Formed in 1976, UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, in Canada is part of a global network aiding and protecting refugees and displaced and stateless people. Their teams are on the ground in over a hundred countries around the world, responding to multiple humanitarian crises. Here in Canada, the bulk of their work is aimed at informing and educating Canadians about the unprecedented global displacement crisis; encouraging donors and governments to contribute to their work and programs; and helping resettle refugees and asylum seekers in partnership with the Government of Canada.
Fiona Bramble speaks with Michael Casasola, Senior Resettlement and Complementary Pathways Officer, in his Ottawa office at UNHCR Canada, about the history of UNHCR Canada and its vital role in helping some of the world’s most vulnerable people find refuge and a new home in Canada.
Q: I understand UNHCR Canada was formed in 1976. Was this in response to anything in particular?
A: Truthfully, I don’t know the genesis, but it was an opportune time. 1976 was a really interesting period because the Immigration Act was introduced that year. And that particular Immigration Act is key because it effectively set up, for the first time, a sustained immigration route for the resettlement of refugees. Previously, for example, with the arrival of the Ugandan Asians or when people came from [former] Czechoslovakia and Hungary, these were all special measures that Cabinet had to introduce, saying we want to respond to this population.
But the Immigration Act of 1976 provided a mechanism for the ongoing resettlement of refugees. It created the architecture, including the possibility of private sponsorship. It turned out to be quite timely because in 1979, there was the beginning of the Indo-Chinese exodus, and Canada resettled a large movement of people over the several years that followed. To have our [UNHCR Canada] office open in 1976, as I said, was very opportune.
Q: Can you tell me more about the growth and evolution of UNHCR Canada and refugee resettlement policy and support in Canada?
A: Our office began to expand around the time of the creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in 1989. There were multiple stages in its development, a lot of legal work that was done, including following the Singh Decision in 1985, which said the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to asylum seekers in Canada. The creation of the Board was a real milestone in regard to how Canada responds to people who make refugee claims. Our office then began expanding in parallel with these developments and what was going on in Canada.
Q: Can you talk about the larger UNHCR structure and mandate?
A: UNHCR was given a two-part mandate by the UN General Assembly in 1950—pre-dating the Convention in 1951—to provide for the protection for refugees and to work with countries to help them find solutions. When we were formed, we were dealing with the residual displaced population from the Second World War. Resettlement was UNHCR’s main focus whereas today, while important, resettlement plays a small part in our overall work. Instead, in many ways we are trying to provide assistance to refugees, trying to provide a basic protection space that they can enjoy in the country of asylum so they are not forced back to the country from which they fled. We are present in 135 countries around the world, and work in very complex and sometimes politically sensitive waters.
Q: Where does Canada fit in?
A: Canada’s operation is the smallest in all the Americas because so many of our colleagues in other countries are providing direct services to refugees—they are helping Venezuelans and others who are travelling through the Darien Gap in Panama; they’re at the border in Southern Mexico; they’re in Colombia helping Venezuelans, and in Peru, and farther south in Chile and Argentina doing a variety of activities.
If you’re in Canada as a refugee, you wouldn’t come to UNHCR Canada for assistance. You would go to a clinic or a service provider. Or a settlement agency. We play more of an advocacy role in Canada. We are trying to support our operations overseas, but we are also trying to support the Government of Canada with the protection it provides for refugees who come into the country, and we try to work strategically with them to find solutions. But in other countries UNHCR is conducting registrations. We’re the ones delivering the services. We’re even the ones doing the refugee status determination in place of the state where the state is not willing or able to do it for whatever reason.
Q: Unprecedented displacement crisis is not an exaggeration. 117.2 million people will be forcibly displaced or stateless in 2023, according to UNHCR’s estimations.
A: It keeps going up when we have a new emergency, the most recent being Sudan. I’ve not heard yet if the coup in Niger has led to increased numbers. Regardless, crisis after crisis leads to these increases.
But a big part of those numbers are actually internally displaced people, which forces us to work in a very different environment. To be a refugee, you have to cross an international border and have a well-founded fear of persecution. We look to states to operate under the principle of non-refoulement, where refugees are not forcibly returned to the country where they fear persecution. When we are working with people still inside their country of origin, they are nationals of that country. When one is a refugee, the idea is that they do not have protection of their state, and we are filling that space and advocating on their behalf to ensure they have the services they need and working with the host country. But when they are inside their country of origin, their country of nationality, it can be quite difficult.
