Thierry St-Cyr

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the same goes for partisan appointments of commissioners. The minister says it is not his fault and shifts all the blame to the selection committee. Yet it was the Conservatives who changed the composition of that committee, allowing individuals appointed by the minister himself to sit on that committee.

Should the minister not just come right out and admit that, like the Liberals, he is continuing the same practice of partisan appointments?

[Official Languages, March 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is playing Pontius Pilate by washing his hands and refusing to remind the Border Services Agency that it is required to serve citizens in both official languages. The minister cites the independence of the IRB as the reason for not taking action.

The Border Services Agency is not a judicial body. Therefore, the minister can and must intervene and ask its officials to have the documents translated. What is he waiting for?

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the appointment of Pharès Pierre, we would like to point out that of John Cryer, a Conservative supporter and homophobe. The list of new board members also contains at least two other well-known Conservatives: Darcy Tkachuk and Cheryl Walker, an aspiring Conservative candidate and fundraiser.

Will the minister admit that his government is continuing the old Liberal practice of making partisan appointments?

[Citizenship and Immigration, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism claims that he is reviewing the unacceptable appointment of Pharès Pierre, the latter is currently undergoing training as a board member and already has been assigned an office at the board. In reality, the minister is doing absolutely nothing. A number of board members are refusing to work with Pharès Pierre because they believe he is unworthy of the position.

Does the minister realize that his inaction is a disgrace to our immigration system?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, we can consider a war to be illegitimate or illegal because, for example, it was never sanctioned by the UN and was initiated under false pretences. That happens throughout the world. It is not a question of governance; it is a question of universal human values.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we heard insinuations of support for Saddam Hussein. Quite frankly, and out of respect for this House, I will refrain from responding to such pointless comments.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed quite incomprehensible, but let me add something. The parliamentary secretary will, of course, have the opportunity to respond, as will his colleagues.

We must ask ourselves a more basic question: how do we manage these exceptional situations? Is it weakness to step in when mistakes are made—as the Conservatives seem to think—or is it the intelligent thing to do?

In the specific case of conscientious objectors, I do not believe that it is an easy decision nor do I believe that these are irresponsible people. They signed a piece of paper, they changed their minds, and then they came to Canada. That is a difficult decision to make: they leave their families, their friends, their acquaintances and they head to the unknown, to risks and difficulties. They do so because they believe that this war is unjust. They do so because they have been there, and they have seen things that are unacceptable on a human level.

That is why they come here to see us, and that is how we should view this.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I feel that that question will remain forever unanswered. I may have my opinions, but I really do not know what the problem is for the government. We could always ask, but I suspect that we will not get any more of an answer.

But, at very least, we can hypothesize a little. First, there is clearly the desire not to upset the Americans, which is not a bad thing in itself when looked at objectively. I am not saying that we always have to be raising objections to what they do. But we do have to stand by our principles, our values and our convictions, even when the Americans may not be pleased about it.

The second thing I can see is a systematic desire on the part of the government and this minister to not make decisions and to not take action. I hope that that will change and that a person will be there to correct the mistakes that the machine keeps making.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised by that statement. I am quite anxious to have a look at Hansard and review this situation which would apply perfectly to my bill, Bill C-291, which will compel the introduction of the refugee appeal division.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the two are not mutually exclusive. In my neck of the woods, we often say that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Frankly, I cannot see how the minister's acting to accept American conscientious objectors who come here to seek refuge would adversely affect all other refugee claimants. People who make that claim currently do so in Canada. As long as their claim has not been processed, they are not sent back to their country. Their life is not in danger. So I really cannot see what difference it would make if the minister were to intervene on behalf of conscientious objectors.

Of course, the minister and the government have to allocate more resources and process refugee claims more effectively so that these people can get answers more quickly. Moreover, to avoid arbitrariness, the government needs to support my bill to introduce the refugee appeal division.

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion before us, which leads us to reflect on our duty to welcome, or not welcome as the Conservatives believe, conscientious objectors from all over the world, but in this case from the United States, who seek refuge in Canada because they refuse to take part in a war they consider unjust and illegal.

