ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

security and criminal intelligence investigations and in protecting police sources. The need for confidentiality in national security cases

was emphasized by Lord Denning in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball, [1977] 3 All E.R. 452 (C.A.),

at p. 460:

The information supplied to the Home Secretary by the Security Service is, and must be, highly confidential. The public interest in

the security of the realm is so great that the sources of information must not be disclosed, nor should the nature of the information itself

be disclosed, if there is any risk that it would lead to the sources being discovered. The reason is because, in this very secretive field,

our enemies might try to eliminate the source of information.

On the general need to protect the confidentiality of police sources, particularly in the context of drug-related cases: see R. v. Scott,

[1990] 3 S.C.R. 979, at pp. 994-95. See also Ross v. Kent Inst. (1987), 57 C.R. (3d) 79, at pp. 85-88 (B.C.C.A.), in which that court held

that it is not essential in order to comply with principles of fundamental justice that an inmate know the sources of information before the

Parole Board as long as he is informed of the substance of that information.

The CSIS Act and Review Committee Rules recognize the competing individual and state interests and attempt to find a reasonable

balance between them. The Rules expressly direct that the Committee's discretion be exercised with regard to this balancing of

interests.

In this case the respondent was first provided with the "Statement of Circumstances giving rise to the making of a Report by the

Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to the Security Intelligence Review Committee". This

document set out the nature of the information received by the Review Committee from the Ministers, including that the respondent had

been involved in drug trafficking, and was involved in the murder of a named individual. Also prior to the Review Committee hearing,

the respondent was provided with an extensive summary of surveillance of his activities (the "Chronology of Information") and a

"Summary of Interpretation of Intercepted Private Communications relating to the murder of Domenic Racco". Although the first day of

the hearing was conducted in camera, the respondent was provided with a summary of the evidence presented. In my view, these

various documents gave the respondent sufficient information to know the substance of the allegations against him, and to be able to

respond. It is not necessary, in order to comply with fundamental justice in this context, that the respondent also be given details of the

criminal intelligence investigation techniques or police sources used to acquire that information.

The respondent was also given the opportunity to respond, by calling his own witnesses or by requesting that he be allowed to

cross-examine the RCMP witnesses who testified in camera. The Chairman of the Review Committee clearly indicated an intention to

allow such cross-examination:

Certainly, it would be my inclination that if the RCMP wish to call witnesses in support of any or all of the comments that they may

make in support of the Statement of Circumstances, there would be the opportunity for the applicant's counsel to cross-examine.

The respondent chose not to exercise these options. Having regard to the information that was disclosed to the respondent, the

procedural opportunities that were available to him, and the competing interests at play in this area, I conclude that the procedure

followed by the Review Committee in this case did not violate principles of fundamental justice.

VI. Conclusion

I would therefore allow the appeal, dismiss the cross-appeal, both with costs, and answer the constitutional questions as follows:

Main Appeal

1 (a) Do sections 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now ss. 81

and 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms?

Answer:Assuming without deciding that s. 7 applies, the answer is no.

(b) If the sections referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, are they justified by s. 1 of the

Charter?

Answer:This question does not have to be answered.

2 (a) Does reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by

S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now s. 82 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) filed in the respondent's case result in an infringement of

his rights pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter, because the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee did not meet the

requirements of s. 7?

Answer: Assuming without deciding that s. 7 applies, the answer is no.

(b) If reliance upon the certificate does infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, is it justified by s. 1 of the Charter?

Answer:This question does not have to be answered.

Cross-Appeal

1 (a) Do s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and s. 32(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, as amended by S.C. 1984, c. 21, s. 84 (now

s. 27(1)(d)(ii) and s. 32(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2) infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they require the deportation of persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum

punishment of five years or more, without reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender?

Answer:With respect to s. 15, the answer is no. Assuming, without deciding, that either s. 7 or s. 12 apply, the answer is no.

(b) If the paragraph and subsection referred to above do infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by ss. 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter, are

they justified by s. 1 of the Charter?

Answer:This question does not have to be answered.

Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed. With respect to the main appeal, assuming without deciding that s. 7 is applicable,

ss. 82.1 and 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, do not infringe or deny the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms and reliance upon the certificate authorized by s. 83 of the Immigration Act, 1976, did not result in an infringement of s. 7

having regard to the process followed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. With respect to the cross-appeal, the requirement

that persons convicted of an offence carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more be deported, without reference to the

circumstances of the offence or the offender, does not offend s. 15, or ss. 7 or 12 assuming without deciding that these sections applied.

Solicitor for the appellant: John C. Tait, Ottawa.

Solicitor for the respondent: Irwin Koziebrocki, Toronto.

Solicitors for the intervener: Noлl, Berthiaume, Aubry, Hull.

The official versions of decisions and reasons for decision by the Supreme

Court of Canada are published in the Supreme Court Reports (S.C.R.). This site is

prepared and published by LexUM in partnership with Supreme Court of Canada.

& IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT

INTRODUCED

OTTAWA, February 21, 2001 -- Elinor Caplan, Minister of Citizenship and

Immigration, today tabled the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in the House

of Commons, reaffirming her commitment to be tough on criminals while

strengthening efforts to attract skilled immigrants.

The new bill incorporates a number of recent proposals from Canadians, yet

maintains the core principles and provisions of Bill C-31, the immigration legislation

introduced prior to last fall's general election.

The Minister said the legislation reintroduces severe penalties -fines of up to

$1 million and life in prison -- for people smugglers and traffickers, speeds up

family reunification, and maintains Canada's humanitarian tradition of providing safe

haven to people in need of protection.

"By saying 'No' more quickly to people who would abuse our rules, we are able to

say 'Yes' more often to the immigrants and refugees Canada will need to grow and

prosper in the years ahead," said Minister Caplan.

The bill reintroduces key measures to strengthen the integrity of the refugee

determination system. These include front-end security screening for all claimants,

clearer grounds for detention, fewer appeals and opportunities for judicial review to

delay the removal of serious criminals, and suspension of refugee claims for people

charged with serious crimes until the courts have rendered a decision.

The legislation reaffirms the commitment to faster but fair decisions on refugee

claims by consolidating several current steps and criteria into a single protection

decision to be made by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and by combining the

increased use of single-member panels with an internal paper appeal before the

Board.

In addition, the new bill reintroduces a number of key provisions designed to

expand the admission of workers with the skills that are most acutely needed in

Canada.

The key changes that have emerged from discussions of Bill C-31 and that were

introduced today include:

The inclusion of the definition of permanent resident in the Act;

Provisions within the bill that reinforce the government's commitment to

gender equality and clarify that parents are members of the family class;

An oral appeal hearing for people facing a loss of permanent resident status

for failure to maintain residency;

Improved safeguards for people in need of protection:

unsuccessful repeat refugee claimants will be eligible for a

pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) if they return to Canada after

six months (as opposed to one year);

discretion for oral PRRA in exceptional circumstances;

protected people whose identities have been established will be

eligible to apply for Canadian refugee travel documents;

The requirement of a warrant to arrest refugees and permanent residents for

any immigration matter.

The principle that children will be detained only as a last resort.

The Minister promised supporting regulations over the coming months, which will

include a strengthened overseas refugee resettlement program, an expanded family

class, new selection criteria to attract more highly skilled and adaptable

independent immigrants, and the creation of an "in-Canada" landing class for

temporary workers, foreign students and spouses already established in Canada

and wishing to stay.

The expanded family class will increase the age at which a dependent child can be

sponsored from under 19 to under 22 and allow spouses and children to apply for

permanent residence from within Canada. The Minister also expressed willingness

to pursue discussions with the provinces over additional ways to expand the family

class.

The new legislation will replace the current Immigration Act, which was first passed

in 1976 and which has been amended more than 30 times. Work on the new

legislation began in 1997 and has evolved through extensive consultations with the

provinces, the territories, the legal community, non-governmental organizations and

the general public.

- 30

For Information:

Derik Hodgson

Press Secretary

Minister's Office

(613) 954-1064

Renй Mercier

Media Relations

Communications Branch

(613) 941-7042

Backgrounder # 1

Changes from Bill C-31

In response to Bill C-31, the government received submissions from the Canadian

Bar Association, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the

Canadian Council for Refugees and many others. The Minister has listened and

responded.

Framework Legislation

What we heard:

The government should ensure that all key principles and core policies are

reflected in the Act and not in the regulations. The regulations should be

limited to matters related to the implementation of policy.

Our response:

1.The new bill places greater emphasis on key principles, including:

The principles of equality and freedom from discrimination.

The principle that minor children should be detained only as a last

resort.

The principle of equality of status for both official languages.

2.The new bill also includes the following provisions previously intended to be

prescribed by regulation:

The provision that parents are members of the family class.

The provision that sponsored spouses, partners and dependent

children of immigrants and refugees and their dependents will not be

refused admission to Canada on the grounds that they would create

an excessive demand on the medical system.

3.The new bill also reinforces the government's commitment to gender

equality and provisions for opposite- and same-sex couples.

Provisions Affecting Permanent Residents

What we heard:

Permanent residents should have a separate, defined status that clearly

specifies their rights and obligations, including the right to enter Canada.

Loss of status determinations should be made only through an oral appeal

to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

Our response:

The new bill enhances the rights of permanent residents by:

Including a separate definition for permanent residents that highlights the

distinction between permanent residents and other foreign nationals.

Ensuring the right to an oral hearing before the IRB in the case of appeals

on the loss of permanent resident status.

Ensuring facilitated entry for permanent residents without a valid permanent

resident card if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.

Setting a higher threshold for examinations for permanent residents than for

other foreign nationals.

Requiring a warrant to arrest a permanent resident for any immigration

matter.

Access to the Refugee Determination System

What we heard:

Access to the refugee determination system is too restrictive and would