I'm going to talk first, but I'm not going to talk the longest. I'll try to be brief.
What I want to talk about is the general legal framework for the sorts of remedies we're asking this committee to endorse. We're asking the committee to resolve that the Government of Canada, first of all, grant refugee protection to Falun Gong practitioners through Canadian visa posts abroad, outside China, through the government-assisted refugee program, because the government itself each year brings in about 7,500 refugees as government-assisted refugees. So we're asking that Falun Gong be part of that number of 7,500. We ask that a specific number within the overall number be allocated to Falun Gong and that the number allocated to Falun Gong be sufficient to encompass all those who have ties to Canada, who face persecution, and who do not have a durable solution in the country they're from.
When it comes to the in-Canada situation, we realize that determinations are made by the board or by the pre-removal risk assessment officer on an individualized basis. But often there is an issue about whether somebody is Falun Dafa or not. It is sometimes a credibility issue. The Falun Dafa Association doesn't itself, obviously, make refugee determinations and can't answer in every case whether somebody is Falun Gong. But there are some people they know to be Falun Gong, and they offer themselves as a resource and ask that when they say somebody is Falun Gong, that their statement be believed.
The third context in which the issue arises is for people who are in China. Now normally we don't grant refugee protection to people who are within the country where they are facing persecution, but there is an exception called the source country class. There's a list of countries, and there are six countries on the list right now. China is not one of the countries on the list, but we would ask that China be part of that list. So that's the refugee system.
There are two components to our submission. One, we ask for protection for Falun Gong who are facing persecution. Second, we ask that people who are persecuting the Falun Gong be declared inadmissible. We ask that people be barred entry and denied visas if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they're complicit in crimes against humanity, against Falun Gong practitioners. That's fairly straightforward. That's just a replication of the language in the legislation applied to this group of people. But we would also go further than that and say that such people should be denied visas no matter what the purpose of their intended entry, whether it be for a diplomatic consular posting, for trade purposes, to attend bilateral meetings, to attend intergovernmental meetings that Canada is hosting, or for transit or any other purposes.
The problem faced right now is that there is something called the Foreign Missions and Intergovernmental Relations Act, which basically allows people who are attending events in Canada, international meetings listed in orders in council, to come in whether they're criminals against humanity or war criminals or not. What the foreign missions and intergovernmental legislation says is that this legislation supercedes the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the bar to admission in that act, when people are coming in for diplomatic consular purposes or for intergovernmental purposes. And we say that this shouldn't happen. These people should be barred no matter what the purpose for which they're coming, as long as they're complicit in crimes against humanity, against Falun Gong.
We also say that people who are in Canada, whether or not they're part of a Chinese consular or diplomatic mission, should be expelled from Canada if they're involved in incitement to hatred against Falun Gong, because that has been a problem. That is a violation of our laws, and we shouldn't be giving diplomatic or consular immunity from hate incitement laws to people who are inciting hatred against the Falun Gong from within Canada. These people, too, should be expelled from Canada.
So in a nutshell, that's our legal position and the substance of our motion. To get more to the factual basis, I'm going to hand it over to Joel Chipkar.