Talk:Security certificate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Canadian law, an attempt to co-ordinate articles on Canadian law, produce common standards and fill in the gaps. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

[edit] Bias

The article states that the law allows the Canadian government to remove a non-citizen who poses a security threat. This essentially straight from the government website. However, we have no evidence that these individuals actually pose a security threat. Only the state has the evidence. It would be accurate to say that the state claims that the law exists to remove people who pose a security threat. The rest cannot be proved. Also, the article implies that without this legislation, Canada would have no means to remove individuals who pose a security threat. This too is questionable. - Kesahun 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the bias. I read it as saying that the law provides a mechanism for the ministers named to state that an individual poses a security threat. It's not bias to state the facts about what the law specifies. E.g. if there were a law allowing the government to tattoo all left-handed people in order to allow easier identification of "sinister" individuals, there would be no bias in stating the existence of that law or describing the justification of that law as given by the government. Furthermore, the law can be completely unjustifiable (according to x, y, or z) but it isn't bias to state that the government justifies the law due to a, b, or c. I don't think it's a good law, but (from the little I know about it) it seems that this article describes the law accurately. - Hayne 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hayne's assessment. Regarding your second concern (only way to remove people), no where in the article does it say it is the ONLY method to remove individuals. I think the article is fine, so I'm removing the POV tag. Copysan 04:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kesahun does make an interesting point. While the law says that security certificates are to be used to remove foreign nationals and permanent residents who are inadmissible because they are a threat to Canada's national security, that is not a point which is proven in Court. More specifically, it is an allegation made purely by the Government of Canada and it is not an issue in federal court per se. The Courts only review the reasonableness of the decision of the ministers. Consider what the federal trial court said in Re Jaballah (2003) on the reasonableness of certificate and how he characterizes it as a "certified opinion":

By subsection 80(1) of the IRPA, I am to determine whether the certificate of the Ministers is reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information available to the Court, including that produced to Mr. Jaballah, and that filed but withheld from release to him on security grounds. For that determination, the Court may consider information that in its opinion is appropriate, even if that is inadmissible as evidence in ordinary civil or criminal proceedings, and the decision may be based on that information (paragraph 78(j) of the IRPA). In sum, the Court is not bound by traditional rules of evidence and the designated judge makes her or his determination on the information and evidence filed in the Court upon which the certificate is said to be based.

The determination required is not a question of fact in the ordinary sense but rather it is an assessment of the reasonableness of the certified opinion made in the exercise of ministerial discretion, in light of the information on which the opinion is based. While that seems obvious and is in accord with the statute, in the case where a second security certificate of the same opinion is issued after one has been quashed, this Court accepts that the principles of res judicata, of issue or cause of action estoppel, or of abuse of process, may be applicable. Information simply repeated, without any significant change from the proceedings in Jaballah No. 1, should not now be reassessed in considering the reasonableness of the Ministers' second certified opinion, in my view. If there is no new information the principle of res judicata or of abuse of process would apply to preclude a different determination from that reached in Jaballah No. 1.(Re Jaballah (2003), FCT 640 (T.D.) at paras. 71-72)

Ben 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)