Ikhlef (Re)

Ikhlef (Re)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-03-08
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 263
File numbers
DES-8-01
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20020308
Docket: DES-8-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 263
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF
a certificate under section 40.1 of the
Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2 (the Act);
IN THE MATTER OF
the referral of that certificate to the Federal Court
of Canada under section 40.1(3) of the Act;
AND IN THE MATTER OF
Mourad IKHLEF
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
FACTS
[1] On December 6 and 7, 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada (the Solicitor General) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the Minister), respectively, signed a certificate stating that they were of the opinion that Mourad Ikhlef is a person described in subparagraph 19(1)(e)(iii), clauses 19(1)(e)(iv)(B) and 19(1)(e)(iv)(C), subparagraph 19(1)(f)(ii) and clause 19(1)(f)(iii)(B) of the Immigration Act.
[2] The two ministers based their opinion on a security intelligence report.
[3] On December 12, 2001, a senior immigration officer detained Mr. Ikhlef under paragraph 40.1(2)(b) of the Immigration Act.
[4] On December 12, 2001, an immigration officer served Mr. Ikhlef with a notice under paragraph 40.1(3)(b) stating that a certificate had been filed and that it was being referred to the Federal Court.
[5] On December 13, 2001, the Minister referred a copy of the certificate to the Federal Court under paragraph 40.1(3)(a) of the Immigration Act for a determination as to whether the certificate should be quashed.
[6] On December 18, 2001, I examined the security intelligence report at a hearing held in camera and also heard the other evidence and information that was presented to me by the applicants in the absence of Mourad Ikhlef and his counsel.
[7] At the end of the hearing, I ordered that Mr. Ikhlef be provided with a statement summarizing the available information so that he could be reasonably informed of the circumstances that resulted in the Minister issuing the certificate, and to provide Mr. Ikhlef with a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Federal Court in this matter, in accordance with paragraphs 40.1(4)(b) and (c) of the Immigration Act.
[8] As a result of a telephone conference with the lawyers involved, the hearing that was initially scheduled for January 9, 2002, was postponed to January 30, 2002, and set down for three days. The hearing then continued on February 19 and 20, 2002, in order to complete the testimony, after leave was given for two new witnesses, employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to be called.
[9] Ultimately, the hearing was adjourned to February 26, 2002, in Ottawa, to complete argument by counsel for the applicants on the evidence that was introduced in camera and kept confidential. Judgment on the case was then reserved.
[10] Although counsel for Mourad Ikhlef objected to part of the evidence not being disclosed to his client, and although, I have said in the past that holding hearings in camera and ex parte must be the exception in Canadian courts, I am of the opinion that, in accordance with paragraph 40.1(4)(a) of the Immigration Act, the evidence that was heard by and presented to the Court in the absence of the person concerned and his counsel cannot be disclosed to them since that would be injurious to national security and to the safety of persons.
