Скачать презентацию Annual status report on refugees and immigrants Canadian Скачать презентацию Annual status report on refugees and immigrants Canadian

ecbde454517bb228ead7d9099aaa61a2.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 10

Annual status report on refugees and immigrants Canadian Council for Refugees November 2004 Annual status report on refugees and immigrants Canadian Council for Refugees November 2004

 • Overview of how federal government addressed refugee and immigration issues. • From • Overview of how federal government addressed refugee and immigration issues. • From the perspective of the Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR). • From November 2003 to October 2004.

RESETTLING REFUGEES On the positive side • group processing • more special needs refugees RESETTLING REFUGEES On the positive side • group processing • more special needs refugees • leadership role internationally On the negative side • long processing delays for privately sponsored refugees • 60/40 split puts limits on resettled refugees (and family class) • Money and targets for government-assisted refugees reduced

PROTECTING REFUGEES On the positive side • IRB appointments process reformed • Suspension of PROTECTING REFUGEES On the positive side • IRB appointments process reformed • Suspension of removals to Haiti • Protection of North Koreans in Canadian embassy in Beijing. • PRRA transferred back to CIC. On the negative side • National security policy links refugees with security threats. • “Refugee reform” focuses on rights restrictions. • Non-implementation of Refugee Appeal Division.

PROTECTING REFUGEES More on negative side • violation of sanctuary; false claims re. avenues PROTECTING REFUGEES More on negative side • violation of sanctuary; false claims re. avenues of appeal • BC withdrawal from legal aid; no solution from fed. gov’t • security certificate used to seek to deport to risk of torture • moving towards safe third country • Videoconference hearings at IRB • “Direct backs” leading to detention in US of claimants • No measures to protect interdicted refugees

UNITING FAMILIES On the positive side • increased numbers of refugee family members to UNITING FAMILIES On the positive side • increased numbers of refugee family members to Canada • “one year window” assisted over 150 family members • some (limited) change to exclusionary Family Class definition On the negative side • long processing delays for refugee family members • family separation through deportation • no avenue for family reunification for separated children

INTEGRATING NEWCOMERS On the positive side • increasing newcomer access to employment is government INTEGRATING NEWCOMERS On the positive side • increasing newcomer access to employment is government priority • cap on travel loans for refugees On the negative side • government has been linking newcomers to terrorism • no movement on status for non-status people in Canada • refugee claimants still ineligible for settlement services

RESPECTING CIVIL RIGHTS On the positive side • back to 2 ministers signing security RESPECTING CIVIL RIGHTS On the positive side • back to 2 ministers signing security certificates • regulation of consultants • changes for better protection of unaccompanied minors facing removal On the negative side • detention of claimants on ID grounds • racial profiling - no apology for Operation Thread • unfair treatment of people found inadmissible on security grounds.

BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN On the positive side • increased awareness re. detention of BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN On the positive side • increased awareness re. detention of minors • CIC issued procedural guidelines for responding to minor claimants On the negative side • continued detention of minors, including unaccompanied • no national policy for separated children • “best interests” principle often misapplied in H&C decisions

GENDER EQUALITY On the positive side • gov’t commitment to protect against trafficking in GENDER EQUALITY On the positive side • gov’t commitment to protect against trafficking in persons On the negative side • no commitment to protect trafficked persons (often women) • no gender-based analysis of impact of Act