Federal Court of Canada Logo

It has been a long time coming, but Chinese fugitive Lai Changxing has finally been deported from Canada. His case took 12 years and went right to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court of the land. The twists and turns in this case are numerous. The conclusion of this case is also interesting. The Canadian Consulate in Beijing posted the court results in English on Sina Weibo, a Twitter equivalent in China, but was deleted two days later, presumably not by the original posters. A link was posted to direct readers to the court ruling, and this was also deleted. Here is the court ruling, in full. This court ruling was somewhat difficult to find for me, being inconveniently not indexed by Google. Still I was able to find this Federal Court decision online and in full. The contrast between the Chinese and Canadian legal systems has never been more striking.

I am unsure why the Great Wall of China and censors would want to delete content from a Sina Weibo account, even though it is still available and easily read on the Internet. Would not greater openness show the fairness of the Chinese legal system? I am unsure. The contrast of legal systems has been noted by mainstream media. While mainstream media reported on the Federal Court ruling, none cited the original document. The original document is an interesting read.

I am skeptical of the Chinese Government’s assurances of fair treatment, but realize that incarceration and the legal systems have many differences between China and Canada. While I doubt China will publicly execute him, there is no guarantee of any other human right. Different countries have their different laws.

Federal Court / Cour fédérale

Date: 20110721
Docket: IMM-4373-11
Citation: 2011 FC 915

Ottawa, Ontario, July 21, 2011

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

BETWEEN:

LAI CHEONG SING
Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Respondents

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

I. Overview
[1] The detention of an individual in a society and the reasons for such detention constitute a means by which to analyze the nature of justice or the lack thereof in that society.

[2] Just as a society can be judged by history in its application of the rule of law and due process, so can it also be judged by the evidence of its prison conditions and detention facilities.

[3] The rule of law and due process are the hallmarks of the values which Canada cherishes. Although the cost of such are high, they are no higher than the very values for which Canada strives and holds dear.

[4] For Canada, as per the jurisprudence pleaded, democracy is a constant work in progress for which it strives. Its values, enshrined in its Constitution, with its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, are a bulwark against a tide of pressure held back mindfully and steadfastly by the executive and legislative branches of government as policy and legislation, respectively (as demonstrated in all of the previous proceedings in this case) and, as nothing more than but simply interpreted by the judicial branch of government. These are the rudiments or the very leitmotif for which Canada stands, not as a cosmetic throw-away for public relations purposes, chosen at a whim as demonstrated in regard to evidence in respect of certain countries, for certain ends, for which the costs are always calculated but the values of which are either ignored or forgotten.

[5] The evidence before the Court demonstrates that China’s treatment of Tibetan monks and nuns (whose leader, the Dalai Lama received an honorary Canadian Citizenship as conceived and presented by the executive and legislative branches of this government), that of 2010, recent Nobel Peace Prize winner in detention, Mr. Liu Xiaobo (whose treatment, in his prison cell, in serving an eleven-year sentence for subversion, has only slightly improved after receiving the prize), Falun Gong and certain Christian practitioners and those of other religions, as well as common criminals, are all subject to similar treatment. They are detained together indiscriminately. All of which is accepted as emanating from recognized governmental and non-governmental sources.

[6] It is for these reasons that Canada requested strict, clear and unequivocal assurances from the Chinese Government in respect of the Applicant, Cheong Sing Lai, a fugitive from the Chinese justice system, who has been in Canada since 1999 and who is now under a deportation order. These assurances have now been received. It is assumed that the assurances of the Chinese Government, as per its written promises, will be kept, as the Chinese Government’s honour and face is, and will be, bound and kept respectively, by the monitoring for the lifetime of the Applicant and, eventually, in time to come, in the reason for his eventual passing, as to whether it be natural or otherwise, recognizing fully well, the age and current state of health of the Applicant (as per medical monitoring measures, also outlined in the assurances).

[7] In regard to the validity of the assurances of the Chinese Government, a proverb often related in ancient China puts it well.

