Canada -
News Sections
Federal court strikes down refugee agreement
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(23)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Fri. Nov. 30 2007 10:20 AM ET
The United States is not a safe country for refugees, the Federal Court said Thursday as it ruled that Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the border.
In the surprise judgment, the court found that Safe Third Country Agreement breaches the rights of asylum seekers under the United Nation Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture.
The three-year-old agreement denies refugees who have landed first in the U.S. the right to later seek protection in Canada, and vice versa. It has allowed Canada to automatically send refugee claimants at the border back to the United States. There, they are usually either detained or deported.
Activists have long complained that the agreement is unfair and unconstitutional because it requires refugee claims in Canada and the U.S. to be processed in the country where asylum seekers first land.
The court agreed that the agreement discriminates against refugees based on their method of arrival in Canada.
Citing the example of Maher Arar, Justice Michael Phelan also noted that the U.S. has not been compliant with the Refugee Convention or CAT (Convention Against Torture).
"... The United States' policies and practices do not meet the conditions set down for authorizing Canada to enter into a STCA," Phelan wrote in his 126-page decision.
"The U.S. does not meet the Refugee Convention requirements nor the [UN] Convention Against Torture prohibition (the Maher Arar case being one example). Further, the STCA does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Charter."
Arar was the Canadian who was stopped by U.S. officials in 2002 at a New York airport and sent to the Middle East to be interrogated as an alleged al Qaeda suspect.
Thursday's Federal Court ruling will essentially nullify the Safe Third Country Agreement, with a final court order expected early next year.
It is also likely to result in Canada having to process thousands more refugee claimants each year.
But for now, the STCA remains in effect, says a spokesperson with Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
The court has given both parties until Jan. 14 to make and respond to submissions for an appeal.
User Tools
Related Stories
Related Websites
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(23)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Please Add Comments( )
Pat_pending
0
said
0
Marcel
0
said
0
Pamela
0
said
0
How about all the citizens of this country that were born, educated and parents paid taxes that cannot get jobs as they lack skills. Trades are not given free to Canadian born citizens or we wouldn't have such high welfare cases.
Teddy
0
said
0
Rebecca
0
said
0
James Cyr
0
said
0
Andy
0
said
0
Shawn Katz
0
said
0
If we in Canada are to stake a claim to being a civilized and humane nation, we must accept them with open arms.
BILL MCKORMICK
0
said
0
LM
0
said
0
Ernie
0
said
0
Keith
0
said
0
John
0
said
0
proud canandian
0
said
0
Ian Nichol
0
said
0
Cecil
0
said
0
The elected government has a right to determine who can enter and who cannot enter the country.
Now we have an UNELECTED judge overruling the ELECTED parliament on a matter of public policy, that could have implications for national security.
Doug
0
said
0
This is bad news for Canada.While I am in favour of generous levels of immigration of all kinds,this,if allowed to stand,will take away any kind of control over who,and how many.Most likely, it will also swell the ranks of welfare recipients and add to the portion of the population we define as "poor".Non skilled refugees,even if finally accepted,will become a burden to taxpayers.And those who are rejected will have spent 12-18 months living on our welfare system.As a civilized country,we should be doing our share to help people like this.But rules and limitations are needed to maintain order and fairness.
I like Pat_pending's idea,but I doubt the USA would agree to such an arrangement.
A. Auger
0
said
0
Justin
0
said
0
The US is a signatory, and thus a place of application for those arrving from Central and South America, for example.
The US cannot be simply used as point of transit and conduit to Canada, and that is the purpose of the agreement between Canada and the US.
Should someone arrive on our shores, or land at one our airports, coming directly from their point of persecution, it's our duty under the convention to offer sanctuary.
This decision should, and, I venture, will be appealed.
Lart from Above
0
said
0
Robert B
0
said
0
The elected government should overrule the courts decision!!!!
Trev
0
said
0
Damian
0
said
0
In the 23 years since I've emigrated to here, Canada has been turned into the world's Salvation Army shelter whose main slogan is "we turn away no one, no matter what." It's pathetic, and makes me sick. It makes the whole immigration process which I and my parents had to go through a joke - we should have just showed up and screamed "refugee!!"