Asylum and Resettlement in the EU, does the Canadian Resettlement Program provide a model?

Speakers: Michel Smith, DG Refugees, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)
Martha Nixon, Former Adm., Operations, CIC
Gerry Van Kessel, Coordinator, IGC
Areti Sianni, Head of Policy and Advocacy, European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)

Date: 1 April 2003

Michel Smith provided an overarching model of the Canadian resettlement program that appropriately asserted its success as executed by the Canadian government in concert with NGOs and other private entities. In establishing the philosophical elements of the Canadian approach, Smith expressed four points explicitly.
 

• Emphasis on protection rather than integration potential;
• expedited processing of urgent protection cases;
• rapid family reunion; and
• closer relationships with partners

The Canadian resettlement program originated in the post-World War II Era as a political-humanitarian movement to receive large numbers of displaced Europeans. The process was not yet legally bound, but continued nonetheless during the Hungarian crisis of 1956 and the Czechoslovakian crisis in 1968. Large flows of non-European applicants first became beneficiaries in the early 1970s, and soon after Canadian resettlement policy was codified in law with the Immigration Act of 1976. This act has been replaced and updated by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of 2001 (effective as of June 2002).
Canada has officers stationed throughout the world who select (including making the refugee status determination) and carefully screen refugees, to be moved to Canada, to acquire permanent residence on arrival at the port of entry, and to become eligible to apply for citizenship in about three years. Adhered to in Canadian resettlement policy, says Smith, is the notion that the resettlement of traditional and non-traditional refugees remains included within a system of protection, in particular where no alternative viable solution exists. Surpassing the requirements of the Geneva Convention, the Canadian system includes protected Persons Abroad classes that are inclusive of individuals in "refugee-like" situations. Canada sits as one of only ten countries that employ offshore resettlement programs around the world; it is perhaps the second largest resettlement country of those ten, processing around 10,000 annually. These numbers are in addition to those who have already made successful asylum claims domestically, which number between 10,000 and 15,000 per annum.
Canada’s asylum system has effectively absorbed the security shocks of the international community in the post-September 11 Era, to the extent that the numbers of refugees gaining entry into the country have actually increased since late 2001, says Smith. The resettlement system remained successfully intact because of the existence of tough screening procedures. Though proposed policy changes were made within a short period of time after the tragedies, both asylum and resettlement programs continued to operate successfully within the new security environment.
One of the primary sources of Canada’s success in asylum and resettlement policies rests in the manifest support of the citizens at large. Providing the government with a crucial base for the private sponsorship programs (thus allowing the government to pursue the policy outside of traditional budgeting limitations), public support for and in the Canadian program means a wider network of capabilities and responses at the disposal of administrators and applicants alike. Very important to Mr. Smith are the capabilities made available by the proper screening tools, without which the efficacy of the Canadian (or any other) resettlement program would be considerably compromised. Access to information, the processing of applications, and accurate classification of victims all depend upon a timely and well-equipped system.
Canada also processes a number of "special cases," numbering about 500 on an annual basis, that involve additional circumstantial considerations, including elderly applicants, the tortured, certain categories of females, or anyone else deemed of immediate risk. Two years of subsistence income, issued by both the national government and the provinces are received by applicants after having been classified in this category.
Canada is more like the European welfare states than it is like the USA, so we have systems to provide subsistence, universal medical care, etc. All resettled refugees, like other immigrants, are eligible for coverage equal to that of Canadians the moment they arrive and are "landed" in Canada. In addition, refugees are provided with other types of assistance according to need. The most difficult cases- with "special needs"- not likely to become self-supporting through entry to the labour market force- are usually lined up with private sponsors too, so the Federal, Provincial, and sometimes municipal governments are involved, along with NGOs and groups of individuals who privately sign up to sponsor.
The 1988 Women at Risk Program represents one such specialized section of Canada’s refugee and resettlement program. The females involved often have no family or friends to turn to for help; to further complicate matters, these females often have dependent children as well, and have been denied forms of aid that should already have been available to them.
"Vulnerable cases," Smith contends, must be settled with the greatest rapidity, to include the greatest possible level of physical protection offered by Canada’s resettlement and asylum systems. Of 200 annual "urgent protection cases" found worldwide, 100 are channeled into Canada, where they are settled and processed in an astonishing 3-5 days.
Resettlement, within the purview of the asylum system, should represent a major tool for fashioning successful, flexible, and safe policies that balance rights of individual protection with the domestic security rights of the nation-state. According to Smith resettlement should:
 

• minimize the pull-factors
• not reduce the level of international commitment to the asylum process
• encourage first countries of asylum to provide increased quality of protection
• not reward "bad behavior"
• allow each state in the asylum process to respond as quickly as possible

In this process the policy of burden-sharing could and should be used as a lever to compel each of the involved countries, in each stage of the resettlement process, to meet their agreements fully. Countries must collectively undertake a policy analysis to reach a substantial and consistent network of burden-sharing amongst countries of asylum. Mr. Smith’s final assertion brought light to the truth that the difficulties and vexation that are companion to the field of asylum policy will only multiply in an increasingly interconnected world.
 
