CIMM Committee Report

In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, Canada and the United States agreed that it was in their mutual interest to implement a joint "smart border" blueprint. One of the steps in this action plan is the signing of a Canadian-American safe third country agreement for purposes of processing refugee claims. This issue is not new, however, since the Canadian government has been trying for several years now to convince the United States of the value of such an agreement. In this regard, it is instructive to look at the May 1996 report by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where the Bloc Québécois expressed a dissenting opinion as to the timeliness of concluding a safe third country agreement with the United States.

First of all, the Bloc Québécois wants to note the excellent work done by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Although it had only a very short deadline within which to study the proposed regulations (which we consider deplorable given the importance of the issues linked to this agreement, and its far-reaching consequences), the Committee succeeded in hearing from expert witnesses who voiced their concern about the agreement. It should be noted that most of their recommendations were accepted by the Committee and can be found in this report. Unfortunately, the government has remained unreceptive to their primary recommendation, that the safe third country agreement not be adopted. When we asked the various witnesses to name just one positive thing about the agreement, their silence spoke volumes. That is why we cannot endorse this report.

Given the many reservations expressed by agencies that work with refugees, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the agreement is not in the best interests of asylum seekers. We are concerned about the stated objective of reducing the number of refugee claimants in Canada. As a signatory to the Convention on Refugees, Canada has a moral responsibility to make sure that all asylum seekers have access to a fair and equitable system. There is however nothing to indicate that the standards in the United States are equivalent to those in Canada. On the contrary: the representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees declared when they appeared before the Committee that the United States does not always meet international standards for refugee protection. For example, the detention of asylum seekers is common in the United States, even though article 31 of the Convention specifies that no refugee should be subject to detention simply because he or she is present in a country without authorization.

Since the agreement will apply only at land ports of entry, and not to people requesting asylum once they are inside Canada’s borders, everyone who appeared before the Committee saw it as very likely giving rise to a significant increase in clandestine immigration. People-smuggling networks could be organized to take advantage of the agreement’s shortcomings. Such networks represent a real threat to the safety and even the lives of refugees. If in whatever way we place the lives of asylum seekers in danger, it is obvious that we are contravening the principles and values of the Convention on Refugees.