Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2012

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If a refugee arrives at an airport and is deemed a refugee several months later, that refugee is able to go ahead and sponsor a child. Now if they're classified—because I agree with your comments—as an irregular and they're held in detention, they're not allowed to.

My understanding is that this is against the United Nations policy, to which Canada was signatory, that the refugees in one nation have to be treated equally. At least that was the expectation back in 1951.

Is that not a correct assumption on my part?

[Furio De Angelis]

There are several clauses of non-discrimination in various international human rights instruments: article 3 of the 1951 convention and articles 9 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The issue is the differential treatment upon designation. That's what I'd like to insist, that it's the impact of that designation on established rights that is important.

We also have to remember that the human rights treaties have to be interpreted in a very special manner. They have to be interpreted to the benefit of the persons who are protected. According to the 1969 Vienna convention on interpretation of treaties, treaties have to be interpreted according to their objective and purposes in good faith, according to ordinary meaning and the objective and purpose of the treaty.

Now, by definition, a human rights treaty has its objective and purposes in the protection of the human beings that the treaty deals with, so in that respect the interpretation of the 1951 convention has to be done in favour of the persons the convention itself aims at protecting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to take a little bit of a different tack here in the same area.

Does the UNHCR actually encourage people to use human smugglers as a vehicle or as a way to extradite themselves from the dangerous position they are in, in their own country of origin, to go to another country to seek asylum?

[Furio De Angelis]

Umm—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

It's a pretty straightforward question.

[Furio De Angelis]

Well, the short reply would be no, but I'm trying to understand your question. We recognize—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

If you'll let me ask me the next one, I'll take you down the road as to where I'm going with this.

So you're opposed to human smuggling.

[Furio De Angelis]

Absolutely yes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So you're not opposed to countries to work towards the end of human smuggling.

[Furio De Angelis]

Of course we are not, and—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

The reason I'm asking this is to ask what actually your organization is doing to help countries...because obviously, from your perspective, human smuggling isn't something that you would encourage—although you believe anyone who is seeking asylum should be treated with the same types of human rights as each other, and I don't disagree with you there.

I'm seeking from you an understanding of what the UNHCR is actually doing to combat human smuggling.

[Furio De Angelis]

From the general international UN point of view, I want to say that there is, as you probably very well know, the 2000 United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, which is very important in this particular field. There are three protocols to which Canada is party, the so-called Palermo protocols. One deals with human smuggling. The other deals with human trafficking. The other deals with trafficking of weapons.

I believe the UNHCR encourages, within the UN system, all countries to really find their responses in terms of law enforcement within that process. It is a process. There is a conference of parties. There is a working group. I think the next session is in October of this year in Vienna.

There is a process that goes on, and this is the international process in which countries have to find their responses, how to coordinate the fight against human smuggling and human trafficking. UNHCR from our point of view--although we recognize that sometimes refugees are obliged to use smuggling networks in order to reach safety--is doing certain activities.

I remember in certain operations.... I was in Turkey, for instance, when people coming from Iraq were going through minefields and all that. We were putting information in place. We were trying to reach communities and saying this is dangerous; if you have to seek asylum, try to find alternative routes.

So the UNHCR on certain occasions puts in place information campaigns to prevent situations that could be so dangerous.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Let me ask you this more specifically. Two panels before...and I appreciate your acknowledging that really the only thing the UNHCR is doing to combat human smuggling is information campaigns.

We, actually...although there has been a lot from the other side saying not enough of Bill C-11has been implemented yet, one of the components of Bill C-11 was the appointment of Ward Elcock as our lead designate in countries where smuggling originates.

He's been in that position now for about a year and three months. Could you let the committee know what exactly the UNHCR has done in terms of working with Mr. Ward Elcock on fighting human smuggling?

[Furio De Angelis]

I have to say that I had the pleasure to meet Mr. Elcock a few months ago during my introductory meetings, having arrived in this country in my function only last August. I found the meeting and the discussion with him extremely interesting and really stimulating.

I remember Mr. Elcock appreciating very much the work that he was doing together with UNHCR, and appreciating the closeness of our cooperation, especially with our office in Thailand--

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's a good example.

Could you give me a couple of concrete examples of when you've worked specifically with Mr. Elcock and the country of Canada to fight human smuggling? You were just about to get into Thailand; are you saying that you partnered with him there, and there are concrete examples of what you did in partnership with Canada to fight human smuggling?

[Furio De Angelis]

I can probably refer to the Bali process, to the establishment of the regional support office, to the encouragement that we are giving Canada in terms of joining the Bali process, and to all that process that is going on.

I can't really be more specific than that, because I was not personally part of that thing, but I do remember this very well during our meeting with Mr. Elcock, yes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I appreciate that.

You mentioned one of the other aspects early on regarding Canada's position with respect to how many refugees we receive here in Canada on a per capita basis. I just wanted you to confirm that. Obviously, you made reference to the other aspect of Bill C-11 that's been implemented, and that is the additional 2,500 refugees here in our country. One of the concerns I have is that there isn't enough public acknowledgement that Canada is, in fact, receiving on a per capita basis more refugees than any other country.

[Furio De Angelis]

If need be, I am absolutely ready to make an acknowledgment of the importance of Canada in the system of global international protection. Canada remains a very active member of the ExCom. Canada remains an important donor to UNHCR. Canada remains a major resettlement program—the second in the world—and these are things that are there.

I can just confirm it, but there wouldn't even be a need to confirm that, because that's well known. But that's why we want Canada to remain as such.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. I'm sorry, we have to move on.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of you for being with us today.

As you were mentioning earlier, it's not a race to the bottom. Canada has always been a world leader on human rights, and I think we should continue to be a leading front.

What many of our witnesses have acknowledged, and I think what you were saying also, is that this bill punishes the refugees, rather than actually addressing the problem of human smuggling. We see that the bill would concentrate more arbitrary power in the hands of the minister of the time, and allows the minister to treat refugees, or refugee claimants, or asylum seekers, differently, depending on how they come to Canada.

We know that article 31 of the UN refugee convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on refugees for illegal entry or presence in the country. How could the designation of irregular arrivals be reviewed in light of article 31?

[Furio De Angelis]

The designation, as I said, is a procedural tool and can help if it facilitates the process in terms of identifying needs, in terms of facilitating the processing. What we need to avoid is the designation infringing on established rights. I believe that it is most important to avoid mandatory detention, because I understand, without being an expert on your national legislation, that there is already the capacity and the possibility of maintaining people in detention.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Absolutely. Many of our legal minds have said that, confirming without a doubt that our current legislation does have that capacity.

[Furio De Angelis]

I think that, of the people who arrived by boat two years ago, very few are still in detention for obvious legitimate reasons, and, if they are in detention, it's because the law allows that. So we were just wondering if that would be enough for lifting this provision from the bill.

Thank you.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you. Almost all of the immigration refugee lawyers who have come in to this committee have said exactly the same thing: that our law already has the necessary provisions.

Talking about the boats that came in, we hear members opposite say that there are 41 who are inadmissible and all this, but I want to correct the record, because a lot of false numbers have been thrown on the record.

We can talk about the MV Sun Sea. We had 493 people who left on the voyage; one perished, and so 492 arrived at our shore. Of those 492 people, only 19 were considered inadmissible. Of that number, 16 are crew members, who are automatically thought of as part of the smuggling ring. So only three out of the 492 were actually considered security risks, and that's because of their former membership, dating back to the 1990s, in the LTTE. None of them was actually considered a current security risk; it was simply based on their past membership.

How do you feel about the misconstruing of facts? I must say that the numbers I just quoted are from lawyers who defended—