Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

GallowayWatch: Well, that's something that probably didn't come up in the CBSA recruitment pitch.

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 12:32pm - 39 Comments

So it turns out that the final decision on George Galloway’s admissibility to Canada will be made by the CBSA officer on duty when he rolls up at the border, according to the letter sent to the British MP by the Canadian High Commission in London, which has finally gone up on the website of the organizers of the speaking tour:

If we do not receive any submissions on or before March 30, 2009, and you present yourself at the Port of Entry, the Canadian Border Services Agency officer will make a final determination of inadmissibility based on this preliminary assessment and any submissions you make at that time.

In order to overcome this inadmissibility, you could submit an application for a Temporary Residency Permit. I have been asked to convey to you that it is unlikely the application would be successful. However, a final determination with respect to a temporary residency permit will only be issued upon application.

First thought:

Yikes. I wouldn’t want to be that border guard.

Second thoughts:

“Asked to convey” by whom, exactly? Does this explain how Jason Kenney’s office got involved before Galloway had even been informed of his looming inadmissibility? Does CBSA always consult with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to find out if an application for a temporary residency permit would “likely” be unsuccessful, and advise the target accordingly? And finally, the increasingly frequently asked, yet still pointedly unanswered question: Why was this “preliminary assessment” prepared in the first place? Was it conducted on CBSA’s own initiative, or was it the result of a request by a third party?

Final thought: Seriously. That poor, poor border guard.

UPDATE: Galloway’s official response to the CBSA, which was prepared by his Canadian legal team, is now available. A sampling:

We are writing to respond to the invitation to Mr. Galloway to make submissions as to  why he should not be determined to be inadmissible to Canada. This invitation does not appear  to have been made in good faith, but merely to give the appearance of fairness when it is clear  that a decision has been made – not only with respect to admissibility but as well with respect to  an exemption from the inadmissibility bar. The letter is misleading because it leaves out  reference to the ‘reasonable grounds’ standard which governs the conclusions drawn. An officer  need be satisfied that it is possible that Mr. Galloway is a member of the Hamas and engaged in  terrorism. Even on this low standard, however, such a conclusion is perverse. [...]

Tags: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Scott M.

    If he’s smart, he’ll show up a day in advance in the passenger seat of a car at a place nowhere near where he said he’d be in a rental car and just say he’s visiting.

    That is, if he wants to get in.

    At this point in time, I think it would work to his favour if he did *not* get in.

    • PolJunkie

      Since Galloway is smart, he’ll send out a media advisory and make sure that there is plenty of media on site to see him being turned away.

      • Critical Reasoning

        This kind of controversy is Galloway’s bread and butter. He’s going to milk it for all it’s worth. Even after the cow is dry, he’ll keep squeezing those udders.

        • PolJunkie

          As he should. Would you do any different if you were a sitting British MP and were refused entry and accused of terrorism?

          Kenney handed him this one on a silver platter.

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    “First thought: Yikes. I wouldn’t want to be that border guard.”

    I would love to be that border guard and I could tell Gorgeous George what I thought of terrorist bagmen trying to get into Canada to raise funds so more innocents can be killed.

    • andrew (not any of them)

      your last name wouldn’t be Kenney, would it?

    • Scott M.

      Correction: You’d want to be that border guard if it was his last car on his last day before retirement. Otherwise you’d be out of a job.

      • Scott M.

        Actually, even then I bet there’d be disciplinary action. Treating any traveler with at level of disrespect would not be tolerated.

        Now, mocking the traveler in the lunch room long after they’ve departed, that’s another thing altogether.

        • Shenping

          Unless said traveller happens to be non-white, in which case disrespect is mandatory.

    • Wayne

      Hear hear JW : me thinks you hit the nail on the head I too would love to be the guard and proclaim for one and all : no soup for you! – better yet arrest him – I daresay he would be a bonafide hereo to his fellows and no risk involved as he is just doing his job ! Could you imagine the fall out, the blogs abuzz, the web forums .. ah the thought gives me goosebumps.

    • Scott M.

      If Galloway sends out a press release saying, say “I’m crossing at the Port of Lansdowne (near Gananoque) at 11:50 this morning”, you can be sure as all get out that CBSA will have a media person there to handle the media, that the primary officer will be instructed to send the person inside for Immigration processing, that media will not be allowed inside the building, that the Immigration processing will happen in an interview room with no less than 4 people in it, and that the Chief of the Port will be there as well.

      CBSA would *never* leave it in the hands of a person out on primary. No worries there.

  • Scott M.

    If Galloway sends out a press release saying, say “I’m crossing at the Port of Lansdowne (near Gananoque) at 11:50 this morning”, you can be sure as all get out that CBSA will have a media person there to handle the media, that the primary officer will be instructed to send the person inside for Immigration processing, that media will not be allowed inside the building, that the Immigration processing will happen in an interview room with no less than 4 people in it, and that the Chief of the Port will be there as well.
    CBSA would *never* leave it in the hands of a person out on primary. No worries there.

    • Mulletaur

      Yeah, it will go to secondary examination for sure. It will be interesting to know who ends up doing the examination under IRPA. If they know where he will cross and when, my guess is that the normal front line officers will be asked to defer either to the port manager or some senior knob from region. That is just a way of saying that it will go political. On the other hand, he could just slip through at a land border point. Now THAT would be a story …

      • Scott M.

        If they do the “Convoy” they’ve been talking about, they’ll know about it. “Sneaking” in (which, of course, would be what the government would call it even if he correctly and clearly declared) wouldn’t be to his advantage as it wouldn’t be as big a spectacle.