[8] A child, who, once, wanted to outwit his teacher, asked his teacher, “Is the bird which I have in my hand alive or dead?” The child thought if the teacher answered, “The bird is alive”, he would crush the bird; and, if the teacher would say it is dead, he would let it live. The teacher answered with a great understanding for both the child and the bird, “The life of the bird is in your hands, my child”.

[9] So it is with the Chinese Government’s assurances. The life of the Applicant is in the Chinese Government’s hands. The outcome remains to be seen as with the bird. The assurances are present. A new contractual government to government climate has been created by the assurances. They augur hope for a different way to be taken, in a newly unfolded path to which the Chinese Government’s signature has been officially affixed for the commitments undertaken. The future, yet, to be seen by both countries and others, will stand as witness to the outcome.

II. Introduction
[10] The Applicant is a criminal fugitive from the Chinese justice system and has been in Canada since August 1999. The Convention Refugee Determination Division [CRDD] found that the Applicant is excluded from the definition of “Convention refugee” by Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention and is not a “Convention refugee” (CRDD decision, undisturbed by the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and leave denied by the Supreme Court of Canada [SCC]). The Applicant applied for a limited Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] as a person in need of protection on the grounds set out in subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The first PRRA decision was set aside by this Court and sent back for re-determination. On July 7, 2011, a Minister’s delegate determined that the Applicant is not a person in need of protection. The Applicant is now scheduled to be removal ready from Canada on July 22, 2011. The Applicant seeks an Order staying his removal from Canada.

[11] The Respondents oppose this application to stay the execution of the deportation order. The Court agrees with the position of the Respondents only due to the Chinese Government’s recent diplomatic assurances to the Canadian executive branch of government. The Applicant did not, in his particular case, establish the necessary criteria to obtain a stay of execution of the deportation order.

[12] In particular, due to the assurances of the Chinese Government, the Applicant has not raised a serious issue with respect to the PRRA decision. The Minister’s delegate reasonably determined that, based on extensive review of country condition documents, evidence relating specifically to the Applicant, the diplomatic note and extraordinary written assurances provided by the Government of China to the Government of Canada (which the Canadian government authorities also understand as ensuring that the Applicant lives out his lifespan, neither tortured nor killed; thus, an undertaking for years to come) ensure that the agreement keeps face with its official promises. According to the assurances, the Minister’s delegate believes that the Applicant will not be executed or have his death arranged while detained or imprisoned in China, and is not at risk of torture, cruel and unusual punishment or treatment.

[13] With respect to irreparable harm, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate a risk based irreparable harm. His allegation of risk of return to China was extensively considered in his refugee claim before the CRDD, the subsequent judicial reviews and appeals of the CRDD decision and the PRRA determination.

[14] The balance of convenience favours the Minister in view of the statutory mandate to enforce removal orders as soon as reasonably practicable. The Applicant is a fugitive from justice who has been in Canada since 1999.

III. Background
[15] Mr. Lai Cheong Sing, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, was born on September 15, 1958.

[16] In early 1999, Chinese authorities received information that a large-scale smuggling operation was taking place in the city of Xiamen in Fujian province. As a result, the Chinese authorities conducted an investigation called the “4-20 Investigation” and discovered a massive smuggling operation allegedly headed by Mr. Lai, his wife, Ming Na Tsang, and the Yuan Hua group of companies.

[17] On August 14, 1999, upon learning that the Chinese authorities were looking for them, the Lai family fled China and travelled to Canada on Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports. The Lai family entered Canada as visitors with status.

[18] In June 2000, Mr. Lai and his family made refugee claims at an in-land Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC] office in Vancouver. Their refugee claims were referred to the CRDD.

[19] On September 18, 2000, a conditional Departure Order was issued against Mr. Lai.

[20] On June 21, 2002, the CRDD determined that Mr. Lai and his family were not Convention refugees under the former Immigration Act, RSC 1985, c I-2, after a lengthy hearing of the refugee claim over a period of 45 days. The CRDD found Mr. Lai excluded from the definition of Convention refugee by Article 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention as there are serious grounds for believing that he has committed serious non-political crimes in China of bribery, large scale smuggling, fraud and tax evasion. The CRDD also considered “inclusion” and determined that Mr. Lai did not meet the definition of Convention refugee.

