BVOR             Blended Visa Office-Referred (Refugee cases)

GAC                 Global Affairs Canada

GAR                 Government-assisted refugee

H&C                 Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations

IDPs                 Internally displaced persons

IOM                 International Organization for Migration

IRCC                Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

IRPA                Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

IRPR                Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations

ISIS                  Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as Daesh (Arabic name) or Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

JAS                  Joint Assistance Sponsorship (Refugee cases)

LGBTI              Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex

OSCE              Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

PSR                 Privately sponsored refugee

SAH                 Sponsorship agreement holder

UN                   United Nations

UNHCR            United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UN OHCHR     United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

UPP                Urgent Protection Program

PREAMBLE

On 16 June 2016, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (the Committee) agreed to study options on how Canada can “best support vulnerable groups in inaccessible regions”.[1] The Committee met 18 July 2016 to 20 July 2016 and heard from 32 witnesses as well as from officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Global Affairs Canada. The Committee also received several written submissions.

INTRODUCTION

Forced displacement worldwide is at an all-time high, with 65.3 million people affected.[2] Of this total, 21.3 million are refugees and an estimated 10 million people are stateless. An additional 40.8 million people are internally displaced[3] as a result of conflict and violence.[4]

Canada contributes to the global effort to find durable solutions for refugees and the internally displaced. The Government of Canada’s objectives with respect to refugees are clearly articulated in legislation, the first being “to recognize that the refugee program is in the first instance about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted.”[5]

As a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its associated Protocol, Canada participates actively with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), resettling people in need of protection from around the world. Canada also provides humanitarian assistance to populations in conflict zones, as well as aid targeted to security and stabilization as well as development.[6] The Committee’s study focused on Canada’s contribution to addressing vulnerability and providing protection through immigration measures.

The Committee examined immigration measures to support vulnerable groups in inaccessible regions, including accelerated resettlement and other humanitarian measures. The study raised important policy considerations, such as how refugees are prioritized for resettlement to Canada, what more could be done to assist internally displaced persons, and how the refugee resettlement program could be improved and the potential for private sponsorship maximized.

The compelling protection needs of various groups were brought to the Committee’s attention by advocates and courageous individuals who shared their own stories. This testimony reinforced the importance of Canada’s engagement in refugee resettlement, while underscoring the reality that a single country cannot help everyone who could benefit from protection.

This report is structured into three parts. The first part sets out the current immigration measures available for the protection of vulnerable groups – resettlement and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The testimony heard by the Committee is laid out in the second part, divided into two sections, one presenting the cross-cutting themes that emerged from the witnesses’ evidence and the other presenting case studies chosen by the Committee to help us understand specific needs of vulnerable communities and how Canada can assist them through immigration programs. Lastly, the third part contains the Committee’s recommendations for specific immigration measures and the conclusion.

CURRENT IMMIGRATION MEASURES FOR PROTECTION

UNHCR is the organization mandated by the United Nations (UN) to lead and coordinate action for the worldwide protection of refugees and the resolution of refugee problems. Traditionally, UNHCR has employed three “durable solutions” for refugees: local integration into the country of first asylum; resettlement to a different country; and return home, known as repatriation.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its associated Protocol define a refugee as a person who, “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” This definition of a Convention refugee is used in Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and its regulations, which form the framework for the country’s immigration measures to provide protection from overseas, including resettlement and humanitarian and compassionate provisions.[7]

A. Resettlement to Canada

Each year, Canada historically has resettled about 10,000 to 12,000 resettled refugees – or 1 out of every 10 of the refugees resettled globally[8] – through two main programs: the government-assisted refugee (GAR) program and the private sponsorship of refugees (PSR) program. As described below, refugees resettled through both programs have to meet the same eligibility and admissibility requirements and are included in the government's annual plans for new arrivals. Under the PSR program, Canadian citizens and permanent residents formally commit to providing social, emotional, and financial support for the refugees, and in some cases identify individuals for resettlement.

1. Eligibility and Admissibility

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) establish two categories of refugees eligible for resettlement through a permanent resident visa: the Convention refugee abroad class and the country of asylum class.[9]

According to the Regulations, persons outside their country of origin or of habitual residence can be determined Convention refugees if they meet the definition set out in the UN Convention as explained above (i.e., fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion). The country of asylum class applies for persons outside their country of nationality or of habitual residence who “have been, and continue to be, seriously and personally affected by civil war, armed conflict or massive violation of human rights in each of those countries.” Both of these definitions exclude people at risk in their country of origin, whether internally displaced or at risk due to state-sponsored persecution.

The Regulations also provide for a temporary resident permit for protection reasons for people who have applied for refugee protection outside Canada.[10] Persons issued temporary resident permits may choose to eventually become permanent residents and be resettled, but may also choose to return home.[11]

Within these refugee groups, Canadian law also defines people who are vulnerable or in need of urgent protection. The Urgent Protection Program (UPP) follows special procedures: urgent cases are referred by the UNHCR and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) decides whether to resettle them within 24 to 48 hours.[12] Persons resettled in need of urgent protection are issued a temporary resident permit since an admissibility examination is required before permanent residence and it cannot occur in these timeframes. Under this exceptional process, refugees can be in safety within three to five days. In 2011, the department stated that these cases were “extremely resource-intensive and only a small number of persons (up to 100) can be processed on this basis per year.”[13]

The definition of the terms “urgent need of protection” and “vulnerable” as provided in the Regulations is as follows:

Urgent need of protection means, in respect of a member of the Convention refugee abroad or the country of asylum class, that their life, liberty or physical safety is under immediate threat and, if not protected, the person is likely to be

• a) killed;
• b) subjected to violence, torture, sexual assault or arbitrary imprisonment; or
• c) returned to their country of nationality or of their former habitual residence.

Vulnerable means, in respect of a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances, that the person has a greater need of protection than other applicants for protection abroad because of the person’s particular circumstances that give rise to a heightened risk to their physical safety.[14]

Interviews by visa officers of IRCC in missions abroad are generally required to assess the admissibility of individuals once they have been referred for resettlement. Resettled refugees have to meet all of the usual admissibility criteria with respect to criminality, security and war crimes, but are exempt from two admissibility requirements: financial reasons and health grounds.[15]

Further, when processing an application for permanent residence as a refugee, officers must determine if the applicant will successfully establish himself or herself in Canada. This requirement does not apply to vulnerable groups and persons in need of urgent protection.[16]

The ability to conduct interviews may be hampered by safety concerns for the refugees, for IRCC’s staff and logistical feasibility. Staff must also work with host countries to allow Canadian officers to enter, access applicants and permit successful applicants to leave.[17] For example, Robert Orr, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, of IRCC explained to the Committee that “significant security precautions” were being taken as the department makes plans to interview Syrians in Northern Iraq.[18]

