¹ Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Natiftns of Third Countries, August 30, 2002, text is available online at <http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/policy/safe-third.html> [hereinafter STCA].

² Non-entrée mechanisms include visa requirements, interdiction at sea, refusal to accept claims made in so-called “international zones,” and so on. See Hathaway, James C. “The Emerging Politics of Non-Entrée ” (1992) 91 Refugees 40.Google Scholar

³ See, for example, Matas, David and Simon, Ilana Closing the Doors: The Failure of Refugee Protection (Toronto: Summerhill Press, 1989).Google Scholar

⁴ Asylum-seekers may obtain refugee status in Canada either through the Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program for people seeking protection from outside Canada or through the In-Canada Refugee Protection Process for persons making refugee protection claims from within Canada. For details regarding these processes, see Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which is accessible at <http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html>.

⁵ STCA, supra note 1 at section 4.

⁶ Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.O.R. 02326, s. 159.6, text is available online at <http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partl/ 2002/20021026/html/regle-e.html#36> [hereinafter IRPARegulations].

⁷ See, for example, Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. International Law and the Movement of Persons between States (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) at 202–5.Google Scholar The notion that states have an unrestricted right to determine issues of admissibility has not gone unchallenged. See, for example, Nafziger, James A. R. “The General Admission of Aliens under International Law” (1983) 77 Am J. Int’l L. 804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 (entered into force April 22, 1954) [hereinafter Refugee Convention].

⁹ Hathaway, James C. “A Reconsideration of the Underlying Premise of Refugee Law” ( 1990) 31 Harv. Int’l L.J. 129 at 167.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The United Nations High Commission for Refugees [hereinafter UNHCR] role in influencing the development of the law has been particularly noted in rela-tion to the protection of women refugees. See Kelly, Nancy “Gender-related Persecution” (1993) 26 Cornell Int’l L.J. 626 at 633Google Scholar; Macklin, Audrey “Cross-Border Shopping for Ideas: A Critical Review of United States, Canadian, and Australian Approaches to Gender-Related Asylum Claims” (1998) 13 Geo. Imm. L.J. 25 at 28–30.Google Scholar

¹¹ The US regulations may be found online at <http://uscis.gov/graphics/ lawsregs/04-5077.pdf>.

¹² Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter Charter].

¹³ Joanne van Selm, “Access to Procedures: ‘Safe Third Countries,’ ‘Safe Countries of Origin’ and ’Time Limits,’” paper commissioned by the UNHCR and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2001), text available online at <http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+-wwBmewzEd_wwwwmww wwwwwhFqA72 ZogRfZNtFqupGdBnqBAF qA7 2 ZRogRfZNcFqJwqqn5 5aBdap Gdqnm 1 Gn5euG4nwhnaBrGomaqd 1 DBGon5Dzmxwwwwwww/opendoc.pdf>.

¹⁴ In 1983, the number was 65,400; in 1992, it was 692,686. Germany alone in 1992 received 79 per cent of the asylum-seekers in Europe. See Abell, Nazaré A. “The Impact of International Migration on Security and Stability” (1996) 4 Can. Foreign Policy 83 at 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ United Kingdom Delegation to Geneva, “Sending Asylum Seekers to ‘Safe Third Countries’” (1995) 7 Int’lJ. Ref. L. 120.

¹⁶ Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities, 2144 U.N.T.S. 492 (it was signed by eleven member states on June 15, 1990 and was signed and ratified by the twelfth state, Denmark, on June 12, 1991; it came into force on September 1, 1997) [hereinafter Dublin Convention].

¹⁷ Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders, Official Journal of the European Com-munities, text is available online at <http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/ dat/ 2000/l_239/l_23920000922en00010473-pdf> (it was concluded in June 1990, entered into force between Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain on March 26, 1995).

¹⁸ Lavenex, S. Extending the EU Asylum and Immigration Polides to Central and Eastern Europe (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Van Selm, supra note 13 at 16.

