Mr. Speaker, Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, officials are legally required to apply legislation, including the membership provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, passed by Parliament. They do so in an equal, impartial and consistent manner, in line with the law and the guidance of the courts, as well as based on comprehensive national guidance and management oversight to ensure objectivity. The CBSA’s role is to gather evidence and to present allegations, but for serious inadmissibility allegations that require an admissibility hearing, they are not the decision-maker; the Immigration Refugee Board is the decision-maker, based on an assessment of the evidence presented by the CBSA and by those who are alleged to be inadmissible.
With regard to (i) to (iii) of part (a), Canadian citizens are not subject to inadmissibility provisions under IRPA. Only permanent residents and foreign nationals can potentially be inadmissible to Canada. All cases, including persons affiliated with the Freedom and Justice Party, are assessed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis for inadmissibility concerns, and only those for which there is a sound evidentiary basis may end up being reported as inadmissible. The CBSA role is to conduct admissibility investigations, gather evidence and, if well founded, present the allegation.
No such case has led to concerns related to the specific inadmissibility provision for danger to the security of Canada. Instead, they relate to inadmissibility for being a member of an organization for which there are concerns that it engaged in impugned acts, which is in paragraph 34(1)(f) of IRPA. Of note, when determining inadmissibility relating to membership in any such organization, IRPA does not require that an individual be found to pose a threat or danger to Canada.
With regard to part (b), like most of the serious inadmissibilities, the membership inadmissibility allegation requires the decision of an impartial, quasi-judicial tribunal, in this case the immigration division, ID, of the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB. This means that the IRB is the final decision-maker where these matters are at issue and that the CBSA cannot deem any person inadmissible in these circumstances unilaterally.
If an officer determines that there is robust evidence to support an allegation of inadmissibility, they may report the person as inadmissible. Subsequently, a different officer must then review that report to determine whether the report is well founded. If that officer so concludes, the report can then be referred to the ID of the IRB for adjudication at an admissibility hearing.
Finally, in any case where a person is found inadmissible, that person can pursue a judicial review before the Federal Court of Canada, which did occur in one of these case. The court upheld the finding of inadmissibility at that time, thereby dismissing the judicial review.
With regard to part (c), if a person is found to be inadmissible for certain provisions, including membership inadmissibility as in these cases, they may make an application for ministerial relief to the Minister of Public Safety. In order to be eligible to submit an application for relief, an individual must have a final determination of inadmissibility, such as a removal order issued by the IRB or an application for temporary or permanent residence refused by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and must satisfy other requirements as set out in the immigration and refugee protection regulations. The Minister of Public Safety assesses the merits of eligible applications to determine whether or not a grant of relief would be contrary to Canada’s national interest. If the minister decides to grant relief, it would mean that the person would not be considered inadmissible thereafter on the basis of the grounds for which relief was provided. Each ministerial relief application is assessed on its own case-specific facts and circumstances. As such, it is not possible to predetermine the outcome of any pending or anticipated requests for relief.
With regard to part (d), the CBSA treats any case before it on a case-by-case basis, in a dispassionate and impartial manner, and based on the facts before it at that time. The agency prioritizes serious inadmissibility matters from an investigative perspective and provides its officers an array of functional, operational and program guidance to support and assist them in the execution of their mandate and duties. All guidance is updated to reflect the evolving jurisprudential environment. Any possible enforcement action taken must comply with the law and existing operational and program policies, and is subject to rigorous and independent review at multiple steps, including by CBSA officers and the IRB, which is the independent adjudicating tribunal, with the availability of judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada against any decision taken.