Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 29th, 2006

[Jahanshah Assadi]

As I said in my presentation, Canada's system is of a very high quality. There are a number of states in Europe that also have very high standards. To some extent, they have been seeking to harmonize their standards within the context of the European Union.

Certainly for the UNHCR, the one document that is primordial, if you will, in refugee status determination is the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. We have urged states seeking a common denominator in developing systems for refugee status determination not to use the lowest common denominator.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I'm asking you to make a comparison of the U.S.A., Canada, and Europe.

[Jahanshah Assadi]

As Mr. Fleury said before me, the U.S. has a very well-developed system for refugee status determination. In 2005, the U.S. received the second highest number of asylum seekers in the world. Their recognition rate was not too different from Canada's. Last year, nearly 49,000 asylum applicants were lodged in the U.S., about two and a half times the number lodged in Canada. So their system is quite developed; many seek and are granted asylum there. Again, their recognition rate is comparable to Canada's.

I wouldn't want to compare recognition rates between the North American countries and Europe, because they have different regimes in place in Europe. One aspect of the European system is a system known as temporary protection, by which they allow you to stay temporarily until such time as the conditions of your country of origin change and you can go back. For example, in the case of the refugees from Kosovo, they allowed the Kosovars to stay for a few years. Then when conditions in Kosovo changed, the people were encouraged to return.

In Canada, you don't have a temporary protection regime; you're either in or you're out. I wouldn't want to compare two systems that are not comparable, but both are sound and valid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You said initially that Canada, as a signatory to the Convention on the Status of Refugees, enforced those conditions. At the same time, you also said that it respected and had put in place a very high quality system. This document says that, in Canada, the UNHCR takes action namely by observing hearings and interviews.

First, are there other factors beside these observations? Is it based on these other factors that you are able to determine that this is a quality system? Do you have any statistics about the number of interviews or hearings that you observe?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Thank you for the question.

In fact, as I mentioned in my presentation, UNHCR's role is enshrined in Canadian law and legislation. The 1951 Convention itself also gives the UNHCR supervisory duties and responsibilities over how states implement their international obligations.

In the case of Canada, we actually have staff in Montreal and Toronto who work out of the IRB building. They take the elevator down to the hearing rooms on a daily basis; our staff sit in on IRB hearings. In the course of any given year we will observe and analyze, in person, 100 or 200 cases, if not more. We will do spot checks, if you will, based on what type of case is being considered, what type of nationality, what the complexities are, etc. We will be present in person at all major locations in Canada, particularly in the main areas--Montreal and Toronto--but also in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Halifax, to observe these hearings in person. We will then share our observations as to what their strengths and weaknesses might be with the IRB on a regular basis.

I can give you statistics afterwards--I don't have those statistics with me--but we look at a good cross-section of refugee claims; we observe and monitor them in person while they are being conducted, and we've been doing this for more than 15 or 16 years, from the very beginning, since the IRB was established in the late 1980s.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Siksay is next, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Assadi and Mr. Kale, for being here again.

I have some questions around the safe third country agreement.

I don't know if you're aware of a March 2006 study out of the Harvard Law School that raised some serious concerns about the implementation of the safe third country agreement. One of their concerns in particular was that they felt the safe third country agreement was endangering certain refugee groups. They particularly mentioned Colombian refugees, who, when turned back, face an acceptance rate in the United States that is far different from what it is in Canada. They also noted the declining number of NGO services for refugees at border points--they relate it to the implementation of the safe third country agreement--and raised a concern about increasingly dangerous attempts by individuals to cross the border and circumvent the land border crossings to make a claim once they are within Canada.

Did your monitoring deal with any of these specific concerns raised in this report from Harvard?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Yes, we are aware of the Harvard study. As far as Colombians are concerned, we don't have the impression that they would necessarily get a better deal here in Canada. Again, it's difficult to take these types of statistics and say, well, if a Colombian came to Canada he would have a 40% chance of being accepted, and in the U.S. it would be 30%. It's difficult to make these comparisons. We consider the U.S. to be a safe country. Otherwise, we would not have agreed to do this monitoring, and we would have said so at the very outset. There are places in the world where we have clearly said that country X is not safe and therefore we would not go along with a safe third country agreement.