2. Identification for Resettlement

a) Government-Assisted Refugees

GARs are generally brought to the attention of IRCC through UNHCR referral. Michael Casasola, Officer in Charge in Canada, Office of the UNHCR, explained to the Committee that the criteria used to prioritize refugees for resettlement was established with the 20 countries that have resettlement programs.[19] Prior to resettlement, persons in need of protection must first be registered for refugee status determination to be recognized as a refugee. They can then be assessed and prioritized for resettlement and referral[20] according to the following criteria:

We look for things like that, survivors of violence and torture, and the most common categories are refugee women at risk, survivors of violence and torture. Any more common than that is legal and physical protection needs. The people are in danger in the country of asylum, they might be a minority, and they might be in danger in the context of that; and we will resettle them because of that, anywhere in the world. They might be facing refoulement, forced return to their country of origin, or they may be detained because refugees are not supposed to be detained because they are refugees.[21]

David Manicom, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, of IRCC reminded the Committee that Canada’s resettlement program operates in conjunction with global efforts to assist vulnerable populations. He explained the value of partnering with UNHCR and other resettlement countries:

By working with the United Nations in this way and contributing to resettlement efforts for priority populations as identified by the international community, Canada is able to maximize our contribution to global efforts to assist vulnerable individuals.[22]

...

We have previously, on multiple occasions, chaired the tripartite consultations on resettlement, which involves the entire humanitarian and non-governmental sector, as well as the member states of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the agency itself.[23]

The Regulations also provide the Canadian government with some flexibility on accepting referrals, although it’s unclear if these provisions have ever been used. For instance, the government may enter into agreements with other referral agencies. Also, in exceptional circumstances, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship can designate a geographical location from which permanent visa applications can be received without a referral.[24]

b) Private Sponsorship of Refugees

The PSR program is unique among Canada’s resettlement programs in that private sponsors may refer refugees for resettlement to IRCC.[25] Sponsorship Agreement Holders (SAHs) that have signed agreements with IRCC to conduct ongoing refugee resettlement may identify refugees to sponsor, but these refugees need to fall within the legislative definitions of Convention Refugee Class or Country of Asylum Class described above. Other private sponsorship groups (Community Sponsors and Groups of Five) can only apply to sponsor people that have been recognized as refugees by the UNHCR or by a foreign state.[26]

c) Joint programs

There are two other streams of collaborative refugee programs where the government identifies the people for resettlement and private sponsors provide settlement support and/or some funding. These are the Blended Visa Office-Referred (BVOR) and the Joint Assistance Sponsorship (JAS) programs.

The BVOR resettlement program is a partnership between UNHCR, the federal government, and private sponsors. Under this program, UNHCR refers refugees for resettlement and the government and private sponsors each provide financial support for the sponsored family’s first year in Canada. The private sponsor also provides emotional and social settlement support for the same duration.[27]

GARs identified as having special needs may be designated for Joint Assistance Sponsorships (JAS cases), thereby entitling them to enhanced support.[28]There is a particular program within the JAS subgroup called the “Women at Risk” program for women and children left without family or friends and exposed to a higher risk of violence or harassment.[29]

In the past, the government has also used humanitarian and compassionate considerations to allow private sponsors to resettle a particular group. An example of this occurred in 2007, when the then-Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued instructions to facilitate the immigration of stateless Vietnamese living in the Philippines who had close family members in Canada ready to privately sponsor them.[30]

3. Immigration Levels Plan, Caps and Allocations

The Immigration Levels Plan, established annually by IRCC, places limits on how many refugees can be resettled to Canada. The target for 2016 (between 41,000 and 44,800 people) includes the one-time mass influx of Syrian refugees, and does not reflect how Canada has traditionally planned for these newcomers. Over the period 2005 to 2014, an average of 11,456 refugees arrived annually in Canada either as resettled refugees, government-assisted or privately sponsored refugees.[31]

The total target for refugees is broken down into smaller targets and allocated to specific overseas visa offices. SAHs are assigned caps on the number of refugees they can sponsor, sometimes including sub-caps for specific visa offices. The total number of new sponsorship applications allocated for SAHs, for the year beginning 1 March 2016 is 10,500.[32] Of this total, 1,800 are reserved for IRCC field offices with the greatest backlogs of applications, while the rest may be submitted to any IRCC visa office.

B. Humanitarian and Compassionate Provisions

For persons who do not meet Canada’s eligibility requirements for resettlement as refugees, applications can be made under humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) provisions in IRPA, designed for individuals to be able to overcome immigration requirements in exceptional circumstances (sections 25 and 25.1 of IRPA) or because there is a specific public policy in place (section 25.2 of IRPA) established by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The government has described these provisions as follows:

The discretionary authority of subsections 25(1), 25.1(1) and 25.2(1) is the most flexible tool available for addressing the diverse situations of persons in need of humanitarian assistance around the world. This includes natural disasters, international crises, or specific instances of religious or other forms of persecution. Using these tools, Canada can respond on a case-by-case basis to individuals and groups in need of protection, regardless of where they are located.[33]

In the event that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship establishes a public policy to allow for H&C review of applications for a specific group, there is no need for IRCC to request an UNHCR referral to process those applications.

While Mr. Manicom of IRCC told the Committee that public policy considerations had been used many times, little is known about how this discretionary provision is used, as there is no systematic reporting of such initiatives. Mr. Manicom provided two specific examples, one where Canada responded to a request from UNHCR and one where Canada asked UNHCR for specific referrals:

From 2012 to 2014, in response to a request from the United Nations Refugee Agency following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Canada admitted 40 Haitian women and their dependents. These were single women who had been displaced, who had been subject to sexual violence, and who lacked other protections.[34]

...

If we had a program that was dedicated to one group and we were asking for referral specifically from one group, as we have done under a number of public policies, for example – one of which I cited and I was deeply involved in the operationalization of, in India for Tibetans – then, of course, that's a very isolated program.[35]

An example of the use of H&C on the grounds of public policy considerations where the UNHCR was not involved as a referral agency is the acceptance of Afghan interpreters that had served the Canadian Forces.[36]

Mr. Manicom confirmed that public policy considerations “could be used to resettle internally displaced populations.... From a legal point of view, it has the authorities required.”[37]  

TESTIMONY ON IMMIGRATION MEASURES TO PROTECT VULNERABLE GROUPS

The Committee heard witness testimony describing vulnerable populations in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia and in Africa where the safety and security of individuals was compromised by very different circumstances. Witnesses identified gaps and possible solutions in Canada’s immigration measures to provide protection for these individuals. Despite the wide range of situations discussed, some common solutions came to the forefront such as revisiting the Resettlement program. That said, despite common challenges, the Committee recognizes that each vulnerable group it heard about during the course of this study also has specific needs. These are described in further detail below.