²⁰ Goodwin Gill, Guy S. The Refugee in International Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) at 336.Google ScholarPubMed

²¹ See, for example, A.bell, Nazare. A. “The Compatibility of Readmission Agreements with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees” (1999) 11 Int’lJ. Ref. L. 60.Google Scholar

²² Marx, Reinhard “Non-Refoulement, Access to Procedures, and Responsibility for Determining Refugee Claims” (1995) 7 Int.’lJ. Ref. L. 383 at 388.Google Scholar

²³ Gill, Goodwin Refugee in International Law, supra note 20 at 30Google Scholar; see also Kathleen Keller, “A Comparative and International Law Perspective on the United States (Non) Compliance with Its Duty of Refoulement,” text is available online at <http:/www.yale.edu/yhrdlj/vo102/keller_Kathleen_note.htm>.

²⁴ Refugee Convention, supra note 8 at Article 33(1).

²⁵ Refugee Convention, supra note 8 at Article 33(2). For a discussion on how this provision has been used to justify automatic exclusion of certain groups, see Hathaway, James C. and Harvey, Colin J. “Framing Refugee Protection in the New World Disorder”(2001) 34 Cornell Int’l L.J. 257.Google Scholar

²⁶ The definition of refugee in the Refugee Convention states that the term “refugee” applies to any person who because of a “well-founded fear” of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group, are unwilling or unable to return to their home countries. Refugee Convention, supra note 8 at Article 1, para. A (2).

²⁷ Marx, supra note 23 at 383.

²⁸ UNHCR Executive Committee, Note on International Protection (document issued at the forty-fourth session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Program, Doc. A/AC.96/815,1993), text is available online at <http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+uwwBme8UZ6gwwwwwwwwwwwwh FqhokgZTtFqnnLnqAFqhokgZTcFqHDdBnadDaoDBnGDwBodDwcapGdBn qBodDDzmxwwwwwwwiFqmRbZ/opendoc.pdf> [hereinafter UNHCR, Note on International Protection].

²⁹ Khan, Saddrudin A. “Legal Problems Relating to Refugees and Displaced Persons” (1976) 149 Recueil des Cours 287 at 318.Google Scholar

³⁰ Hailbronner, Kay “ Non-refoulement and ‘Humanitarian’ Refugees: Customary International Law or Wishful Legal Thinking?” (1985) 26 Va. J. Int’l L. 857 at 862–63Google Scholar; Sexton, Robert C. “Political Refugees, Non-refoukment and State Practice: A Comparative Study” (1985) 18 Vand. J. Transn’tl L. 731 at 739Google Scholar; and European Consultation on Refugees and Exiles, Asylum in Europe: A Handbook for Agendes Assisting Refugees, 3rd ed. (European Consultation on Refugees and Exiles, 1983) at 17.

³¹ Gill, Goodwin Refugee in International Law, supra note 20 at 123.Google Scholar

³² Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 509 U.S. 155 (1993).

³³ The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties supports the approach of examining the objectives of a treaty in treaty interpretation. Article 31(1) of the treaty states: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.” 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force January 27, 1980).

³⁴ de Jong, Cornells D. “The Legal Framework: The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Development of Law Haifa Century Later” (1980) 10 Int’l J.Ref.L. 688 at 689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ See UNHCR Executive Committee, “Note on International Protection” (1999) 18 Ref. Survey Quart. 85 at 88 [hereinafter UNHCR, “Note on International Protection”].

³⁶ UNHCR, The Application of the “Safe Third Country” Notion and its Impact on the Management of Flows and on the Protection of Refugees (May 3002), available online at <http://www.unhcr.bg/global_consult/background_paper2_en.htm> [hereinafter UNHCR, Application of the Safe Third Country Notion]; see also UNHCR, “Note on International Protection,” supra note 35

³⁷ Van Selm, supra note 13 at 9.

³⁸ De Jong, supra note 34 at 692

³⁹ Hathaway, James C. and Dent, Johan A. Refugee Rights: Report on a Comparative Survey (Toronto: York Lanes Press, 1995) at 15.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Wiederin, E. “IACL National Report for Austria,” as cited in Hathaway and Dent, supra note 39 at 7–8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Marx, supra note 22 at 393; see also Hyndman, Patricia “The 1951 Convention and Its Implications for Procedural Questions” (1994) 6 Int’l J. Ref. L. 252 Google Scholar; see also UNHCR, Application of the Safe Third Country Notion, supra note 36.