Unfortunately, there are so many conflicts where there are refugees on one side of the border and internally displaced with the same nationality on the other side. It can become quite complex trying to navigate those relationships. You’re protecting the refugees from that country on the one side; on the other side, you’re working with that same government from which the refugees fled so that you assist those who are internally displaced.
Q: Underfunding obviously has multiple and catastrophic impacts on those already extremely vulnerable. A recent CBC broadcast shared an interview with an aid worker in Chad supporting those fleeing Sudan, who stated: “There is no money for aid. I have never seen it like this before. We can’t help any more people.” Have you seen this extreme situation before? How does it make you feel, and can you see anything shifting in the near future?
A: We have a budget of almost ten billion dollars, but we’ll be lucky if we get half of that from donors. We rely on the voluntary contributions of states for our work. This can lead us, on a daily basis, to having to make very difficult choices in terms of what services are provided for refugees. It’s awful when you can’t provide a refugee with their basic needs. The World Food Program will sometimes make announcements that they have to cut the calorie amounts for refugees in a certain part of the world because they just don’t have the funding. The work is just as important as it ever was.
Another reality is that we rely on the voluntary contributions of states, but states also have their own interests. And I don’t mean that in a pejorative way, but they might say, “We’re really interested in this particular emergency, and we’re going to give you earmarked contributions. We’re going to fund this specific activity.” Now, you could ask what we are doing about the Sudan crisis right now, and I say, “We’re making really difficult choices because we’ve appealed for 1 billion dollars for the Sudan situation, and yet we’ve only got $200 million because states aren’t giving enough money in response to this crisis, or states aren’t responding to the level we need.” And this scenario often happens.
There are many operations where there are serious protection challenges, serious needs, and yet, unfortunately, we are not able to get donors interested in that particular part of the world. Donors might say they have a limited amount of money too, and they’ve got their own national priorities and such. We have seen some of those arguments in Canada even, where there is a lot of interest in Ukrainians, or Afghans, or Syrians—such interest can shift from time to time. And some of the other situations get overlooked, so we’re always struggling with how we can continue to fund the new emergencies which aren’t capturing public attention.
That said, an increasingly important part of our budget has been contributions from private donors, or private sector partnerships. These donations are usually not “earmarked” and can allow us to fill in some of the gaps. As difficult as it is, and however much things seem to be continually getting worse, one bright light has been the growth in private sector partnerships. Really, the international community should be doing this. It’s an international community problem. States are supposed to solve this. But, at the end of the day, we can’t sit by and hold our breath, so private donors are helping fill the gap.
Q: Do you feel sometimes you have to espouse the benefits of refugee resettlement in Canada to those outside of the settlement field?
A: Refugees are often framed as a needy group. And I say, “Give them some opportunity for agency.” Because when you allow them the opportunity to do things, then amazing things happen. They are people with skills and abilities. Allow them, for example, to work legally wherever they are so they can make their own living. In some countries, they have been given access to territory, but technically they are not supposed to work or have access to education.
If given a chance, and the Canadian experience speaks to this, refugees will succeed. It has been shown generation after generation, and it’s not specific to a particular nationality. We did some work a few years ago that involved looking at Census data and the integration experience of refugees in Canada. What we found was that those first few years can be very difficult, but over time, Canada benefits, not just culturally or by increasing diversity, but economically. At the time of the project, for example, one in four refugees earned between $40,000 and $79,999 annually, similar to statistics for Canadians, and after twenty years in Canada, refugees contribute more to Canada in federal income taxes than they receive in public benefits and services. The study was called Are Refugees Good for Canada? We initiated the work because, from polling, we learned that the number one concern of people who are less likely to want to welcome refugees was not because they are worried refugees are terrorists or that they will change their neighbourhood, but that they are going to cost us. And we thought, That’s an argument we can have.
But beyond the economic argument is the success of refugee children. Children who arrive in Canada as refugees up to the age of 12 have a higher rate of completion of college, university, and post-graduate studies than those who are Canadian born. I don’t think this means refugee children are necessarily smarter than others, but that the Canadian integration system works. If you give refugees access to opportunities, they will take advantage of them, and the host country will benefit.