If they crossed into Canada and in doing so committed an offence within our reach, sure. Other than those who actually enter Canada, in most cases there isn’t the extraterritorial jurisdiction necessary to lay a charge and seek extradition, and America won’t extradite for things that aren’t a crime there.
As @brihard pointed out most of the ‘smugglers’ on this side are not actually smugglers, but people conducting straw purchases and passing them to others who then export them, or sell them to Canadians who buy them under the table at gun shows etc. So while they are committing a crime down here, it’s not the smuggling aspect.
I'd agree on your last point except that the Trump administration is highly supportive of 2A and are unlikely to do much, if anything, to disturb the 2A community. Trumps has already begun to roll back some Biden era gun legislation.
Correct.
Not needed; they’re already inadmissible for serious criminality. CBSA can keep people out easily for all sorts of reasons. Committing an offence outside of Canada, that is an offence in that place, and that if committed in Canada would be an offence punishable by ten years or more is an instant ‘nope!’ at the border under section 36 of IRPA.
Partly right. 36.1(b) covers such offences. However, 36.1(c) also covers acts, if committed outside Canada that, if committed in Canada would be an offence. Female genital mutilation is a good example. It is legal in some parts of the world, but not here.
This would happen if there were indicators that an immigration check was necessary and the traveller gets pulled in. If you're flagged for any of a variety of reasons, you're going in.
Some modes of travel - bus, train and air for example - already have pre-screening regimes in place to speed up immigration processing.
There’s no 36.1? I think you meant 36(1)?
Yeah, bad formatting on my part.
For 36(1)(c), the act doesn't have to be a crime in the country of origin. Female Genital Mutilation is the example I gave as it is still legal in certain parts of the world, but illegal here. Bigamy would be another as it is prohibited in Canada under CCC 290(1) but legal in many African and some South Asian nations whose citizens regularly travel to Canada.
Some of the most commonly applied are IRPA 36(1) (a) and (b), 36(2)(a) and (b) as discussed above, 36(2.1) known as "committing an offence upon entry", 38(1) (potential burden to health care), 39 (no financial means to support themselves) and 40(1)(a) (misrepresentation).I see some other sections where Canada will extend our standards overseas and seem someone inadmissible regardless of if their actions were legal at home; crimes against humanity and war crimes, and some sanctions stuff. No surprise there.
Where's our 1000 new officers?
I believe you when you say it’s getting applied that way; I can’t square it with how the section’s actually written. I could see Bigamy being covered because it’s an ongoing offence; under our law FGM is Aggravated Assault and once it’s happened it’s happened.
Thanks for the run down.
Time will tell on that one I guess. It’s not like every detail would be in the Throne Speech so hopefully that’s still planned.
So, the policy actually belongs to IRCC, not CBSA and I looked it up and read it again today since it had been a while. (Sorry, it's not publicly available/shareable.) And, I explained it wrong.
My pleasure. You have oft provided good information to this site. Now, it's my turn.
1000 new RCMP "personnel' will barely cover attrition, unless the intent is that "new" actually means "additional".
Generally "new" means above current levels.
That's the missing granularity. "Personnel" doesn't always translate into uniformed, badged members for your org or mine.
No- but operational effectiveness doesn’t just rely on badged members. A civilian intelligence analyst, or financial crime civilian investigator might bring a lot more to the table that some RCMP NCO plucked out of headquarters, and ordered to put on a uniform and stare at some tRees at the border for a month.
