The following is from the March 26, 2009 Hansard debates – on the motion to to adopt the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which states the following:
The Committee recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members (partners and dependents), who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to speak against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.
As the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration noted earlier, Canada has a fair, internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution, risk of torture or risk to life, or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. We are committed to protecting refugees and those in need of protection. This means that we must ensure the system is there for those who genuinely need it.
All refugee claimants have the right to due process and when they have exhausted legal avenues, we expect them to respect our laws and leave Canada.
Today I intend to address two key issues in this debate: the fair process available to refugee claimants and immigration applications and the potential problems that could arise from adopting this motion.
Canadians want a refugee system that helps to protect genuine refugees. All refugee claimants in Canada have the right to due process, a principle established by the Supreme Court in 1985 for refugee status determination in Canada. This is the basis for how Canada has maintained a fair and internationally recognized system to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution.
Refugee claims made in this country, including those made by U.S. service personnel, are heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, of Canada. The IRB is a quasi-judicial independent body that provides a fair hearing to those who claim to be in need of protection. It assesses each claim on its own merit with regard to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
The board reports that currently fewer than 50 claims have been made by U.S. citizens on the basis of objection to military service. As has been demonstrated in the publicized cases of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the refugee protection process allows ample opportunity for claimants to challenge decisions made concerning their claims. They may do so through seeking leave for judicial review by the Federal Court. In some instances, they have sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
While waiting for a decision on their claims, refugee claimants who pass medical screening are entitled to a work permit, which allows them to be employed in Canada. Those who cannot find work may apply for social assistance in the province where they reside. These claimants also have access to emergency medical services funded by the Government of Canada.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, failed refugee claimants may also request, prior to being removed from Canada, a pre-removal risk assessment. This assessment allows CIC officials to examine any new evidence, any change in country conditions or other circumstances that might arise concerning personalized risk to individuals. This could include evidence such as whether a person would face risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if an applicant was returned to the country of origin. These are the same elements that are assessed by the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB.
There are also other avenues available to people wishing to move to Canada should they not qualify as refugees. Normally, those seeking permanent residence do so by applying for a visa outside of Canada, but foreign nationals who wish to apply for permanent residence from within Canada may do so on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or, if eligible, as a member of an in-Canada class.
There has been a great deal of coverage regarding the cases of Mr. Hinzman and Mr. Hughey, the American soldiers who deserted the United States army, came to Canada and made refugee claims in this country. The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants’ claims for refugee protection. The Federal Court of Canada and, subsequently, the Federal Court of Appeal, dismissed their cases. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed their application for leave to appeal on November 15, 2007.
As others have said, claimants have access to a fair hearing in Canada with a number of opportunities for review. However, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have all indicated that these U.S. military deserters have not demonstrated that they are in need of Canada’s protection as refugees.
The motion to implement an in-Canada program to allow these individuals to apply to remain and work in Canada and to be eligible for permanent resident status runs counter to having an immigration policy that is both fair and consistent in its application.
As I noted earlier, this government is committed to ensuring that all immigration applicants and refugee claimants have access to the full process outlined by IRPA and that all cases are fully and equitably resolved. By supporting this motion, the House would be calling for a unique benefit for some foreign nationals proposing that they can be allowed to apply for permanent resident status outside of existing immigration channels.
For the reasons I have outlined, I urge my fellow members in the House to vote against this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are a number of concerns. In this case, it is not like Vietnam where there was conscription. This was a voluntary tour. The issue is that before they completed that tour they were actually ordered to serve an additional tour or more, which is quite unusual.
Notwithstanding that, it is my understanding that in the United States those persons who volunteered initially and then were ordered subsequently would be charged and found guilty of being war deserters, which is a crime. We had one recent case like that where the person was sent to jail for some 15 months.
I ask the member whether or not Canada’s policy with regard to war resisters should be reflective of Canada’s views on the legitimacy of wars and the choices we have made, or rather on the policy of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, it is our opinion that, as a general rule, military deserters from the United States are not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term. It is on these terms that we understand that the Immigration and Refugee Board makes that decision and it considers each asylum case on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the hon. member. First, I would like to know why the Conservative government blocked any discussion at refugee hearings about the legality of the Iraq War since that is a crucial factor in making these kinds of determinations.
Also, the member says that these people are not legitimate refugees and cast aspersions on their refugee claims. However, under international law, Canada must uphold several principles. One comes out of the Nuremberg tribunals which said that every soldier has a moral duty, not a choice, to refuse to carry out illegal orders. Under a number of other international agreements, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the UN handbook for refugees, it makes it clear that conscientious objectors to war have rights and can require protection from states. Why has Canada refused to meet its obligations under these various long-established and upheld international principles?
Mr. Speaker, U.S. military deserters are not refugees. They do not fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection. This position has been upheld by three independent tribunals: the IRB, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary and member for Richmond for her comments. I thought she did an outstanding job explaining and expressing the position of the government.
One of the issues that has come through the House here is the issue of compassion, the issue of emotion that should be somehow interjected or intertwined into this discussion. I certainly have no problem with that. At the end of the day of course we have to base our decision on fact and law.
The member represents the riding of Richmond and I know she has many cases dealing with refugees who come to her office and ask her for help. Could she explain, in her words, the type of emotion and compassion that needs to be shown for them?
Mr. Speaker, there are people who come and say that they need to stay because if they go back to their own countries they will be persecuted. There are also people who come and express the need for help and assistance.
We deal with them individually, case by case, and we deal with them on compassionate grounds as well. For example, I was approached by somebody from Toronto whose wife passed away while giving birth to a child. He was in the process of applying for permanent residence to this country. We really give individual cases individual attention.
In this case, by passing this whole recommendation, we are opening up the floodgates and other genuine refugees will be deferred. This is not the way the system should be fairly treated.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court recently granted Joshua Key a new hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board and recent decisions by the Federal Court granted a stay of removal for Jeremy Hinzman and Kimberly Rivera, citing differential punishment of the Iraq war resisters. It goes to the whole point that because they have spoken out here, they have different kinds of punishment. How would she respond to that?
Mr. Speaker, the report presented by the committee actually covers everything. I do not understand why we have to address each individual war. Again I say, American deserters are not refugees and that is the position we are taking right now.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question again. Obviously, there is something wrong with the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board. If that is not the case, then the Federal Court, in three instances, would not have granted either a stay or a complete rejection of the IRB’s decision, so there is something that is wrong with the board’s decision. There is this whole claim that we should not worry because three boards, tribunal after tribunal, have rejected their claims of being refugees. How can we say they are not refugees when the Federal Court has now tossed that out and another hearing has to be granted?
Mr. Speaker, if we look at the record, American deserters who have applied as refugee claimants have never been granted that. Again and again, I would like to state that American deserters are not legitimate refugees.
Filed under: Parliament