A. Cross-cutting themes

1. Improving the Resettlement Program

As Brian Dyck, Chair, Canadian Refugee Sponsorship Agreement Holders Association, said “it's important to focus on building a robust refugee resettlement system that can handle the ongoing demands and at the same time respond to the urgent protection situations that come up.”[38]

As the Committee heard witnesses speak about various ways to better assist persons in inaccessible or difficult to reach areas, much was said concerning internally displaced persons, and specifically the referral and selection processes available to them for resettlement.

a) Identifying and Prioritizing Vulnerable Groups

As Mr. Casasola of UNHCR informed the Committee, it is the agency’s assessment that “1.19 million refugees are in need of resettlement. In contrast, only an estimated 120,000 resettlement spaces are made available to UNHCR by resettlement countries each year.”[39]

Many witnesses advocated for priority processing for applications from the specific group they believed to be most vulnerable. However, Mr. Dyck reminded the Committee that “there are many forgotten groups around the world and this committee has been hearing from them. To hear the plight of those people is a very important thing. However, it can be difficult to decide whom to help when we cannot help everyone.”[40]

Some witnesses were in favour of a standard approach to guide decision-making.[41] Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees, argued that targeting specific groups could compromise equity and that “it is important to design policies and programs that are equitable to all refugees globally without targeting particular nationalities or ethnic groups.... We need to avoid having decisions made based on which groups have the best lobbyists, which groups have the best access to the minister's ear, or which groups catch the media's interest. We note the rise in recent years of ministerial priorities in the private sponsorship program, which we consider very problematic.”[42]

Others thought Canada should target groups they perceived as the most vulnerable of the vulnerable,[43]

The option for resettlement in destination countries is usually preserved for the most vulnerable, who cannot be repatriated to their homeland or locally integrated in the host country simply because they cannot go back to their normal lives.

In the case of Iraq and Syria, the vulnerable groups are ethnic and religious minorities, political activists, women at risk, LGBT communities, atheists, converted and secular Muslims.[44]

Some witnesses argued that people subjected to genocide should have top priority. Chantal Desloges Lawyer, Desloges Law Group, stated that “[e]very refugee faces a well-founded fear of persecution, but not every refugee is a genocide victim.”[45] Representatives from the humanitarian organization Samaritan’s Purse spoke of the importance of applying principles such as “humanity” and “impartiality” but also argued that “genocide is the most heinous crime” and therefore merits prioritization.[46] Christine Morrissey, Special Advisor, Rainbow Refugee, suggested that vulnerable groups should have faster processing: “I think that when an application comes in where clearly this is a group that has been identified as vulnerable, it needs to get priority. It needs to be put on top of the pile or in a separate pile, and not at the bottom of the pile and work its way up to the top. That's what happens now.”[47]

There was also some discussion of how priorities could be monitored, with some witnesses agreeing that if Canada were to identify priority groups for resettlement, it would be important to have a mechanism for ensuring the priorities were being met.[48] The Committee heard that for a period, IRCC tracked the religious and ethnic affiliation of resettled Syrian refugees. However, this monitoring of priorities (called the areas of focus) had to be conducted manually using officers’ interview notes, as the IT system does not allow for the systemic collection of such information about refugees. Further monitoring of priorities among all resettled refugees remained at the discussion stage and was not put into practice.[49]

b) Referral and Selection of Vulnerable Groups

Opposing voices were heard regarding UNHCR’s role in the referral of vulnerable groups for resettlement to Canada. Ms. Dench stated that “[t]he UNHCR has the mandate to identify vulnerable groups for resettlement. We recommend letting the UNHCR take the lead”[50] while Rabea Allos, Director, Catholic Refugee Sponsors Council, considered that “Canada should consult other organizations in Canada to identify refugees rather than following the agenda of the UNHCR.”[51]

Witnesses noted that if the Canadian government wanted to facilitate the resettlement of internally displaced persons, it would have no choice but to rely on organizations other than UNHCR. Noting that “[t]he UNHCR would not have the legal authority to refer internally displaced persons to Canada”, Mr. Manicom informed the Committee that the German government worked with the International Organization for Migration to resettle Yazidi women and girls, as an example.[52]

In light of the fact that UNHCR cannot assist in identifying those internally displaced in their country of origin for resettlement, witnesses suggested that Canada should recognize that other non-governmental organizations had on the ground knowledge[53] or expertise[54] and could fill this role. Gloria Nafziger, Refugee and Migrant Coordinator, Toronto Office, Amnesty International explained:

The challenge in the program is finding adequate referral agents, organizations, individuals, that have the capacity, the willingness, and the ability to determine who of those source country individuals are most vulnerable, because I think the criteria of most vulnerable still always has to apply. I think the challenge they're in is actually finding the referral agency and the screening of the applications, but I don't think that should be a barrier to the introduction of such a program.[55]  

As was described earlier, there is a requirement that candidates for resettlement be interviewed by Canadian immigration officials. When these vulnerable individuals are located in areas where there is no processing office, this step often leads to delays. Accessibility is generally identified as a significant hurdle for vulnerable groups. As stated by Drew Boyd, Director of Operations, The Sentinel Project for Genocide Prevention, “One of the most challenging issues to overcome when working in unstable environments is that of accessibility. That means not just the ability of organizations to bring assistance where it is needed, but also the ability of threatened communities themselves to participate in the assistance programs and benefit from them.”[56] Asked about best practices, Mr. Casasola of UNHCR responded:

Certainly Canada's policy is to interview refugees, and some countries will actually waive the interview.… Where they are convinced by the totality of the evidence we have provided on the case, they'll accept it. One of Canada's best practices—started by Mr. Alexander—which has helped facilitate the movement of the Syrians in large numbers has been to recognize all refugees on a prima facie basis. It has required less work, as there has already been conceptual acceptance, and I believe that the current minister has accepted this same approach.[57]

In the case of recent and current Syrian refugees, as described above, their recognition as prima facie refugees means that at face value, given their circumstances, they are automatically recognized as refugees and any formal steps for refugee determination status, including the interview, is no longer required.

Other witnesses echoed the need for a more flexible approach to Canadian practices either by suggesting that a second interview by a Canadian official may not be necessary (prima facie refugee)[58] or that these interviews be done by telephone.[59]

c) The Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program

Two witnesses spoke to the costs related to the private sponsorship program. Jonathan Fon, Vice-President, Canadian Asian Community Think Thank, recommended lowering the financial requirement to sponsor,[60] which ranges from $12,600 for an individual to $32,500 for a family of six.[61] David Berson suggested lowering the cost for the resettled refuges by waiving the transportation loans[62] for the most vulnerable refugees.[63]

Ms. Nafziger stated there was a need to review the application process and specifically the forms used in sponsorship referrals, pointing out that “the current system is often onerous for private sponsors and unable to be responsive in a crisis.”[64]

d) Immigration Level Plans and Caps

Although Canada’s initiative to resettle a large number of Syrian refugees was praised, Mr. Casasola of UNHCR urged “countries to continue to expand their resettlement programs.”[65] Most witnesses speaking on behalf of vulnerable groups asked that the number of spots for resettlement be increased[66] or the limit be waived altogether.[67] Ms. Desloges asked that “[IRCC] lift or at least better manage the caps on sponsorship agreement holders. Private sponsors are really excited right now, and they're willing to back up their enthusiasm with their wallets.”[68]

