CIMM Committee Report

        The New Democratic Party stands in firm opposition to the ‘Safe Third Country Agreement’ between Canada and the United States and the regulations that have been proposed to implement that agreement.

        Legitimate changes to our refugee policy should have as their primary objective the improvement of the lot of refugees. We do not feel that this Agreement fulfills that requirement.

        In fact, quite the opposite. Its origins, in its current manifestation, are not in Canada’s humanitarian traditions, but flow from the horrors of September 11th. It was also born in the midst of the reckless scapegoating of refugees, often the victims of terror, as likely perpetrators of terror. It is no coincidence that this Agreement is one element of the ‘Smart Border’ security package between the two countries.

        The Agreement is predicated on comparable treatment of refugee claimants on both sides of the border. This is clearly not the case.

        Several US practices have been criticized as falling below international standards. American laws dictating the wide use of incarceration, its non-transparent expedited removal process and its failure to recognize gender-based refugee claims are among the serious concerns that have been raised. The United States also has a history of inappropriately linking its refugee assessment to its foreign policy objectives.

        Recent reports of racial profiling and the inappropriate treatment of Canadian citizens and selected permanent residents have offered only a glimpse into actual American practices when dealing with non-American citizens. The fact that refugees will be dealt with through the new Department of Inland Security has heightened our concern. So too has the expansion of the list of countries whose citizens qualify for ‘special treatment’ by American government officials. As several witnesses have testified, the United States is not a safe haven for some refugees and that alone should prevent Canada’s entry into this Agreement.

        We have had concerns since the Minister first began musing about reviving a ‘safe third’ initiative — musing outside of Parliament and only shortly after the debate on the new Immigration and Refugee Act had been completed. Our worst fears have been confirmed by the witnesses appearing before the Committee — witnesses who were unanimous in their opposition to the agreement and cited many flaws in the regulations.

        A number of administrative problems have been raised. To qualify for an exception, the burden of proof falls unfairly on the person in flight. One witness suggested the Agreement would result in ‘chaos and corruption’. Officials will be asked to make complex assessments and decisions beyond their customary parameters and with no safeguard of a review process to correct errors or consider new evidence. Officials’ discretionary powers under the Agreement are even further restricted by the regulations.

        The workload of officials is expected to increase with only vague assurances of increased resourcing — assurances from a Minister who has already acknowledged that a lack of resources is responsible for the unconscionable delay in implementing the Immigration and Refugee Act’s Refugee Appeal Division.

        There is also a realistic expectation that this Agreement will inevitably lead to an increase in cross-border human smuggling. Just imposing a new rule is not going to suddenly stop refugees who see their secure future in Canada from wanting to come here. Once here, some refugees may apply for status, others may be forced to remain underground.

        As well as an administrative nightmare, this raises security concerns. Clearly, this Agreement is counter-productive to maintaining our security.

        The Agreement can also be destructive for families. The Underground Railroad showed that desperate families will do anything to ensure the safety of their children including breaking up the family unit for a better opportunity at asylum. The restrictive exceptions may indirectly contribute to desperate strategies.

        This Agreement doesn’t make sense from an administrative, security or humanitarian perspective. Why then are we pursuing this?

        With an estimated 35 per cent of our annual refugee claimants entering from the US, are we simply trying to cut back on Canada’s refugee intake? Canada takes in only half of one percent of the world’s refugees. That commitment should be rising, not dropping, to help the nearly 20 million people worldwide in flight or in danger. Instead, this Agreement reflects this government’s recent pattern of immigration and refugee initiatives aimed at ‘tightening up’ a system experiencing problems rooted in its own under-resourcing and poor coordination.

        Or is the Agreement aimed at ingratiating ourselves to the broader American post-Sept. 11th agenda of "Fortress North America"?. This Agreement should have been brought before Parliament for debate as it signals a growing accommodation of Canadian immigration and refugee policy toward that of the United States.

        So who gains from this new refugee policy?

        The federal government undoubtedly cuts its refugee intake, if that’s its goal. It will be able to continue to under-resource Citizenship and Immigration Canada and can constrain its budget instead of meeting its international obligations. The US gets to dump unwanted refugees and, perhaps gain other Canadian concessions — ‘future considerations’. It certainly moves Canada another step closer to integration with the US and a loss of sovereignty. And the criminal world has had a brand new opportunity thrust upon it in added human smuggling.