EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Minister, Joe Clark’s intervention in a refugee case has undermined the refugee determination process and is an example of the Canadian Government’s persecution of the Sikh community, opposition critics, refugee experts and members of the Sikh community said.

But Deputy Prime Minister Donald Mazankowski defended Mr. Clark in the House of Commons, saying the minister had a “duty and obligation” to convey any information he had concerning Santokh Singh Bagea, a Sikh who was denied admission to Canada despite being recognized as a refugee by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee.

On April 1, 1987, Mr. Clark sent a letter to then employment and immigration minister Benoit Bouchard saying Mr. Singh was wanted in India as a suspect in a conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Mr. Singh was recognized as a refugee by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, but this decision was overruled by a committee of officials after Mr. Clark’s letter was received.

Mendel Green, lawyer for Mr. Singh, said he was sickened by Mr. Clark’s interference in his client’s refugee claim. “This is really unbelievable,

“Mr. Clark has obviously interfered unlawfully and illegally with an independent judicial process”, Mr. Green said. “It is against the Jaw and he should be prosecuted.”

But Employment and Immigration Minister Barbar McDougall said Mr. Clark’s letter was appropriated.

“If a colleague of mine felt that he had some information that was germane, from whatever source, I would not be offended if he wrote to me,” she said. “I would be offended if he did not”,

She said new legislation states that the decision will be made on behalf of the claimant in cases of a conflict between two opinions and that, because Mr. Singh still has a right to appeal, she did not want to comment further.

Edward Broadbent called the comments in Mr, Clark’s letter “irresponsible recommendations,” particularly where the minister offered legal advice to the Department of Immigration.

“We on this side of the House say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is simply continuing unwarranted persecution of the Sikh community,” Mr. Broadbent said. “That’s what the evidence points to Mrs. McDougall replied that there is a process for dealing with the situation.

“There is an appeal process which can be followed,” she said. “Whatever the honorable member may think about commenting on it at this stage, it is a sensitive matter, and I am not going to jeopardize the potential for this appeal”.

Mr. Broadbent told reporters that Mrs. McDougall’s answer was inadequate and “a totally phony argument”

“It’s the first time I’ve heard in the House of Commons someone saying, ‘Well, I better not comment on some totally inappropriate decision in my own department because something may be before a judicial process”, Mr. Broadbent said.

Liberal immigration critic Sergio Marchi told the House that Mr. Clark should be representing Canadian interests, rather than Indian interests.

Similarly, Liberal MP Robert Kaplan argued that the Government should be protecting multicultural communities from pressure from abroad.

New Democrat Daniel Heap called on Mrs, McDougall to table the two letters from Mr. Clark, since they concern what he called “the entire credibility of the Immigration Appeal Board.”

Mrs. McDougall told reporters that all information was considered.

“I do not regard this as political interference. It was one of the factors that was considered,” she said. “All relevant information was considered,”

Mr. Green said Mr. Clark’s involvement in the case and the subsequent rejection of Mr. Singh’s refugee claim by three Immigration Department officials appointed by Mr. Bouchard “has destroyed any credibility in the refugee determination process with his unlawful interference.

“As a lawyer who believes in the rule of law and as a Canadian, I am ashamed,” he said.

Mr. Green noted that the federal Government has often touted the Refugee Status Advisory Committee as being an independent statutory body. “What we see is that it is nothing more than a pawn of the External Affairs Department”.

He said he will write to federal Solicitor General James Kelleher asking for a full investigation. “I will be asking for an inquiry into Mr. Clark’s interference.”

What has particularly outraged Mr. Green is that a decision reached by three members of the advisory committee, which he described as “the highest caliber and most experienced individuals in the area of refugee affairs in Canada”, were overruled by handpicked immigration officers acting on behalf of Mr. Bouchard.

Mr. Green added that he was “extremely outraged” that documents regarding Mr. Singh’s refugee claim were leaked to a Globe and Mail reporter. “It destroys the whole confidentiality of the refugee process. It seriously prejudices my client’s claim and it could endanger my client should he ever be returned to India”.

Michael Schelew, spokesman on refugee issues for the Canadian section of Amnesty International, argued’ that Mr. Clark’s interference in the independence of the advisory committee “the integrity and credibility refugee determination process. “He appears to be forgetting that a human life is at stake,” Mr. Schelew said,

But Mr. Schelew’s sharpest attack was levelled at Mr. Bouchard. “The fact that Mr. Bouchard would succumb to such pressure is repugnant. His flagrant disregard fora genuine refugee is disgusting.

“Mr. Bouchard’s lack of integrity places his government’s stated commitment to protect genuine refugees in considerable doubt”, Mr. Schelew said.

Gian Singh Sandhu, Chairman of the World Sikh News Organization in Canada, said a special parliamentary committee should be appointed to investigate Mr. Clark’s interference in several refugee claims. “This is not an isolated case,” Mr. Sandhu Said. In the past six years, about 2,800 Sikhs have applied to be accepted in Canada as refugees and only three people have been accepted, he said.

Mr. Sandhu said documents indicating Mr. Clark’s interference confirm the WSO claim that the Canadian Government is under the influence of the Government of India, and that it is allowing a foreign government to dictate domestic policy in Canada,

The WSO chairman also said he believes Mr. Clark is carrying out Government policy. “We want the policy changed, not the individual”, he said.

“It is a policy of creating hatred against the Sikhs,” he added.

Lakhbir Singh, convenor of the International Sikh Youth Federation, said Mr. Singh should be allowed to stay in Canada. “He is no threat to anybody,” he said, speaking in Punjabi through an interpreter.

Mr. Lakhbir Singh added that the External Affairs minister should not interfere in immigration matters.

Kuldip Singh Sodhi, spokesman for the Council of Khalistan, said Canadian Sikhs will show their displeasure with Mr. Clark’s actions during the election. “We will work hard against him”, he said.

Mr. Sodhi also suggested that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney should “take strong action” to deal with Mr, Clark who, Mr. Sodhi said, was “against the Sikhs”.

When the refugee determination system for Canada is passed, “steps must be taken to ensure that it contains provisions that will not permit political interference,” he said.

Article extracted from this publication >> May 27, 1988