[11] I think it is worth recalling that, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 40.1(4)(d) of the Immigration Act, after providing the person named in the certificate with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Court must determine whether the certificate filed by the two ministers is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available. If I find the certificate not to be reasonable, I may quash the certificate issued by the two ministers.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
[12] Subsection 19(1) of the Immigration Act states:
19. (1) No person shall be granted admission who is a member of any of the following classes:
19. (1) Les personnes suivantes appartiennent à une catégorie non admissible :
(a) persons, who are suffering from any disease,disorder, disability or other health impairment as a result of the nature, severity or probable duration of which, in the opinion of a medical officer concurred in by at least one other medical officer,
a) celles qui souffrent d'une maladie ou d'une invalidité dont la nature, la gravité ou la durée probable sont telles qu'un médecin agréé, dont l'avis est confirmé par au moins un autre médecin agréé, conclut :
(i) they are or are likely to be a danger to public health or to public safety, or
(i) soit que ces personnes constituent ou constitueraient vraisemblablement un danger pour la santé ou la sécurité publiques,
(ii) their admission would cause or might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on health or social services;
(ii) soit que leur admission entraînerait ou risquerait d'entraîner un fardeau excessif pour les services sociaux ou de santé;
(b) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe are or will be unable or unwilling to support themselves and those persons who are dependent on them for care and support, except persons who have satisfied an immigration officer that adequate arrangements other than those that involve social assistance, have been made for their care and support;
b) celles dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles n'ont pas la capacité ou la volonté présente ou future de subvenir tant à leurs besoins qu'à ceux des personnes à leur charge et qui ne peuvent convaincre l'agent d'immigration que les dispositions nécessaires - n'impliquant pas l'aide sociale - ont été prises en vue d'assurer leur soutien;
(c) persons who have been convicted in Canada of an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more;
c) celles qui ont été déclarées coupables, au Canada, d'une infraction qui peut être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, d'un emprisonnement maximal égal ou supérieur à dix ans;
(c.1) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe
c.1) celles dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles ont, à l'étranger :(i) have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more, or
(i) soit été déclarées coupables d'une infraction qui, si elle était commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction qui pourrait être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, d'un emprisonnement maximal égal ou supérieur à dix ans, sauf si elles peuvent justifier auprès du ministre de leur réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis l'expiration de toute peine leur ayant été infligée pour l'infraction,
(ii) have committed outside Canada an act or omission that constitutes an offence under the laws of the place where the act or omission occurred and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more,
except persons who have satisfied the Minister that they have rehabilitated themselves and that at least five years have elapsed since the expiration of any sentence imposed for the offence or since the commission of the act or omission, as the case may be;
(ii) soit commis un fait - acte ou omission - qui constitue une infraction dans le pays où il a été commis et qui, s'il était commis au Canada, constituerait une infraction qui pourrait être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, d'un emprisonnement maximal égal ou supérieur à dix ans, sauf si elles peuvent justifier auprès du ministre de leur réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis la commission du fait;
(c.2) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe are or were members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe is or was engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of any offence under the Criminal Code or Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that may be punishable by way of indictment or in the commission outside Canada of an act or omission that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence, except persons who have satisfied the Minister that their admission would not be detrimental to the national interest;
c.2) celles dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles sont ou ont été membres d'une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elle se livre ou s'est livrée à des activités faisant partie d'un plan d'activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d'une infraction au Code criminel ou à la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances qui peut être punissable par mise en accusation ou a commis à l'étranger un fait - acte ou omission - qui, s'il avait été commis au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, sauf si elles convainquent le ministre que leur admission ne serait nullement préjudiciable à l'intérêt national;
(d) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will
d) celles dont on peut penser, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elles :
(i) commit one or more offences that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by way of indictment, other than offences designated as contraventions under the Contraventions Act, or
(i) soit commettront une ou plusieurs infractions qui peuvent être punissables par mise en accusation aux termes d'une loi fédérale, autre qu'une infraction qualifiée de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions,
(ii) engage in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of any offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by way of indictment;
(ii) soit se livreront à des activités faisant partie d'un plan d'activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d'une infraction qui peut être punissable par mise en accusation aux termes d'une loi fédérale;
(e) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe
e) celles dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles :
(i) will engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada,
(i) soit commettront des actes d'espionnage ou de subversion contre des institutions démocratiques, au sens où cette expression s'entend au Canada,(ii) will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government,
(ii) soit, pendant leur séjour au Canada, travailleront ou inciteront au renversement d'un gouvernement par la force,
(iii) will engage in terrorism, or
(iii) soit commettront des actes de terrorisme,
(iv) are members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe will
(iv) soit sont membres d'une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elle :
(A) engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada,
