Humanitarianism in Newfoundland: the rescue of Tamil refugees in 1986
On 11 August 1986, after five days adrift off the coast of Newfoundland, two lifeboats carrying 155 Tamil refugees fleeing the armed conflict in Sri Lanka were rescued by local fishermen. The individuals were brought ashore and given temporary accommodation as immigration officials conducted interviews and within three days had confirmed their identity. During this period, the ‘B-1 list’—a list of eighteen refugee-producing countries to where individuals would not be returned to—became the basis for a fast-track refugee decision process that allowed individuals from these countries to be exempt from making a refugee claim. As Sri Lanka was on this list, the government immediately issued renewable one-year permits to the 155 Tamil refugees, enabling them to live and work in Canada.
The decision to grant Minister’s permits was controversial, as some Members of Parliament questioned the government’s expedited practice of accepting refugees and providing legal status. Further revelations concerning the journeys of the Tamil refugees created a stir in political and media spheres. Initially, they had claimed to have fled Sri Lanka to India from where they directly travelled to Canada. However, it was later revealed that they had in fact departed from West Germany which was considered a ‘safe state’ by Canadian authorities, and where they had also filed refugee claims. A few days later, a spokesperson for the refugees explained that many had been subjected to police harassment and limited freedom of movement in West Germany, which had prompted the decision to seek protection in Canada.
While some media and political actors argued that the Tamil refugees had already found protection in another state and did not therefore require ‘genuine’ protection in Canada, the majority of political discourse was humanitarian in nature. The government maintained that it would not deport the Tamil refugees even after it was confirmed that they arrived via West Germany. While stating that the government did not ‘want people jumping to the head of the line’ and would ‘tighten up procedures if required’, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney firmly asserted:
My government will do anything but allow refugees in lifeboats to be turned aimlessly around in the ocean and turned away from our shores…it’s not the presence of [155] frightened human beings searching for freedom and opportunity that’s going to undermine Canada or our immigration policies.
The leaders of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party applauded the Conservative government by stating that ‘providing refuge was the only option’ and that ‘Tamils had to be given temporary shelter in Canada’. Additionally, when West German media reported that the Tamil refugees were suspected of being part of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)—an internationally proscribed “terrorist” organization—government officials maintained that the Tamils would be considered as refugees while security checks would be left to the police. Despite questions around immigration reform and security, the political discourse was notable for its empathy and humanitarianism as officials upheld the obligation to provide protection to those fleeing persecution.
At the time, Canadian media outlets rarely reported on the arrival of refugees or interrogated refugee claims. However, revelations that they had departed from West Germany and not India resulted in media depictions of Tamil refugees ‘leaving a safe haven’, ‘jumping the queue’, and ‘entering illicitly’, which conformed to the broader narratives of ‘untruthful’, ‘bogus’, and ‘illegal’ refugees. Some media outlets labelled Canada as ‘gullible’ and a ‘dumping ground’ due to the government’s decision to promptly provide legal status for the Tamil refugees. Nevertheless, the dominant media discourse around the arrival of Tamil refugees was humanitarian in nature as it described the refugee claims as legitimate and Canada’s response as consistent with its international legal obligations, while further condemning the backlash against the refugees as ‘unthinkable’, ‘small-minded and ignorant’ and ‘devoid of compassion’.
The developments in 1986 are a stark contrast from the criminalisation of migration that has prevailed across Europe, North America and Australia, especially in recent years. It is also worth highlighting how refugee aid was not criminalised and how this event is in fact celebrated in Canadian history. Captain Gus Dalton, who rescued the Tamil refugees with his crew, is remembered by the following words from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:
A great example of exactly that, of reaching out to different communities, of being a good neighbour, of working to build a better world; as everyone in this room knows, is Captain Gus Dalton. He was an ordinary Canadian fisherman who did an extraordinary deed, rescuing 155 Tamils off the shores of St. Shott’s, Newfoundland.
In 2017 Dalton also posthumously received the Governor General’s Meritorious Service Medal, which recognised him for his humanitarian efforts:
On August 11, 1986, Gus Dalton orchestrated the rescue of 155 Tamil refugees who were drifting in lifeboats off the coast of St. Shott’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Without hesitation, he dumped his own catch of cod to accommodate the marooned refugees, radioing other fishing boats in the vicinity and notifying the Canadian Coast Guard to assist in the rescue.
However, following the events of 1986, the response toward refugees arriving by sea soon ceased to be welcoming in nature. As Scott Watson explains, subsequent refugee arrivals by sea, particularly in 1987 and 1999, led to more restrictive legislation including the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 1999, which replaced the Immigration Act of 1976 with ‘a more restrictive approach to asylum seekers and a heightened concern with national security.’
Canada’s self-congratulatory remarks surrounding the events of 1986 reflect what it aspires to be: a leader and a welcoming country for refugees. In fact, the reception of Tamil refugees was a stark contrast from previous refugee arrivals by sea in Canadian history. In 1914, Canada rejected most of the 376 passengers aboard the Komagata Maru, and upon return to India, passengers were arrested, attacked, and killed by Indian authorities. In 1939, Canada denied entry to over 900 Jewish refugees aboard the MS St. Louis, and 254 passengers later perished in Nazi concentration camps.
While the response to the 1986 arrival of Tamil refugees is commendable, history has shown that Canada has not always lived up to its ‘welcoming’ self-portrayal toward refugees. In the context of an expanding hostile environment toward refugees—marked by the criminalisation of refugee aid, illegal pushbacks and violent border controls—Canada is no exception. In 2009 and 2010, when Tamil refugees fleeing the genocide in Sri Lanka arrived in British Columbia, they were met with outright criminalisation and securitisation by the Canadian government and media. In recent years, exclusionary asylum policies—especially during COVID-19—deportations, and mandatory and indefinite detention have shown some of the moral failures of Canada’s refugee system. Perhaps the events of 1986 are an important reminder of how Canada can and should live up to its commitments toward refugees—by working to create a system that ensures the safety, dignity and humanity of all refugees.
The header image shows a page from the Toronto Star, 16 August 1986, with the headline ‘Ship at centre of refugee storm’ over a photo of the Aurigae, the ship which had carried the refugees across the Atlantic then set them adrift.