Reiterating the central and crucial position of migration policies to the future sustaining ability of the global (and Canadian) order, Martha Nixon reminded the captive audience that such challenges will only increase in scope as time passes. Placing Michel Smith"s specific recount of Canada"s asylum policy in a broader context of the country and its general welfare, Martha Nixon painted a picture of Canada as a country that has welcomed refugees and, particularly, resettlement applicants for many years.
Immigration represents a change of permanence to Canadian society, for citizens and lawmakers alike, says Nixon. In this sense, the notions of immigration and citizenship connect along a continuum that portends a mutually beneficial relationship. Migrants coming into Canada are assumed to be searching for residence and, eventually, citizenship. Virtually every (legal) category of migrant is considered with encouragement by the Canadian system; resettlement claims are included in these categories. From both a humanist and realist perspective, the presumed "value" of these incoming populations is a benefit rather than a cost. This is balanced with a public wariness about people taking advantage of a genuine tradition without a genuine need.
Immigration flows in Canada spike in three major cities, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Immigration policy in Canada, then, relates directly to these geographical tendencies and is consequently reflected also in resettlement policy. 225,000-240,000 immigrants enter Canada each year, and roughly 60% of the total immigration number in Canada are skilled. The remaining 40% consists of humanitarian-related immigration and refugee populations. The binding relationship between Canadian society and all legal classes of its immigration and asylum populations could not be overstated, according to Nixon.
The concerns of new security measures, especially those regarding technological improvements or dangers that certain systems would place on individual liberties, are shared by Canada with the rest of the world. The field of biometrics burgeons great debate within both Canadian government and society. Together, says Nixon, societies and governments must together engage the global debate on immigration, asylum and resettlement programs with some degree of foresight about the ever-increasing mobility of human populations across geopolitical space.
 
Gerry Van Kessel, coordinator of the IGC, brought a decidedly moderate and multinational voice to the table, representing the complex interests of the fifteen members of the IGC as well as his own personal perspective as a Canadian. Mr. Van Kessel worked to dispel a certain amount of assumptions that have typically been made in discussions and/or policy decisions relating to asylum and resettlement programs.
Public opinion, which in most countries is largely in support of both resettlement and asylum, plays a critical role in the success and maintenance of the policies, says Van Kessel. Standing largely in agreement with the other panelists on the issue, a private complement to the public policy arena, whether in terms of monetary or "moral" support, can mean a great advantage to the success of asylum and resettlement systems.
Van Kessel aired an important reality for the audience; only so much money exists for asylum and resettlement policies in state governments, which most often come out of the same budget pocket. Thus, certain expectations about the development of asylum programs alongside expansion of new resettlement policies are sometimes unrealistic.
Effective protection, though, must somehow be afforded to greater numbers, says Van Kessel. The greatest challenge for the states of the IGC and (any other resettlement countries) will always remain in determining the genuine from the non-genuine cases. Predisposing resettlement systems to an assumed status of applicants (either assuming their genuineness or lack thereof) is dangerous to the success and survival of the programs and must be avoided at all costs. Only the pursuit of information, valid and far-reaching, can promote the health and sustainability of resettlement programs in the present geopolitical environment. In this sentiment Van Kessel echoed Michel Smith"s own about the importance of up-to-date screening tools in the resettlement process.
Resettlement must involve a transitional process not of burden-shifting, but burden-sharing. The move to coordinate resettlement processes must not involve significant and unbalanced shifts of responsibility towards first countries of asylum, especially. Political gaming, when possible, should come second to the concerns and needs of resettlement and asylum seeker alike.
 
Areti Sianni, offered a non-governmental perspective on the issue of resettlement policy. Presenting elements of a recently completed 1 ½ year project that ECRE had been conducting with the financial support of the German Marshal Fund, Sianni’s contribution offered concern that not enough has been done to facilitate the orderly and legal admission of refugees to Europe and North America and resolve the apparent contradiction between a refugee’s right to seek asylum and a state’s right to control its borders (what the ECRE/USCR report coined as the "asylum and access" challenge. Encouraged by the Canadian model and the results it has produced to date, she reminded the audience that only 1% of the world"s refugees are resettled each year, far too few to meet the strains and demands of present global population flows. On an international level the speaker suggested that global asylum policy must become far more inclusive to resettlement, well beyond the handful of states that now have resettlement programmes. Ever important to the EU, especially on the eve of enlargement, is the ability of the Union to take on the demands of a collective and expansive resettlement policy that is used first and foremost as the basis for providing rescue and durable solutions to refugees in need of protection. In concluding, while recognizing that an EU resettlement programme will help provide for more orderly and legal admission of refugees, Sianni cautioned against viewing resettlement programmes as means for preventing irregular migration or as part of a strategy for migration control.
In the question period following the speakers’ list, it became quite apparent that the creation of a proper and comprehensive definition of "effective protection" stood as the crux of the resettlement/asylum issue. A further stress was made on making decisions based on the notion of vulnerability, not "qualification." The collective opinions of the panel on the UK proposal for external EU reception centres, known as Convention Plus, received mixed reviews by the panel, exhibiting fairly the overall complexity of views and issues present in the asylum/resettlement debate.