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.
Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School
People are generally well-informed as to the exceptions. That's half as many as came before the agreement. Most people are not presenting themselves at the border because they know they don't fit within the exceptions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, thank you. That concludes our seven-minute round, so we'll now go to five-minute rounds.
We'll begin with Mr. Karygiannis.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Professor and esteemed members of the panel, thank you very much for coming. I find your testimony to be very moving.
One of the things we have seen over the years is that, be it North America, Europe, or other countries, they sort of come together and say that this is the one form of acceptance, if you want to call it that, that we're going to take. In Europe, for example, if you claim refugee status in one particular country, it will be similar in other countries. There are people who arrive in parts of Europe and they claim to be refugees. Then they turn around and come to Canada and sort of try to hide the refugee claim from Europe from Canada.
My overall question would be whether it would be beneficial for us to say, okay, let's set a standard right across the world. Take the lessons of Canada, take the lessons of other European countries that have accepted refugees that are successful, take best practices, and take what they're using as a determination factor, and then through one single body, be it the UNHCR or an ombudsman of the UNHCR, disseminate this information to other countries and say this is the standard you must follow. Take best practices, be it in the United States, Canada, or Europe, and then make a determination along those lines, and then have countries follow that determination. So we won't have people who could be refugee shopping.
I have seen cases, and I've worked on cases, where people have come from Europe and claimed refugee status in Canada. They've been found out to have been granted asylum in Europe. But because in Canada they might have family here.... They are under deportation orders. I've seen people in the United States who were there for a number years and things didn't happen, and they wanted to come up to Canada.
In order to go to one level above, wouldn't it be beneficial for us, as a country that the rest of the world looks to as a beacon of what happens in accepting refugees—and I'm sure people around this table have come to this country either as refugee claimants or as people seeking a better life or economic situation—to set a standard and ask our bureaucrats or our minister to go to the UNHCR and ask why we don't we set up one shop, if you want to call it that, that disseminates information and looks after something? There would be one practice, and if a country failed to meet those standards, then the ombudsman would talk to the country officials, so refugees could find a country and not have to go from one border to another border to another border. When you transcend those borders, you can certainly be hurt, and you can certainly cause difficulties.
If the determination that happens in Canada is something similar, if we can teach our American colleagues or teach the Europeans, or the Europeans can teach us to have a unified system, wouldn't that be something better?
Co-Director, FCJ Refugee Centre, As an Individual
That was the whole goal of the refugee convention of 1951. The whole goal was to set up a framework that every country would respect and implement.
Co-Director, FCJ Refugee Centre, As an Individual
It doesn't work.
Liberal
Co-Director, FCJ Refugee Centre, As an Individual
No, it is time to implement the convention. The convention is not implemented for every single country because it's interpreted in a particular way, and the definition of refugees is applied according to national standards. The problem is that the convention also has an article that talks about the monetary mechanisms the UN has to develop to make this convention what you are talking about. But the problem is that governments and states are not interested in developing that mechanism, and they are not interested in being observed and being criticized and having a particular standard imposed.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Rico-Martinez, you're saying it hasn't worked, that countries are not willing to be shamed by it. Then wouldn't it be up to us to ask our officials, to ask the minister, to go to the UNHCR and push the right buttons to make sure this is vigorously looked at and that there is an ombudsman set out there who goes through the whole system and goes to different countries and monitors their decisions and sets a standard they have to meet? And if they don't have that standard, then....
Co-Director, FCJ Refugee Centre, As an Individual
Feel free. Try.
We have been trained as NGOs to try to have these mechanisms, to try to have standards. The UNHCR has been trying to set up standards for everybody--lines of interpretation and different things. National realities create different definitions. For instance, the Canadian definition is way more expansive than any other definition we have under the refugee convention. So in that way, please feel free to try to impose—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, you have 30 seconds. We're at 5:30 already.
Mr. Karygiannis, did you have a follow-up question?
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Let me just give you a scenario.
Every September the foreign governments get together in the UN. Can you imagine our Prime Minister standing up and trying to set a goal for this, saying that it hasn't worked, we want it to work, and that we Canadians will take the lead in making sure it does work?
Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School
The way it is constituted, the UNHCR is not capable of being such an independent agency. Many people have suggested that a truly independent international body should make these determinations and that all countries be bound by it.
Let me just tell you what has been happening with UNHCR in the U.S. In critical cases now the United States government has been arguing against administrative bodies hearing the opinion even of UNHCR. We have a major case before the Board of Immigration Appeals for which the Department of Homeland Security has opposed UNHCR submitting a brief as to its opinion.
So can you imagine a case in which the—
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Ms. Anker, the chair tells me I'm way over my time.
Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School
Yes, okay. I'm sorry.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
However, I think you agree with the theme that there is an ombudsman or an outside body, be it the UNHCR...and that we have to make sure it works. You agree with that theme?
Conservative
Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School
I think so, if I understand you. Yes.
Conservative
February 8th, 2007 / 12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today and for your time and presentations.
My question goes to Ms. Anker.
Ms. Anker, in your testimony you offer considerable criticism of the American refugee system, suggesting it is in violation of international legal standards. I'm curious to know what steps, if any, have been taken to address these concerns.
Clinical Professor of Law, Immigration and Refugee Program, Harvard Law School
I don't think steps have been taken to address these concerns, and I think the situation of refugee protection has deteriorated enormously over the last five years. That's really the most critical conclusion I would like to communicate.
Actually, our standards went up. The system that Professor Martin praises is the result of Canada's leadership and example during the 1980s and 1990s. It raised the standard in the U.S.
In the last five years, there has been a very marked deterioration, not that there weren't problems before that. The one-year filing deadline, the detention, and the corroboration requirements have all happened in the last five years.
As I mentioned The New York Times today has a report by a congressional committee, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, expressing enormous frustration that it made critical recommendations two years ago that have been completely unaddressed by the U.S. administrative authorities responsible for adjudicating asylum claims.
Conservative
Nina Grewal Conservative Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Canada has many avenues for appeal with regard to a person who is refused refugee status. I am wondering whether the United States also has avenues of appeal that may be used by a failed refugee claimant at any level, be it administrative or judicial.