(A) soit commettra des actes d'espionnage ou de subversion contre des institutions démocratiques, au sens où cette expression s'entend au Canada,
(B) engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government, or
(B) soit travaillera ou incitera au renversement d'un gouvernement par la force,
(C) engage in terrorism;
(C) soit commettra des actes de terrorisme;
(f) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe
f) celles dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles :
(i) have engaged in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada,
(i) soit se sont livrées à des actes d'espionnage ou de subversion contre des institutions démocratiques, au sens où cette expression s'entend au Canada,
(ii) have engaged in terrorism, or
(ii) soit se sont livrées à des actes de terrorisme,
(iii) are or were members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe is or was engaged in
(iii) soit sont ou ont été membres d'une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elle se livre ou s'est livrée :
(A) acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada, or
(A) soit à des actes d'espionnage ou de subversion contre des institutions démocratiques, au sens où cette expression s'entend au Canada,
(B) terrorism,
except persons who have satisfied the Minister that their admission would not be detrimental to the national interest;
(B) soit à des actes de terrorisme,
le présent alinéa ne visant toutefois pas les personnes qui convainquent le ministre que leur admission ne serait nullement préjudiciable à l'intérêt national;
(g) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada or are members of or are likely to participate in the unlawful activities of an organization that is likely to engage in such acts of violence;
g) celles dont on peut penser, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elles commettront des actes de violence de nature à porter atteinte à la vie ou à la sécurité humaines au Canada, ou qu'elles appartiennent à une organisation susceptible de commettre de tels actes ou qu'elles sont susceptibles de prendre part aux activités illégales d'une telle organisation;
(h) persons who are not, in the opinion of an adjudicator, genuine immigrants or visitors;
h) celles qui, de l'avis d'un arbitre, ne sont pas de véritables immigrants ou visiteurs;
(i) persons who, pursuant to section 55, are required to obtain the consent of the Minister to come into Canada but are seeking to come into Canada without having obtained such consent;
i) celles qui cherchent à entrer au Canada sans avoir obtenu l'autorisation ministérielle requise par l'article 55;
(j) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe have committed an offence referred to in any of sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act;
j) celles dont on peut penser, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elles ont commis une infraction visée à l'un des articles 4 à 7 de la Loi sur les crimes contre l'humanité et les crimes de guerre;(k) persons who constitute a danger to the security of Canada and are not members of a class described in paragraph (e), (f) or (g); or
k) celles qui constituent un danger envers la sécurité du Canada, sans toutefois appartenir à l'une des catégories visées aux alinéas e), f) ou g);
(l) persons who are or were senior members of or senior officials in the service of a government that is or was, in the opinion of the Minister, engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or any act or omission that would be an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, except persons who have satisfied the Minister that their admission would not be detrimental to the national interest.
l) celles qui, à un rang élevé, font ou ont fait partie ou sont ou ont été au service d'un gouvernement qui, de l'avis du ministre, se livre ou s'est livré au terrorisme, à des violations graves ou répétées des droits de la personne ou à un fait - acte ou omission - qui aurait constitué une infraction au sens des articles 4 à 7 de la Loi sur les crimes contre l'humanité et les crimes de guerre, sauf si elles convainquent le ministre que leur admission ne serait nullement préjudiciable à l'intérêt national.
[13] Moreover, subsections 40.1(4), (5), (5.1) and (6) of the Immigration Act provide:
40.1(4) Judicial consideration of certificate
(4) Where a certificate is referred to the Federal Court pursuant to subsection (3), the Chief Justice of that Court or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice for the purposes of this section shall
40.1(4) Examen judiciaire
(4) Lorsque la Cour fédérale est saisie de l'attestation, le juge en chef de celle-ci ou le juge de celle-ci qu'il délègue pour l'application du présent article :
(a) examine within seven days, in camera, the security or criminal intelligence reports considered by the Minister and the Solicitor General and hear any other evidence or information that may be presented by or on behalf of those Ministers and may, on the request of the Minister or the Solicitor General, hear all or part of such evidence or information in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person where, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the evidence or information should not be disclosed on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;
a) examine dans les sept jours, à huis clos, les renseignements secrets en matière de sécurité ou de criminalité dont le ministre et le solliciteur général ont eu connaissance et recueille les autres éléments de preuve ou d'information présentés par ces derniers ou en leur nom; il peut en outre, à la demande du ministre ou du solliciteur général, recueillir tout ou partie de ces éléments en l'absence de l'intéressé et du conseiller le représentant, lorsque, à son avis, leur communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes;
(b) provide the person named in the certificate with a statement summarizing such information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, as will enable the person to be reasonably informed of the circumstances giving rise to the issue of the certificate, having regard to whether, in the opinion of the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, the information should not be disclosed on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;
b) fournit à l'intéressé un résumé des informations dont il dispose, à l'exception de celles dont la communication pourrait, à son avis, porter atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes, afin de permettre à celui-ci d'être suffisamment informé des circonstances ayant donné lieu à l'attestation;
(c) provide the person named in the certificate with a reasonable opportunity to be heard;
c) donne à l'intéressé la possibilité d'être entendu;(d) determine whether the certificate filed by the Minister and the Solicitor General is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Chief Justice or the designated judge, as the case may be, and, if found not to be reasonable, quash the certificate; and
d) décide si l'attestation est raisonnable, compte tenu des éléments de preuve et d'information à sa disposition, et, dans le cas contraire, annule l'attestation;
(e) notify the Minister, the Solicitor General and the person named in the certificate of the determination made pursuant to paragraph (d).
