Let’s not forget that on this domestic US flight, it’s likely most of the passengers don’t have their passports. I certainly leave mine home when traveling domestically.
Which means, ISTM, that nobody is being allowed outside a sterile area and they’ll probably never know they’ve got a felon.
Kind of an extreme case (OK, it’s not “kind of” an extreme case, it is absolutely and unambiguously an extreme case), but I wonder what would have happened to any felons diverted to Gander in the aftermath of September 11. TLDR: American air passengers returning from overseas were stuck in a small Canadian city for a few days while the dust settled, and several thousand passengers were billeted in churches, schools, private homes, etc. I wonder what Canada would have done with our hypothetical felon in such a case? Holding her in a jail cell seems a bit extreme, and I’m sure Canada’s Charter of Rights forbids that sort of detainment absent a crime.
I mean, there were over 30,000 passengers on the flights diverted to various Canadian airports on 9/11. It’s hard to imagine that none of them had a criminal record of some kind. But I can’t find any discussion of such cases online.
ETA: I suppose the Canadian immigration agents could have used their discretion to deem people rehabilitated, given the circumstances.
Being deemed ineligible to enter the country and having a removal order issued could result in detention until they can be deported and is not uncommon in any country.
Just a correction to terminology: it’s not being a convicted felon that triggers exclusion by Canada; it’s having a criminal record.
Canada doesn’t have a “felony / misdemeanour” dichotomy. The question is whether the individual seeking to enter Canada has a criminal record for something that is a federal criminal offence in Canada. If so, they’re generally not eligible to enter, without jumping through hoops.
For example, I understand that driving while impaired in the US is typically a misdemeanour, at least for first offences. That misdemeanour categorisation is irrelevant at the the Canadian border. Driving while impaired here is a federal criminal offence, and therefore a person convicted of it is presumptively not eligible to enter.
With respect to the OP question, I don’t know much about federal customs entry law, but I would assume that the customs officials have some discretion for emergency cases like Gander on 9/11.
I agree with Doreen. The OP question is about someone being a convicted felon, not a person with an outstanding arrest warrant. Canadian authorities would have no basis to arrest, but would have authority to detain until the person can leave.
However, if the situation does arise of someone with an outstanding warrant landing in Canada, yes, Canadian authorities will execute the warrant, pursuant to treaty obligations for enforcement of warrants from another country.
Notable, extremely high-profile example:
Agree with FinsToTheLeft; the Charter prohibits arbitrary detention, but detention pursuant to law can be valid at a border situation. The Supreme Court has held that border entry rules are not akin to criminal law, and has recognised substantial discretion for the federal regulation of border entries.
I’m going to ask a question I’ve had for a long time - do you say “federal criminal offence” because there is some other type of offense that is either not federal or not criminal? I understand that whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony in the US doesn’t matter - what I’m asking is if there any category of offense in Canada that doesn’t result in presumptive ineligibility.
Yes, there are provincial offences, enacted by provincial legislatures. However, the criminal law, in the general sense, is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction. There is no provincial murder offence, or driving while impaired offence, or theft offence.
The provincial offences are regulatory in nature, and are only valid, constitutionally, if they are tied to the enforcement of a regulatory system. Highway traffic laws, for example, are provincial, and are backed up by provincial offences. Wildlife regulation is another area of provincial jurisdiction, as is securities law, so there are provincial offences relating to those topics. Provincial statutes often have specific offences, to ensure the statute is followed. Offences can include failure to file necessary documents as required by the statute, etc.
Criminal offences are governed by the Criminal Code, passed by Parliament, which includes criminal procedure. Offences can be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment, and in most cases the Crown prosecutor can elect which process to follow, depending on the severity of the case.
Provincial offences are passed by the provincial legislatures, and the procedure for prosecuting them is governed by provincial law. The procedure in each province is generally based on the summary procedure used in the Criminal Code, but with some tweaks for local conditions.
The constitutional requirements set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for prosecution and trial of offences apply to federal offences and to provincial offences.
And to get back to the topic at hand: presumptive ineligibility is governed by federal law, and doesn’t take into account offences in other countries that don’t have an equivalent in the federal criminal law. A wildlife offence in the US, for example, will likely have no analogue in the Criminal Code, so wouldn’t trigger the presumptive ineligibility. But if the wildlife offence had an element of animal cruelty in it, that might trigger the presumption, since cruelty to animals is a federal criminal offence.
Just to clarify a bit. Criminal offenses are under federal law but the accused are tried in provincial courts. This doesn’t make sense but it appears to be true. Dr. Henry Morgenthaler was charged with performing abortions, illegal under federal law at the time. He was tried in a Quebec court and acquitted. His defense was that he was performing medically necessary procedures. The acquittal was appealed to Quebec appeals court, which overturned the verdict and substituted a guilty verdict, arguing that he would have been convicted had that illegal defense not been allowed. This was appealed to a federal court that ruled that an appellate judge cannot do that. So he was tried again and the jury hung. Rinse and repeat. And once more. After four trials, the province gave up. Eventually, the Canadian supreme court made its own version of Roe v. Wade and parliament also repealed the law.
In this story you will find a load of differences between the US and Canadian systems. Most important the ability to appeal a not guilty judgment.
Yeaj, that seems right. Most everybody on the plane is forbidden from entering Canada, because they don’t have their passports on them. The fact that a few of them are also felons doesn’t make things much more complicated - you don’t need to investigate to find out that someone already not allowed in, is not allowed in for another reason, too.
Just curious… if Trump is elected POTUS, does this mean he can’t visit Canada?
As a private citizen, probably not, though he could apply for an exemption and possibly get one. As a US president, or indeed any official traveling on a diplomatic passport, he’d almost certainly get an exemption but might possibly have to apply for one.
Laws cannot just be ignored at will. When the Canadian government helped rescue American hostages out of Iran, fake Canadian passports were secretly used. The authority to issue those passports had to come from a special order from the federal Cabinet. Not even the Prime Minister alone could authorize it.
Although I think the difference with entry requirements is that there’s a fair bit of discretionary authority, so it would likely just be deemed that he was admissible for whatever official purpose. Rock musicians are sometimes admitted to do concerts despite having a record of drug offences. But political extremists with a record of spouting hate speech are not.
Trump will not enter Canada himself, he’ll send his new Gestapo instead.
[Moderating]
This thread has been here long enough, and has stayed factual enough, that you should have realized what forum you’re in. This is a Warning for politicking in FQ.
EDIT: That was directed at @Mallard . I forgot that Discourse strips out any indication of what post is being replied to, if it’s the previous post.
Yes, the PM in our system had very little independent statutory authority. He obviously has major political authority, but to implement decisions must go through Cabinet. So he can’t just give waivers, or tell customs officials not to enforce the law. There has to be statutory authority, often assigned to the responsible minister.
With the gander 9/11 episode, I would think the customs official on the ground may have had some discretionary authority initially, but I wonder if the relevant minister would have had a more general statutory power to provide legal authority for allowing individuals to remain temporarily (eg individuals from countries that normally needed a visa that had landed involuntarily in Gander).
The US, by statute even, provides DHS with discretionary authority to allow applicants for admission to enter the US without being formally admitted (and so they don’t technically need to be “admissible” or seek a waiver of any “grounds of inadmissibility” which might be present prior to entering). That is, they may enter and be lawfully present within the US, but not actually admitted for immigration purposes. It’s kind of a gray zone.
Perhaps Canada has something similar?
Could well be so. There has to be some statutory discretion built into a system that processes thousands of people a day.