ГУЛаг Палестины

(2) In the course of an investigation of a complaint under this Part by the Review Committee, the complainant, deputy head

concerned and the Director shall be given an opportunity to make representations to the Review Committee, to present evidence and to

be heard personally or by counsel, but no one is entitled as of right to be present during, to have access to or to comment on

representations made to the Review Committee by any other person.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with

the principles of fundamental justice.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law

without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or

mental or physical disability.

II. Facts and Proceedings

The respondent, Joseph (Giuseppe) Chiarelli, was born in Italy in 1960. He received landed immigrant status upon his arrival in

Canada in 1975. On November 1, 1984, the respondent pleaded guilty to unlawfully uttering threats to cause injury, contrary to

s. 331(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, as amended, an offence punishable by a maximum of ten years' imprisonment.

He received a suspended sentence. On November 5, 1984, he pleaded guilty to possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking,

contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, as amended, which carries a maximum sentence of life

imprisonment. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. In January of 1986, Immigration Officer A. Zografos signed a report

pursuant to s. 27 of the Immigration Act, 1976 ("the Act"), identifying the respondent as a permanent resident described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii),

that is, a permanent resident who has been convicted of an offence for which a term of imprisonment of five years or more may be

imposed.

As a result of this report, an inquiry was directed pursuant to s. 27(3) of the Act. The respondent was notified of this inquiry and

attended. At the conclusion of the inquiry on May 7, 1986, Adjudicator J. E. McNamara determined, relying on the Narcotic Control Act

conviction, that the respondent was a person described in s. 27(1)(d)(ii). He therefore made a deportation order against the respondent

pursuant to s. 32(2). The hearing of the respondent's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board against the deportation order, brought

pursuant to s. 72(1) (now R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 70(1)), was adjourned after the Solicitor General and the Minister of Employment and

Immigration made a joint report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (the "Review Committee") pursuant to s. 82.1(2) (now

s. 81(2)). The report indicated that in the opinion of the ministers, the respondent was a person described in s. 19(1)(d)(ii), that is, a

person who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in activity that is part of a pattern of organized criminal activity.

Upon receipt of the joint report, the Review Committee conducted the required investigation and a hearing was held on September 2

and 3, 1987. Prior to this hearing the respondent was provided with a document entitled "Statement of Circumstances giving rise to the

making of a Report by the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to the Security Intelligence

Review Committee", as well as two summaries of information. The first was a document entitled "Chronology of Information and

Occurrences Relating to Giuseppe Chiarelli" and consisted of an extensive summary of surveillance of the respondent. The second

document was entitled "Summary of Interpretation of Intercepted Private Communications relating to the murder of Domenic Racco".

The first day of the hearing was held in camera and a summary of the evidence provided to the respondent. This summary indicated

that evidence was led that the respondent, together with certain named individuals, was a member of a criminal organization which

engaged in extortion and drug related activities, and further that the respondent personally took part in the extortion and drug related

activities of the organization.

At the second day of the hearing, the respondent attended with counsel. The "Statement of Circumstances", the "Chronology of

Information" and the "Summary of Interpretation of Intercepted Private Communications" were placed before the Review Committee, as