Can Canada duplicate its boat people rescue with Syrian refugees? | Toronto Star

Fascinating history of Canada’s response to the Vietnamese boat people and the people involved from both the government and non-government sides. Well worth reading and reflecting upon, and their suggestions for refugees by connecting sponsored cases with businesses relying on low-skilled Temporary Foreign Workers:

Three and a half decades later, Adelman, Molloy and Alboim wondered if the courage and leadership that characterized the boat people rescue effort could be transferred to the Syrian refugee crisis.

They established a three-person task force to develop new strategies for refugee resettlement in Canada and crisscrossed the country talking to a variety of experts. In three reports discussing possible policies, they outlined projects that might revitalize refugee resettlement.

Their goal was ambitious: “to improve family reunification for refugees already in Canada, expand the pool of Canadians willing to sponsor refugees, improve the quality of support for government-assisted refugees and enhance labour market integration of refugees admitted to Canada under various resettlement programs.”

A core concern is the fact private refugee sponsorships, so successful in the “boat people” crisis, have atrophied and become the preserve of faith-based communities, ethnic and cultural groups.

They want to expand the base of people involved in sponsorships, creating more opportunities for groups such as book clubs, neighbourhood associations or unions, to become involved.

Can Canada duplicate its boat people rescue with Syrian refugees? | Toronto Star.

Bill tabled to ban refugees from social assistance

In keeping with the overall messaging and tone of the Government with respect to refugees and concerns about abuse.

As always, is this based on anecdote or are there reasonably firm numbers to back this concern? Or is it similar to birth tourism where in the end the evidence didn’t support the rhetoric?

Chisu, a Romanian-born Canadian, retired Canadian forces major and a first-term MP, was out of town and could not be reached for comment. Immigration Minister Chris Alexander declined to tell the Star’s inquiry if he would support the bill and referred any inquiry to Chisu.

While the bill says no minimum residency requirement would be allowed for Canadian citizens, permanent residents or victims of trafficking on a temporary resident permit, advocates are alarmed by the groups that are omitted and could suffer the effects of the bill.

They include refugee claimants still awaiting a decision; people whose bid for asylum failed; people who may be deported but are waiting for pre-removal risk assessments; people who have been allowed to stay in Canada on “humanitarian and compassionate” grounds, and sponsored spouses already in Canada.

Lastly, have there been consults with the provinces, as this pertains to their jurisdiction? Likely not yet, as it is a private members bill.

Hopefully, the Government has learned some lessons for the various mix-ups in PMB’s pertaining to criminal justice.

Bill tabled to ban refugees from social assistance | Toronto Star.

Christie Blatchford: Canada shows lack of kindness in deporting harmless Pakistani woman

Blatchford on the case of a Pakistani woman being deported despite the risks facing her back in Pakistan and a request to put the deportation order on hold by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

But that order was put on hold at the request of the UN high commissioner for human rights; Canada is a signatory to the convention against torture and other such treatment. Mr. Khan says he has the documents to prove it, but we ran out of time on Tuesday for him to get them to me.

The thing is, though the UN request to delay the deportation makes what happened here more egregious, I don’t care about it. And though I take Mr. Khan and Ms. Bibi at their word that the allegations against her are fraudulent, not to mention ludicrous, I don’t particularly care about that either. If a Pakistani woman has the courage to take a boyfriend, I say good on her. I also accept that her life may be in danger back in her home country, and I certainly hope it isn’t, but it’s not even that which galls me most.

What harm was she doing anyone, living her secure and simple life in Saskatoon, working in her friend’s restaurant, checking in every week just as she was supposed to do, getting by? Who was she hurting?

Even if the worst thing she faces in Pakistan is poverty and fear and the normal oppressive anti-woman air in that country, she had a better life here, and as a fifth-generation Canadian, I wanted that for her.

We can afford such kindnesses in this big, empty country.

Hard to disagree.

Christie Blatchford: Canada shows lack of kindness in deporting harmless Pakistani woman

Her follow-up column regarding the Government’s cruel mishandling of her case:

Jason Tamming, spokesman for and press secretary to federal Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Steven Blaney, courteously replied Wednesday with a one-size-fits-all statement to my specific questions about Ms. Bibi’s case. I noted he managed to answer neither question, and asked again why Canada didn’t comply with the request from the UN committee against torture. Are such requests now utterly meaningless, I asked?

Mr. Tamming didn’t reply. I take his silence, and Canada’s conduct, as a resounding yes.

Christie Blatchford: Judge rejected Pakistani woman’s refugee claim because husband hadn’t disowned her

Canada deports people to wars, repressive regimes | Toronto Star

Does appear to be some policy incoherence in deporting people to countries with a deportation moratorium:

“The prevailing human rights situation is so grave in some of these countries, the very real possibility that deportees would be at risk would be a very high one,” said Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, after viewing the statistics.

