Evidence of meeting #21 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was person.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
At all? The hearing is public in part. I don’t know if some persons availed themselves of their right to undertake anything publicly, but they are entitled to do so.
Conservative
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
It's my understand that sovereign nations like Canada have the right to accept or refuse foreign nationals who want to enter the country.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
For any reason, or in fact no reason, a sovereign state doesn't need to actually provide justification to refuse entry. They have the right to refuse foreign citizens from entering the country. I mean, when I cross the border into the United States, if the U.S. border service says I can't come in, I don't have a right to appeal. I have to accept that decision.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
For no reason at all has never been Canadian policy. Whether that would be consistent with international law I cannot say, but certainly Canadian policy has always been to prescribe inadmissibility grounds by law.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Right. Maybe I'm not using the right words. In terms of who may be the subject of certificates, serious criminals could also, not only terrorist threats, right?
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Yes.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
So a security certificate could be issued to someone who is trying to enter Canada from the United States, for example, if we thought this person was a threat to Canada for criminal reasons rather than for terrorist reasons?
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Yes, although the main reason a certificate will be used, as opposed to the normal removal proceedings where the individual sees all of the evidence, is that the person is inadmissible, point one; and point two, the state has classified information that it cannot disclose. That's an essential characteristic of certificates.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Okay. What I'm trying to determine here is that if someone were trying to enter Canada from the United States by land, for example, and the Canadian government had some reason to believe a threat to Canada was posed that may not be public, that person is detained.
There's the definition of torture, for example. I'm trying to figure out, if a Paul Bernardo type of person tried to come into Canada and the government had some reason to not want them to come into the country, and in order to remove them to a jurisdiction where, for example, there was capital punishment...would that be considered torture?
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Capital punishment per se is not torture, no.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Because capital punishment where it is exercised in the other state is a lawful sanction.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
You have two and half minutes. Do you wish to use it?
Mr. Preston.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'll go. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
What my friend was getting at is that countries have the right to deny people who don't fit the laws of their country to come into their country.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Yes.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Great.
And I think Mr. Komarnicki was talking earlier about the distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and how the trial base is taking place—how they're treated differently, one under a civil situation and one under another. He suggested that a special advocate may be an answer to bridging that gap, and you also thought this might work and that it was or is being used in England.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
That's correct.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
In your preamble before we started questioning, you also said that these certificates are used for only the most dangerous or threatening of people to come to Canada.
I see they're used fairly sparingly, if we're talking about 27 certificates since 1991 and five since 2001. This is not a system that we're using with great regularity. It seems to be the exception to the rule, rather than not.
In your preamble, you also said that we remove 10,000 people annually from this country.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Yes.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Are the rules used to remove them? I recognize that you're talking here about the most threatening and most dangerous people, so we probably are a little safer or trying to be a little more strict on the rules. But I would doubt that there is not a procedure to follow on the 10,000 people we do remove, that there is probably a pretty strict procedure that's followed there too.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
The normal procedure essentially requires an immigration official to prepare a report stating why the person is inadmissible. That report is reviewed by a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the adjudication immigration division, in a hearing where the individual sees all of the government's case and has an opportunity to respond.
Conservative