Good morning, and thank you. I am a refugee lawyer and an associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa.
I first want to talk about the idea that assessing refugee claims should be done within the framework of a process related to the selection of humanitarian immigrants. When we are talking about processing refugee claims, there are three things the committee should keep in mind.
First, as you've heard a lot about today, Canada has an international obligation not to return a person to risk, and to properly assess refugee claims.
Second, there are a number of factors driving people to move, including those out of Canada's control. People have been and are coming regardless of what Canada does to discourage or encourage them to come, and the committee should not conflate the refugee protection program with other immigration streams. It is a unique program where people are not necessarily selected, and where the requirements to qualify as a refugee are different from the criteria in any other stream. Questions about whether those crossing our borders speak our official languages or what skills they have are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the person fits the definition of refugee.
Third, refugees should not be pitted against each other. There is no queue. Sure, Canada can voluntarily select persons overseas to resettle, but refugees abroad waiting in refugee camps are no more or less deserving than those who eventually obtain protection by coming through our land borders. While, for better budgetary planning, the levels plan can be amended to an estimated number of persons who may be expected to come, ultimately we should not be preoccupied with quotas or levels because, as was said earlier, the levels are unpredictable and, ultimately, we have an international obligation to meet.
This committee has also heard that one plan the government should undertake is to close the loophole in the safe third country agreement. In my recommendation today, to manage the border, as one member of Parliament has said, in a planned, orderly, and compassionate manner, we should suspend the STCA immediately.
I just want to make a point of clarification from this morning and note that article 4.1 of the safe third country agreement actually stipulates that the STCA be applied at the land port of entries, and not between the ports of entry. I wanted to clarify that and make sure the committee knew it.
Secondly, I think if we are talking about applying the STCA between the land ports of entry, not only would there be a practical problem with that, but there is also the issue of making that factual finding. How would we be sure how a person has entered Canada? This is a factual finding that comes with many procedural barriers and one that I think would burden legal processes in the future.
Aside from that, I do want to note that the STCA's original purpose was to reduce the pressures faced by the IRB from the number of claims being made, but that it would not adversely affect the situation of asylum seekers. The STCA primarily benefits Canada, and the U.S. agreed to it in order to put in place post-9/11 measures at its border. Since it's inception, the STCA has not done what it has promised, which is to prevent refugees from coming into Canada. This is clear from the numbers that you've heard today. Both before and after the STCA was put into place, people have been coming across our border.
Second, concerns have been expressed in the House and the Senate since 2002 about the STCA, and indeed the Senate in 2002 in its report on the safe third country regulations highlighted the very risks we see people experiencing today. The Senate then, as well as advocates today, have called for a review of this agreement due to these risks. I've reviewed information coming from the United States on the impact of the STCA and I want to highlight a few factors for you today.
The first is that Canada is putting people at risk by turning them away at official ports of entry. For example, there's a case of one Rwandan woman who went to an official port of entry, was interviewed by Canadian border officials over the course of five hours, was shocked that no one asked her why she was claiming asylum, gave her fingerprints, signed some documents, and was driven back across the U.S. border, where she underwent more interviews, was handcuffed, detained, put into solitary confinement for 10 days, released into the general population in the prison, and when she was eventually released from detention she just came back to Canada through an irregular, and very dangerous, route.
I understand that Mr. Seidhu Mohammed is coming to speak this afternoon, and I think he is the best person to give you more details on the risks of crossing the border this way.
Second, Canada is violating its international obligation to properly assess refugee claims by turning a blind eye to the improper treatment of refugee claimants in the U.S., including the latter's detention of people via an expedited process, and its denial of claims based on gender-based persecution, for example.
American attorneys have given a lot of evidence that the U.S. government is apprehending people travelling by buses and trains and prosecuting them on charges of illegal entry regardless of whether an asylum claim has been made. Persons are given credible fear or reasonable fear interviews, and if they do not pass they are removable. These are cursory interviews where people can be denied on the spot, without an opportunity to obtain a lawyer or to develop and present their claims, and quickly deported thereafter.
American attorneys have also stated that immigration detainees are being held in criminal facilities, subject to solitary confinement. There is insufficient medical care in detention, and little access to interpretation and legal services. A significant number of immigration detainees are not eligible for bond. Children and entire families are being detained. Attorneys have seen their clients experience PTSD and suicidal ideation.
With regard to gender-related refugee claims, we've seen the attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, issue a precedential decision that effectively eliminates a woman's ability to obtain refugee protection based on domestic violence or other forms of gender-related persecution.
This is all too real in the case of Ms. L from Honduras, for example. She was kidnapped as a teenager, held in captivity, and raped and beaten for months. This included attacks with a machete. Thereafter, for more than 10 years, Ms. L was stalked and threatened. Hit men killed her domestic partner. Ms. L had to move to different parts of Honduras. She fled to Mexico but was deported back to Honduras. Ms. L's abuser moved back in with her and continued his brutal abuse until she fled for the United States, where she was detained. Even though an immigration court found Ms. L credible, refugee protection was denied, despite evidence of gender-based violence and the Honduran government not being able to protect her.
I want to close by saying that the government should be interested in managing the border in an orderly and compassionate way. There are three steps to do this. First, suspend the STCA. Allow people to present themselves in a regular fashion at an official border crossing, not makeshift ones like at Roxham Road. Second, give each person coming to our border a fair opportunity to present their claim at the IRB, because we can no longer be assured that people are getting a chance to do so in the United States. Finally, fund the IRB appropriately to hear their cases in an efficient manner.
I am open to any questions or remarks the committee may have today. I will also be providing a copy of the Canadian Council for Refugees paper on why the U.S. is not safe for refugees.
Thank you.
