There was a time when Canada prioritized the safety of its own citizens above all else. Dangerous individuals, even those facing hardship in their homelands, were deported without hesitation. The focus wasn't on the difficulties they might encounter elsewhere, but on eliminating threats within Canadian borders.
For years, the government quietly arranged for the removal of problematic individuals – fraudulent refugee claimants and those who entered the country illegally – funding their return and leaving the logistics to them. This pragmatic approach, once considered standard practice, seems to have been forgotten.
Recently, during discussions about deporting members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a startling justification emerged from a federal bureaucrat: a lack of available flights to Iran. This explanation, offered as a primary obstacle, feels less like a logistical challenge and more like a deliberate evasion.
Conservative MP Vincent Neil Ho pressed Brett Bush, a senior official with the Canada Border Services Agency, on the discrepancy between deportation orders and actual removals. Ho questioned why so few IRGC members had been deported despite having exhausted their legal appeals.
Bush’s response – citing the absence of flights – was particularly troubling given that this issue has persisted for years. High-ranking IRGC officials, ordered deported long ago, continue to reside in Canada, seemingly shielded from consequence.
The current government’s reluctance to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity, despite their documented atrocities – including the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752, claiming the lives of numerous Canadians – speaks volumes. For years, officials have been permitted to enter Canada, protected by a veil of secrecy.
The testimony of both Bush and Manon Brassard, head of the Immigration and Refugee Board, before the parliamentary committee was deeply concerning. Instead of providing clear answers, they offered evasions and, in Bush’s case, repeated admissions of ignorance.
It’s difficult to fathom how senior civil servants could appear before a committee unprepared to address fundamental questions related to their area of responsibility. A willingness to seek clarification on complex issues is understandable, but a lack of knowledge regarding basic facts is unacceptable.
A decade ago, under a different administration, Canada demonstrated a willingness to take decisive action. Individuals deemed a threat were deported, even if it meant landing a plane on a remote airfield and ensuring their swift removal. The comfort of those being expelled was never a consideration.
The government’s primary duty is to safeguard its citizens, and that responsibility demands a firm stance against those who pose a danger. Protecting Canadians should always outweigh concerns about the challenges faced by those being removed.
In 2012, Saeed Ibrahim Jama, convicted of drug trafficking and obstruction of justice, was deported in a similar fashion. He was flown to Kenya, and Canadian funds were used to arrange a flight to Somalia, where he was left on a remote airfield. If such measures were feasible then, they should be viable now.
The current hesitation stems not from logistical hurdles, but from a lack of resolve within the bureaucracy and a perceived absence of support from the government. The excuse of unavailable flights feels like a prelude to further delays and justifications.
The question isn’t simply about flights, but about political will. How long before officials claim they cannot deport IRGC members due to fears of persecution under the current regime? Canada risks becoming a haven for individuals who pose a legitimate threat to its security.
Canada must not allow itself to be a repository for the world’s problems. A firm and decisive approach to dealing with IRGC officials residing within its borders is essential to reaffirming its commitment to the safety and security of its citizens.