⁴² Abell, supra note 14 at 71.

⁴³ Einarsen, T. “The European Convention on Human Rights and the Notion of an Implied Right to defacto Asylum” (1990) 2 Int.’lJ. Ref. L. 362 at 372.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ T.I. v. United Kingdom (2000), Application no. 43844/98, Eur. Ct. H.R.

⁴⁵ Crawford, J. and Hyndman, Patricia “Three Heresies in the Application of the Refugee Convention” (1989) 1 Int.’lJ. Ref. L. 155 at 171.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ European states and North American states are not the only ones that have established “safe third country” rules. African states and some Central Asian states have also applications for asylum on this basis. Van Selm, supra note 13 at 19.

⁴⁷ UNHCR, “Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement — EU Seminar on the Implementation of the 1995 EU Resolution on Minimum Guarantees for Asylum Procedures” (November 1997), cited in Van Selm, supra note 13. Amnesty International reported several cases of asylum-seekers who, after being returned from the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds, ended up being sent to their country of origin. See Amnesty International U.K., Afghanistan: Interna-tional Responsibility for Human Rights Disaster (November 29, 1995), text available online at <http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110091995?open&of=ENG-369>.

⁴⁸ Refugee Convention, supra note 8 at Article 31 (1).

⁴⁹ Goodwin Gill, Guy S. The Protection of Refugees and the Safe Third Country Rule in International Law in Asylum Law (London: First International Judicial Conference, 1995) at 90.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ R.V. Uxbridge MagistrateCourt and Anotherex parte Adimi, [1999] I.N.L.R. 490; Van Selm, supra note 13 at 48.

⁵¹ UNHCR, Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers (February 10, 1999) at para. 4, cited in Van Selm, supra note 13 at 49.

⁵² See, for example, Abell, supra note 14; van Selm, supra note 13.

⁵³ Report of the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection, 1991, UN Doc. A/AC.96/781 at para. 34.

⁵⁴ Ministers of the Member States of the European Communities Responsible for Immigration Resolution on a Harmonized Approach to Questions Concerning Host Third Countries, cited in European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Safe Third Countries: Myths and Realities (February 1995), text is available online at <http://www.ecre.org/positions/s3c.pdf > at appendix C.

⁵⁵ Goodwin Gill, Refugee in International Law, supra note 20 at 343.

⁵⁶ Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27, s. 101 (1)(e) [hereinafter IRPA].

⁵⁷ STCA, supra note 1.

⁵⁸ IRPA Regulations, supra note 6.

⁵⁹ It has been alleged that despite an absence of evidence linking global terrorism with refugees, the security threat has been used as a cover to cut down on the entry of refugee claimants to Canada through the proposed STCA, supra note 1. See Adelman, Howard “Refugees and Border Security Post September 11” (2002) 20 Refuge 5 at 11.Google Scholar See also International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, “In the Shadow of the Law,” a report in response to Justice Canada’s first annual report on the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36), text is available online at Aiken Sharryn J. “Of Gods and Monsters: National Security and Canadian Refugee Policy” (2001) 14 Rev. Que. D. Int.’ l7.

⁶⁰ For a description of the specific actions taken to implement the Shared Border Accord of 1995 and the Border Vision of 1997, see Citizenship and Immigra-tion Canada, Joint Statement on Cooperation on Border Security and Regional Migration Issues, text is available online at <http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/press/01/0126-pre.html#statement>.

⁶¹ Canada’s historical treatment of refugees has not been without blemish. See Kelley, Ninette “History of Canadian Immigration and Refugee Policy,” in Jesuit Centre for Faith and Social Justice, Borders and Barriers (Toronto: Jesuit Centre for Faith and Social Justice, 1988).Google Scholar

⁶² See, for example, Amnesty International’s position at <http://www.irpp.org/po/ archive/sep02/bissett.pdf>.

