Canadian
Council
for Refugees
Opening Statement by CCR on
the occasion
of the visit to Canada of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees,
António Guterres, and his meeting with NGOs
Delivered by Elizabeth
McWeeny, President
3
November 2006
High Commissioner Mr.
Guterres, it is my
privilege on behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees to welcome you
to
Canada and to express our appreciation for this opportunity to meet
with you
today.
We have heard you express
your commitment
to furthering partnership between UNHCR and NGOs and we too believe
that NGOs
are key players in refugee protection, in advocacy to ensure protection
of
refugee rights and as important bridges into our communities for
refugees who
seek asylum and permanent protection or durable solutions through
resettlement.
In this context I wish to
highlight to you
today some of the key concerns of the Canadian Council for Refugees as
they
relate to Canadian policies and programs as well some more closely
aligned to
the international sphere.
Interdiction/Canada
– US Safe Third Country Agreement
We
wholeheartedly agree
with your statement to EXCOM 2006 that in order to safeguard asylum
States and
UNHCR must firmly oppose all forms of refoulement and guarantee respect
for
international refugee law, including that international refugee law
must not be
superseded by national legislation, extradition treaties, or redefined
by
bilateral arrangements. (Opening statement to EXCOM 2006).
We are acutely conscious
that the drop in
asylum claims in the world’s wealthiest countries, including Canada, is
related
to explicit efforts by States to make their territories inaccessible to
asylum
seekers. Among these efforts is the
posting of interdiction officers (called by Canada “Migration Integrity
Officers”) who interdict each year thousands of people, without any
process in
place to assess whether they need and have access to asylum.
Such interdiction practices
represent a
massive and direct challenge to the institution of asylum. The Canadian
Council
for Refugees urges the UNHCR to confront this issue with energy. We regret that the guidelines that were
being prepared by the UNHCR have never been finalized.
We would welcome an opportunity to work with
the UNHCR to explore possible responses to the practices of
interdiction, with
a view to ensuring that refugees have access to protection.
Together
with other
forms of interdiction that deny access to asylum, the CCR has always
strongly
opposed the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United
States. As you may be aware, the CCR,
Amnesty International and the Canadian Council of Churches, along with
an
asylum seeker in the US, are challenging in the courts the designation
of the
US as a safe third country.
You
may be aware that
NGOs had misgivings about the monitoring role given in the Agreement to
the
UNHCR. It signaled an implicit
endorsement of the Agreement by the UNHCR, through a participation in a
monitoring function that was designed in such a way that it could not
reveal
the impacts on refugees in need of protection.
Now, ten months after the monitoring report was expected,
UNHCR’s
credibility is further undermined by the continuing non-publication of
the
report. It appears that the two
governments are indicating their lack of
interest in
being accountable with respect to the impact of the Agreement on asylum
seekers, and the reputation of the UNHCR unfortunately suffers by its
involvement.
Recent
developments in
the US have led the CCR to an even deeper conviction that the US is
certainly
not safe for all refugees. We recognize the sensitivities in this for
the UNHCR
but nevertheless urge you, High Commissioner, to acknowledge clearly
that the
shortcomings in the US asylum system, of which you are very much aware,
mean
that the US cannot be considered a safe country for all refugees.
Impact
on Asylum and Protection of the “war on terrorism”
One of the
reasons this Safe Third Country
Agreement was approved with such ease is the post 9-11 era in which we
now
live. For a long time, Canadians have increasingly valued and welcomed
the
benefits of our culturally and racially diverse society. These advances
are
being challenged, as they are in other countries, as a result of what
is called
the “war on terror”. We are concerned that fear and insecurity, often
heightened through irresponsible manipulation, are being used by States
as
license to erode asylum systems, withhold contributions to
organizations
working to protect refugees and acquiesce to and even add to the rising
intolerance and marginalization of refugees and new immigrants,
particularly
Muslims and Arabs, in countries of asylum, such as Canada.
An example of the problems is the use in
Canada of security certificates. Five
men, all Arab, all Muslim, are currently subject to these measures,
which deny
those affected the right to know the evidence against them and which
result in
long-term detention without independent review.
The CCR has
recognized the need to give a
high priority to analyzing and responding to the impact of the security
agenda
as it relates to refugee rights and the integration of refugees and
immigrants.
We will be holding a workshop at our upcoming consultation in November
on this
issue. In my recent conversation with Ms. Erika Feller, Assistant High
Commissioner for Protection, Ms. Feller encouraged us to inform her of
our work
on this issue and we will do so in the understanding that this is also
a
preoccupation for UNHCR.
We have noted
with appreciation that you
have already spoken out clearly on the false links that are so often
drawn
between refugees and terrorists. We
encourage you to continue to do so and to challenge the particular ways
in
which Arabs and Muslims are being discriminated against.
Lives
on Hold Campaign
Canada’s policy on
moratoria on returns to
countries that are seen as unsafe for the general population is an
important
mechanism providing an alternate form of protection for persons who are
not
found to be Convention Refugees. In part, Canada bases these moratoria
on
UNHCR’s “non-returnability advisories”. Although we welcome the use of
this
alternate form of protection, we are deeply concerned that people are
being put
‘on hold’ for several years or more without an effective mechanism to
achieve a
durable solution and begin their lives again. Moreover, we believe that
many of
these persons who sought refugee status in Canada might have been
successful in
their claim but for the flaws in the refugee determination system,
including
the absence of an appeal mechanism.