        • Lord Kitchener’s Own

          I’m not so sure getting in ’cause no one’s looking wouldn’t be equally to his advantage. Sure, there’ll be a huge media presence at the border to see if he gets in, but there’d be an equally huge presence wherever he turned up once it became clear that he was ALREADY in.

          In one case, people will want to know how the government reacts to his actual attempt to get in. In the other, people will want to know how the government reacts to him already being in the country.

  • Mulletaur

    As you rightly point out, it is all down to the Immigration or CBSA officer who examines Galloway and receives his application to enter Canada to decide. The Minister, senior officials, the RCMP, CSIS and any other department which may have an interest in this may provide information and try to influence the decision one way or another, but the examining officer alone has the power to decide.

    So it turns out that when Kenney and his spokesman said that it was the decision of the Immigration or CBSA officer and it was nothing to do with him as the Minister, he was right. What he didn’t point out is that the decision had not been made yet – it could not have been made as there was no application to enter at that point. If the officer examining Galloway does indeed permit him to enter Canada, it should be interesting to see what Kenney will do next.

    • Wayne

      So far your analysis and summarization is spot on and to be honest should have been the media story from the beginning!

    • Michael

      Well, so who exactly pre-decided that Galloway would not be allowed in? If it was indeed a bureacratic decision made by the CBSA, how could this pre-decision have been known and then communicated to Galloway? Did the CHC do a poll of the Border Guards asking them whether they would be inclined to let t his guy in if he happened to show up in the near future?

    • Lord Kitchener’s Own

      After all this, I’d love for it to end with the CBSA officer on duty just letting Galloway in, and the Tories just having to swallow it.

      That’d be hilarious.

      • Wotcher?

        At least the CBSA officer could look forward to an additional five weeks of EI.

        • Lord Kitchener’s Own

          Well, I didn’t mean a case of the officer just deciding completely on his own to let Galloway in, but the CBSA itself deciding that their initial assessment was incorrect.

          Man, if a CBSA officer let him in and then got fired for it though, wow. That’d REALLY play in to Galloway’s hand!

  • Geiseric the Lame

    “I wouldn’t want to be that border guard.”

    Proving once again that political footballs have the utmost respect for the laws of gravity.

  • PolJunkie

    “So far your analysis and summarization is spot on and to be honest should have been the media story from the beginning!”

    Are you people serious? Who do you think you are fooling, here? One has to be completely obtuse not to see that it was Kenney who intervened behind closed doors at the onset of this affair.

  • Drip

    Does anyone really believe that this is not a freedom of speech issue?

    • Wayne

      Me! This whacko British MP’s guys talking points are irrelevant to the extreme. The facts are plain and simple and out there for one and all to see. His actions were in support (of more than one actually but I digress) of a listed terrorist organization – therefore = no soup for you! Now if you don’t like it you could always petition to have the list updated and then invite the guy back but in the meantime – out of the pool!

    • PolJunkie

      It’s gone passed freedom of speech for me. I’m looking at the legalities of having a member of Cabinet pre-empting a British MP’s attempt to enter the country and then lying about it.

      Is that legal?

      • Mulletaur

        I don’t know whether the issue of legality arises, but the question of political judgement certainly does, as in, Kenney doesn’t have any. As tempting as it is to stick your oar in, it’s sometimes better just to let still waters be.

        • tobyornotoby

          It might be time to start reporting on occasional outbursts of competency from this government as more newsworthy than these frequent, calculated acts of stupidiity.

        • Shenping

          Kenney showing political judgment would be news. This is just dog bites man.

  • tobyornotoby

    Template for CBSA border guard to use:

    “Hello, sir, anything to declare? That you’d like to come to Canada to TALK about the conflict in Gaza?
    Well, freedom of expression is part of our charter, sir, so you’ve come to the right place, but I meant restricted items, do you have any of those, no firearms? live animals? agricutlural products? No, well go right through then.”

  • Drip

    If Galloway is a supporter of Hamas, why did the U.S. let him in?

    • Lord Kitchener’s Own

      He’s been to Israel too I believe.

      We’re basically, as far as I can tell, the only country on the planet that considers George Galloway a threat to our national security.

      We’re either peerlessly insightful and pragmatic, or mind numbingly stupid.

      You be the judge.

      • Shenping

        It’s amazing now narrow the dividing line sometimes is.

        On the CONtrary, I suspect he’s more of a threat to national insecurity.

        • Canuckistanian

          harharhar ;-)

  • KadyRocks

    I’d love to see a work-up on this where we trace the money provided by citizen’s donations to Aid organizations for bringing medicine, food, clothing and toys to Gaza. I bet that there are quite a few citizens in the same state as George. I’m pretty sure that Amnesty International has participated in such an endeavour, which makes me complicit by the bar used in this case. This could really get out of hand, if taken literally at face value!

    Good Times.

  • Richard Stevems

    Hello…to every one here who supports the people of Gaza, I want you to watch this video, take a deep breath, and heavily consider what is said……This could be a defining moment in your life if you choose to participate.

    Please give feed back,

    Thanks

  • Almira

    I hope the CBSA officer who deals with George Galloway remembers the 2000 Little Sisters case re: freedom of expression!

    Little Sisters v. Canada, 2000 SCC 69:
    …it is fundamentally unacceptable that expression which is free within the country can become stigmatized and harassed by government officials simply because it crosses an international boundary, and is thereby brought within the bailiwick of the Customs department… Freedom of expression does NOT stop at the border.

Previous

Next

From Macleans