“There are countries on this list where there is widespread insecurity and armed conflict. We’ve got Somalia on the list and Syria,” Neve said. “There are other countries on this list where there are deeply entrenched patterns of widespread repression. Eritrea would be a good example. And there are countries where people who have been outside the country and are being sent back are viewed with suspicion, like North Korea.”

Neve says Amnesty International has nothing against deportations in general and points out that international law allows deportations of refugee claimants if they’ve had a fair hearing and can safely return to their country. But some of the countries people are being deported to give reason to worry.

“The government reserves the right to carry out deportations if a person has a criminal record,” said Neve. “That doesn’t mean that those deportations are in conformity with international law because there are some human rights protections that are absolute.

”Protection from torture, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial execution are all examples of uninfringeable human rights, Neve said.

“If you’re going to be gunned down by a death squad or if you’re going to be abducted by a secret police unit and disappear into a prison system without ever going through any kind of legal process — international law includes the protection against being deported to face that risk,” he said.

Canada deports people to wars, repressive regimes | Toronto Star.

Refugee claimants struggling to find health care after cuts – The Globe and Mail

Contrast between the Government narrative and the human stories behind the impact of the cuts, following the recent court decision striking down the Government’s decision (Federal government to appeal ruling reversing cruel cuts to refugee health):

“We will vigorously defend the interests of Canadian taxpayers and the integrity of our fair and generous refugee determination system,” Alexis Pavlich, press secretary to Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, said in an e-mail.

While the legal battle drags on, some refugees must rely on the help of volunteers or struggle to pay large medical bills.

At Toronto’s FCJ Refugee Centre, one of dozens across Canada, Loly Rico is compiling evidence of how the cuts have affected refugees so it can be used as ammunition against Ottawa’s appeal. “We need to be ready,” says Ms. Rico, an El Salvadorian refugee who founded the centre in 1991 with her husband, Francisco Rico-Martinez.

Since the cuts came into effect, their centre has run a small free clinic for the uninsured every second Saturday. It has seen about 100 patients, many of whom Ms. Rico says were turned away by hospitals and walk-in clinics uninterested in filing complex paperwork that would not guarantee payment.

Refugee claimants struggling to find health care after cuts – The Globe and Mail.

Changing face of Surrey presents challenges

Profile on the changing face of Surrey, BC, given an increasing refugee population:

Tsering Yangkyi stirs a pot of tea she is making on the stove in a basement suite in Surrey. For Yangkyi, her husband Lhakpa Tsering and their three children, the Fleetwood neighbourhood where they currently reside is a far cry from the rural Tibetan settlement in India where they used to live.

Yangkyi and her family represent the changing face of the city as immigrants and refugees from countries around the world continue to settle in Surrey.

Thirty years from now the face of the city may be different from what it currently is, where South Asians make up the majority of immigrants in the city. Families like Yangkyi, Tsering and their children may be the future of Surrey, but there are many challenges up ahead for them and other newcomers.

Immigrants and refugees face a number of difficulties. Language and cultural barriers make it difficult for newcomers to access resources, and it also makes it challenging to find employment.

Surrey has become a top destination for government-assisted refugees: 32 per cent of government-assisted refugees in B.C. settled in Surrey in 2013. Among the many challenges these refugees face, one is having to pay back an interest-bearing loan provided by the government to cover transportation costs to Canada.

Changing face of Surrey presents challenges.

Maytree Flight and Freedom: Stories of Escape to Canada

Maytree’s newest project, writing a collection of refugee stories:

What does escape look like up close? Why do people choose Canada? And once they land in a safe country, what happens next?

In Flight and Freedom, Maytree’s Ratna Omidvar and Dana Wagner draw on 30 astonishing interviews with refugees to Canada to document their extraordinary journeys of flight, and to transform a misunderstood group into familiar, human stories.

Each of the 30 stories documents an escape that is sometimes harrowing and always remarkable. The narrative then turns to contemporary lives and careers, and the impact of refugees-turned-Canadians in the communities they call home, from Halifax to Vancouver.

Stories focus on Canadians who arrived as refugees from notable conflicts around the world, from the War of 1812 to the ongoing War in Afghanistan. Beyond conflict zones, other stories profile people from persecuted groups like gay men and women. At the time of escape, some refugees were children, others were parents, and others got out alone. Notwithstanding the diverse events of a story, the single overriding imperative for all characters can be summed up in one sentence: “We have to run.”

Closing the book is a question: Would they get in to Canada today? Peter Showler, lawyer and former chairperson of the federal Immigration and Refugee Board, answers the hypothetical question by analyzing how the cases would be handled under Canada’s new refugee system.