The CCR has
documented the impact of family
separation, under-employment and exploitation, lack of access to
post-secondary
education and many other hardships suffered by moratoria nationals
without
permanent status. We are seeking a remedy for people whose lives are on
hold
and are requesting Canada to grant permanent status to nationals of
moratoria
countries who have been in Canada for three years or more.
We are interested in
hearing your views on
this situation, High Commissioner, given that moratoria are an
alternate form
of protection prompted by UNHCR’s concerns for the protection of
persons who
cannot be returned to insecure and dangerous countries. We hope that
you will
support our efforts in this area, and that you will join with us in
seeking
a workable solution for the individuals trapped in this
situation.
Statelessness
Despite the scale of the
problem around the
world, the issue of statelessness is seriously neglected globally as it
is in
Canada. We urge you to call on Canada
to take a leadership role by signing on to the 1954 Convention and
encouraging
others to do likewise.
Iraqi
Refugees
High Commissioner, in your
statement to the
NGOs at the Annual Consultations in late September of this year you
remarked on
how the international community and UNHCR have failed to support the
hundreds
of thousands of people who have fled Iraq, especially those who are now
in
Syria and Jordan. You also mentioned that UNHCR will be conducting an
analysis
in the next few weeks with the possibility of recommending changes in
the
responses of UNHCR and States to the needs for protection and durable
solutions
of Iraqi refugees. We look forward to
this review, because we are aware of the untenable situation facing
many Iraqi
refugees in the Middle East and the urgent need therefore for some
remedies to
be found.
We believe
that resettlement to Canada
should be considered as a durable solution for some Iraqi refugees, as
for
other refugees, particularly those who have family links to persons in
Canada. However, UNHCR’s current policy
in the region is influencing our government to reject resettlement as
an option
for these persons even when they have family and friends here waiting
to help
them, when their current situation is precarious and when the cruel
reality is
that most will not return home in the foreseeable future.
We therefore look forward
to receiving the
results of UNHCR’s analysis on the current state of refugees in the
region and
trust that it will address the need to think beyond the hope for an
early
repatriation and seek to work with States and NGOs in finding other
durable solutions.
Private
Sponsorship of Refugees Program
As you may
already know, the Private
Sponsorship of Refugees Program provides for the resettlement to Canada
of over
3,000 refugees every year, in addition to the number resettled with
direct
Canadian government support. It is a dynamic, responsive mechanism that
engages
the Canadian public across the country in providing protection and a
durable
solution through resettlement. Private sponsors are responsive to
requests
referred through our own government, which are in most cases UNHCR
referrals. Private sponsors also
respond to requests from many different sources, including partner
organizations and friends and families of refugees.
We believe that private sponsorship plays a crucial role in
complementing the UNHCR’s efforts to identify refugees in need of
resettlement
and hope that we can work together to support each other in increasing
our
collective capacity to ensure wide access to durable solutions for
refugees.
International
NGO Networking
Finally, High
Commissioner, I would like to
give you some good news.
The CCR has undertaken to
facilitate the
development of an international network of NGOs concerned with refugee
rights
and refugee protection. We acknowledged that to be effective in
advocating for
refugee rights, NGOs have to be as successful as States at working
together on
an international level.
In June of this year we
hosted an
International Conference on Refugee Rights. The conference was attended
by
close to 500 participants, with representation from over 30 countries
in all
regions of the world. Most participants were NGO representatives.
The goal of the conference was to enhance the effectiveness of NGOs in
promoting the human rights of refugees by promoting cross-border
networking. At
the concluding plenary participants warmly endorsed the major
recommendation to
establish an international network on refugee rights and the
representation for
a steering committee was identified.
Two key tasks for the steering committee are to: establish
electronic
communication between conference participants and other NGOs interested
in
networking on refugee rights and to plan for another conference to be
held in
2008 in a different region of the world. Since June, terms of
reference
for the steering committee have been developed and we are moving
forward to
seek resources to support the initiative with a small Secretariat to
facilitate
and liaise with the participating NGOs.
The CCR certainly
recognizes the NGO
international networks that are already in place and that are often
issues
based such as the Detention Coalition, and the network organized around
the
Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement. We also acknowledge
the
important role of ICVA in coordinating NGO input at UNHCR meetings. We hope that this new initiative will
support the work already being done in these areas.
As part of these efforts,
the CCR has a
special focus of linking with our NGO colleagues in Latin America. Another outcome of the International
Conference was the establishment of the Ibero-American Network that
emerged
from the Latin American caucus. We hope it will lead to some very
concrete
actions for NGO networking in the Americas, in particular around the
Mexico
Plan of Action and also the outcome of the Resettlement meeting in
Quito in
February 2006 which builds on the principles emerging from the ICRIRR
Conference of April 2001 in supporting new and emerging resettlement
countries.
We are delighted to see the
recent
announcement from the government of Canada on the donation of $1million
to
assist with capacity building of NGOs working on the resettlement of
refugees
in Latin America. We have long expressed our interest in supporting
capacity
building initiatives by linking Canadian NGOs with those in Latin
America and
look to UNHCR to facilitate this activity as part of the broader
initiative.
We look forward to
developing channels of
communication between this new international network of NGOs and the
UNHCR.
In conclusion,
we appreciate the
opportunity to meet with you here today and look forward to useful
discussion
as part of our ongoing dialogue with UNHCR.
