Private refugee sponsorships need political boost, not stalling
My school community, my neighbours and I are among those newly involved in refugee sponsorship.
The made-in-Canada option of private refugee sponsorship is lauded internationally as an exciting innovation. Within Canada, sponsors enact values of active citizenship, humanitarianism and solidarity — while providing financial and individualized social support to refugees.
But the sponsorship system is in a rocky place. Now that the 25,000-refugee target has been met, sponsors and refugees are being told to accept a reversion to insufferably slow processing — with arrival times in 2017 or later.
Further, there is a profound gap between resources available to privately sponsored refugees and government-assisted refugees, the ones adrift in hotels and unable to start their new Canadian lives. This gap seems mind-boggling where sponsors would willingly shift their support to meet the needs of this group.
Many sponsors are like us, newcomers to refugee issues and our work builds on the tireless efforts of those who’ve laboured in this field for years. We need to work with established refugee champions to find new solutions to entrenched problems by using our expanded political mobilization. We should focus our efforts on changing government policy, both to establish floors and to raise ceilings — and to push for good government in immigration.
Some long-term refugee advocates have reminded us that, positive press aside, we all have reason to worry that current levels of public support reflect a short-term emergency response for Syrians only. More seasoned advocates caution that any calls among private sponsors to take over government resettlement responsibilities could lead to off-loading of the government’s refugee commitments.
That is why the Canadian Council on Refugees advocates for the principle of “additionality,” which means refugees brought to Canada by private sponsors come in addition to government refugee resettlement.
All sponsors should join the council in demanding a guarantee that our private support for refugees will not displace public support. The government must publicly commit to a minimum number of refugees, tied to a financial commitment sufficient to support that number. That “floor” should be at least 1 percent of the world’s new refugees each year (the 22,220 accepted in 2014 did not reach that floor).
Furthermore, if there are private sponsors willing and ready to contribute to the cost of sponsorship, the government should free up funds to admit and support more refugees. And that means raising the ceiling on the maximum number of refugees.
Immigration policy by ceiling creates a zero-sum situation where would-be sponsors cannot use their resources to expand the pool of vulnerable people we welcome. The waste of such short-sightedness is staggering, not only in terms of the political costs — sowing cynicism among demonstrably engaged citizens — but also in real humanitarian costs that are both heartbreaking and infuriating.
Last year the world saw the highest-ever number of refugees, according to the United Nations. It is clear that in addition to an emergency response, Canada needs a long-term strategy. Good government in immigration, including reasonable timelines, has a big role to play in determining whether sponsorship is part of an expanded response.
Community groups need reasonable timelines and clear communication to allow fundraising and planning. We’d also like a little less heartache knowing vulnerable people suffer while papers shuffle. This isn’t fickleness or entitlement.
Non-refugees waiting to come to Canada also need reasonable timelines but currently encounter institutionalized disrespect.
Caregivers wait 49 months to be reunited with families after earning permanent residence, refugees wait years in camps, spouses can’t be together. The rage of sponsors, as citizens demanding performance from our government, may improve our record of serving non-citizens badly.
Active sponsors speaking out now are citizens who want the system to get better while we help one family at a time. We should judge the impact of our mobilization not only in the number of families helped in this moment of crisis but also in whether we can co-construct institutions that involve citizens over the long term in asustainable and just Canadian approach to a worldwide problem.
Kelly Gallagher-Mackay is an education researcher and writer, who lives in Toronto. She also teaches leadership at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto and is a founder of SchoolsWelcomeRefugees.ca.