Luca Galli

Canada was the first State worldwide to introduce a private refugee sponsorship scheme, thereby positioning itself as the principal model for other governments seeking to adopt comparable frameworks.
The participation of civil society in refugee assistance is, in fact, deeply embedded in Canada’s longstanding resettlement practice, which dates back to the early twentieth century and developed mainly as a response to the severe humanitarian conditions affecting European populations in the aftermath of the two World Wars (Labman S., “Private Sponsorship: Complementary or Conflicting Interests?,” in Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 2016, 2, 67-80).
Prior to 1976 – when the Immigration Act was enacted in order to implement at the domestic level the obligations stemming from the 1951 Refugee Convention – resettlement activities were largely based on discretionary governmental measures, frequently supported by initiatives undertaken by civil society, in which faith-based organizations – such as the Mennonite Central Committee – assumed responsibility for the transportation, reception, and social integration of vulnerable persons within Canadian society.
As noted, a significant shift occurred in 1976, when the legislature not only formalized a State-managed resettlement pathway – the Government-Assisted Refugees (GAR) programme – but also authorized private individuals (Canadian citizens or permanent residents) and legal persons (both profit-making and non-profit) to resettle additional refugees, thus establishing the Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program.
More detailed rules concerning beneficiary eligibility, sponsor requirements, procedural arrangements, and sponsors’ duties were subsequently introduced by the 1978 Immigration Regulations, enabling the first substantial application of private sponsorship in response to the refugee crisis caused by the conflicts in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Between 1978 and 1979, approximately 35,000 refugees were resettled through the PSR, and to date the overall number of beneficiaries has surpassed 420,000.
Over time, Canada’s refugee legislation has undergone significant reform. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) of 2001, together with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) of 2002, now constitute the statutory framework governing the national refugee resettlement system. At present, this system is structured around three principal programmes: the “public” Government-Assisted Refugees (GAR) Program; the “private” Private Sponsorship of Refugees (PSR) Program; and, since 2013, the “public–private” Blended Visa Office-Referred (BVOR) Program, which combines partial public funding with a more limited margin of discretion for private sponsors in the identification of beneficiaries (Hyndman J., Payne W. and Jimenez S., “The State of Private Refugee Sponsorship in Canada: Trends, Issues, and Impact,” in RRN/CRS Policy Brief Submitted to the Government of Canada, 2016).
Turning specifically to the PSR – whose scale and results are the most significant – eligible beneficiaries fall into two broad categories of persons in need of humanitarian protection: the Convention Refugees Abroad Class and the Country of Asylum Class. The former category comprises individuals located outside Canada who are unable to return to their country of origin for reasons including race, religion, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, in accordance with the refugee definition set out in the 1951 Geneva Convention. The latter category covers individuals exposed to additional forms of vulnerability, such as those fleeing civil wars, armed conflicts, or serious violations of fundamental rights (Yahyaoui Krivenko E., “Hospitality and sovereignty: what can we learn from the Canadian private sponsorship of refugees program?”, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2012, 3, 579-602).
As regards potential sponsors, they are instead classified into three separate categories, each governed by specific eligibility requirements: (i) Sponsorship Agreement Holders (SAHs), namely private organizations that conclude formal agreements with the Ministry of Immigration authorizing them to carry out a predetermined number of sponsorships on an annual basis; (ii) Community Groups, defined as private organizations – whether non-profit or for-profit – that engage in sponsorship activities in the absence of such formal agreements; and (iii) Groups of Five, composed of a minimum of five adult Canadian citizens or permanent residents who jointly undertake the responsibility of sponsoring a refugee.
In order for a sponsorship to be approved, both beneficiaries and sponsors are required to undergo administrative procedures designed to assess their respective eligibility. With regard to beneficiaries, this assessment is carried out by Canadian Visa Offices Abroad (CVOA) either ex ante – irrespective of any sponsorship application, for the purpose of compiling lists of eligible persons primarily on the basis of referrals from UNHCR – or ex post, following a sponsorship application submitted by a private sponsor and concerning individuals not included in the pre-established lists, thereby permitting the “naming” of beneficiaries. In such cases, the intervention of the CVOA serves to verify the accuracy of private sponsors’ determinations of eligibility (Treviranus B. and Casasola M., “Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugee Program: A Practitioners Perspective of its Past and Future,” in Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2003, 4, 177-202).
