GIVING REFUGEES A SECOND CHANCE:

A PERSONAL REFLECTION ON REFUGEE SPONSORSHIP

BY RIVKA AUGENFELD

I first got involved in refugee sponsorship in the 1970's when I began working at JIAS Canada.  We supported the arrival of immigrants from a number of countries, especially Morocco.  The refugees we dealt with were from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.  In those years, anyone who managed to leave an Eastern Bloc country was automatically eligible for selection, the forerunners of what became the "Eastern European Self-Exile Class" after the implementation of the new law in 1978.

Canadian Embassies selected most people in this class, with no individual refugee status determination.  The greatest number came as what would now be called Government Assisted Refugees.  Others were either joint or private sponsorships, with very little red tape and only the occasional complication.

Our sister agency in Europe, HIAS, was one of a number of NGOs (Non Government Organizations) and church groups working closely with the Canadian and American governments - Caritas, the International Rescue Committee, the World Council of Churches and others.  There was a certain kind of trust between governments and the NGOs supporting refugees. There was flexibility and compassion.  It was a time when Canada did not insist on elderly parents being left behind to be sponsored by their children later on.  Instead, Minister's Permits were used to bring these parents along with their government sponsored children.  Interviews were mostly conducted in a friendly fashion, to assess admissibility and security concerns.  Although there were suspicions that certain individuals might be spies or plants from the communist regimes they had fled; this did not seem to affect many people and rarely delayed processing.

South-East Asia

The South-East Asian refugee flow brought similar positive experiences.  There was a strong political will to make the sponsorship of refugees a success.  The newly-minted refugee sponsorship program was applied with great enthusiasm, and NGOs and many ad-hoc "groups of five" were treated with maximum flexibility.  Again the fact that these refugees were considered part of a Designated Class meant there were no status determinations, only admissibility interviews. (The Recent group processing of identifiable at-risk Somali and Sudanese refugees from camps in Kenya seems to go back to accepting the idea of processing refugees based on pre-determined criteria, thus eliminating the need to re-interview everyone for eligibility.)  One of the most important factors at that time was the huge publicity this group received in the media - day after day of stories and pictures of people in need, boats in peril on the high seas, tragic drowning, dramatic rescues.  Government and media speaking the same language resulted in an outpouring of support from the public.  The whole western world was talking the same language of taking responsibility and wanting to help - people on the other side of the world needed help and WE should help them.

There was even a pledging conference in Geneva in 1979 where western governments formally committed to how many refugees they were willing to take in.  Canada pledged to bring in 16,000 South East Asians, and launched a massive public awareness campaign and an appeal for sponsorships.  As an incentive, the government promised to match the number of refugees brought in by private sponsors.  It is clear that when the public was given information about a disaster, when the media played up the story day after day, when the government had a huge PR campaign to educate people about the problem and why they should help - the public responded in a positive way.  They were offered a way to help and the response was far beyond anyone's expectations.

Kosovo

This was also the case in 1999, when massive publicity about the plight of refugees from Kosovo brought another successful appeal to the public - people were asked to help and given several ways to participate.  Canada's quick response in bringing in these refugees pushed aside any of the usual concerns about age, large family size, medical problems, criminality or security.  True, the program began as an evacuation program, but quickly became a settlement program as soon as people began to arrive.

The examples of these three programs clearly prove that where there is a political will, almost anything is possible.  Unfortunately, over the years so many rules and regulations have been instituted by the government, that refugee sponsorship has become a very complicated affair.  In the past, every NGO worker could pick up the phone and talk to a live immigration officer.  We could go down to the CIC office for a chat and work out potential problems.  Those days are long gone.  Resources have been cut.  Small problems become huge as the months pass.  Files get tangled for years.  The ad-hoc "group of five" had better be very brave and have endless reserves of patience if they attempt to sponsor a refugee.  Since 9/11 security has grown into an even bigger issue than it had already become.  True none of us wants violence - we all want to be safe.  But governments tend to exaggerate the security threat.  There has to be a more rational way to handle real security threat issues.  We must find a way to do security checks without creating obstacles to refugee protection.  Unnecessary delays cause hardship and harm to refugees; they are often the scapegoats as governments try to show how serious they are about security.

To be serious about its commitment to refugees, our government must increase the resources allocated to meet changing realities and needs.  Resources are stretched, staff are not trained or monitored adequately.  How can the program's objectives be met?  The refugee target has not increased to reflect real needs in many years.  Why has the target for refugees not gone up year by year by the same percentage as overall immigration levels?

We need to increase the number of refugees resettled in Canada - we know where the people are who need our help.  It is ironic that, although refugees and immigrants have changed our country in countless positive ways, the Ministry that has the mandate to make this happen somehow never has the resources to do its job properly.  It is crucial that there be a policy decision, at the highest level of government, to give Immigration (and other relevant ministries) the resources it needs, and to allocate resources to help the most vulnerable people.  To get public support for such a program, we need better public education.

The government and the media cannot denigrate asylum seekers, labeling them as "suspected terrorists", etc., and then expect the public to be sympathetic to refugees, including sponsored refugees.  Putting down one group of refugees or immigrants has negative repercussions for other refugees and immigrants. Canadian people have deep pockets, they are generous.  But they want to know their help is going to the right place.  Difficult as it may be, we must try to rebuild the government, media, NGO partnership which will allow us to help the many refugees waiting for our hand.

Rivka Augenfeld is President of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées immigrantes. 

This article is reproduced with the kind permission of Refugee Update.  It first appeared in the 50th issue of that journal.