2. Expand Eligibility for Resettlement to Include People Residing in their Country of Origin

Many witnesses wanted people residing in their country of origin to be eligible for resettlement. With the current internationally-accepted legal definition for refugee dating back to 1951, the global refugee framework has a gap as “there exists really no or little formal protection one can offer to internally displaced persons.”[69] The urgency of the issue was highlighted by Balpreet Singh, Legal Counsel, World Sikh Organization of Canada, who stated, “right now there's no viable option for those individuals who are internally displaced”.[70]

In proposing solutions for people in need of protection who remain residents in their country of origin, many witnesses referenced the Source Country Class, a former category of resettlement in the Regulations repealed in 2011.[71] For instance, Rainbow Railroad stated:

For urgent cases who [sic] cannot leave their home-country, Canada already has experience with Source Country Class resettlement and this avenue could be considered for individuals who face acute risk but are unable to leave their home-country for legitimate reasons.[72]

The Source Country Class allowed persons who resided in a country listed in a schedule to the Regulations to be eligible for resettlement if they were seriously and personally affected by civil war or armed conflict, had been detained without charges or punished for an act that in Canada would be considered a legitimate exercise of civil rights pertaining to political dissent or trade union activity, or had a fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. In 2011, there were six countries that were designated: Columbia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, El Salvador, Guatemala, Sierra Leone and Sudan.[73] Direct access to Canadian visa officers without referral from a third-party organization was granted in those six countries.

Sarita Bhatla, Director General, Refugee Affairs, IRCC, testified to the reasons the Source Country Class was found inefficient in 2011, one of them being that “it was very difficult and cumbersome, with changing country conditions around the world, to take countries on or off that list, not to mention the diplomatic considerations.”[74] However, when asked, Mr. Manicom indicated that it was possible to bring back the Source Country Class.[75]

Some witnesses suggested that the Source Country Class might be best suited for privately sponsored refugees.[76] As Professor Audrey Macklin explained:

Relying on private mechanisms more than government assistance for refugees removes the burden on the government of finding a way to identify refugees in a proactive way in circumstances where the local government may not be receptive and, indeed, may be antagonistic to that enterprise.[77]

Professor Macklin also thought that the Source Country Class would be most effective “in circumstances where the Government of Canada is otherwise able to operate its immigration system—that is to say, in a country where people are otherwise able to leave, whether for family reunification or as economic immigrants.” This idea was echoed by another witness who stated this provision would be useful where it was possible to secure safe passage from the country of nationality.[78]

3. Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds

Witnesses proposed that humanitarian and compassionate grounds be used to assist specific groups, as indicated in the case studies section that follows.[79] Ms. Desloges also recommended that humanitarian and compassionate provisions be applied more frequently:

The first [tool] is the increased use of the humanitarian and compassionate provisions in section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to cover off situations where people are not outside their country of origin—for example, internally displaced people—and people who do not have UNHCR recognition. That would cover people who are not able, for whatever reason, to access UNHCR registration or to access UNHCR camps.[80]

The Committee also heard that specific instructions must be drafted for visa officers and immigration officers in Canada to ensure the proper implementation of the discretionary provisions found at sections 25, 25.1 and 25.2 of IRPA, which would allow for better outcomes in processing of these applications.[81]

4. Alternative Immigration Programs

After describing the large volume of persons in need of resettlement and how the current program cannot meet those needs, Mr. Casasola of UNHCR encouraged “states to develop new pathways” such as “family reunion, academic scholarships, apprenticeships and labour schemes.”[82] Other witnesses underlined that study and work permits with more flexible requirements could provide legitimate access to Canada for people in need of protection.[83]

Several witnesses saw the issuance of temporary resident permits as means to allow a vulnerable person to reach Canada.[84] Ms. Desloges suggested they could be used for urgent cases involving immediate risk.[85] Ms. Dench suggested that having family in Canada could be a criterion to issue a temporary resident permit in times of human rights crisis.[86]

As to specific recommendations regarding the current family sponsorship program and how Canada could improve it in order to assist internally displaced persons, one witness identified three changes:

[Canada] could enhance family reunification schemes by removing financial barriers to families in Canada who wish to sponsor family members who are IDPs and living in refugee-like situations. Canada could adopt a broader definition of the family for the purpose of family class sponsorships, again with respect to IDPs. Eliminating the excluded family member rule to ensure that initial omissions in immigration applications do not necessarily lead to lifelong separations is very important.[87]

B. Case Studies: Different Immigration Measures for Different Circumstances

The Committee chose to look at the situation of specific vulnerable groups in inaccessible regions in order to gain a better understanding of the protection needs and gaps in current immigration policies and regulations. The Committee heard about situations where the safety and security of the person is compromised by ethnic and religious intolerance, such as Sikhs in Afghanistan and the Rohingya in Myanmar; where security of the person is compromised by the political regime, such as in North Korea and Eritrea; where security of the person is compromised by the non-exercise of rights recognized in Canada, such as the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) people and writers worldwide; as well as situations where security of the person is compromised by armed conflict such as in Ukraine, South Sudan, and the Assyrian and Yazidi people in Syria and Iraq.

Learning about the plight of these specific groups served to reinforce the Committee’s awareness and concern for the depth of their human suffering and need. This testimony also allowed the Committee to hear how Canada can make a difference in specific ways, whether through a special measure on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to resettle a group of Yazidi women and girls, creating a permanent private sponsorship program targeted to LGBTI individuals, or offering displaced young Ukrainians more opportunities for temporary stay in Canada.

1. Sikhs in Afghanistan

Afghan Sikhs and Hindus are by all definitions communities under siege and in serious danger.[88]

Witnesses before the Committee described how rising religious intolerance and extremism is making life in Afghanistan more dangerous and insufferable for Sikhs and Hindus. They stated that the Afghan government has acknowledged its inability to protect these minorities, and has proposed that these entire minority populations be relocated to a common township. Witnesses rejected this solution, positing that it would only increase Sikhs’ and Hindus’ vulnerability.

Witnesses described the restrictions on various freedoms and the vulnerability currently experienced by Sikhs in Afghanistan:

Sikhs in Afghanistan find themselves oppressed in almost every facet of life. They're unable to leave their homes freely for fear of attack and harassment. Sikhs are unable to find employment or to freely operate their businesses. Sikh children are unable to attend school for fear of harassment, physical attack, and pressure to convert. Sikh women are unable to leave their homes unaccompanied and must wear the burka. Girls are routinely married by the age of 16, because families fear that they may be kidnapped, raped, and forcibly converted and married if they don't marry earlier. Sikhs and Hindus are unable to respectfully cremate their dead, as funeral processions are often stoned and forbidden from proceeding. Funerals must be held clandestinely. Land that Sikhs and Hindus have lawfully owned for centuries has been occupied. Police and government officials are unable or unwilling to do anything about it. As a result, large numbers of Sikhs and Hindus live collectively in gurdwaras.[89]

They indicated that as conditions worsen, travel for Afghan Sikhs has become more difficult, as Sikh articles of faith make them easily identifiable.[90] Those who could move have relocated to urban centres or left Afghanistan; only the vulnerable without sufficient resources remain.