With respect to sponsors, the Case Processing Centre in Ottawa (CPC-O) is responsible for assessing compliance with a set of requirements, including the availability of adequate financial means, organizational capacity, and relevant prior experience, as well as for reviewing the detailed integration plan that sponsors are required to submit in order to demonstrate the suitability of the proposed integration services.
Judicial review is available, and negative eligibility determinations – particularly those concerning beneficiaries – may be contested before the Federal Courts, which are tasked with examining the “reasonableness” of the administrative decision.
When sponsorship is approved, refugees are granted permanent resident visas, allowing them to enter Canada and reside there on a stable basis. Permanent resident status further confers rights largely comparable to those enjoyed by Canadian citizens, including access to social rights, while also facilitating an expedited pathway to citizenship (Yahyaoui Krivenko E.). In addition, in order to promote effective integration into Canadian society, the Ministry of Immigration finances the Refugee Sponsorship Training Program (RSTP) – aimed at providing guidance and support to sponsors (Treviranus B. and Casasola M.) – and, through its regional offices, is vested with supervisory powers to monitor the proper implementation of sponsorship obligations.
If the clear and well-structured regulatory and administrative framework, the supervisory role of public bodies in the selection and provision of integration services, the possibility of challenging decisions in court, the “naming” possibility, and the granting of permanent resident status can all be considered as best practices, also the potential shortcomings of the Canadian experience cannot be disregarded, as extensively highlighted in the scholarly literature.
By way of example, the involvement of the CPO and the CVOAs in the selection of both sponsors and beneficiaries – although designed to safeguard procedural fairness – has contributed to a marked degree of bureaucratisation, commonly referred to as “administrative burden”, which has frequently resulted in exceedingly lengthy processing times, extending to two or even more than three years. Moreover, while judicial review is formally available, its practical effectiveness remains limited to a very small number of cases, as access to Canadian courts is de facto hindered for excluded beneficiaries residing abroad (Thériault P.A., “Judicial Review in Canada’s Refugee Resettlement Program,” in Labman S. and Cameron G. (eds), Strangers to Neighbours Refugee Sponsorship in Context, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2020, 228-244). Further issues deserving attention include the preferential access granted to government-assisted refugees with respect to public services (see, inter alia, the decision of the Federal Court of Canada in Canada (AG) v. Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, 2014 FCA 252), as well as governmental measures aimed, on the one hand, at curtailing sponsors’ discretion in the identification of beneficiaries (Labman S.; Yahyaoui Krivenko E.), and, on the other, at imposing numerical limits on privately sponsored admissions – thereby effectively weakening the principles of naming and additionality.
However, even when due account is taken of these critical issues, and notwithstanding the specificities stemming from Canada’s geographical location and the socio-demographic composition of its society, the Canadian experience continues to represent a relevant benchmark for those legal systems seeking to expand or refine their own private sponsorship schemes, including Italy.
The “Humanitarian Corridors” initiative, launched in 2015 at the impetus of the Italian civil society, although undoubtedly worthy of recognition, remains quantitatively limited both in terms of the number of beneficiaries involved (approximately 11,000 over a ten-year period) and of participating sponsors, and is marked by a de facto almost complete externalisation of core functions to private actors. While such a configuration testifies to the vitality and civic engagement of society in supporting refugees, the lack of meaningful public involvement and oversight in the identification of beneficiaries, as well as in the design and implementation of reception and integration measures, appears instead to signal a retreat of public authorities from the governance of migration, rather than an effort to address it through a structured and cooperative framework developed in conjunction with civil society.

This blogpost is one of the scientific outcomes of the CoSME Project (www.cosmeproject.eu)