Repatriation order for men in Syria raises questions about Canada’s consular obligations

2023/02/02 Leave a comment

I’m on the more cautious side on repatriation and the likelihood of rehabilitation, particularly with respect to adults:

Former diplomats say Canada should have moved to repatriate four men from northeastern Syria without a court order, avoiding another decision from the federal bench that casts more doubt on the country’s obligations to its citizens held for wrongdoing in foreign countries.

A day after the government came to an agreement to repatriate 19 women and children, the Federal Court ruled on Jan. 20 that four men held in detention camps for suspected ISIS members in northeastern Syria must be repatriated, too, noting that their living conditions are “even more dire than those of the women and children who Canada has just agreed to repatriate.”

The government has yet to indicate whether it will appeal the case. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) said on Jan. 23 that the government is looking at the situation “carefully” and is “making sure we’re defending Canadians’ safety and security.”

Former Canadian diplomat Daniel Livermore, who was director general of security and intelligence in Canada’s foreign service, said the Federal Court ruling will force Global Affairs to change its consular policy unless it is appealed.

“The tradition in consular service, the way it has been delivered … it doesn’t matter who you are and what you’ve done, you get consular service irrespective of background,” said Livermore, who authored Detained: Islamic Fundamentalist Extremism and the War on Terror in Canada. “Now, that didn’t happen with these people, and it didn’t happen because of their background.”

Livermore noted that there is little sympathy to provide any kind of assistance for those who are linked with allegedly going abroad to join a terrorist organization.

“I think the court case is really going to force the hands of Global Affairs to come up with something a lot better, and hopefully it is something that is anchored in a more sensible policy than they’ve pursued so far,” he said.

He added that in an “ideal world,” the case shouldn’t have even come to court and the repatriation should have taken place long ago.

In its policy framework to “evaluate the provision of extraordinary assistance,” the government notes that it has “no positive obligation under domestic or international law to provide consular assistance, including repatriation.”

The framework was unearthed as part of the Federal Court case.

The policy notes that Global Affairs “may” provide consular assistance to Canadians abroad with their request and consent, and pursuant to the government’s “royal prerogative on international relations.” The Federal Court ruled that the royal prerogative isn’t “exempt from constitutional scrutiny.”

Livermore said Canadian courts, in successive cases, have undermined the government’s claim of not having to provide consular assistance, including the most recent January decision. He said the notion was also disputed in 2010 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Omar Khadr’s case. The top court ruled it could order the government to ask the United States to repatriate Khadr from detention in Guantanamo Bay, but chose not to. Livermore also cited the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik, who the Federal Court ordered be repatriated from Sudan in 2009.

“[The three cases show] a nice little pattern, which undermines the royal prerogative argument and limits it very substantially,” he said.

He said the consular policy is a “residue” of Canada’s post-9/11 policies.

“A lot of our policies were changed without thinking them through,” he said. “A lot of the security agencies at the centre, at the [Privy Council Office], began to exercise powers that they don’t legitimately have a right to claim. Now we’re starting to untangle all this stuff … so presumably Global Affairs will have to work on that a bit and it will be interesting to see how it will come up with it.”

Livermore said one solution for future consular cases is to remove the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) from the co-management of the situation, suggesting that could be done by invoking the individual’s rights under the Privacy Act.

Under the government’s framework, CSIS and the RCMP will determine the “potential threat” an individual poses to public safety and national security, which includes “the individual’s involvement in, or association with, terrorist activity, and whether the risk of their return to Canada can be sufficiently mitigated in transit and upon arrival.”

Unlike other countries, Canada has made little progress to repatriate its citizens who have been held in Kurdish-controlled camps in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES).

The government has cited safety concerns for its inability to travel to the camps to assess the consular cases. Under its framework, it notes that one of the guiding principles is that government officials “must not be put in harm’s way.” Other countries’ diplomats, as well as academics, journalists, and civil society advocates, have gone to the AANES camps.

Patricia Fortier, who served as Global Affairs Canada’s assistant deputy minister responsible for security, consular, and emergency management prior to her retirement in 2016, said the duty-of-care issue is a “very live issue.”

“There is no question that it is more top of mind now than it was in the past,” she said. “No one wants to order an officer into a place where they might not come back or they might be injured.”

She said the recent Federal Court decision continues a “long string” of cases involving the post-9/11 context and return to Canada.

“In each of those, everyone predicted that it would change things and it didn’t,” she said.

She said that the repatriation of the women and children had to come, but the question of the men is a more difficult one for potential public safety reasons.

“It’s going to be a really difficult security question,” she said, noting the situation is unlike many other consular cases as the Kurds who have control over the camps want to offload all the detainees.

“It is an odd situation,” she said, noting that it is unlikely that a similar case will have to be dealt with in the future.

Fortier said the situation will likely be resolved by Global Affairs and the security agencies, with the possible input of the defence department, before winding up on Trudeau’s desk.

She also noted the concern of the Yazidi population in Canada. In 2016, the House of Commons passed a motion that recognized that ISIS was committing genocide against Yazidi people. CBC News reported that survivors of the genocide who have resettled in Canada feel “heartbroken and betrayed.”

She said it is not always possible for the government to have a positive obligation to provide consular assistance, noting that could require Canada to repatriate a Canadian abroad who simply runs out of money.

Former diplomat Gar Pardy, who was the director general of the consular affairs bureau in the foreign service, said he doubted that the government would be interested in using the Federal Court’s decision as a foundation to change its consular policy.

He said that is why he thinks the government will appeal the decision.

Regardless of how the court process ends, Pardy said the government should be repatriating its citizens in northeastern Syria.

“The Canadian government should join what other governments have done,” he said, noting that many of Canada’s allies have repatriated their citizens who were in Syria. “Why the Canadian government has not followed this path—it just doesn’t seem to make any sense.”

