Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 29th, 2018

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

As in any international forum, it's a question of a good relationship with the other member states that are, on their side, abiding by the political commitment that has been reflected in the compact.

Let's not confuse things here: The compact doesn't have clear-cut, measurable recommendations against which Canada will be able to be assessed in an objective manner. It's a commitment to the front-line countries to say, “You are receiving 85%-90% of the refugees; we are not. You are often in a situation where you have difficulties financially in developing your own countries for your own citizens.” Those citizens are the ones receiving this extra demographic pressure of refugees. This agreement just reflects good partnership at the level of international relations.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I understand. I guess I'm looking at the fact that currently the Liberal Party is the government in Canada, but there are three major parties in this country: the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. One or other of the parties may come to office, may not agree with what the former government was doing and may challenge what is being done under the compact. My question to you is this: What might happen if that took place? Would there be pressure? Would there be aspersions cast on a new government to perhaps pressure it to follow along the lines of the previous government?

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

There are two things. There will certainly be advocacy on the part of my organization to call for Canada to do more for refugees, whether it's in terms of the resettlement level or the funding level. As was mentioned before, I think we should not lose track of how, over the years, Canada has been a strong partner. We are asking for more, but it has been a strong partner of my organization and of countries that are receiving refugees, whether you look at, as mentioned by Mr. Smith, the funding level or at resettlement levels, based on referrals by UNHCR, for the previous government or this government.

I'm sorry to make this comment, and allow me to.... It may be a bit of a rhetorical question that you're asking, because in the past 60 years, Canada has always been supportive of other countries when it comes to delivering humanitarian and development aid.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I understand that. All three parties will agree with that, but they may not agree with philosophical statements that have come forward.

Mr. Smith, you made some derogatory comments about the current government not spending as much money as previous governments have spent, and you made some comments generally about the government. I guess I tie that into the issue of the fact that this is a non-binding agreement. My question is about the pressure on a government to change where they're going from what went before.

[Craig Damian Smith]

Is your question whether or not the government feels pressure or that they should feel pressure?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

My question is...if we enter into this non-binding agreement, I suggest to you that it's a binding agreement.

[Craig Damian Smith]

I think that if we leave considerations of political affiliation aside and just look at—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

They do change from time to time.

[Craig Damian Smith]

They do change from time to time, but the one constant in international relations is the sovereign self-interest of states.

If we consider well-regulated and well-managed international mobility in such a way so that you don't see large-scale irregular migration flows on borders that can do things like potentially undermine the entirety of something like the European project through the EU or create violent domestic backlashes from white nationalists against asylum seekers, then it's definitely in states' self-interest to co-operate. It's also cheaper to co-operate with other states in the international system.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

One of you mentioned that the United States was in support of the compacts. My understanding was that the United States was not in support of the compacts because of the issue of sovereignty, as is the case with Australia, Israel I believe, Bulgaria and several others.

In other words, you've contradicted what I've been led to believe about the United States, and I don't know what you meant by that. However, on the issue of sovereignty—and this is to either one of you—there's a fairly large number of member states that are not going to participate in the compacts. What's the effect of that on the overall philosophy of these compacts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid that the member's come to the end of his time. However, I think it's an important question, so I'm going to pretend I don't see the clock because I think the two compacts may need to be separated on that issue.

If you'd like to take some time to explain and answer the question, it would be helpful.

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

Briefly, the United States did not participate in the consultation leading to the adoption of the global compact for migration, which is the one that will be formally adopted in Marrakesh in 10 days.

The United States delegation in Geneva, and later on in New York, has participated in the consultation on the global compact on refugees. When it came to the Third Committee of the General Assembly—which is a subcommittee similar to your committee—just before the resolution has to be adopted by the General Assembly, the U.S. delegation affirmed support for most of the contents of the global compact. They also reaffirmed support for the UN refugee agency, but decided not to join the consensus on the resolution, which was affirming the global compact on refugees. They did this not for the reason of sovereignty—I'm sorry; I should not interpret the U.S. delegation—but they flagged in particular that one of the recommendations of the compact is that asylum seekers should benefit from alternatives to detention, which is not in line with the current policies of the U.S. administration, as you know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Could you reply very briefly?

[Craig Damian Smith]

As a political scientist, I'd say that the entire purpose of these states pulling out or saying that they won't support the global compact on migration is domestic political gain, and the audience there is the domestic audience.

You're talking about Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland. These are the countries that belong to the Visegrad group of states, which is a group of states in central and eastern Europe that have a stated objective of undermining multilateral institutions—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Not Australia.

[Craig Damian Smith]

—based on anti-Semitic tropes about who controls multilateral institutions.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Australia doesn't agree with that, though.

[Craig Damian Smith]

Australia is a pioneer of a policy that was first called the “white Australia policy”, which then became known as the “Pacific solution”, which was to excise their territory from the refugee convention so that they could indefinitely warehouse refugees on small islands.

[Jean-Nicolas Beuze]

Detain.

[Craig Damian Smith]

Detain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think I need to end you there. I know you could go on, but we'll read your paper.

[Craig Damian Smith]

It's not a group of states that we want to align ourselves with, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Don't forget Bulgaria.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

Professor Smith, I'm wondering what your opinion is in this situation. Does firing tear gas across a border into a sovereign territory of another country to prevent would-be asylum seekers or claimants from reaching a border constitute respecting human rights? Is that consistent with the goals and principles of the compact?

[Craig Damian Smith]

The practice of shooting tear gas across borders and pushing people back from claiming asylum is unfortunately part of a growing trend in border control that some states—Israel and Hungary, for instance—call “hot returns”, which is to push people back over borders regardless of whether or not there is a safe third country agreement with the previous transit state. Some people call it push-back policies.

The basic answer is no, it's not in line with any norm that we would consider.