e) avise le ministre, le solliciteur général et l'intéressé de la décision rendue aux termes de l'alinéa d).
40.1(5) Evidence
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the Chief Justice or the designated judge may, subject to subsection (5.1), receive, accept and base the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d) on such evidence or information as the Chief Justice or the designated judge sees fit, whether or not the evidence or information is or would be admissible in a court of law.
40.1(5) Preuve
(5) Pour l'application du paragraphe (4), le juge en chef ou son délégué peut, sous réserve du paragraphe (5.1), recevoir et admettre les éléments de preuve ou d'information qu'il juge utiles, indépendamment de leur recevabilité devant les tribunaux, et peut se fonder sur ceux-ci pour se déterminer.
40.1(5.1) Information obtained in confidence from foreign governments
(5.1) For the purposes of subsection (4),
(a) the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada may make an application, in camera and in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person, to the Chief Justice or the designated judge for the admission of information obtained in confidence from the government or an institution of a foreign state or from an international organization of states or an institution thereof;
40.1(5.1) Renseignements secrets obtenus de gouvernements étrangers
(5.1) Pour l'application du paragraphe (4)_:
a) le ministre ou le solliciteur général du Canada peuvent présenter au juge en chef ou à son délégué, à huis clos et en l'absence de l'intéressé et du conseiller le représentant, une demande en vue de faire admettre en preuve des renseignements obtenus sous le sceau du secret auprès du gouvernement d'un État étranger, d'une organisation internationale mise sur pied par des États étrangers ou de l'un de leurs organismes;
(b) the Chief Justice or the designated judge shall, in camera and in the absence of the person named in the certificate and any counsel representing the person,
b) le juge en chef ou son délégué, à huis clos et en l'absence de l'intéressé et du conseiller le représentant :
(i) examine that information, and
(i) étudie les renseignements,
(ii) provide counsel representing the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada with a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to whether the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the person named in the certificate on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons;
(ii) accorde au représentant du ministre ou du solliciteur général la possibilité de lui présenter ses arguments sur la pertinence des renseignements et le fait qu'ils ne devraient pas être communiqués à l'intéressé parce que cette communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes;
(c) that information shall be returned to counsel representing the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada and shall not be considered by the Chief Justice or the designated judge in making the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d), if
c) ces renseignements doivent être remis au représentant du ministre ou du solliciteur général et ne peuvent servir de fondement à la décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d), si :(i) the Chief Justice or the designated judge determines
(A) that the information is not relevant, or
(B) that the information is relevant and should be summarized in the statement to be provided pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) to the person named in the certificate, or
(i) soit le juge en chef ou son délégué détermine que les renseignements ne sont pas pertinents ou, s'ils le sont, devraient faire partie du résumé mentionné à l'alinéa (4)b),
(ii) the Minister or the Solicitor General of Canada withdraws the application; and
(ii) soit le ministre ou le solliciteur général retire sa demande;
(d) if the Chief Justice or the designated judge determines that the information is relevant but should not be disclosed to the person named in the certificate on the grounds that the disclosure would be injurious to national security or to the safety of persons, the information shall not be summarized in the statement provided pursuant to paragraph (4)(b) to the person named in the certificate but may be considered by the Chief Justice or the designated judge in making the determination referred to in paragraph (4)(d).
d) si le juge en chef ou son délégué décide qu'ils sont pertinents mais que cette communication porterait atteinte à la sécurité nationale ou à celle de personnes, les renseignements ne font pas partie du résumé mais peuvent servir de fondement à la décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d).