Mr. Singh indicated that Sikhs and Hindus have lived in Afghanistan for hundreds of years and that if there was a way to provide them with a safe continued existence in their country of origin, it would be the priority. However, he suspects that remaining in Afghanistan has become untenable for most of the community and seeks Canada’s help confirming through non-governmental organizations if that is the case. Witnesses suggested that fleeing to neighbouring Pakistan or India is not a viable option, due to discrimination and systematic denial of legal status and government services to minorities.[91]

However, the Committee also heard about the work of the late Honourable Manmeet Bhullar, former member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. He, along with associates, listened to the plight of Afghan Sikhs, and helped some to obtain safe passage to India and register as refugees with UNHCR.[92] As a result, a group of 200 Afghan Sikhs have temporarily been relocated in the Punjab region as refugees, and are being equipped with the necessary livelihood training and education. According to witnesses, it was also Mr. Bhullar’s vision that this group of vulnerable people could be resettled to Canada, a vision that his family and community carries still.

Witnesses suggested that resettlement to third countries is the only viable long-term durable solution for Afghan minorities,[93] but noted that they would not currently be eligible for resettlement to Canada, as they reside in their country of origin.[94] As such, witnesses recommended that Afghan Sikhs and Hindus be eligible for resettlement through a re-engaged or reinstated Source Country Class.[95] They indicated that there is sufficient support in the Sikh-Canadian community to partner as private sponsors if this legal avenue was created.[96]

2. The Rohingya in South East Asia

The Rohingya Muslims have been described as the most persecuted minority on earth.[97]

The Rohingya live mostly in Rakhine State, also known as Arakan, in Myanmar. Chris Lewa, Director, the Arakan Project, described the protection needs of the Rohingya, saying:

For decades, they have faced intense discrimination and exclusion on the basis of their religion and ethnicity. They have been rendered stateless. Their movements are severely restricted. They are subject to gross human rights abuses by the Myanmar authority. Moreover, long-standing hostility by Rakhine Buddhists broke out in communal violence against them in 2012, and for the past four years, 120,000 Rohingya have remained confined to segregated displacement camps in Myanmar.[98]

Economic hardship and violence have forced more than 100,000 Rohingyas to flee their homes and live in camps for IDPs in Myanmar. Ms. Lewa stated that these camps are segregated, because Rohingya are not allowed by authorities to leave.[99] The living conditions in the camps are dire, without access to the local hospital – the local Rakhine community does not allow Rohingya patients – and there is a lack of proper shelter and sanitation.

Many Rohingyas have fled to neighbouring Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia. However, many are unregistered with UNHCR and it is hard to estimate their number. Ms. Lewa explained that a significant concern for those who have fled is that:

none of these countries have ratified a refugee convention or statelessness convention, nor have they enacted domestic legislation to protect refugees. The Rohingya in these states generally are considered to be irregular migrants. Malaysia, Indonesia, and India allow UNHCR to assist the refugees, including Rohingya, but UNHCR registration only provides informal protection and can be difficult to access.[100]

Ms. Lewa made six recommendations to the Committee. She called upon Canada to expand eligibility for resettlement by repealing “the requirement that we settle refugees sponsored by community groups … who are recognized and referred by the UNHCR.”[101] She also suggested that Canada consider the “reintroduction of the source country class to allow resettlement of particularly vulnerable Rohingya from within Myanmar.”[102] Ms. Lewa also recommended that the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration increase the number of Rohingyan refugees selected through government-sponsored refugee resettlement programs.”[103]

She also suggested some non-immigration actions to be considered by the Government of Canada such as continued “advocacy, with respect to the Government of Myanmar, for democracy and human rights and the urgent need for a resolution to the marginalization of the Rohingya”[104] and, with respect to states in Asia, “for regularizing the Rohingya, including in Malaysia, through the issuing of work permits.”[105] Finally, Ms. Lewa also suggested that Canada “increase its support for the provision of basic services, including education, to Rohingyan refugees in all countries.”[106]

3.  North Korean Defectors

The United Nations Human Rights Council's report … on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea concluded that the violations of human rights constitute crimes against humanity. The gravity, scale, and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.[107]

Senator Yonah Martin appeared before the Committee to share findings from a recent report from the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled The Forgotten Many: Human Rights and North Korean Defectors.[108] She described the protection needs of North Koreans at home and in transit to securing freedom:

Living conditions have deteriorated to extreme levels of deprivation in which the rights to food, health, and other essential needs are categorically denied. Any North Koreans who have successfully defected have done so for their survival, and until they have secured refuge in a safe country, their lives and the lives of possibly three generations of family members remain at serious risk if they are caught in China for illegally crossing the border, or in other countries of Southeast Asia, if and when they are repatriated to North Korea.[109]

Senator Martin explained that it is very difficult for North Koreans to reach safety. Most defectors go through China and on to Southeast Asia, and Thailand in particular. The Senate Committee heard that 70% to 80% of defectors escaping North Korea are women, and they are subjected to sexual violence while in transit. In Thailand, defectors are held in detention centres until they receive an exit visa to go to South Korea or to the United States, which has enacted special legislation to receive them. While South Korea identifies all persons living on the Korean peninsula as South Korean nationals and will accept North Korean defectors, Senator Martin explained that many defectors are afraid and unwilling to return to the region.[110]

Because of the durable solution available in South Korea for North Korean defectors, they are generally not referred for resettlement to Canada. Senator Martin referenced the recommendations made by the Senate Committee to address this gap in protection. The Senate Committee recommended a special measure to resettle vulnerable North Korean defectors – women and children, detained in Thailand – on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, noting that the Korean-Canadian community was prepared to partner on such an initiative.[111] The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights also recommended “that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended to create an exception to the definition of a refugee to allow North Korean defectors to qualify for refugee status in Canada”.[112]

4.  Eritrea

The gross, widespread and systematic violations of human rights in the country, amounting to crimes against humanity, continue to be the main reason for the high flow of refugees from Eritrea.[113]

In her written submission to the Committee, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Eritrea, Sheila B. Keetharuth, noted that the situation of human rights in Eritrea and the refugee situation are “inextricably linked”. In her various reports, the Special Rapporteur

has documented the most serious human rights violations in Eritrea, including cases of extrajudicial killing, a shoot to kill policy at borders, enforced disappearances and incommunicado detentions, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, inhumane prison conditions, indefinite national service amounting to forced labour, gender-based violence in the context of the national service and lack of freedom of expression and opinion, assembly, association, religious belief and movement.[114]

Further, she noted that these human rights violations – indefinite national service and arbitrary arrest and detention in particular – push people to flee, including unaccompanied minors. Traffickers, smugglers, and the dangerous flight route over the Sahara and the Mediterranean Sea await those that succeed in leaving.