The NDP and Green Party have called on the government to move forward on repatriation.

Source: Repatriation order for men in Syria raises questions about Canada’s consular obligations

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization Tagged with , , , , ,

When a Canadian is not a Canadian: Pardy on consular services

2016/07/28 Leave a comment

While Pardy is correct to note that policies have not kept up with increased mobility, he downplays the need to recognize that a “Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” does not necessarily apply abroad.

To my mind, a policy framework for consular services needs to distinguish between Canadian citizens only, dual nationals travelling to countries where dual nationality is recognized, dual nationals travelling to countries where dual nationality is not recognized, and Permanent Residents.

The first two categories are where providing consular services is a given and where this will be recognized in the other country.

Where dual nationality is not recognized, while Canada can try to provide consular services, the other country will likely be unhelpful given that the person entered as a national of that country, not Canada.

And I see no reason to provide consular services to Permanent Residents, as consular services are related to citizenship.

For people in such situations, our missions abroad can make representation on international human rights ground.

So while theoretically there are no limits to what Canada can do, there are in practice.

Of course, media, family and political pressure will undoubtedly favour wider, rather than narrower interpretations, but it is important, from both a policy and operational perspective, to understand the differences:

Unlike historical migrations to Canada that involved a one-way trip and the ending of familial and other connections, people born abroad but living in Canada now have more chance to stay connected with their homelands. Other migratory countries face a similar situation. It is a common aspect of modern migration with, for many, a former life only several air-hours away, or seconds for direct communications.

Unfortunately, affected governments have had trouble adjusting, and international law even more so, to these increasingly common aspects of international travel.

Many countries are not willing to accept Canada has a legitimate interest in ensuring such Canadians (or foreign-born residents) are treated in accordance with international norms and standards. Equally troubling is that many countries are unwilling to recognize the Canadian citizenship of those who hold it.

International law is weak to non-existent in this area. While there is an international convention on the provision of consular services, its weak provisions offer very little comfort in many of these situations.

Equally, there are no specific international agreements or understanding outside of broad international human rights law of the right of Canada and other migratory-destination countries to offer protection to persons who are not citizens.

Canada does not help itself in these matters. There is a reluctance to intervene in cases when a Canadian resident encounters serious difficulty in a foreign country. Usually in response, ministers and officials state: “There are limits to what any country can do for individuals who are not citizens of that country.” But they piously iterate that “the government continues to monitor the situation closely.”

In fact, there are no limits to what a country can try to do to assist such persons. Whether the other country will accept such efforts by Canada is an entirely separate issue; but not to try is an abdication of an appropriate responsibility.

Complicating assistance in such cases is the continuing existence of the historical convention of “Crown prerogative.” It provides discretion to the government for the denial of assistance to even Canadian citizens in difficulty overseas.

There were indications earlier this year that the Trudeau government might be willing to disavow the use of this discretion, but so far nothing specific has been announced.

The continued existence of this discretion undermines the ability of the government to provide consular services generally. It is particularly ironic that the discretion continues even though Canadians specifically pay for such services to the tune of approximately $100 million annually. This is a serious anomaly since the government collects monies for a service it admits to no compulsion to provide.

Source: The Hill Times

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Supreme Court should let long-term expats vote: Pardy

2016/05/12 Leave a comment

Gar Pardy joins the extend the expatriate vote advocates.

Like most advocates, they appear to argue for this right to be indefinite, no matter how long outside Canada, no matter how little the connection.

All – unless I have missed it – are silent with respect to those born-abroad but who are able to ‘inherit’ their citizenship, and who may never have lived in Canada:

Two Canadians living in the United States started the right-to-vote case now before the Supreme Court nearly five years ago. They filed a constitutional challenge with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice when they discovered they could not vote in the 2011 federal election.

Judge Michael Penny of the Ontario court ruled in May 2014 that Parliament could not take away the voting rights of non-resident Canadian citizens. In doing so, Judge Penny struck down sections of the Canada Elections Act since they violated Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

The Harper government appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. In a split decision (two to one) last July, it overruled Judge Penny. The majority ruled that while Section 3 of the charter had been violated, the “pressing and substantial” standard of Section 1 provided enough reason for the violation.

The dissenting judge, Justice John Laskin, strongly and substantively took issue with the majority decision. He argued that Judge Penny’s judgment was a “thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the issues.” He went on to argue that the majority’s use of the “the pressing and substantial objective of preserving the social contract at the heart of Canada’s system of constitutional democracy” was not valid.

The introduction of the “social contract” element in the case was not reflected in the government’s arguments before Judge Penny nor was it reflected in the documentation presented before the appeal court. Rather, the government’s lawyers did so only in oral arguments to which Justice Laskin disagreed. He concluded that Parliament did not have a “social contract” objective in mind when it passed the “five-year non-residency limitation in 1993.”

The majority decision of the appeal court in using the gaseous concept of “social contract” to deny a fundamental right of all Canadians to vote is without precedent. It does reflect many aspects of policy-making by the previous government where reason, evidence, and attention to detail were discarded. In the words of Judge Penny, the government’s arguments demonstrated that “there is simply no evidence of a problem. Rather, the government’s objectives are rhetorical, vague, and generic.”

Social contracts between the state and its citizens have long been an idea that philosophers have argued over far into the night without adding much useful light. Rather, as Justice Laskin concluded, the deprivation of the right to vote solely on the basis of residence turns Canadians abroad “into second-class citizens and so undermines the values of equality and inclusiveness…underlying our charter rights.”

In due course we can all hope the Supreme Court overrules this aberrant decision by the Ontario appeal court and in doing so establishes the charter right for some one million Canadians to vote.

Source: Supreme Court should let long-term expats vote |

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,