Given the nature of the rather developed systems in Canada and the U.S., we have said from day one that both countries are safe. The key is that either one of the two countries is available to asylum-seekers for purposes of status determination. I wouldn't want to necessarily make a judgment, for Colombians or anyone else, about whether there is a bias one way or another. Both countries have good systems, and both countries are indeed safe, so I would stay away from actually making a statistical comparison or a value judgment.

In terms of services, one of the things we have tried to do is to make sure that information about the realities and criteria in connection with safe third countries is available publicly so that asylum seekers don't come to Canada or the U.S. based on false hopes or rumours. NGOs along the border are doing an excellent job, but they have limited capacities in terms of assisting people. The more we can disseminate factual, objective information regarding safe third countries and the criteria that allow people to gain admission to either the U.S. or to Canada, the better. Fewer people will be required to come through the borders and be disappointed.

As far as the overall assessment of safe third countries, as I've said, ours has generally been a positive one. We have made a number of our concerns known--I spelled out a number of those--and the government has fortunately been forthcoming in taking action on those recommendations.

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

You raised a concern in your statement--I don't have the right diplomatic language, and I'd use different language than you did probably--about the need in Canada for an appeal on the merits of a case. I think we often talk about the refugee appeal division, which is provided for in our immigration act but hasn't been implemented. Has the UNHCR raised specific criticisms about the American process in the same way I hear you saying that it's a good, high-quality system? Have there been specific criticisms of the United States' refugee system that you could tell us about?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

We've talked to just about every country in the world about its refugee system. No country is immune to our comments. Certainly, our office in Washington is in regular dialogue with the U.S. government. I'm sure that just as we talk to CIC and CBSA regularly here, they speak to the Department of Homeland Security and State Department. So yes, we are in regular contact with the U.S. about their system, as we are with other governments. But again, the bottom line is that the U.S. system is a credible one; it's an experienced and established one. As is the case with the Canadian government, our channels of communication with the U.S. government are quite good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

I'll have to go to Ed.

Ed, please.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Assadi, I have a couple of general questions and then maybe a specific one. In reference to the safe third country agreement that Canada has with the U.S., I noted you mentioned that the agreement incorporates a monitoring role for your department to oversee the implementation and so on.

Do safe third country agreements, say in Europe, have similar monitoring provisions or is this unique to the Canada-U.S. agreement?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

What I would say is rather special about the safe third country agreement--and let's not forget that it's a bilateral agreement--is that the U.S. and Canada entered into this agreement and they invited us, the UNHCR, to monitor the agreement. We would have monitored this agreement in any event because it's part of our supervisory and mandate work, so the fact that the two governments decided to actually invite us was, for us, an additional facility, and they extended a welcome mat to us, which we obviously were pleased to have.

So if countries enter into safe third country agreements and do not explicitly invite UNHCR, as part of our normal mandated work we will monitor those agreements in any event, but in the case of the U.S.-Canada one, as I said, we were especially pleased to have been invited to monitor the agreement, because both governments were committed to extending facilities and cooperation to us.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I know it's difficult to make comparative analysis, but if you were to compare the safeguards in the Canada-U.S. agreement to similar agreements in Europe, how would you? Or are you able to make a comparison?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

I don't think one can make this type of comparison. The one in North America is pretty unique; its criteria are unique. For example, the exceptions that allow people to lodge claims in Canada and the U.S. are based on, say, family connections, and those family connections are spelled out. There are other exceptions that would allow people to make claims.

So it's very specific to the U.S. and Canada. But I just want to underline that as part of our normal protection and monitoring work, we would have monitored this agreement as we would have any other similar agreement anywhere in the world.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have one very specific question, if I might. We have a group making a presentation to the committee in the next week or so, I think, and that has to do with the Vietnamese population in the Philippines. They were screened under the comprehensive plan of action, and some of them, a small group--I'm not sure of the number--300 or 400 people, are claiming need of protection, refugee protection. Does the UNHCR take any position in terms of that group and whether they would qualify under refugee protection at this stage, or are you prepared to make a comment on that?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

In fact, when this issue came up last year, we sent a note to the committee stating our position on the Vietnamese in the Philippines, but since there are a number of new members here, I'll very quickly summarize what our position is on this group.