40.1(6) No appeal
(6) A determination under paragraph (4)(d) is not subject to appeal or review by any court.
40.1(6) Aucun appel
(6) La décision visée à l'alinéa (4)d) ne peut être portée en appel ni être revue par aucun tribunal.
ISSUE
[14] Is the certificate stating that the two ministers are of the opinion that Mourad Ikhlef is a person described in subparagraph 19(1)(e)(iii), clauses 19(1)(e)(iv)(B) and 19(1)(e)(iv)(C), subparagraph 19(1)(f)(ii) and clause 19(1)(f)(iii)(B) of the Immigration Act reasonable?
ANALYSIS
[15] The following two decisions clearly circumscribe the role of the Federal Court.
[16] In Re Baroud, (1995) 98 F.T.R. 99 (T.D.), Mr. Justice Denault stated, at page 104:
Therefore, the role of this court is not to substitute its decision for that of the Minister and the Solicitor General nor is it to find that they were correct in their assessment of the evidence presented to them but rather to find whether or not, based on the information and evidence presented to this court, the Ministers' certificate is a reasonable one.
[17] The parameters that the Minister had to observe with respect to the expression "reasonable grounds for believing" have been defined by the Federal Court of Appeal. In Attorney General of Canada v. Jolly, [1975] F.C. 216 (C.A.), Mr. Justice Thurlow stated on that point, at pages 225 and 226:
... where the fact to be ascertained on the evidence is whether there are reasonable grounds for such a belief, rather than the existence of the fact itself, it seems to me that to require proof of the fact itself and proceed to determine whether it has been established is to demand the proof of a different fact from that required to be ascertained. It seems to me that the use by the statute of the expression "reasonable grounds for believing" implies that the fact itself need not be established and that evidence which falls short of proving the subversive character of the organization will be sufficient if it is enough to show reasonable grounds for believing that the organization is one that advocates subversion by force, etc. In a close case the failure to observe this distinction and to resolve the precise question dictated by the statutory wording can account for a difference in the result of an inquiry or an appeal.
[18] This approach, which has been decided by the Court of Appeal, significantly lightens the burden of proof, having regard to the specific wording both of the Act and of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jolly, supra. At pages 228 and 229, Thurlow J.A. added:
... Subsection 5(l) does not prescribe a standard of proof but a test to be applied for determining admissibility of an alien to Canada, and the question to be decided was whether there were reasonable grounds for believing, etc., and not the fact itself of advocating subversion by force, etc. No doubt one way of showing that there are no reasonable grounds for believing a fact is to show that the fact itself does not exist. But even when prima facie evidence negativing the fact itself had been given by the respondent there did not arise an onus on the Minister to do more than show that there were reasonable grounds for believing in the existence of the fact. In short as applied to this case it seems to me that even after prima facie evidence negativing the fact had been given it was only necessary for the Minister to lead evidence to show the existence of reasonable grounds for believing the fact and it was not necessary for him to go further and establish the fact itself of the subversive character of the organization. This, in the circumstances of this case, in my opinion, invalidates the Board's decision.
[19] In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration et al.) v. Iqbal Singh (1998), 151 F.T.R. 101 (T.D.) at page 103, Rothstein J., as he then was, adopted the comments made by the Court of Appeal in the above-mentioned case:
[para 2] In section 40.1 proceedings, determinations involving paragraphs 19(1)(e) and (f) require proof of the existence of "reasonable grounds to believe certain facts" as opposed to the existence of the facts themselves. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a member of an organization, there must also be reasonable grounds to believe that the organization is engaged in subversion or terrorism. See Farah-Mahdavieh (1993), 63 F.T.R. 120 at paras. 11 and 12. Proof of reasonable grounds to believe requires that the evidence demonstrates an objective basis for the reasonable grounds. See R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378 at 1385.