It needs discussion, because this is particularly the case of the war in Iraq, which was declared under false pretences with false accusations of possession of weapons of mass destruction and is still being waged today, though it is just as illegal and illegitimate today as it was at the start.

Originally, some people were duped by George Bush into believing that there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This war was backed for a time by people who reasonably believed that those weapons did exist, or who knew very well that this was not the case but felt that we ought to participate to please the Americans.

The present Prime Minister of course heads the list of those who backed Canadian participation in the war in Iraq. He sanctioned that war. The Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal Party was also among the ranks of those who sanctioned that war and wanted Canada to take part.

I am pleased to see today that the Liberal caucus has managed to convince its leader that this war is illegitimate. One might, however, wonder what lack of judgment and wisdom could have led him to support a war when the situation was clear to the most ordinary of citizens, even those perhaps lacking some of the intellectual capacity and wealth of information of the Liberal leader. How can it be that millions of people in Quebec knew the war was illegitimate, and yet it took so much time for the Liberal leader to figure out that the war in Iraq was a bad war and Canada ought not be involved in it?

The Liberal Party leader has changed his mind, and today the Liberals are supporting this motion before the House, for which I am very glad. I think I am right in stating that there is a very strong consensus on this within the Quebec nation and among Canadians.

The nation of Quebec has always stood for the values of pacifism, human compassion and respect for other peoples and our nation took an extremely firm stand during the debates on the war in Iraq. Please understand that I know that Canadians are a peaceful people too; I know and I believe that Canadians are a great people. Nevertheless, let me emphasize that opposition to Canada's participation in the war in Iraq was even stronger and more united in the nation of Quebec than it was in the rest of Canada, probably stronger even than in many countries in the west and around the world.

More than 250,000 people, in fact, braved the cold on that cold winter's day—and Heaven knows, days can be cold in Quebec—to demonstrate against the participation of Quebec and Canada in the war in Iraq.

There were 250,000 people in the streets, a quarter of a million people. That is the kind of large demonstration that we normally see when the government makes decisions that directly affect people's lives, when the people feel personally engaged and fear the loss of their basic rights. They might be public servants or other workers who feel that they are going to be adversely affected themselves. They might be students, also afraid of losing their basic rights.

But what was so fantastic about that demonstration is that this was not the case. The people demonstrating that day in Montreal were not military people, and the great majority of them did not come from military families. They were people who, on a personal level, had very little connection with that war.

Those 250,000 people hit the streets in protest because it was about one of their values, one of their most deeply held beliefs. By the thousands, they represented the vast majority of Quebeckers who believed that the war was unjust and unjustified. I wanted to give that example since, here in the House, we are often divided because we reflect a division present in society, in both the Quebec nation and Canada, but I think that, in that instance, the consensus was very strong. Even at the time, few people other than the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party supported the American war in Iraq.

Think about it. We believe this war to be illegitimate and immoral because it is not sanctioned by the UN. If this war is immoral to Quebeckers, them it must be immoral to Canadians and Americans too. In fact, most Canadians think so. How can it be immoral to Canadians but not to Americans? If that is what we truly believe, we must stand up for our beliefs and act on our convictions.

As such, we cannot send people who share the deep conviction that this war is unjust back to the United States, where they will surely be punished, imprisoned, and treated unfairly and cruelly. Unlike most of us, they have seen it up close. We cannot send these people to certain jail, to cruel and unjust punishment, if we as a nation and a people believe this war to be unjust.

The whole refugee system is based on the principle that we believe our values are and should be universal. When we accept a refugee from a country where a dictator is terrorizing the people and trampling on human rights, we do so because we do not subscribe to those values.

Canadians and the Quebec nation do not support the absence of democracy and lack of respect for human rights. We therefore open our doors to refugees and tell them that they are welcome here because they are looking for a place where they can live according to the values we believe should be universal. We will not send people back to countries where we know that things we fundamentally oppose will happen. We do not have faith in the justice systems of such countries. The case of American conscientious objectors is similar.