These are people who, as you correctly said, were considered under the comprehensive plan of action to determine whether they were refugees or not. This group was determined not to be refugees under the comprehensive plan of action.

Under the CPA, governments plus an appeals body, plus UNHCR, reviewed all cases, and the Vietnamese in the Philippines that you're referring to went through a comprehensive status determination process and they were determined not to be refugees. Under the CPA they were destined to return to Vietnam.

They chose not to go to Vietnam. The Government of the Philippines allowed them to stay. UNHCR provided limited financial support and a project to help the Government of the Philippines deal with their integration and their other needs.

We understand that legislation is in the works in the parliament of the Philippines to allow those who wish to stay in the Philippines to do so. At the same time, we're aware that Canada might be interested in bringing some of them here, and we absolutely have no problem with that as long as the resettlement of the Vietnamese does not come from the refugee program, the refugee quota, the government-assisted refugee program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Assadi.

Blair, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Assadi, for your presentation.

Could you elaborate a little bit more on the recommendation you have here in your handout, on page 4, which discusses the narrow definition and application of the public interest provision, article 6?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

Article 6 of the agreement specifies that the two parties, the U.S. and Canada, can, if they wish, go beyond the exceptions that allow people to enter the country, and in the public interest, allow others. For example, right now if you qualify as part of the normal criteria, you have a relative in Canada, a mother, father, brother, sister, etc., and you are allowed to lodge your claim in Canada. That is the so-called normal exception. In other words, an exception is made for you if you have relatives in Canada. You don't have to go back to the U.S. and have your claim lodged there.

There may be other public interest categories that might also be considered for exceptional consideration. Right now the public exception category applies to the eight what we call moratorium countries, where there is a moratorium on the removal of certain individuals. These are nationals of Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Burundi, Liberia, Haiti, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Iraq. If you're a national of these countries, an exception is made for you as well so that you don't have to go back to the U.S. to lodge your claim.

We have advocated over the last year or so of our monitoring that perhaps the Government of Canada could consider including other categories for exceptional consideration. Here we're thinking of vulnerable individuals, disabled people, victims of torture, and the elderly. The government has said they will consider our request, but no commitment has been made.

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

Thank you.

You stated here the fact of the dramatic rise in internally displaced people and that now your mandate is going to be expanded to include that. My question is, do you have the capacity both financially and with human resources to be able to take on such a staggering mission?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

That's an excellent question, and it's a question I think that keeps the high commissioner awake many nights in Geneva.

We have been very careful to say, first and foremost, that our normal protection work is refugees. That's what we have a mandate for, and they will not be short-changed at the expense of internally displaced people. If we are to take on the problem of internally displaced people, and that we said we will do, because there's a need out there, then, one, it would not have to be at the expense of refugees, and two, we would require resources to do so--financial, plus other types of political and diplomatic support that come with dealing with the very delicate issue of internally displaced people. We're hopeful that the same governments that support us in our efforts, and not just the UN itself, but the UN system, the international community as a whole, will provide us with the necessary resources in dealing with this new phenomenon of internally displaced people.

It's an excellent question and one that is going to be a challenge.

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

Is there a thought to maybe break it out and have it under a separate umbrella organization so that it can deal exclusively with that issue and go directly from country to country for funding?

[Jahanshah Assadi]

I think the approach, as I've mentioned in my statement, is to try to get the entire UN system working together. Various UN agencies will form clusters of responsibility and leadership so that we spread the work around and the responsibilities for sectors are clearly defined. As I said, in our case we are given the role for account management, shelter, etc., but certainly it is seen to be something that the entire UN system and many other partners will have to play a role in. Not one agency today is equipped to deal with this phenomenon on its own.