By John Hagan, Toronto Sun, December 30, 2008
Until recently, the federal government toed a careful line on its claim to fairly treat American Iraq war resisters who are seeking refuge and sanctuary in Canada.
The party line was each resister would receive individualized and fair consideration to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
There presumably was no “one fits all” outcome for the former soldiers fleeing America in search of protection as conscientious objectors — a protection they realize it is impossible to attain south of the border.
Diane Finley, minister of citizenship and immigration until October, guaranteed in Parliament and during election forums each war resister would be entitled to access current immigration programs. They were to have their applications for permanent residence decided on an impartial, case-by-case basis, without fear of a preconceived policy or pre-judgement.
Yet, in the light of renewed media scrutiny and with less than a week remaining before Christmas, the office of Jason Kenney, the new minister, contradicted that promise.
“The government remains convinced that U.S. military deserters are not genuine refugees and do not fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection … we have successfully advanced this position before three independent tribunals,” a spokesman in Kenney’s office said.
The immigration officers who are deciding the war resisters’ applications do not constitute “independent tribunals.” They exercise decision-making authority delegated to them by the minister of citizenship and immigration.
The spokesman’s statement provides no insight into why the government has now apparently adopted a policy in favour of uniformly denying war resisters’ applications to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Furthermore, Kenny’s stated policy is at odds with three recent findings in Federal Court, which in the cases of Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman and Matt Lowell found American Iraq war resisters would suffer irreparable harm if they returned to the U.S.
Kenny needs to explain to the Canadian public and to the MPs who voted to let the resisters stay why he disagrees with the findings of the three recent Federal Court cases.