⁶³ Government Response to the Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Safe Third Country Regulations (May 2003), text is available online at <http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/safe-third.html> [hereinafter Government Response].

⁶⁴ Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Safe Third Country Regulations (December 2002), text is available online at <http://www.parl.gc. ca/InfoComDoc/37/2/CIMM/Studies/Reports/cimmrpo1/cimmrpo1-e.pdf> [hereinafter Report of the Standing Committee].

⁶⁵ Ibid, at 12.

⁶⁶ Government Response, supra note 63 at 8.

⁶⁷ IRPA Regulations, supra note 6 (see the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement at 3241).

⁶⁸ Government Response, supra note 63 at 1.

⁶⁹ UNHCR, Comments on the Draft Agreement between Canada and the United States of America for “Co-operation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries” (July 2002), text is available online at <http://web.net/%7Eccr/safethird.htm> [hereinafter UNHCR, Comments on the Draft Agreement].

⁷⁰ See, for example, Amnesty International Canada, Regulating for Safety, Submission to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (November 2002), text is available online at <http://www.amnesty.ca/Refugee/safe_third_country.htm>

⁷¹ In 1986, the UNHCR awarded the Canadian people the Nansen Medal for their outstanding efforts on behalf of refugees. In the decade prior to 1986, Canada had resettled over 150,000 refugees from camps overseas. See Knowles, Valerie Strangers at Our Gates (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1997) at 181 Google Scholar; see also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum-Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System (February 28, 2000), text is available online at <http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Canada2000en/table-of-contents.htm>.

⁷² See, for example, Keller, supra note 23.

⁷³ Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Debates (November 19, 2002), text is available online at <http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/372/cimm/meetings/evidence/cimmevo3-e.htm>.

⁷⁴ See, for example, Canadian Council for Refugees, Comments to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on the Proposed Safe Third Country Regulations (November 14, 2002 ), text is available online at <http://www.web.net/~ccr/S3cregscommentsstandcomm.html>.

⁷⁵ Government Response, supra note 63

⁷⁶ Sexton, supra note 30 at 779; Zucker, Norman L. and Zucker, Naomi F. The Guarded Gate: The Reality of American Refugee Policy (California: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987).Google Scholar This concern was also raised by the New Democratic party in its dissenting opinion to the Safe Third Country Regulations Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Government Response, supra note 63. For the influence of the Cold War on Canadian refugee policy, see Whitaker, Reg “Refugees: The Security Dimension” (1998) 2 Citizenship Studies 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁷ Goescher, Gil and Monahan, Laila, eds. Refugees and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) at 15.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, 18 U.S.C, para. 1546 (1996).

⁷⁹ Keller, supra note 23.

⁸⁰ UNHCR, Issues to Be Considered in the Context of Discussions Regarding a Responsibility-Sharing Agreement between Canada and the United States (January 29, 2002), text is available online at <http://www.web.net/~ccr/safethirdunhcr.html>.

⁸¹ Government Response, supra note 63.

⁸² Report of the Standing Committee, supra note 64 at 14.

⁸³ The UNHCR has noted that if the term “adjudicate” is used to mean “determine eligibility to apply for asylum,” this could lead to a worst case scenario of refugees in orbit and/or refoulement. See Comments on the Draft Agreement, supra note 69.

⁸⁴ STCA, supra note 1, Article 3(1) states: “In order to ensure that refugee status claimants have access to a refugee status determination system, the Parties shall not return or remove a refugee status claimant referred by either Party under the terms of Article 4 to another country until an adjudication of the person’s refugee status claim has been made.”

⁸⁵ Ibid.

⁸⁶ Report of the Standing Committee, supra note 64 at 14.

⁸⁷ Comments on the Draft Agreement, supra note 69.

⁸⁸ Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 208 (a) (2) (B).

⁸⁹ UNHCR, Note on International Protection, supra note 28 at para 18.

⁹⁰ UNHCR, Comments on the Proposed Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations Relating to the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States ofAmerica for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationahof Third Countries (November 14, 2002), text is available online at .

⁹¹ UNHCR, Comments on the Draft Agreement, supra note 69.