[para 3] The standard of proof is proof on a balance of probabilities. See Farah-Mahdavieh, supra and Al Yamani v. Canada (1995), 103 F.T.R. 105 at paras. 64 and 65.
[20] Those considerations were reiterated by Nadon J. in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub, [2001] F.C.J. 1483 (T.D.), and in Manickavasagam Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a decision of the Supreme Court dated
January 11, 2002, the Court stated, at paragraph 108:
The Minister's discretion to deport under s. 53 of the Immigration Act is confined, on any interpretation of the section, to persons who have been engaged in terrorism or are members of terrorist organizations, and who also pose a threat to the security of Canada. Persons associated with terrorism or terrorist organizations - the focus of this argument - are, on the approach to terrorism suggested above, persons who are or have been associated with things directed at violence, if not violence itself. It follows that so long as the Minister exercises her discretion in accordance with the Act, there will be no ss. 2(b) or (d) Charter violation.
[21] Moreover, at paragraphs 85-88, the Supreme Court said:
...we accept that a fair, large and liberal interpretation in accordance with international norms must be accorded to "danger to the security of Canada" in deportation legislation. We recognize that "danger to the security of Canada" is difficult to define. We also accept that the determination of what constitutes a "danger to the security of Canada" is highly fact-based and political in a general sense. All this suggests a broad and flexible approach to national security and, as discussed above, a deferential standard of judicial review. Provided the Minister is able to show evidence that reasonably supports a finding of danger to the security of Canada, courts should not interfere with the Minister's decision.
The question arises whether the Minister must present direct evidence of a specific danger to the security of Canada. It has been argued that under international law the state must prove a connection between the terrorist activity and the security of the deporting country: Hathaway and Harvey, supra, at pp. 289-90. It has also been suggested that the travaux préparatoires to the Refugee Convention indicate that threats to the security of another state were not intended to qualify as a danger sufficient to permit refoulement to torture. Threats to the security of another state were arguably not intended to come within the term, nor were general concerns about terrorism intended to be sufficient: see Refugee Convention, travaux préparatoires, A/CONF.2/SR.16, at p. 8 ("Among the great mass of refugees it was inevitable that some persons should be tempted to engage in activities on behalf of a foreign Power against the country of their asylum, and it would be unreasonable to expect the latter not to safeguard itself against such a contingency"); see A. Grahl-Madsen, Commentary on the Refugee Convention, 1951 (1997), at p. 236 (" '[T]he security of the country' is invoked against acts of a rather serious nature endangering directly or indirectly the constitution (Government), the territorial integrity, the independence, or the external peace of the country concerned").
Whatever the historic validity of insisting on direct proof of specific danger to the deporting country, as matters have evolved, we believe courts may now conclude that the support of terrorism abroad raises a possibility of adverse repercussions on Canada's security: see Rehman, supra, per Lord Slynn of Hadley, at paras. 16 and 17. International conventions must be interpreted in the light of current conditions. It may once have made sense to suggest that terrorism in one country did not necessarily implicate other countries. But after the year 2001, that approach is no longer valid.
First, the global transport and money networks that feed terrorism abroad have the potential to touch all countries, including Canada, and to thus implicate them in the terrorist activity. Second, terrorism itself is a world-wide phenomenon. The terrorist cause may focus on a distant locale, but the violent acts that support it may be close at hand. Third, preventive or precautionary state action may be justified; not only an immediate threat but also possible future risks must be considered. Fourth, Canada's national security may be promoted by reciprocal cooperation between Canada and other states in combating international terrorism. These considerations lead us to conclude that to insist on direct proof of a specific threat to Canada as the test for "danger to the security of Canada" is to set the bar too high. There must be a real and serious possibility of adverse effect to Canada. But the threat need not be direct; rather it may be grounded in distant events that indirectly have a real possibility of harming Canadian security.
