Evidence of meeting #33 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was safe.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Deborah Anker  Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School
Francisco Rico-Martinez  Co-Director, FCJ Refugee Centre, As an Individual
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. William Farrell

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you.

I will now go to Mr. Telegdi.

We're hoping to get everyone in here.

February 8th, 2007 / 12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

One of the things they have in the European Union is standards for human rights, and all members that are part of the European Union have to adhere to them. They even have the European Court of Human Rights, which forced changes to the security certificate process for England. The same situation doesn't exist between Canada and the United States.

I've always had reservations about this, and I think it was very much driven by 9/11. Just to give a clear example of where we differ from the United States on norms, clearly we have the Arar case. We cleared Mr. Arar but the United States has not. They still have him on a no-fly list. That's a good example of the norms.

There's another thing I'm worried about, Professor. You mentioned Latin America. There's quite a bit of tension arising in Latin America, with what's happening in the various countries. Every time there are democratic elections there seem to be more tensions arising between the U.S. and Latin American countries, such as Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, and the list just goes on.

If I look back in history, I look at what happened to the El Salvadorans. The U.S. government backed a particular junta for El Salvador. Most notably, there was what happened with Chile, where the democratic government of Allende was overthrown by Pinochet, who was found to be and condemned as a human rights abuser responsible for the deaths of very many people. I believe probably about 50,000 Chileans found haven in Canada. If they were captured in the U.S., the practice tended to be that they were sent back, and then they would be some of the people who disappeared under Pinochet.

With that in mind, I wonder if you could comment on some of the situations and experiences that you know of in the United States in terms of what happened to the Chileans. They ended up being very much a valued group in Canada. Heck, we even had a member of Parliament from that background. So could you comment on how the U.S. treats people they consider hostile, if you will?

12:40 p.m.

Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School

Deborah Anker

This has historically been a major problem in the U.S. I would say the current problems are somewhat similar, but in many cases they also relate to a range of individual arbitrariness because of a lack of administrative oversight and a lack of a real rule of law regime in the U.S.

I completely agree with your description of the history. I would say the analogous situation now is that of the Colombians. Colombians are the largest group of refugees in this hemisphere, and they are effectively being either denied access to asylum—which does not happen in Canada—or denied protection in ways that are clearly in contravention of the refugee convention and clearly inconsistent with what's happening in Canada. Colombians are the new Chileans, the new Guatemalans, and the new Salvadorans. Colombians are not able to apply for protection in Canada under the safe third country agreement.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

I see more problems coming with whatever develops in Cuba as well, following the succession to Castro. The problem seems to be growing, and its potential for abuse is increasing.

12:40 p.m.

Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

You have a couple of minutes, Ms. Grewal, and then we have a minute or two for Blair and a minute or two for Mr. Gravel. I want to try to get everyone in here.

I have four items to deal with after committee. I know the practice is to go back and forth for five minutes until the clock runs out. Anyway, I'm taking up more time than I need to.

Ms. Grewal.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From the information that has been presented to us, it appears that the safe third country agreement is harming anyone, but the harm is suffered predominately by Colombian asylum seekers.

Ms. Anker, in your submission you stated that despite the continued existence of serious and widespread human rights abuses in Colombia, several aspects of the U.S. asylum system pose major obstacles to Colombian refugees seeking protection in the United States. Could you please elaborate on these obstacles and explain to us why Colombian refugee claimants have a higher acceptance rate here in Canada?

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Please be as brief as you can. Why do Colombians have a higher acceptance rate here in Canada than others?

12:40 p.m.

Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School

Deborah Anker

Part of this relates to the failure to acknowledge the duress exception in the material support bar under U.S. law, which I was describing before. So people who pay ransom for their relatives are considered to have materially supported terrorism. Part of it has to do with arbitrariness and problems that are endemic now to the U.S. system: excessive corroboration requirements; excessive detention; requirements of proof of the persecutor's motives, in many cases; and the one-year bar.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Gravel and Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Gravel.

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Raymond Gravel Bloc Repentigny, QC

I have a short question for Mrs. Anker. You said earlier that it might take an international body to enforce the agreement, that the agreement might be a good thing but that it needs to be reassessed.

How could we set up an international body that would be recognized by the United States, for example. Would that country accept an international body that might decide that the agreement needs to be amended?

It seems to me that Canadian policies are too much aligned with those of the United States at the present time. The climate deteriorates more and more. So would it be possible to improve this situation by establishing a body? And who would recognize such an international body?

12:45 p.m.

Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School

Deborah Anker

I don't think the creation of an international body right now is really viable. I think in principle it is the right way to go, but the UNHCR is not in a position to be that body. It is too politically compromised; its funding is completely dependent on donor states; and the United States, frankly, has not shown its willingness to comply with the norms set by international bodies. As I mentioned, the United States right now is opposing the UNHCR even submitting briefs in cases before its own agencies, let alone complying with the interpretation of an international body as to what refugee law is. So until we can establish the independence of such a body—real independence and real compliance of such a body—it's not realistic. I think maybe I wasn't clear on that before.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Wilson, please.

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Thank you, and thank you, Professor Anker and Mr. Rico-Martinez, for your testimony today.

I want to go to what I think is the heart of the matter here. What I've heard from you today and from the questions that have been asked is basically that the safe third country agreement was put into place and came into force in 2004 in order to reduce the duplication in processing, and possibly to get through a backlog of refugees that Canada may have had. I think that was the intent when it was first put forward, and I believe it was based on the fact that at that point in time, Canada and the United States had roughly the same standards for allowing refugees to come into each one of their countries.

But since that time, your testimony is that things have changed with respect to the policies that the United States is following and that Canada is following, so that there should be an annual review of how consistent the two countries' policies are, and that provided we are applying our standards consistently, then a safe third party agreement would be fair to implement. When the two diverge, that's when we have the problem.

I think where we're at right now is that Canada, or the government of the day, is basically handing over sovereignty and the control of our refugee policy to the United States and basically saying, whatever your policy is, we're willing to accept it carte blanche.

Would that be a fair analysis of the situation?

12:45 p.m.

Co-Director, FCJ Refugee Centre, As an Individual

Francisco Rico-Martinez

Let me say that the duplication is not solved by this agreement. Originally, 10 years ago, when the discussion started, it was to avoid duplication and to ban anyone who made a claim in the United States from coming to Canada and then making another claim here. But the agreement doesn't talk in any way about that. I'm not suggesting that you include it, but I am saying that asylum shopping as a very simplistic way of avoiding making a claim in two countries is not addressed by the agreement. Anyway, this agreement stopped the duplication of things.

The second thing is I think Canadian civil society made a mistake in 2004 because we didn't challenge judicially the safe third country agreement at that time. I think the situation at that particular moment with the United States was very different and was already changing because of the situation with September 11 and all that stuff. We didn't do it for different reasons—lack of resources, lack of vision.

Now it's even clearer than what we knew at that particular moment. You read all our documents opposing the safe third country agreements. They're clear. Now it's even clearer that the differences are abysmal and the situation is not possible to reconcile.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you very much.

I wish we had more time, because obviously people want to ask more questions. I do want to thank you for your submissions today. They were very interesting, indeed.

Of course, you're aware we'll be doing a report on refugee issues, and it'll be done under seven headings, one of which will be the safe third country agreement. I'm sure you'll look forward to hearing what our recommendations are when we issue our report.

Again, many thanks for coming. I'm sure we'll be hearing from you again. Thank you.

Do we need to suspend? We don't need to suspend. I'll just ask witnesses to move away from the table, and we'll get on with our business. Thank you.

The first item on the agenda today, one of four, is a motion by Mr. Karygiannis, giving notice to the following motion. Note that notice has been given that the committee visit the detention centre in Kingston to see the detainees and observe their health in the immediate future.

Mr. Karygiannis.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Having seen the detainees last Sunday on my own initiative—and I know when Mr. Siksay had put a question to the minister that the minister had said Mr. Siksay had not visited the detainees to see their condition—I would highly recommend that we do visit the detainees as soon as possible to see the condition of their situation, so that we are first-hand witnesses to what their deterioration and their health are like.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Okay, thank you, Mr. Karygiannis.

Mr. Devolin.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

I have just a couple of thoughts. First of all, regarding logistics of doing something sooner than later, I wonder if maybe a smaller group, maybe one person from each caucus, might be both easier to organize and easier to get permission from whips to travel for. It's a friendly suggestion.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

You know what? If it's one person who chooses to go or if people can find their own way there—It's not too far from Ottawa, and a lot of us have cars. So besides limiting it to one person and saying this is firm and fast, if anybody else wants to go of their own accord, by all means.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Yes, okay.

Mr. Telegdi.

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Seeing that we had the whole committee go down before, I think it would be advisable if all of us went. I just found out, talking to Mr. Komarnicki, that the officials—the minister and the deputy minister—are not available on Monday, but they'll be available the subsequent Monday. Given the fact that we already had this committee meeting scheduled for February 12 to hear from them, we might use this as an opportune time to get down there as quickly as practical. That might be a good day, so let's just take that day and go.

I think it's an excellent motion.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

The clerk informs me that there might be a problem in doing that because we have to get the budget—

12:55 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. William Farrell

If the committee approves the budget, you have to get the funding from the budget liaison committee, and then we have to get a House order to go down. So I think the earliest we could get it done is—it might take us the next week to get the permission.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

It would take a week.