⁹² Report of the Standing Committee, supra note 64.

⁹³ Government Response, supra note 63.

⁹⁴ Immigration and Refugee Board, Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Persecution (February 1993), text is available online at <http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/en/about/tribunals/rpd/compendium/compendium_e.pdf>.

⁹⁵ Amnesty International, supra note 70.

⁹⁶ Government Response, supra note 63.

⁹⁷ Ibid.

⁹⁸ IRPA Regulations, supra note 6 at section 159.5.

⁹⁹ See, for example, Randall, Glenn and Lutz, Ellen L. Serving Survivors of Torture: A Practical Manual for Health Professionals and Other Service Providers (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1991) at 29 and 42–44,Google Scholar where the authors discuss the psychological impact of traumatic human rights violations and added consequences of being a refugee; see also Allodi, F. et al., “Physical and Psychiatric Effects of Torture: Two Medical Studies,” in Eric Stover and Elena Nightingale, eds., The Breaking of Bodies and Minds: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse, and the Health Professions (New York: Freeman, 1985) at 58–78,Google Scholar where the authors analyze results of studies of torture survivors in the United States and Canada.

¹⁰⁰ IRPA, supra note 56 at section 3.

¹⁰¹ STCA, supra note 1, Statement of Principles [italics added].

¹⁰² The Report of the Standing Committee states: “The Committee recommends that the regulations provide for an effective and transparent internal review mechanism before returning someone to the United States to make a claim,” Report of the Standing Committee, supra note 64, recommendation 15.

¹⁰³ IRPA, supra note 56 at section 3.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid, at section 115.

¹⁰⁵ This has been the position taken by the United Kingdom. Goodwin Gill, Refugee in International Law, supra note 20 at 334.

¹⁰⁶ This was the position taken by Argentina. Ibid.

¹⁰⁷ UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Doc. A/CONF 2/SR.16 at 9.

¹⁰⁸ De Jong, supra note 34. See also UNHCR Executive Committee, Non-refoulement, Conclusion no. 6, 28th Sess. (1977), text is available online at <http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+lwwBmemkZ6gwwwweIqwwwwwwwhFqhokgZTtFqnnLnqAFqhokgZTcFq7oLnqiBoVnagdMMoBBnnagdDqc150dDaNdelGYdaWKssDzmxwwwwwww/opendoc.htm> at para, (c).

¹⁰⁹ UNHCR Executive Committee, Refugees without an Asylum Country, Conclusion no. 15, 30th Sess. (1979), text is available online at <http://www.unhcr.bg/bglaw/en/_t 15a_excom58en.pdf> [hereinafter UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion no. 58].

¹¹⁰ UNHCR, Issues to be Considered, supra note 80.

¹¹¹ See Crawford and Hyndman, supra note 45.

¹¹² UNHCR, Note on International Protection, supra note 28 at 19.

¹¹³ Goodwin Gill, The Protection of Refugees, supra note 49.

¹¹⁴ The STCA does appear to prohibit either state party from sending an asylum-seeker sent by the other state to a third state pursuant to another “safe third country” agreement: “The Parties shall not remove a refugee status claimant returned to the country of last presence under the terms of this Agreement to another country pursuant to any other safe third country agreement or regulatory designation” (section 3(2)) However, this does not provide a full proof guarantee against deportation on other grounds prior to a full hearing for refugee status.

¹¹⁵ See the previous section of this article, entitled Canada-United States STCA.

¹¹⁶ STCA, supra note 1, preamble.

¹¹⁷ UNHCR Executive Committee, The Problem of Manifestly Unfounded or Abusive Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum, Conclusion no. 30, 34th Sess. ( 1983), text is available online at <http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search/ca?p=UNHCR+Executive+Committee+Conclusion+No.+6%,+1977&vm=i&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt&vc=> at para. 97 (2) (e).

¹¹⁸ Amnesty International has frequently called on the government of Canada to put eligibility decision-making in the hands of the independent and expert Immigration Refugee Board. See Amnesty International, “Refugee Protection in Canada,” presentation before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (October 20, 1997) at 5, cited in Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, supra note 71

¹¹⁹ UNHCR, Note on International Protection, supra note 28.

