Citizenship and Immigration committee  The safe third country agreement is an agreement between the United States and Canada, so if there's an issue of forum shopping, it's between the United States and Canada. It doesn't involve any other country. It's about only the United States and Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  No, I don't think that's correct. What I was saying is that a fundamental requirement under the agreement is that a current and meaningful evaluation be made as to whether the United States is a safe country for refugee claimants. Canada has an obligation to assess that, and it hasn't done so since 2002.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  There is a non-adversarial stage, but people are going to be barred from that if they have not applied within one year of entering the United States. Anybody who is apprehended at the border after being refused in Canada is going to be denied that forum as well. So effectively almost everybody who is denied access to Canada is going to be only allowed an opportunity to apply in an adversarial proceeding.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm sorry, I completely neglected to mention material support for terrorism, but this was a provision of the REAL ID Act, which is that if you are found to have materially supported a terrorist organization, you are barred from asylum and any kind of protection is withheld. Material support under the U.S. definition—and this is recognized by U.S. officials—is any kind of support whatsoever.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think the assessment has to be looked at.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Let me answer also. Under the agreement there has to be determination by Canada that the U.S. is a safe third country, that it is a safe place for asylum seekers. For many asylum seekers, that is not the case. Critically, I think, the information upon which Canada based its determination that the U.S. was safe was information from 2002.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It has to be re-looked at, sorry.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The major areas of concern I have about the U.S. system are, first, as I mentioned, the one-year filing deadline. Under U.S. law you are barred from applying for asylum if you do not do so within one year of entering the United States. The only kind of protection you're formally eligible for is called “withholding of removal”.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's because of the agreement. I think a small proportion of that is because in general refugees are not getting out of their countries of origin, but that decrease is largely attributable to the agreement, yes.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think mostly people who were qualified are under the exception. This doesn't have to do with substantive merits of their refugee claim, but only people who feel they are qualified under the exception are applying, and that's the information that I think NGOs are trying to communicate to people.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  So he never applied.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Why don't we each answer?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Can I just—?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That is what the agreement is: Refugee claimants get turned back at the Canadian border and have to apply in the U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That's what the agreement is, and then there are some exceptions, yes.