Article content continued

Nowhere in this 1951 treaty is anything mentioned about refugee status procedures. The word “asylum” is not even mentioned in any of its 46 articles. The most relevant obligation is found in article 33, which stipulates that refugees cannot be returned to a country where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” This basic guarantee is not the same as a right of asylum in that it allows some flexibility as long as refugees’ lives are not endangered. Unless a Canadian court determines the U.S. is no longer safe, there is no violation of the convention if migrants arriving at the Quebec border are returned to upstate New York. This principle is what allows Australia’s controversial policy of intercepting boat people and offloading them onto what Canberra considers to be safe Pacific islands.

Photo by Paul Chiasson/CP

The Refugee Convention also prohibits “penalties” against claimants who enter illegally, but only if they come “directly” from the country they are fleeing. The meaning of “penalties” is clearer in the official French version which uses the expression “sanctions pénales.” The migrants at Quebec’s infamous Roxham Road are not arriving “directly” and they would not be “penalized” in the convention sense even if they were told to follow the standard rules applicable at official ports of entry (i.e. returned to the U.S. according to the Safe Third County Agreement). The harsh reality is that the convention’s limited protection does not oblige Canada to provide a hearing to every refugee claimant who shows up at the border.

Trudeau’s attempt to embarrass Premier Ford on refugee protection is reminiscent of the first phone conversation between Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President Donald Trump shortly after the latter’s inauguration. International media reported that Merkel lectured Trump on the Refugee Convention because she objected to his “travel ban.” Although the source for this dubious information was actually a tweet sent by Merkel’s chief of staff, the media went along uncritically with this use of refugee protection for political posturing.