¹²⁰ The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration did recommend that additional resources be provided to the department to meet the demands that will result from implementation of the STCA. The government’s response was that it does not anticipate the need for any additional resources. See Report of the Standing Committee, supra note 64.

¹²¹ Singh v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177, 17 D.L.R. (4th) 422 [hereinafter Singh].

¹²² Ibid, at 21 o. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, supra note 12.

¹²³ Ibid, at para. 218.

¹²⁴ Government Response, supra note 63.

¹²⁵ Canada and the United Nations General Assembly Special Session Beijing +5: Status ofWomen Fact Sheet, June 2000, text is available online at <http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/b5_factsheets/b5_factsheets_2_e.html>.

¹²⁶ For instance, from 1981 to 1991, Canada admitted nearly twice as many men as women into Canada as refugees within the meaning of the Refugee Convention. Monica Boyd, Canada’s Refugee Flows: Gender Inequality, text is available online at <www.statscan.ca/ english/ads/11-008-XIE/refugees.html>

¹²⁷ In the European context, the use of the principle of first asylum has led to Turkey bearing a disproportionate share of the responsibility for asylum-seekers. Turkey has taken a position against “safe third country” returns. See UN Doc. A/AC.96/SR.430 ( 1988) at para. 66.

¹²⁸ Singh, supra note 121.

¹²⁹ See, for example, Eliadis, F. Pearl “The Swing from Singh: The Narrowing Application of the Charter in Immigration Law” (1995) 256 Imm. L. R. 130.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ See, for example, Chiarelli v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711 at 714, where the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the notion that the Charter applied to Che deportation in question and reiterated the long-standing position of Canadian courts that the most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in the country and that at common law an alien has no right to enter or remain in the country.

¹³¹ Suresh v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] S.C.R. 1, 208 D.L.R. (4th) 1 [hereinafter Suresh].

¹³² Ibid, at para. 77–78.

¹³³ Ibid, at para. 59.

¹³⁴ Ibid, at para 54.

¹³⁵ Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that “[e]very-one has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from perse-cution,” this right has developed into a rule of customary international law binding upon states. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA. Res. 217 (III), UN GAOR, 3d Sess., supp. No. 13, U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948) 71. See generally Steering Committee of the Judicial Conference on Asylum Law, Asylum Law (first International Judicial Conference, Inner Temple, London, December 1–2, 1995).

¹³⁶ UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion no. 15, supra note 109 at para, (h) iii, iv.

¹³⁷ UNHCR, Issues to Be Considered, supra note 80.

¹³⁸ Van Selm, supra note 13 at 53.

¹³⁹ Citizenship and Immigration Canada, “Minister Coderre Seeks Government Approval of Safe Third Country Agreement,” News Release 2002-26 (Septem-ber 10, 2002), text is available online at <http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/press/02/0226-pre.html>.

¹⁴⁰ For a discussion regarding the Canadian government’s long-standing position on “country of first asylum,” see Matas and Simon, supra note 3 at 252.

¹⁴¹ See UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion no. 15, supra note 109; see UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion no. 58, supra note 109.

¹⁴² UNHCR Global Consultations on International Protections, Asylum Processes (Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures), May 31, 2001, text is available online at <http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+mwwBmeizzd_wwwwAww wwwwwhFqA72ZRogRfZNtFqrpGdBnqBAFqA72ZRogRfZNcFq+E50ciMa7G dqn55n5aeN8xwoGawDmaohhoqonDBaE50c1 Ma7Gdqnm 1 Gn5eZX3qmxw wwwwww/opendoc.pdf<

¹⁴³ Goodwin Gill, Refugee in International Law, supra note 20 at 339.

¹⁴⁴ Wiederin, supra note 40 at 9.

¹⁴⁵ Report of the Standing Committee, supra note 64 at 16.

¹⁴⁶ These figures were provided by Joan Atkinson, assistant deputy minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, to the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (November 19, 2000), text is available online at <http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/2/cimm/meetings/evidence/cimmevo3-e.htm>.