In terms of gaps in international protection afforded to Eritreans, the Special Rapporteur highlighted the dangers that face failed asylum seekers and other returnees, including those who have signed an “apology letter” or “regret form” as a pre-condition for return. She also mentioned Eritreans’ vulnerability to trafficking and smuggling, including kidnapping for ransom. Of special note are her concerns for unaccompanied youth, who are more vulnerable to various protection risks and not always cared for by host countries in a manner consistent with international standards. Finally, the rapporteur mentioned that “according to the UNHCR, resettlement remains the most viable durable solution for refugees in Ethiopia but is only available to a small percentage of them”.[115]

The Special Rapporteur made a number of recommendations to the international community in her submission. Those of particular relevance to Canada include the following:

• “Provide Eritrean nationals seeking protection with refugee status in accordance with the provisions of the international law governing asylum, and in particular the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees;
• Expand channels of legal migration to reduce irregular migration in order to counter human smuggling and trafficking, while treating victims humanely; and
• Identify long-term solutions to help refugees, including local integration in the first-asylum country and resettlement in third countries, and strengthen international solidarity in sharing the responsibility to care for refugees and migrants.”[116]

5. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Individuals

Same-sex sexual acts are illegal in 72 states (37% of UN states) and you can be put to death in 13 regions, just for loving who you love.[117]

Witnesses described the protection need of members of the LGBTI community in numerous countries, noting that “persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is unique” in several respects. For instance, Dylan Mazur, Executive Director, the Vancouver Association for Survivors of Torture reported that homosexuality or the promotion of homosexuality is criminalized in more than one-third of countries worldwide. In his words, “this means that their own government has enacted legislation that criminalizes their identity; legislation that criminalizes this most fundamental form of human expression, the expression of gender and sexuality.”[118] Further, this discrimination in law has been reported to foster “a culture of persecution with impunity”. According to the organization Rainbow Railroad,

The individuals we hear from report that they are often not only at risk of being arrested, imprisoned, or punished by the state, they also face acute social persecution, and violence in their communities and families, blackmail, and sexual violence, but do not have access to protection from police or their governments because their sexual orientation is criminalized.[119]

Mr. Mazur noted that this source of persecution is quite different than for individuals or groups affected by armed conflict or political violence.[120]

Second, witnesses demonstrated that it is very difficult for members of the LGBTI community to find a safe country of first asylum from which to apply for protection to UNHCR or as a privately sponsored refugee. They explained that leaving their home country is sometimes impossible – for instance, some countries restrict women’s freedom of movement without male accompaniment, making it difficult for lesbians to flee.[121] Further, leaving their home country may exacerbate a person’s vulnerability, as the host country may also be hostile to the LGBTI community and there may be restrictions on non-citizens’ access to work, for example. As stated in one submission, “one asylum seeker has described the prospect of see[k]ing asylum in a neighbouring country as “jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire”.[122] Long wait times for UNHCR interviews or for processing as privately sponsored refugees places these individuals in extended periods of danger and vulnerability.[123] Witnesses indicated that refugees often wait two to three years for a UNHCR interview, while privately sponsored refugees in Pakistan and Kenya have to wait for more than six years to be resettled, four years or more in Cambodia and Egypt.[124]

Advocates appearing before the Committee recommended that a special program be created to allow private sponsors to sponsor LGBTI individuals still in their country of origin. However, witnesses felt that a renewed Source Country Class program would not necessarily provide the best solution for persecuted LGBTI persons, given that such a policy would likely list only a few countries. Instead, advocates for the LBGTI population focused on the legal context of a given country, arguing that vulnerable people should be eligible for resettlement if homosexuality is criminalized in their given country.[125]

Witnesses also felt that the private sponsorship program was more suited to supporting LGBTI individuals.[126] They felt applicants would be more comfortable sharing their stories with people who would share a tacit understanding of gay culture and be sympathetic to the difficulties of seeking protection on the basis of sexual orientation when surviving often meant acting straight. They noted that UNHCR had released some important guidelines for interviewing gay refugees, but found implementation uneven.[127]

A pilot project started by the Government of Canada in 2011 to target people in need of protection on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for resettlement through private sponsorship was perceived as a success. Witnesses asked that it be made permanent and that applications be processed more quickly.[128] They stated that long processing times were both dangerous for the refugees and challenging for private sponsors, who had to sustain a commitment over a period of years despite changing personal circumstances.

6. Writers

Our experience has taught us how critical immediate action by immigration authorities can be when advancing claims for writers who face imminent threats of violence, even death, for nothing more than the exercise of their right to freedom of expression.[129]

PEN Canada drew the Committee’s attention to the protection needs of writers (including bloggers, editors, journalists, playwrights, poets, publishers, screenwriters, translators), in the situation where the exercise of freedom of expression can lead to harassment, imprisonment, or even death. The organization reported receiving almost daily requests for immediate assistance from writers in imminent danger and advocated that writers be officially recognized as a vulnerable group.[130] 

PEN Canada underscored the urgency of the protection need for writers, noting with appreciation that journalists are eligible for expedited visas under Canada’s Urgent Protection Program (UPP). However, their submission also stated that the designation for the UPP was not easily approved.[131] PEN Canada argued that Canada could accelerate resettlement for writers by relying on “PEN International’s monitoring system to evaluate and confirm the status of … vulnerable individuals” noting that the Government of Norway regularly relies on PEN’s assessments.[132] PEN International’s Writers in Prison Committee has extensive experience monitoring cases of imperilled writers around the world and has consultative status with the United Nations, monitoring between 700 and 900 cases each year.

7. Ukrainians in the Donbas and Crimea

Life, in short, to sum up, is terrible. As I've said, it's comparable to some of the most dire places on the planet. As I've said many times, the worst thing that could happen would be the international community, including Canada, averting its gaze from this humanitarian disaster.[133]

The Committee heard about the situation in Ukraine, a country that has gone from having no internally displaced persons to having 1.8 million over a two-year period as a result of the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia and ongoing conflict in the Donbas region.[134] According to Aleksandr Galkin, Director, The Right to Protection, the IDPs need permanent housing and employment opportunities, and those receiving government pensions need income security.[135] Michael Bociurkiw, formerly with the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), explained that a return to rebel-held areas is fraught with danger, where anyone who expressed critical opinions about rebels is at risk; there are documented examples of writers and others appearing on blacklists and being detained, tortured, and disappeared.[136] Witnesses also explained that residents living along or close to the “contact line” have very limited access to humanitarian and medical aid, due to security reasons and a ban on cargo deliveries.[137]

Two witnesses, Iryna Dovhan and Oleksandr Gryshchenko, Ukrainian-government sympathizers shared their personal stories of capture and arrest, torture of all kinds, and impunity for abuses in the rebel-controlled areas.[138] The Committee also heard from Gennadii Afanasiev, apprehended and tortured in Crimea, forced to testify against innocent people and sentenced to forced labour.[139] Both men implored the Committee to remember the people still held in captivity and to fight for their release.

