Good morning. My name is Stephen Allen and I serve with the Presbyterian Church in Canada in our national offices in Toronto.
On behalf of our denomination, I thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the chance to be with you this morning and to brief you on our denomination's policy on sanctuary and, as importantly, how our denomination arrived at that policy.
My focus is going to be a little bit different from the presentations you've heard. You have received our statement, which was approved at our general assembly in June 2006. So it's a recent statement and policy by our denomination.
Our denomination now has the policy for a congregation to provide sanctuary to a claimant whose claim has been rejected and who faces probable risk of persecution or torture if removed to his or her country. Our policy is rooted in our faith. It's a cautious one, and sanctuary is seen as the last resort.
The Presbyterian Church in Canada is a master agreement holder. Many congregations have sponsored refugees over the years. Our church, through our programs overseas, supports refugees and also supports internally displaced people, for example, in Darfur.
I need to take a few minutes to explain our decision-making process in our church as a way of underscoring that the issue was not taken lightly by our general assembly in June.
The highest decision-making body or court, as we refer to our structures, is our general assembly. It meets annually. Each presbytery, a cluster of congregations, and there are 46 presbyteries across the country, sends a specific number of delegates or commissioners to general assembly. Commissioners include both laity and ministers, and there are 350 commissioners from across our church at general assembly. They have read this statement.
Our general assembly is responsible for making decisions on a wide range of issues and our assembly receives what we refer to as overtures; that is, recommendations for the church to prepare a statement or a report and bring forward that statement or report to a future general assembly. Overtures can deal with matters such as educational requirements for a minister transferring from another denomination to our denomination, or an overture may request a statement on sanctuary.
The overture comes to our general assembly from a presbytery, and general assembly may or may not approve receiving that overture. In the case of sanctuary, the general assembly in June 2005 received and approved the overture, which then meant that my office was directed to prepare a response for general assembly in June 2006.
So that's our process. It's a very careful process, which takes into account our structures and the courts of our church.
The draft that was considered by general assembly this past June was reviewed by my advisory committee, by the board I'm accountable to. In addition, there were several external reviewers who critiqued that draft, and I had it reviewed by a theologian at Knox College.
Our board approved the statement. It went forward to general assembly, and in March of this year it was sent to all commissioners across the country.
So that's the process and the timeline.
As an executive staff in my denomination, I am expected to spend the whole week at general assembly, but, unless requested, staff are not permitted to speak or participate in the deliberations. This is the time for commissioners. Again, that reflects the nature of the church's polity.
The debate considered various dimensions of the statement--the theological and ethical dimensions, the international convention, the Canadian context, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the recourses available to failed claimants, and the legal consequences that you've heard about already. The section entitled “A Matter of Conscience and Faith” reviews church doctrine and church polity--that received the most attention in the debate--and then guidelines for congregations and the recommendations that you have before you.
The debate was prayerful. It was thoughtful and at times it was passionate. I have two examples to share with you.
A commissioner—a lay person, a retired member of the Ontario Provincial Police—stood up. This was his first general assembly. He was terribly nervous. He reminded the general assembly that providing sanctuary was in contravention of the law. There was silence. A few minutes later, a retired RCMP officer, a minister of the church, stood up and said, “Yes, this is true.” He reminded the church that we are called to obey a higher authority, and that on matters of conscience our accountability is to God.
A second example was an intervention by another minister in our denomination. He had come from a country in Central America over 20 years ago. He had been severely tortured. In his case, the system worked well. He and his family found refuge in Canada and have now contributed to the life of our society. He acknowledged that the system can work well, but the system is not perfect. He said that if there was a probable risk of persecution if a claimant were returned to his or her country, the church has no choice: it must provide sanctuary. He said that one person returned to face persecution and torture is one person too many.
Our general assembly also requested our moderator to write to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration urging the minister to implement the appeal process as provided for in the act.
Many members of our general assembly were astounded that there is no appeal process on the merits of the case. As one commissioner said, I can appeal my parking violation, but a refugee who has faced insurmountable pressures, tortures, and intimidation cannot appeal the merits of a decision.
It seems that in our justice system the right to appeal the merits of a decision is pretty fundamental, and yet it excludes some of the most vulnerable people on our planet.
I hope members of this committee will support Bill C-280, the private member's bill that calls for the implementation of the refugee appeal division.
You may recall that in December of 2004 the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration unanimously passed a resolution calling for the minister to implement the appeal or to advise the committee as to an alternative proposal. The appeal process has not been implemented, and no alternative proposals were brought forward.
Both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the UNHCR have said that the lack of an appeal on the merits of the case is a major flaw in our refugee determination system.
Thank you very much.