Ms. Jackman, I spent the summer or a good part of the summer going through the Material and following your argument, because every time that you appear before me I know that I really have to do my home work, because I find that you do such a thorough job. But, notwithstanding that, I wrote some notes yesterday and this morning, doesn't in any way make me change my mind as to my finding. My notes read;

A Certificate based on a security intelligence Report prepared by CSIS indicating that Mr.Suresh is inadmissible to Canada under section 19(1) (c) (iv) (C), 19(1) (f) (11) and 19(f)(f)(iii)(B) of the Immigration Act was signed by the Solicitor General of Canada on August the 1st, 1995 and by the Minister of citizenship and immigration on September 11th 1995. Pursuant to section 40.1(1) of the Immigration Act... well, not in accordance with subsection 40.1(3) of the Act, the Certificate was referred to the Federal Court of Canada on October 17th, 1995 and pursuant in 40.1(2)(b) of the Immigration Act, the Respondent. Mr. Suresh, was detained on October the 18t, 1995. On the same day, notice of the section 40.1 proceedings was served on Mr.Suresh, according to subsection 40.1 (3)(b) of the act.

On October 23rd, 1995, in accordance with subsection 40.1 (4)(a) of the Act, I convened an in Camera hearing at which hearing I considered the security intelligence Report and additional evidence submitted on behalf of the Ministers. I then, pursuant to subsection 40.1 (4)(b) of the act, ordered that a summary of the report and evidence be served on Mr. Suresh and that Mr.Suresh be given an opportunity to be heard.

The summary of the report and evidence was served on Mr. Suresh on October 27th, 1995. The hearing wherein Mr. Suresh was given the opportunity to be heard commenced on March the 19th, 1996. More than 50 days of hearing have taken place.

I am satisfied that the issue that I have to decide and that I have decided is, as stated by the Applicant in their submission, the certificate naming Mr. Suresh as an inadmissible person under Section 19(1)(e)(iv)(c), 19(1)(f)(ii)(b) of the act are reasonable on the basis of the evidence and information made available to me in both the public and in camera hearings held before me.

The hearings held before me are directed solely and exclusively to determining the reasonableness of the Ministerial Certificate identifying Mr.Suresh as a member of an inadmissible class of persons, I can do no better than quote Mr. Justice Denault in the case of Baroud where he states;

"...The role of this Court is not to substitute its decision for that of the Minister and the Solicitor General, nor is it to find that they were correct in their assessment of the evidence presented to them, but, rather, to find whether or not based on the information and evidence presented to this Court, the Minster's certificate is a reasonable one..."

I would add that it is, as well, not the function of this court to solve political issues that exist between groups of people in another country. It is not my function as a judge of the federal court of Canada, and I have said this many time, to determine, based on the evidence before me, whether the Tamil people in Sri Lanka should or should not be granted their own homeland or even to express an opinion on that subject. That is a political question to be determined by the people of Sri Lanka, together with the help of the United Nations and other nations of goodwill.

I can say and I do say that, based on the evidence made before me, the Tamil people of Sri Lanka suffer from discrimination, and based on some of the evidence made before me, may have suffered, in certain specific cases, from what may be considered, persecution. As I have stated, I am here to determine whether there exists sufficient evidence for me to conclude as to the reasonableness of the certificate signed by the ministers. It is not to determine whether the ministers were correct in their assessment of the evidence.

From the evidence presented to me, I cannot but come to any other conclusion than that, based on evidence presented both in the in camera hearing and in the public hearings, it was reasonable for the Ministers to conclude that Mr. Suresh is a person inadmissible into Canada.

It is my intention to release more detailed reasons at later date. I have decided to release my Decision without detailed reasons at this time because of the fact Mr. Suresh has been detained since October 1995, and because, pursuant to section 40.1 (7), Mr. Suresh will continue to be detained until remove from Canada. I believe this should be done as quickly as possible so as to avid Mr. Suresh returning in detention unnecessarily, and to avoid lengthy proceedings pursuant to subsection 40.1 (8) of the Act.

I also want to add the following from the evidence. I do not want to say anything that may affect Mr. Suresh if and when he will be removed from Canada. So, all I do say is that I am satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the Minister to believe as they did. That doe3s not necessarily mean that what they believe is a fact, but that there were reasonable grounds for the Minister to believe that Mr. Suresh is and was a member of the LTTE. I heard much evidence as to what to makes a member, when does one become a member. I am satisfied from the evidence that I heard that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was member of the LTTE.

I intend to issue detailed Reason to cover most, if not all, of the issue that were presented to me by Ms. Jackman and I, too, don't envy my own position. But I also believe that there are many issues that were raised by Ms. Jackman that have to be clarified. Because this will take me a good period of time, I decided that I don't want to leave the case in abeyance in the sense that Mr. Suresh should not know what his position is.

Having said all that, I would like to thank Ms. Jackman and I would like to thank Mr. Vaillancourd. I would like to thank you both for a most professional job. I truly appreciate having had the privilege, and am saying this for the second time, I think, or may be even the third to Ms. Jackman, for having the privilege of having both of you plead before me. Thank you very much. This makes my job difficult, but, as well, pleasurable.

"Max M Teltebaum"

Judge

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi. Duis autem dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit au gue duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi. Duis autem dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit au gue duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat.