The international refugee protection system was created in Geneva in 1922 with the adoption of a treaty on refugees fleeing the Bolsheviks and the civil war in Russia. A century later, Western powers find themselves in a similar situation involving Russian violence. A disaster scenario in Ukraine has become a real possibility: the Russian army could destroy entire neighborhoods like in Grozny or Aleppo, thus creating an increasingly serious humanitarian crisis with massive flows of refugees in the center of Europe. While the member countries of the European Union adopt a policy of temporary protection to welcome Ukrainian refugees, we must recognize the limits of this solidarity. As a country of immigration with a proud humanitarian tradition, Canada can play an important role.
The particular context of Ukraine explains the rapidity of the massive influx of refugees. Ukrainians were able to flee across land borders to neighbors who are involved in the geopolitical struggle against Russia and who have encouraged the evacuation of the civilian population threatened by the Russian military. Although the drama of the Ukrainian refugees is tragic, from another point of view they are at least lucky to have attracted the attention and the resources of the West. There are nearly thirty million refugees across the world and most are forgotten in distant conflicts that attract neither.
However, we must be careful with the initial enthusiasm for welcoming almost three million Ukrainian refugees. This opening will not last indefinitely. The recent past in Central Europe indicates that open doors will eventually lead to controversy.
This ambivalence explains the European offer of a precarious status of temporary protection which will allow the rapid repatriation of Ukrainians. This is the formalization of a concept developed during the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. The idea would be that the refugees will return to their homes as soon as the hostilities cease. As it is difficult to imagine a lasting Russian occupation, the priority according to this approach is to keep the refugees in the region (Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova) in order to facilitate repatriation. Other European countries have a role to play in easing the burden on frontline countries.
What would be an appropriate role for Canada in this context? For now, temporary visas issued on a priority basis and a relaxation of family reunification rules seem to be the main features of the Canadian response. However, the form of temporary protection proposed by the Trudeau government will not be easy to implement, as it opposes the Canadian tradition of granting permanent residence. Until now, the authorities have preferred to permanently integrate refugees after a few years of protection, because repatriation is not necessarily in the interest of an immigration country.
Although some Ukrainians will want to return home, there are undoubtedly many who would prefer to start a new life in a country that generously welcomes immigrants. The question of transition to permanent immigration will be inevitable given the massive immigration plan already planned by the Trudeau government for the next few years and the considerable influence of the Ukrainian diaspora. As the government says an unlimited number of visas will be issued, it should clarify what will happen to Ukrainians when the temporary permit expires after two years.
In addition, the reception of a significant number of Ukrainians will potentially affect applicants for immigration from other countries. Always be transparent with a host population when it comes to sensitive topics affecting their demographics.