Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The meeting will now come to order.

I want to welcome all of you here today. We have two hours to deal with Iraqi war resistors. We have two groups of people.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I had a motion on the floor that folks who are war resistors should not have any criminal and/or war records, or something along those lines. I'd like to strike out--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

First of all, let me ask members--

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

May I finish, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. Get to your point of order, please.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to strike out--and certainly you can see if you have unanimous consent: “and/or there has been no criminal or military warrants issued against them.”

I would like to take that phrase out, so that it states:

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 the war in Iraq and do not have a criminal record, 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.

I'm seeking unanimous consent to move that. I think you will find that a lot of people in this room will be very happy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I don't want to give the impression that I don't want to entertain that motion, because it's an important motion, but it's not a point of order.

I'll put it back into the hands of the committee. We came here today with an agenda to hear from Iraqi war resistors, Citizenship people, and the Mennonite Central Committee. I was going to deal with motions at the end of the agenda, but I get the impression from the committee that they wish to deal with these two motions before the committee hears from officials, the Mennonite Central Committee, and the War Resisters' Support Campaign.

Is there a desire to deal with these motions at the beginning of our meeting, or do we want to go as per agenda items and deal with these two motions at the end? Let's not have a long debate on this, because time is a-wasting, and people are here today to hear from the various people who have come before our committee.

Madam Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would be tempted to deal with the motion at the very end of the meeting. We have two motions before us. One motion was introduced by Mr. Karygiannis and the other by Ms. Chow. The two motions are substantially different. I don't know what the intention of the committee is. Do we want to merge the two motions into one, debate them right away and then hear the witnesses? Do we want to deal with the two motions at the end, one after the other? I don't understand exactly. We have our schedule, we have witnesses to hear and there is a desire to vote on the motion before hearing the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You would like to hear from the witnesses first.

Madame Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

To expedite matters, I have no problem withdrawing my motion in support of Mr. Karygiannis' motion, as long as the one or two motions are dealt with today before the bells ring.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I don't have any control over the bells. When the bells ring we have to go for votes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

If other members of Parliament want to listen to the witnesses, we can do so, and cut off all witnesses by five at the latest so we can deal with the motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's fine with me.

Mr. Batters.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I'm going to support what Ms. Chow just said. It makes much more sense to hear the witnesses first and deal with the motion afterwards. We know that the bells are going to ring at 5:15 today, and to cut off witnesses at 5 or 5:05 makes perfect sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Madame Beaumier.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'm not sure if we can determine now if we can cut off witnesses at 5 o'clock, but I certainly want to hear witnesses first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll try.

Thank you. Consensus is that we will hear our witnesses first and try to condense it as much as possible.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Because the agenda says 5:30, can I amend it so that each witness has 45 minutes instead of an hour? That would save you some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's the intent. I thought I told the committee about that. We will condense it as much as possible and cut it off at 5:15.

I want to welcome today Mr. Les Linklater, director general, immigration branch, and Micheline Aucoin, director general, refugee branch.

Welcome to our committee hearing today. I think you know the procedure. You'll begin with an opening statement, so I'll pass it right over to you. Then of course we'll get into discussion and questions.

Mr. Linklater.

[Les Linklater, Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to be here today and I thank the honourable members of the committee for their interest in this issue. With me today is Micheline Aucoin, Director General of the Refugees Branch, also with Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

I will begin today with some general comments and then address the events and considerations concerning the Hinzman and Hughey litigation. Finally, I will note some of the existing provisions within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA, or LIPR in French, which support the integrity of the immigration and refugee programs. We will then be happy to answer your questions.

First let me say that Canada has a fair, internationally recognized system for providing refuge to those fleeing persecution.

Refugee claims made in Canada, including those made by U.S. servicemen and women, are heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, or the IRB. The IRB assesses each claim on its merits with regard to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

The board has reported that 37 claims have been made by U.S. citizens on the basis of objection to military service. I should note that while waiting for a decision on their claims, refugee claimants who pass medical screening are entitled to work permits that allow them to be employed in Canada. Those who cannot find work may apply for social assistance.

Let me turn to the cases of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. The Federal Court of Appeal summarized the facts in the cases of Mr. Hinzman and Mr. Hughey as follows:

The two men voluntarily enlisted to serve the United States military. During their time in the military, they developed an objection to the war in Iraq. After learning that their units would be deployed to Iraq, they deserted the military and came to Canada, where they made claims for refugee status.

In January 2004, Mr. Hinzman came to Canada with his wife and their son, where they made inland refugee claims. Mr. Hughey made a similar refugee claim in January 2005.

The Immigration and Refugee Board found that the applicants were not convention refugees or persons in need of protection. The Federal Court of Canada reviewed the IRB decision and later dismissed the applicants' applications for judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed their subsequent appeals.

Mr. Hinzman and Mr. Hughey sought leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I'm just wondering if the department has consent from the applicant to reveal their personal information.

[Les Linklater]

This information is in the public domain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I realize that, Mr. Linklater. Please continue.

It's not a point of order.