Federal lawyers defend Canada-U.S. asylum deal at top court, argue U.S. legal system is ‘fair and just’


Refugee advocates showing earlier than the Supreme Courtroom of Canada Thursday argued that the Protected Third Nation Settlement governing asylum claims between Canada and america violates the Constitution of Rights and Freedoms.

In summer time 2020, the Federal Courtroom sided with the advocates and dominated that the settlement violates part seven of the Constitution of Rights and Freedoms, which protects a person’s proper to life, liberty and safety of the particular person.

The next spring, the Federal Courtroom of Enchantment sided with the federal authorities and put aside that call, paving the best way for arguments earlier than Canada’s high court docket.

The 16-year-old settlement acknowledges each nations as “secure” for migrants and states that refugee claimants are required to request asylum within the first nation they arrive in. Which means Canadian border officers would ship again to the U.S. any would-be refugee claimants arriving at an official border crossing from the U.S. into Canada.

To get across the phrases of the settlement, folks within the U.S. in search of asylum in Canada have been crossing the border between official ports of entry illegally after which claiming asylum as soon as in Canada.

Many refugee claimants have entered Canada between ports of entry at locations like Roxham Street in Quebec. Others have made perilous journeys by means of deep snow and freezing temperatures, placing their lives in danger.   

The Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty Worldwide, the Canadian Council of Church buildings and numerous different events argued that the danger concerned in these cross-border journeys, and the peril rejected claimants face when despatched again to the U.S., violate part seven of the constitution.

Andrew Brouwer, a lawyer appearing for the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty Worldwide and the Canadian Council of Church buildings, argued Thursday that the deal ought to be scrapped as a result of rejected claimants who’re returned to the U.S. are routinely detained, handled poorly and generally face deportation.

Rowe: Detention in U.S. not automated 

When Justice Malcolm Rowe challenged Brouwer on his description of detentions within the U.S., Brouwer conceded that they might not be automated however detention stays the “default” for these despatched again south.

“No, no, no. Default is just not automated. Automated means with out exception,” Rowe mentioned, including that sending somebody again to the U.S. doesn’t put them at larger threat as a result of these in Canada illegally additionally might be detained right here.

“I might say there is a very severe threat of being detained for those who’re illegally in america in precisely a parallel means — there is a threat you would be detained for those who’re illegally in Canada,” he mentioned.

If “it is clear they entered on an unlawful foundation, their presence is just not in accordance with regulation. What would you anticipate?”

In its 2020 choice, the Federal Courtroom dominated that safeguards for refugees within the U.S. are “illusory” as a result of they are often exhausting to entry and cited examples of individuals not with the ability to entry these safeguards in Canada or the U.S.

Safeguards not ‘illusory,’ authorities claims

On Thursday, authorities legal professionals informed the highest court docket that refugees have entry to authorized safeguards on this nation.

“Security valves can be found,” authorities lawyer Marianne Zoric informed the court docket. “They’re accessible in regulation, and so any treatment that is accessible in regulation … is just not illusory.”

Zoric mentioned that two of the litigants on this case did get entry to authorized help of their bid to say asylum in Canada. A type of households, Zoric mentioned, contacted a lawyer whereas on the border making their declare and that lawyer efficiently utilized to the Federal Courtroom to grant them a brief keep in Canada.

“How can we presumably say that these security valves are illusory when there they’re?” Zoric requested the court docket. 

Justice Malcolm Rowe takes his place on the Supreme Courtroom bench in Ottawa on December 2, 2016. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Justice Rowe additionally informed the court docket that arguments in favour of scrapping the settlement ignore the appeals course of within the U.S. immigration system.

“I have to say I discover the Federal Courtroom choose’s sweeping apart of your complete system of immigration appeals and the evaluation of refugee claims to be extraordinary,” he informed the court docket.

The federal authorities argued that there are a lot of protections for refugee claimants within the U.S. authorized system that claimants despatched again from Canada can entry.

Zoric urged the highest court docket to needless to say folks transiting by means of the U.S. to say asylum in Canada usually are not being despatched again to their nations of origin, however to the U.S.

“This isn’t a return to the nation of persecution. It is a return to the international authorized system,” Zoric mentioned. “Try to be beginning with the presumption of deference to the international authorized system.

“It is an American authorized system. When you’ve gotten a democracy like america, it’s a must to presume the international authorized system is honest and simply and if you wish to displace that, you’ve gotten an uphill burden.”

Rowe commented on that time earlier within the day. He mentioned that within the U.S. — a rustic of 350 million folks the place roughly two million folks cross the border into the nation illegally yearly — miscarriages of justice can occur however don’t essentially taint the U.S. authorized system.

On the finish of the day’s listening to, the court docket adjourned to take the case beneath advisement.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here