There is both good and bad news in Bill C – 31, Canada’s refugee law which came into effect in December 2012. On the good side, the government is addressing some intractable problems which have grown burdensome over time. For, while Canada is unusually open to new immigrants, the point system used to determine who can immigrate to Canada is a rigorous one, and adapted closely to Canada’s economic needs; so much so that it seems unlikely that a majority of current Canadians could successfully apply.
Therefore many, perhaps most, people fleeing civil war and persecution would not satisfy immigration requirements. For this reason, refugee policy operates under different criteria than general immigration policy. The refugee system is designed to provide asylum for those in danger of imprisonment, torture or murder in their country of origin. Therefore, if someone were living in poverty, was HIV positive and had no prospect of treatment, they would not qualify to immigrate to Canada. If, on the other hand, their medical condition made it highly likely that they might be persecuted in their homeland, they could qualify for refugee status. It is such ambiguities that refugee policy seeks to address.
Another major issue is the backlog in processing applications. In hot spots for emigration such as Nairobi, Pretoria, Cairo and Islamabad, backlogs have reached five years. As a result, the system is unable to deal with claimants in immediate danger to life and limb. So the government has temporarily frozen applications from these locations.
Under the old system there was unlimited sponsorship by private organizations, with the result that some groups put forward any cases that came to their attention. Now there is a cap on the number of applications that each organization can submit. This is partly to ensure that resources are available for resettling newcomers.
One of the more controversial aspects of Bill C – 31 is the provision of three – tiered health services for refugee claimants, in contrast to the previous full service for all applicants. Now only refugees identified by the government will receive full health coverage, while refugees who are privately sponsored will receive medicare (i.e., they will have to pay for prescriptions and unfunded procedures), and refugees who apply from within Canada, or a point of entry such as Buffalo, will receive no coverage at all. Part of the reasoning behind these distinctions includes examples of refugee claimants in the past who have applied to Canada, received medical treatment here, and then simply gone back home.
These rules place a new burden on churches and other sponsoring agencies, as they would have to pay the entire medical tab for any refugees of the third class whom they attempt to resettle. Up until now the average cost for sponsoring a single refugee has been around $12,000, but agencies are wary this cost could increase considerably under the new legislation.
Another unpopular aspect of the new regulations involves the repeal of the “source country class.” Certain countries affected by on – going unrest and civil war, including Colombia, El Salvador, Sudan, Congo and Sierra Leone have been major sources of refugee claims. Under the new rules, Canada will no longer accept applications from these sources. Yet many agencies have people on the ground in these troubled areas and now must find other ways to address their problems and relocate resources.
The freeze on applications from some regions and the closing of some offices is frustrating as there is increasing need. (For example, the application office in Damascus was closed in January 2012 due to the civil war in Syria, and now there are over two million Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries to deal with.) One agency estimated that only one per cent of the world’s more than 10 million refugees will be successfully resettled. The relatively ineffective ways of dealing with this problem are creating second and third generation refugees in some areas.
Generally speaking, the new laws put the onus on the refugee claimant to prove his or her case, and in a shorter time period. For some categories of claimants, there is no appeal after the first hearing.
Another attempt to streamline the refugee process is to categorize refugees according to Designated Country of Origin. There are certain countries, especially in Europe, which are considered to have exemplary rule of law. Refugee claims from these countries will now be treated more speedily than others and applicants will not be able to appeal decisions. The government is free to add other countries to this list. The fear is that unpopular minorities trying to leave these DCOs will not receive a full hearing. Also that, if conditions worsen in DCOs such as Mexico, Canada will fail to respond.
Under the present system Canada has the programs in place to accept 24,000 to 29,000 refugees a year (or roughly one – tenth of our immigration rate). However, in recent years, the actual number of refugees resettled has been less than half that number. Some agencies are disappointed that the government isn’t doing more to increase numbers, although the streamlining process is intended to work in that direction.
Beyond the matters of actual law that the federal government has put forward, it would appear that one source of tension and unease is the rhetoric and language sometimes used by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. For example, one press release refers to Bill C – 31 as dealing with abuse from “bogus claimants:” “For too long, Canada’s generous asylum system has been vulnerable to abuse. Under the new asylum system, genuine refugees fleeing persecution will receive protection more quickly. At the same time, bogus asylum claimants and those who abuse our generous system at great expense to taxpayers, will be removed much faster.”
The Department has been criticized by groups including the Canadian Council for Refugees and Amnesty International, for being more concerned about being taken advantage of by some than about actually helping the large numbers of people in dire need. However, churches and other agencies are working with the government on new sponsorship initiatives so that the full story on whether the new laws will help or hinder the process can be told.
