy: An essential component in adopting this policy and associated guidelines is to provide training to City staff particularly to those whose work requires frequent interaction with the public. The City will engage with community partners and individuals with lived experience to assist in the development of the training. Further, organizations receiving City funding for the provision of community services will be asked to participate in the training.

4. Implement a communication plan to inform stakeholders and the community on the policy: Staff will implement a communication plan to inform stakeholders and the community about the new policy.

5. Support the provision of services to Vancouver residents, regardless of immigration status: The City will continue to advocate for the needs and challenges of residents with uncertain or no immigration status to other orders of government and jurisdictions.

6. Reporting and Evaluation The City Manager will have an annual report back to City Council on the application of this policy, any complaints received and their disposition, as well as recommendations for amendments.

Appendix B

VPD Guidelines on Access to Police Services Without Fear The VPD has created guidelines to ensure that victims, witnesses, and complainants may access police services without fear. The VPD will provide direction to members to not ask about a victim’s, witness’, or complainant’s immigration status, nor communicate with CBSA regarding their immigration status, during the course of a police investigation, unless bona fide reasons exist. The guidelines are philosophically consistent with other VPD policies that strike an appropriate balance between societal interests and policing needs. For example, the VPD acknowledges that individuals may be reluctant to contact the police in drug overdoses for fear that they will be arrested. Therefore, the VPD has guidelines in place for police who attend illicit drug overdoses which outline that the primary reason for police attendance at a non-fatal drug overdose is to assist with life saving measures. It would be in rare circumstances that criminal charges would arise from attendance at a routine drug overdose call.

Guidelines The VPD is mindful of the challenges undocumented migrants face. The protection of the public is without question the central objective of the VPD, one which applies equally to all people regardless of their immigration status. As an organization which has made advocacy for marginalized and vulnerable residents a dedicated priority, the VPD remains committed to social responsibility and recognizes the importance of making its services and protection equally accessible to all members of the public. In addition, it is the vision of the VPD “to be the safest major city in Canada”, a vision of safety which extends to the protection of all people regardless of immigration status.

The focus of the CoV’s ACSWF policy is to offer access to CoV services to all people regardless of their immigration status. In support of the CoV policy, the VPD proposes guidelines that reflect the need for individuals to have access to police services and limit officers from contacting CBSA about a victim’s/witness’/complainant’s immigration status, unless there are bona fide reasons to do so. We recommend these guidelines as they would be consistent with the organizational philosophy espoused in our Sex Work Enforcement Guidelines and our publically stated approach to marijuana dispensaries.

The VPD acknowledges that the relationship between the VPD and CBSA is of concern to those with uncertain or no immigration status. Specifically, victims, witnesses, and complainants desire access to police services without fear of repercussions due to their immigration status in Canada. The VPD recognizes that community trust and cooperation are essential components of effective policing and public safety. Victims, witnesses, and complainants are encouraged to cooperate in the reporting and investigation of crime and are essential in the maintenance of public safety.

In an effort to address the concerns of those with uncertain or no immigration status, and still meet public safety obligations, VPD officers should not ask about a victim’s, witness’, or complainant’s immigration status, nor communicate with CBSA regarding their immigration status, during the course of a police investigation, unless bona fide reasons exist or there is a legal requirement to do so. Bona fide reasons may include but are not limited to:

• Crown Counsel requiring information for court purposes; • A victim, witness, or complainant may require admission into witness protection; • The information is necessary to prove essential elements of an offence (e.g. identification, etc.); or • During the police investigation it is determined that in order to ensure public safety, it is essential to ascertain the immigration status of a victim, witness, or complainant.

When dealing with suspects the VPD will continue to make use of its lawful authorities and relationships established with other law enforcement agencies, including CBSA. These guidelines are not to be construed as prohibiting VPD members from fulfilling their duties under Canadian legislation, including but not limited to the execution of warrants/written orders or conducting CPIC and RMS queries where appropriate.

One of the VPD’s primary roles is to ensure public safety. A key means of meeting this core obligation is the enforcement of relevant municipal bylaws, provincial legislation, and federal statutes. This includes timely and proportional use of the police powers (subsection 55(2) and section 142) under IRPA.

To assist in meeting its public safety obligations, the VPD maintains a lawful working relationship with the CBSA, as we do with other law enforcement partners. This relationship is long-standing and it is expected within Canadian society that law enforcement agencies will cooperate with one another in an effective and lawful manner. Any direction the VPD provides to its members, in an attempt to support the “spirit and objectives” of the CoV’s ACSWF policy, must not undermine the lawful authorities and obligations of VPD members.

These guidelines enable the VPD to meet its lawful obligations and commitments to public safety while addressing the concerns of vulnerable victims, witnesses, and complainants. Further, the VPD will identify a liaison, or point of contact, to assist undocumented migrants who are victims, witnesses, or complainants if specific queries or concerns arise.