[22] In its decision, the Supreme Court went on to survey the authors worldwide who have written about the meaning of the word "terrorism". The Supreme Court ultimately concluded, at paragraph 98:
In our view, it may safely be concluded, following the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, that "terrorism" in s. 19 of the Act includes any "act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act". This definition catches the essence of what the world understands by "terrorism". Particular cases on the fringes of terrorist activity will inevitably provoke disagreement. Parliament is not prevented from adopting more detailed or different definitions of terrorism. The issue here is whether the term as used in the Immigration Act is sufficiently certain to be workable, fair and constitutional. We believe that it is.
[23] As well, with respect to the concept of "terrorism," Rothstein J. stated in Singh, supra, at page 111:
[para 52] The provisions deal with subversion and terrorism. The context in immigration legislation is public safety and national security, the most serious concerns of government. It is trite to say that terrorist organizations do not issue membership cards. There is no formal test for membership and members are not therefore easily identifiable. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may, if not detrimental to the national interest, exclude an individual from the operation of subparagraph 19(1)(f)(iii)(B). I think it is obvious that Parliament intended the term "member" to be given an unrestricted and broad interpretation. I find no support for the view that a person is not a member as contemplated by the provision if he or she became a member after the organization stopped engaging in terrorism. If such membership is benign, the Minister has discretion to exclude the individual from the operation of the provision.
[24] I think it is also important to recall that on December 18, 2001, a few days before the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Suresh, supra, Parliament had passed the Act referred to as the "Anti-Terrorist Act," chapter c. 41 of the 2001 Statutes of Canada, which amended the Criminal Code and in particular section 83.01, in which Parliament has now provided several definitions that apply to the concept of "terrorism activity". In the first part of section 83.01, Parliament introduced into Canadian law offences that are described in various international conventions, and this will enable Canada to deal with the terrorist activities that were already defined in a number of international conventions signed more than thirty years ago, and to circumscribe the meaning of a terrorism activity under the Criminal Code of Canada. On that point, I will just quote subsection 83.01(1)(b) of the Act:
"terrorism activity" means
"activité terroriste"
(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
b) soit un acte - action ou omission, commise au Canada ou à l'étranger :
(i) that is committed
(i) d'une part, commis à la fois :
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective of cause, and
(A) au nom - exclusivement ou non - d'un but, d'un objectif ou d'une cause de nature politique, religieuse ou idéologique,(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
(B) en vue - exclusivement ou non - d'intimider tout ou partie de la population quant à sa sécurité, entre autres sur le plan économique, ou de contraindre une personne, un gouvernement ou une organisation nationale ou internationale à accomplir un acte ou à s'en abstenir, que la personne, la population, le gouvernement ou l'organisation soit ou non au Canada,
(ii) that intentionally
(ii) d'autre part, qui intentionnellement, selon le cas :
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by th use of violence,
(A) cause des blessures graves à une personne ou la mort de celle-ci, par l'usage de la violence,
(B) endangers a person's life;
(B) met en danger la vie d'une personne,
(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
(C) compromet gravement la santé ou la sécurité de tout ou partie de la population,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), OR
(D) cause des dommages matériels considérables, que les biens visés soient publics ou privés, dans des circonstances telles qu'il est probable que l'une des situations mentionnées aux divisions (A) à (C) en résultera.
(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage or work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),
(E) perturbe gravement ou paralyse des services, installations ou systèmes essentiels, publics ou privés, sauf dans le cadre de revendications, e protestations ou de manifestations d'un désaccord ou d'un arrêt de travail qui n'ont pas pour but de provoquer l'une des situations mentionnées aux divisions (A) à (C).
and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, ...
Sont visés par la présente définition, relativement à un tel acte, le complot, la tentative, la menace, la complicité après le fait et l'encouragement à la perpétrations; ...
TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING
[25] Mourad Ikhlef called several witnesses at the hearings that took place on January 30, 31, and February 1, 19, and 20, 2002. The ministers did not call any witnesses.
[26] Mr. Ikhlef called his brother, Nabil Ikhlef, who testified that he arrived in Canada in 1994, after Mourad, and that his refugee claim