You can sign up for updates (book out in 2015) at the link below:

Maytree Flight and Freedom: Stories of Escape to Canada » Maytree.

Refugee health cuts: Not cruel but unusual – Colby Cosh

Colby Cosh takes a self-critical look at journalists and commentators on how they influenced the refugee claimant healthcare decision:

This is pleasing to the ego, yet I am not as confident as Justice Mactavish that the Conservative cuts to the old refugee health arrangements are shocking to Canadians. One obvious problem with using pundits as an index of conscience is that people who are angry about something will write about it, and people who aren’t, won’t.

The old IFHP provided not only the health care ordinarily given free to citizens by the provinces, but also extra entitlements working Canadians typically devote part of their paycheques to, including drug coverage, vision care, dentistry and contraception. Refugee claimants typically became eligible for IFHP immediately upon setting foot in the country—and remained eligible until they were removed from Canada, even if their refugee claims failed. ….

These [diabetic Afghan, Colombian eye surgery] are hard cases that could have been rectified by means of modest tweaks. Justice Mactavish instead threw out the whole 2012 IFHP revision, citing a further panoply of ill-documented or downright hypothetical cases in which the effects of the revised IFHP might also be “cruel and unusual.”

This procedure has met with near-universal approval from journalists. We, after all, sort of helped write the ruling. But what if the Conservatives run against it in 2015, challenging the media’s reading of the nation’s “general conscience”. . . and they win? Should we really be so sure we speak for you?

Valid points, but part of the role of journalists is to draw issues to our attention, and the decision likely relied more on the testimony of doctors and healthcare experts than journalists. And the Government, as in so many cases, by aiming for simple and simplistic solutions, along with its apparent lack of evidence (not to mention rhetoric), did not help itself. Refugee health cuts: Not cruel but unusual.

Court loss on refugee health cuts may still be Conservative win

I am not sure that it is as much of a win as Patriquin suggests, given that most commentary on both the left and right, has been against the Government (online comments and Sun Media excepted).

It’s like anything, the bumper sticker slogan works (in either direction) until human examples come out, making the issue more complex than the slogan or stereotype, sometimes changing public opinion:

It’s a stretch to say the Conservatives built laws specifically to fail in court, but their failure doesn’t hurt the brand nearly as much as some might think. Rather, the Conservative operative would say that the party has instead garnered crucial talking points for the coming election. By thwarting Conservative laws, the various courts—whose judges are as unelected as your local senator, remember—have essentially shown themselves to be the liberal and Liberal friend to every pot-smoking, drug-injecting, prostitute-loving, refugee-coddling softie out there. Each judicial decision against the Conservatives reaffirms a collective belief, and reinforces a handy stereotype.

In the most recent Federal Court case regarding refugees, the government isn’t quite clear on what constitutes a “bogus” claim. I asked, and the ministry sent a list of rejected, abandoned and withdrawn claims so far in 2014. The inference, I guess, is that every denied or dropped claim is inherently bogus. The number of refugee claimants doesn’t suggest a surge in abuse: as this chart shows, there were roughly 34,000 accepted refugee claimants in 2011, down from 2003’s 25-year high of 42,400.

In the end, though, it doesn’t much matter, because Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives scored a double whammy. Having spent years making the case that Canada’s refugee system is replete with “bogus” claims, they can now claim the courts are in favour of immigrant hoards leeching off the Canadian dream. Even in loss they win.

Court loss on refugee health cuts may still be Conservative win.

Tinkering is not Jason Kenney’s style – Yakabuski

Good piece on the political astuteness of Jason Kenney by Konrad Yakabuski:

Friday’s Federal Court ruling labelling that latter move “cruel and unusual treatment” is a decidedly unflattering one for the practising Catholic that Mr. Kenney is. But even if Ottawa is forced to reinstate health care for these claimants, their numbers are now so low that it will still save hundreds of millions annually compared to what it cost to run the refugee system before Mr. Kenney got his hands on it.

Now, Mr. Kenney’s paws are all over the TFW program. Whether his reforms turn out to be good policy will depend on whether the market works, specifically whether more Canadians migrate to Alberta to fill what are supposed to become good-paying fast-food jobs. That’s a leap of faith not even the supposedly free-market business lobby is willing to make.

But you know Mr. Kenney is on the right track when Justin Trudeau, who railed against the pre-reform TFW program and whose father created the national energy program, confusingly calls the latest overhaul “one of the most anti-Alberta federal policies we’ve seen in decades.”

If that’s all the opposition’s got, the Smiling Buddha should be laughing.

Tinkering is not Jason Kenney’s style – The Globe and Mail.