In terms of recommendations for Canada’s consideration, Mr. Bociurkiw suggested that existing immigration programs for temporary entry, such as study permits and youth exchanges, could be leveraged to provide opportunity to IDPs and young people in the affected regions.[140] He also felt that visits from Ukraine should be encouraged, noting that the refusal rate for temporary resident visas for Ukrainian nationals was regrettably high for a period. Another way to leverage current immigration programs, Mr. Bociurkiw suggested, would be to create a temporary worker program similar to the former Live-in Caregiver Program, targeted to professionals who have been displaced and that could be supported by private sponsors in Canada.

Witnesses also suggested non-immigration-related measures that Canada could continue or initiate to support the Ukrainian people. These include maintaining sanctions against Russia, continued or increased support for the OSCE and the OSCE special monitoring mission, continued support as election observers, and help to find a political solution to the conflict. Further, Canada could provide aid to help integrate IDPs, to rebuild institutions such as the media that have been destroyed by the conflict, and to battle corruption.[141] Training to police officers and border guards and support to civil society organizations were also recommended areas for Canada’s support.[142]

8. South Sudan

The crisis in South Sudan is profound. A political crisis led to a human rights crisis, and the consequences have also resulted in a humanitarian, economic, and security crisis.[143]

David Marshall, Team Leader of the Assessment Mission to South Sudan, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, released his most recent report in March 2016, in which he identified human rights violations committed in the country since December 2013. The report found “that in 2015 the government's counter-insurgency offensive in Unity state was carried out with the apparent purpose of spreading terror among civilians, including widespread sexual and gender-based violence that led to the abduction of women and girls, and indiscriminate attacks on villages, some of which involved massive looting of property and the theft of thousands upon thousands of cattle”.[144]

In terms of protection needs in South Sudan, there is a sizeable IDP population of 1.8 million, including 200,000 seeking protection at United Nations peacekeeping bases not intended for that purpose. Mr. Marshall also indicated that thousands of people are food insecure, even to the point of famine.[145]

Mr. Marshall’s recommendations focused primarily on non-immigration measures that the Canadian government could take. Specifically, he recommended that Canada engage in “robust diplomacy” with the South Sudanese government, consider an arms embargo, provide military and police personnel to the UN mission, support civil society coalitions working for peace, and provide funding for both the UN humanitarian response plan and the UNHCR’s refugee protection and assistance programs.[146] Mr. Marshall concluded that for the situation in South Sudan, “the most obvious solution for protecting vulnerable people is a political transformation to end the orchestration of the violence, predominantly by the political elite of the country”.[147]

9. Assyrians in Iraq and Syria

The Canadian government, as well as other governments, needs to give special attention to ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria, in particular Syrians, Assyrians, Mandeans, and Yazidis, because they are the indigenous people of the land. Without this protection and resettlement, those communities will disappear forever.[148]

Aneki Nissan, President, the Centre for Canadian-Assyrian Relations, appeared before the Committee to speak about the plight of Assyrians, a “transnational, ethnic community that belong to a number of Christian churches in the Middle East and are indigenous to the region”.[149] He explained that Assyrian-dominated towns and villages in Northern Iraq have been attacked by Daesh[150], with hundreds of people taken hostage and imprisoned. Further, Assyrian places of worship and businesses have also been attacked in the city of Qamishly. Mr. Nissan reported that as a result of this violence, Assyrians have had to flee from their centuries-old homes and many now live as IDPs in Northern Iraq in “abhorrent conditions”.

Mr. Nissan emphasized the urgency of bringing people to safety, recommending first that Canada expedite processing of Assyrians’ asylum applications.[151] He also called for greater assistance to Assyrians in the Middle East, in the form of aid to displaced persons as well as funds, arms, and training for the nascent Nineveh Plains Protection Unit.[152]

10.  Yazidi People

What the Yazidis need from the world is a stand for humanity.[153]

The Yazidi are a religious minority of around 700,000 people, concentrated in Northern Iraq, in and around Mount Sinjar and in the Nineveh Plains prior to August 2014. The Committee was informed that Yazidism is one of the oldest religions in the Middle East, dating back 6,000 years.[154] Mirza Ismail, of the Yezidi Human Rights Organization, added that Yazidi is “a religion, a culture, and a language”.[155]

On 15 June 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued its report “They Came to Destroy”: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis,[156] which declared Yazidis are victims of genocide and outlined a number of recommendations for the international community. The Canadian government also recognized this genocide. Nadia Murad Basee Taha, a young Yazidi of 22 years, made the genocide and sexual slavery she endured very real and personal in her testimony.

Ms. Murad described how her normal life of studies and friends and peaceful coexistence with other religions was shattered when Daesh attacked her village in Sinjar, Northern Iraq, on 3 August 2014.[157] According to Ms. Murad, after 12 days under siege, Daesh gathered the villagers at the school, separating the men from the women. The men were shot – more than 700 in a matter of two hours. Young girls and women were taken to Mosul, Iraq, where they were held captive, forcibly converted, raped, and sold into slavery. Young boys were taken to training camps, where they have been forcibly converted and trained to become suicide bombers and soldiers for Daesh.[158]

This methodological violence and destruction, Ms. Murad reported, was repeated in hundreds of Yazidi villages. Further, she stated that “this continues today against more than 3,000 women and children in Iraq and Syria”.[159]

Witnesses informed the Committee that more than 500,000 Yazidi people are displaced with well over 100,000 in UNHCR refugee camps, segregated from other refugees because the Yazidi are not safe among them.[160] Mr. Ismail informed the Committee about (and showed images following) an attack targeting Yazidi refugees in the Greek refugee camp Skaramages, saying that it was not an isolated incident.[161] He said that Yazidi refugees are at risk of attack from Daesh supporters and other Muslims in Greece, Turkey, Syria, and even Germany.

Other witnesses also suggested that the temporary protection afforded to Yazidi refugees is inadequate. They reported that healthcare and humanitarian aid in camps in Northern Iraq is deficient, with aid not reaching its intended recipients and food rations insufficient.[162] According to Raija-Liisa Schmidt-Teigen of Samaritan’s Purse Northern Iraq, “Yazidis understand that they exist in a surrounding culture and context that views them with contempt. They do not expect to receive fair treatment in systems which we would expect would serve them.”[163]

For some witnesses, this sentiment applied even to UNHCR, as Mr. Ismail stated that “UNHCR violently discriminates against Yazidis in Turkey and Syria” reporting as evidence that Yazidi refugees were being assigned interview dates four to five years from now.[164]

Witnesses explained that many Yazidis would prefer to leave than return to Sinjar, having lost trust in the Peshmerga (Kurdish forces) and the Iraqi Army, which failed to protect them from Daesh.[165] They described being abandoned by neighbours and being prevented from escaping and arming themselves.[166]

