The Immigration Sponsorship Debt

What is a sponsorship undertaking? Secondly, why is the government just recently implementing the collection of the debts?

A sponsorship agreement and undertaking is a signed agreement between the sponsor and Canadian Immigration and Citizenship (CIC). In the agreement, a sponsor agrees to support the family member or spouse for up to 10 years and 3 years for spouses/common law partner.

This agreement has been a part of the sponsorship undertaking for many years, although rarely enforced by the Federal Government. Changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, has made it possible for provinces to collect upon the debt.

CIC has assigned their legal rights under the sponsorship agreement and undertaking to the provinces, the right to collect on behalf of the federal government when a default occurs.

The BC provincial government is within its legal right to collect on defaults by the sponsors to repay all money given out as income assistance to sponsored immigrants.

We are not the first province to come across this, Manitoba and Quebec have been been collecting.

Internationally US has been collecting since 1996, Australia also has a similar policy.

THE PROBLEM:

BC government has taken collection action and there are few exceptions.

There is no regard for circumstances that lead into the sponsor not being able to maintain agreement of undertaking, i.e., sponsor becoming disabled or violence in the relationship.

All sponsors are asked to pay.

The first wave of letters requesting payment came out around November 2003, about a year ago.

The second wave came out in early summer July 2004.

Government news release is that 4 million plus has been collected.

"The province will not try and recover the debt if the sponsor is in receipt of income assistance or if there are concerns about the safety of the income assistance client (sponsored immigrant) due to possible family violence or abuse. However, they may seek when recovery when circumstances change"(Christine Davidson 2004).

The sponsored Immigrant can continue to receive income assistance; there is no effect on their eligibility.

The sponsor can ask for forgiveness of debts but there are very few successes, government is not responding favourably.

BIG QUESTION, WHAT TO DO?

There is no precedent setting cases. NO one has gone to court with this.

We can do legal research around this, to find legal areas of attack. Progressive Intercultural Community Services (PICS), has stared some work around this, and have filed a class action case.
Christine Davidson, and David Mossop, both Immigration lawyers:
Have done some research:

The new changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act June 28, 1992,
Has made it more difficult for people who have legitimate claims of default to the undertaking agreement due to circumstances beyond their control. There is no breach of the undertaking agreement due to circumstances beyond ones control.
The old agreement allows for circumstances.
They found a few changes that strengthen the provinces position in debt recovery. We can have an open forum and have them come in and speak to the changes in detail, as I am not an attorney I will allow the experts to speak.

HOW DOES THESE EFFECT WOMEN?

The assumption is that the sponsor is a male, which is why if the sponsored individual is escaping family violence for their safety, the debt will not be pursued until circumstances change

As relationship violence is predominantly male violence against women, which the Attorney General's Policy on Relationship Violence acknowledges

The safety of female sponsors who are the victims of male violence need to be considered in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As victims of violence women may stay in abusive situations knowing if they leave, and their male partner goes on social assistance, that they are responsible for the debt as sponsors.

Immigrant women and marginalized women are the ones to suffer as they have yet to reach pay equity, or job parity, the undue hardship placed on these women is overwhelming.

Women are being doubly victimized first, by male/female partner, and secondly, by the state, by paying for the keep of her abuser.

THE CHANGES DESIRED

A woman sponsor is not penalized for her breach of undertaking if the breach occurs solely as a result of sponsoree's action.

Presented by Sargit Kaler