Let us be serious. Clearly, the United States is a democracy, with a thoroughly respectable legal and judicial system. Everyone agrees on that. Although they are our allies, our friends even, there is nevertheless a profound discrepancy between their values and convictions regarding the war in Iraq and our beliefs here in Canada. In the same way we accept refugees from countries where human rights are violated, because our values dictate that we should welcome people who are persecuted, we should also accept refugees who refuse to participate in an unjust war. That is the only logical decision possible. Even though this may not please our American friends, even though this could have costs attached, it must be done. We must act consistently.

I also had the opportunity to attend yesterday's press conference with Kimberly Rivera. She was facing deportation from Canada back to the United States. I thought she looked somewhat lost, with her four-month-old baby in her arms, among all the MPs and parliamentarians. She simply wanted to continue living a normal life here. She was not asking for much, really. She was not asking for charity or to sponge off of Canadian society. She simply wanted to be allowed to stay, and to participate in and contribute to Canadian society. We believe this is a completely reasonable, simple and intelligent thing to do.

The government's position is to refuse to intervene and to say, “Too bad for you, but you should not have enlisted, and you should not have changed your mind.” I would submit that it is not that simple.

First of all, yes, she did enlist, but then she saw for herself what was going on over there. She saw that the war was unjust and illegitimate. What is more, there is more than one person involved in this story. I would like to tell the parliamentary secretary that the four-month-old baby she had in her arms did not make the decision to sign up. He had nothing to do with it. He was born in Canada. He is a Canadian citizen, like all of us here in this place. He is at risk of separation from his mother, who could spent months—over a year—in an American prison for having refused to take part in a war which Quebeckers and Canadians strenuously object to. She did what the majority of our fellow citizens would have done. How can a mother and baby be punished because the mother did what we all would have done? This strikes me as completely illegitimate.

So, the minister still continues to refuse to intervene. That is a pity. When a person is elected here as a member of Parliament and then the Prime Minister has confidence enough in that person to make him or her a minister and decision-maker, then sometimes decisions need to be made.

I am aware, of course, that the minister cannot interfere in all cases and make all the decisions. It is not a matter of replacing public servants or living in a state where politicians second-guess the public administration. However, in cases as clear and obvious as this, where we are called upon to act as individuals, the minister should act and make use of his powers.

But in cases as clear and obvious as this, where we are called upon to act as individuals, the minister should act and make use of his powers.

We have too often seen ministers, Conservatives now, but equally so the Liberals before them, settle for inaction and sidestep their responsibilities, saying,“I do not want to create a precedent. I do not want to interfere in the running of my department. ” But that is not what the Quebec nation and Canadians want from their elected representatives.

We have seen this in cases of all kinds, not only in this situation. We know our immigration system is not perfect. Everyone agrees with that, even on the government side. Everyone agrees that mistakes may be made, that bad decisions may be made, that there may be shortcomings in our legislation.

My dear colleagues, we all know that we work hard and that a great deal of work goes into passing legislation. However, sometimes we act quickly. We, too, are sometimes influenced by partisanship and emotion. I think that everyone here realizes that the laws we adopt are not perfect because they are adopted by human beings who are not perfect. Our public servants, who work passionately for us, for our government, for our country, also have the authority to make decisions. These people can also make decisions.

When such a singular case arises in our democracies, there is one person who has the authority to take action. That person is the minister. Making that decision, showing compassion, is not an admission by the minister that he is weak or has made mistakes. It means that he acknowledges that the situation is extraordinary, that there are special cases that require the intervention of someone who, we hope, can be compassionate. That person, the person in our parliamentary system, in our democratic system, who has the authority to make the decision is the minister.

This would not be the first time. Canada did the same for the American deserters who were fleeing the Vietnam war. This case is not a precedent.

I sincerely believe that this motion should be adopted by Parliament. I invite and urge the government to respect this decision, not only out of regard for democracy and the will of this House, but also out of compassion.

I would ask the minister to meet Kimberly and her young baby. I believe that after this meeting he would be feel more positive about the need to intervene.

We often deal with the files in a system. We set up a process or a machine and this machine is very dehumanizing. That is normal. We have no choice because there are so many files to deal with and so many things to do. But when we come across such moving cases as this one, that speak so strongly to our humanity, I believe that we must be guided by that humanity and make the only fair and reasonable decision, that is, to accept these American conscientious objectors who seek refuge in our country.