In terms of resettlement, the Committee heard from Operation Ezra, a Winnipeg-based group trying to sponsor seven Yazidi families. Their first family had just arrived, after an 18-month wait. Commenting on the long wait time, Operation Ezra representative Lorne Weiss stated, “Under a normal private sponsorship refugee program, that's probably not so bad, to get access to a country like Canada, but when people are living in constant danger, when they don't have medical supplies, don't have access to services, when in fact Canadian officials aren't even coming into the refugee camps, it's not acceptable”.[167]

Based on their experience, Operation Ezra suggested that the private sponsorship program has “too many obstacles to be an effective solution”, citing applications that are complicated and time-consuming, long waits for interviews, medical and security screening, the difficulty of transporting refugees for hours or days away from camps to distant visa offices, as well caps on Sponsorship Agreement Holders that limit new applications.[168] These issues were echoed by Or Shalom Syrian Refugee Initiative, which has worked with partners in Metro Vancouver to mobilize more than 3,000 people and raise more than $775,000 to sponsor more than 100 Kurdish Syrian refugees.[169]

Finally, the Committee was informed that some Yazidis struggle to obtain adequate protection because they are internally displaced, rather than refugees under the United Nations definition. They do not have the resources to reach another country and have difficulty obtaining passports and other official documentation from Baghdad.[170]

A common message from witnesses was that Canada should, with utmost speed, bring Yazidi people to safety in Canada, “to save the Yazidi people from extinction”.[171] Some spoke in general terms that the Yazidi people should be prioritized for resettlement to Canada, while other witnesses tabled a concrete proposal with the Committee for a program to resettle 400 women and girls using the flexibility of the H&C provision and support from private sponsors.[172] Some witnesses called for a large scale resettlement effort, of 5,000 to 10,000 people; others proposed bringing in a large number of Yazidi families with private sector support for settlement and integration.

In terms of which Yazidi people to target for resettlement, several groups urged the Committee to recommend to the Government of Canada to prioritize women and girls, the victims of captivity who have escaped Daesh. Others recommended Yazidis who have left Syria and Iraq but remain in places like Turkey or Greece.[173] Mr. Weiss suggested that Yazidi refugees in Turkey are the “low hanging fruit” who would be easy to help.

Several witnesses commented that the government would need to provide settlement resources and support for Yazidi people resettled to Canada as appropriate in light of the abuse they have suffered.

Witnesses also encouraged the Canadian government to find a way around processing challenges inhibiting resettlement of Yazidis through the GAR and PSR programs. They also recommended solutions, such as the use of armoured vehicles to ensure safe passage for visa officers to conduct interviews, or interviews by telephone.[174] Alternatively, the Yezidi Human Rights Organization offered to facilitate travel to Yazidi areas and identify victims for consideration for resettlement.[175] Another suggestion was to use UNHCR assessments or even have the UNCHR or IOM conduct interviews on Canada’s behalf.[176]

Finally, witnesses made recommendations beyond immigration measures, which would most appropriately be directed to government departments other than Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. For instance, Samaritan’s Purse recommended that “Members of Parliament participating today help ensure that Global Affairs Canada and other departments thoughtfully consider and act upon what this United Nations Human Rights Council appointed commission has outlined”.[177] More specifically, other witnesses recommended that Canada: provide humanitarian aid to Yazidis in camps (in Northern Iraq in particular), champion a war crimes referral to the International Criminal Court, rescue the more than 3,000 Yazidis still in captivity, and contribute to establishing an autonomous region in Iraq where Yazidis could live in safety.[178]

Having heard compelling testimony on the urgent protection needs of different groups and cognizant of the fact this study could not allow members to hear about the many other deserving populations requiring protection, the Committee feels that Canada can and must do more. In the spirit of building on the efforts of stakeholders, community groups, UNHCR, and department officials actively responding to this study, we offer the following recommendations to the Government of Canada.

IMPROVE THE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM

Canada is a global leader in refugee resettlement, not only by virtue of its robust programs, but also in terms of cooperation with UNHCR and in its advocacy role for durable solutions at international fora. Yet, processing resettled refugee visas can take too long for a program whose objective is saving lives. Canada’s private sponsorship program is a critical asset, allowing the country to do more than the government could alone, as well as providing newcomers with solid support upon arrival. In light of these realities, the Committee recommends the following.

RECOMMENDATION 1

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada continue leading resettlement discussions at the international level with the objective of expanding the number of resettlement places available in light of the all-time high levels of forced displacement.

RECOMMENDATION 2

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada accept prima facie refugee status for certain at-risk populations to facilitate their resettlement and to reduce the burden on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

RECOMMENDATION 3

That Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada examine the feasibility of expanding the use of the Urgent Protection Program in cases where genocide is confirmed to be ongoing.

CONSIDER EXPANDING ELIGIBILITY FOR RESETTLEMENT TO INCLUDE PEOPLE RESIDING IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

The Committee heard from many witnesses about the difficulties of trying to use Canada’s resettlement programs to help people who are still residing in their country of origin. Witnesses emphasized that trying to leave the country to seek protection is simply not an option for some people, while others make that move at great risk. Further, the Committee was told that private sponsors are interested and ready to help in new ways, and their generosity is not depleted. Establishing a new resettlement class to privately sponsor people from their country of origin would build on the strengths of private sponsorship, such as the sponsors’ ability to identify vulnerable people for referral and offer strong settlement support, while reducing some of the political and diplomatic sensitivities of such a class. Therefore, bearing in mind the protection need of individuals within their country of origin and the willingness of private sponsors in Canada, the Committee recommends the following.

RECOMMENDATION 4

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada consider establishing a resettlement class for private sponsorship of persons in need of protection and residing in their country of origin similar to the former Source Country Class.

MAKE USE OF THE HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE PROVISIONS

As noted earlier in this report, the discretionary “humanitarian and compassionate” provisions in IRPA are the most flexible tool currently available to respond to people in need of humanitarian assistance, caused by natural disasters, international crises, or specific instances of religious or other forms of persecution. Establishing a public policy under these provisions allows the government to help an identified group. However, it is difficult to assess the existing use of humanitarian and compassionate provisions as well as its future potential due to the lack of reporting requirements, In order to address this gap, the Committee recommends the following.

RECOMMENDATION 5

That Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada report its use of public policy based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations in the departments’ annual report under section 94 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow for increased awareness of existing programs.

CONCLUSION

Over the course of this study the Committee heard personal accounts of horrifying suffering. The Committee wishes to thank those witnesses who came forward and shared their stories and burden in such a candid manner. In light of the all-time high of forced displacement around the world, there can be no doubt that all those working to assist these vulnerable people should be commended. The Committee is grateful for their efforts. Resettlement is only one piece of the solution. It is the Committee’s hope that as many people as possible now facing extreme hardship will have the opportunity to find security and stability in a timely manner, and opportunities that will offer a permanent solution where they may rebuild their lives in dignity. The Committee hopes that this report and the recommendations it puts forward will help to strengthen Canada’s contribution to protecting vulnerable groups.