Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 29th, 2006

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

Given Canada's capacity, our experience and expertise, in your judgment where would Canada best fit in assisting you and your organization in dealing with solutions to that problem?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Canada is at the forefront of coming up with innovative and excellent ideas of dealing with displacement in general. Last year Canada provided UNHCR with about $31 million U.S. Canada is an important donor to UNHCR, but I think moral support, political, diplomatic, and financial support from Canada and like-minded countries will be very important for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madame.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I want to come back to the Safe Third Country Agreement, if I may. The information we have, that is the first statistics that have already been compiled within the framework of this agreement, between 2004 and 2005, there was a 40 per cent decrease in refugee claims made at border crossings and a 23 per cent decrease at inland offices and airports. Since Canada shares its only land border with the United States, clearly the agreement has greater impact on refugee claimants travelling through the United States.

This affects individuals in the two countries providing the highest number of claimants: Columbians and Mexicans represent 47 per cent of refugee claimants per year. Already, in North American, we can imagine that many of them leave their country of origin and travel through the United States in order to apply.

Should we be concerned about the adverse impact on these refugee claimants? Do they prefer to remain illegal refugees, for fear of being returned to the United States? Could this agreement be causing increasing illegal border jumping?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Again, I spelled out in my presentation the wide range of nationalities that were affected by safe third. You have Colombia in first place, Zimbabwe in second place, Sri Lanka in third place. You have a Latin American country, an Asian country, and an African country, so the affected nationalities are quite varied. I wouldn't want to just focus on the fact that one or two nationalities are affected.

The key for us is that there be one state—either the U.S. or Canada—where asylum seekers can lodge their refugee claims, that there not be responsibility shifting, and that responsibilities be clearly designated. In the case of the safe third, our monitoring of its first 12 months of implementation demonstrates that in fact both countries are living up to their international obligations.

I can't make a value judgment as to why people prefer to lodge claims in Canada over the U.S. In fact, most of the traffic has been in the direction of Canada, you're correct. Whether the safe third has had an impact on illegal arrivals or illegal trafficking or smuggling, for example, is a question that we often put to the government. The government has assured us that the safe third has not resulted in any noticeable spike in the number of people seeking to enter Canada illegally in order to circumvent safe third.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Devolin, you have a question.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Yes. I have a couple of questions. I may not use the right words to ask this question either.

I presume there are countries in the world where there are standard practices that would be unacceptable here in Canada, where people would be asked to do stuff that they would not be asked to do if they were a citizen of Canada, stuff that would be unacceptable here.

One example that comes to my mind is something like conscription. Can somebody claim refugee status in another country--Canada, for example--because they live in a country where conscription—compulsory military service, I guess you could call it—is standard? Would that be a basis for claiming refugee status in Canada?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Again, I don't want to make a general statement on a general question, but if we're talking about a country where the rule of law prevails, where a democratic system prevails, and the law happens to be that there are compulsory military duties for certain age categories, that, in and of itself, would not constitute grounds for refugee status.

However, if we are talking about a different society with a different system, and the individual in question might be a minor, certainly in some countries where there is forced conscription of minors and where the rule of law and democratic systems do not prevail, UNHCR will look at cases of that type with a different approach, if you will.

I would say that it will vary. There is no one-size-fits-all type of response to conscription issues. We will look at these on a case-by-case basis. But certainly, that's just one example. Where there is forced conscription of a minor, say the way it was in the Great Lakes region of Africa after the genocide, when a number of young kids were being forcibly conscripted into the military to do things that were unpalatable, obviously UNHCR takes a very negative view of such types of action. But there will be other types of conscription issues that are of a different nature.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

In the example I was thinking of, South Korea, there is mandatory military service for all young men, but a young Korean male couldn't claim to be a refugee. I guess he could try to claim refugee status in Canada by saying that either he didn't want to serve or that it was sexist, because it's only for men and not for women.

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Absent other factors, based on what you've just said in this illustration, I would say, no, there wouldn't be grounds. But again, it would be a case-by-case determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going to get Mr. Silva in here for a question or two, and then we need a couple of minutes for motions that Mr. Siksay has put forward.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Assadi, for your presentation.

I wanted some clarification about asylum seekers. The information I have is that as of 2002, there were over a million people who were seeking asylum worldwide, and there were over 10.4 million refugees worldwide. You mentioned that there has been a decrease. Did that number you quoted today include asylum seekers or not?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

These would be refugees who are registered with UNHCR. Don't forget, for example, that we don't register or deal with Palestinian refugees. They are dealt with by another UN agency, and there are a couple of million of them as well. The number we have on our books today is just over nine million. We would also include asylum seekers, including those people who are destined for repatriation.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's what I wanted to know.

The second question is a little different from Mr. Devolin's, but it is still on the issue of military service. It is not about conscription, because we know that in the U.S. there is no conscription, but we also know that under international law and under the UN mandate the U.S. is really engaged in illegal activities in Iraq. Given that particular situation and mission, and given the fact that many people who are serving in the army have now come to Canada asking for asylum, could you please comment on whether you think they should be recognized as legitimate refugees under Canadian law?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

I can only say that in the few cases that have come to Canada and have been dealt with by the IRB, we don't have any issues with the decisions taken by the IRB.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, we'll call it an evening.

Thank you very much, Mr. Assadi and Mr. Kale, for your presentation today. It is very much appreciated, indeed, and again, congratulations on the good work you are doing.

Thank you.

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have three notices of motion that we have to deal with.

Mr. Siksay, if you want to read these into the record, go ahead.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Given the concern that a number of us have on the whole question of regularization of people who are undocumented in Canada and concerns about the deportations of some of those folks, which some folks believe are increasing, I want to give notice of three motions.

The first one is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that the government establish an in-Canada regularization program that is accessible and affordable to allow non-status immigrants and their families living and working in Canada to apply for permanent residency.

That the Committee adopt this recommendation as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government provide a comprehensive response to this Report.

The second motion is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that the government create a long-term solution for an accessible and affordable program that permits new immigrants to enter Canada to join the workforce, particularly in sectors with labour shortages.

That the Committee adopt this recommendation as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government provide a comprehensive response to this Report.

The final one is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that the government place an immediate moratorium on deportations of all undocumented workers and their families who pass security and criminality checks while a new immigration policy is put in place.

That the Committee adopt this recommendation as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government provide a comprehensive response to this Report.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

These motions will be sent to your offices.

Bill, we'll try to deal with these on Wednesday.

The meeting is adjourned.