Hello. My name is Heather Macdonald.
First of all, I want to thank the committee for having us here today and for their interest. I'm also going to be asking for your support.
I'm going to speak about the United Church's long-standing involvement in refugee work. In the twenties and thirties, we were working with Armenian orphans. After World War II, we were meeting the boat trains that were bringing refugees from the war. Since the signing of the master agreement in 1979, we've settled many thousands of refugees. We've been involved in the founding of refugee-serving agencies in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Edmonton. We've been involved in community development work, especially with the Afghan Women's Organization.
We were founding members of ICIR and the standing committee that grew into the Canadian Council for Refugees. We are part of KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, which works on social justice. And our members and our congregations are deeply committed to refugee claimants and sponsored refugees. It's from this that our sanctuary practice has grown.
What is sanctuary? For us it is a public appeal for justice in the face of a terrible wrong. It is an attempt to uphold the law. It is not covert. It is not underground activity. In upholding the need for sanctuary, the church asks that justice, compassion, and the lives of refugees be respected.
Government, in streamlining the refugee determination system, has sacrificed justice for refugees by choosing not to implement the refugee appeal. The cost of that decision is refugee lives. In the face of what we believe is an injustice, we may consider the moral witness of sanctuary or receive distressed, desperate people within the holy confines of a church building.
Historical traditions inform our sanctuary action, and it may be a form of civil disobedience, but we act not in defiance of the law. Really, sanctuary, as a prophetic action, displays ultimate respect for the law and the justice it demands of it. It's inspired by two commandments—love of God and love of neighbour—and we understand that the public face of God's love is justice.
Our members are engaged to ensure the protection needs of both refugee claimants: those who come to Canada on their own; and resettled or sponsored refugees, those selected abroad. As such, we encounter those who sometimes need our help. We believe our help is an act of obedience. Through families such as the Raza family, in sanctuary in Winnipeg, we feel we are being accountable to a deeper law and to God.
How do we plan for a sanctuary? Well, there is a lot of prayerful discernment. It must be a community action. We never act alone or even as an isolated faith community. Because conscience is partially shaped by prejudices and biases and we can be mistaken, we need the wisdom of others in the passions of the moment.
We question our motivation. We need to honestly reflect on what it is, why we are doing it, and for whose sake we are doing it. What could we or those more at risk, the refugees, gain or lose? We ask that it be an informed decision. We look to see what other options are available. For us, it should only be a last resort while we continue to work on all other possible legal avenues of protest. We consult with Amnesty International, with local sanctuary coalitions, with lawyers, and with CIC.
It's not a solution. It's a time for a sober second thought for transformation of the law. We appreciate that there is no guarantee of success, and the congregation and the refugee must also understand that. We recommend that congregations consider development of a protocol even before they're put in a situation that demands a response.
We try to protect the credibility and the practice of sanctuary for those who need it most. We have refused more requests than we have ever accepted. It may come as a surprise to you that it is not something we want to do. Rather, it is something we must do.
In our denomination, congregations make their own decision. There is a handbook that informs that decision--available, sadly, only today in English--should you wish to see it. We work with congregations so they make informed decisions. We work respectfully with government officials to resolve the problem with integrity to everyone's satisfaction. We always try to avoid sanctuary if possible, because it's exhausting, physically and emotionally; it's expensive; it's tedious; and in the long run, it's just plain boring. But when a commitment is made to a refugee, we honour the commitment. We are firm and persistent in what we understand to be the truth.
Since 1983, the United Church has had 14 cases in sanctuary, six of those 14 since 2002, when multiple sanctuaries simultaneously began to happen. We ask if it's a coincidence that this coincides so completely with the IRPA legislation--the single decision-maker and the lack of an appeal.
An observation I've made is that the United Church seems to specialize in families in sanctuaries. I think it's because for us the principle of family reunification and best interests of Canadian children inform our work. Our own church policy or laws ask that we respond to the needy; offer hospitality to strangers, sanctuary to the endangered; love our neighbours whether we like them or not; provide justice for the persecuted and protection for the weak and the homeless.
Our general council policies have consistently asked that we call upon our government to implement the right of a merits-based appeal for refused refugee claimants, which is provided for in IRPA. With RAD in place, we also believe sanctuary pressures on our church would be far less. Ideally, Canada should be the sanctuary.
To paraphrase the words of Sandwell, the honorary chairperson of the Canadian National Committee on Refugees just shortly after World War II, the obligation to grant sanctuary is not and never has been unlimited, but the obligation to grant sanctuary still exists. Nations that ignore this obligation will suffer, as all nations ultimately do who ignore the fundamental and moral obligation and the debt that man and nations owe to the human being at their gates, simply because he or she is a human being.
I think that text still speaks to the discussion. Canada is obligated to provide sanctuary to those in need, and there are times like the present, given the lack of appeal, when as citizens and human beings we have a fundamental and moral obligation to provide sanctuary within Canada.
As a church, we want to concentrate on working with asylum seekers, resettling refugees, especially from these offices of refugees. We cannot get enough cases from our visa offices. We want to work for migrant justice. We want to work with our government on healthy immigration programs that reflect real labour and family reunification needs. But given the lack of protection, the non-implementation of the appeal has exacerbated the need for sanctuary within Canada. Therefore, we look to you, members of Parliament, to ensure that the protection needs of refugees are met and we can get on with the other work of the church.
Thank you.