[21] Mr. Lai filed an application for leave and for judicial review of the CRDD decision. On February 3, 2004, Justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court upheld the CRDD decision and dismissed Mr. Lai’s application for judicial review (2004 FC 179). On April 11, 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Lai’s appeal of Justice MacKay’s decision (2004 FCA 125). Mr. Lai’s application for leave to appeal to the SCC was dismissed on September 1, 2005 (SCC File No. 30988).

[22] On November 10, 2005, Mr. Lai made an application for a PRRA under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA.

[23] On March 15, 2006, the PRRA Officer rendered a decision. As this was the first time Mr. Lai had an application for that of a protected person under subsection 97(1) of the IRPA, the Minister’s delegate considered all of the evidence before the CRDD and Mr. Lai’s PRRA submissions. The Minister’s delegate refused the PRRA application and determined that Mr. Lai is not a person in need of protection.

[24] Mr. Lai filed an application for leave and for judicial review of the PRRA decision in Federal Court. On June 1, 2006, Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson granted the stay of removal pending the outcome of the judicial review application of the PRRA decision (2006 FC 672).

[25] On April 5, 2007, Justice Yves de Montigny of the Federal Court allowed Mr. Lai’s application for judicial review of the PRRA decision. The PRRA decision was set aside and sent back for a re-determination by a new Minister’s delegate (2007 FC 361).

[26] In May 2009, Ms. Tsang departed Canada voluntarily and returned to China. All of Mr. Lai’s children, Chun-Chun, Chun Wai and Ming Ming also departed Canada in April 2009 and February 2010 and November 26, 2010 respectively. The PRRA applications of Chun-Chun and Chun Wai were declared abandoned.

[27] By decision, dated July 7, 2011, a Minister’s delegate refused Mr. Lai’s PRRA application and determined that he was not, on a balance of probabilities a person in need of protection, and unlikely to be subjected to cruel, unusual punishment or treatment or torture.

[28] On July 8, 2011, Mr. Lai was served with the PRRA decision and reasons and notified by the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] that his removal would take place shortly.

[29] Mr. Lai’s removal was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, July 12, 2011; an interim stay was granted until July 22, 2011, at noon (Vancouver time), by Order of Justice Michel Beaudry, dated July 11, 2011.

IV. Issues
[30] To obtain a stay of removal, an applicant must establish all three prongs as set out in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302, 11 ACWS (3d) 440 (FCA):

1. whether there is a serious question to be determined by the Court;
2. whether an applicant seeking the stay would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were not granted; and
3. whether, on the balance of convenience, an applicant seeking the stay will suffer the greater harm from the refusal to grant the stay.

[31] The test for a stay is conjunctive and an applicant must satisfy each branch of this tri-partite test.

V. Analysis
A. Serious Issue
[32] Mr. Lai has raised the following issues in the underlying judicial review application of the PRRA decision:

a) An apprehension of bias;

b) Minister’s delegate’s findings regarding the diplomatic assurance and compliance mechanisms were unreasonable.

a) No Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

[33] Mr. Lai argues that the decision-maker is not an officer of the PRRA unit but a “Minister’s delegate” and, therefore, is not independent from the Minister.

[34] Pursuant to section 6 of the IRPA, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has delegated PRRA Officers and certain officials of CIC at National Headquarters, including the Director of Case Determination, to make PRRA decisions. The decision-maker in Mr. Lai’s PRRA application is the Director, Case Determination of the Case Management Branch at the National Headquarters of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration (CIC – Instrument of Designation and Delegation, Operational Manual, IL3, Column 52).

[35] The Minister’s delegate considered Mr. Lai’s submissions on bias and determined that she would be assessing and weighing all of the information before her based on her own independent decision-making with an open mind.

[36] The test for a reasonable apprehension of bias, set out in Committee for Justice and Liberty v National Energy Board, [1978] 1 SCR 369, is whether an informed person, viewing the matter realistically, and practically – and having thought the matter through, would conclude, that it is more likely than not, that the Minister’s delegate decided Mr. Lai’s PRRA fairly.

[37] An informed person, after reading the reasons setting out the delegate’s independent analysis, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would conclude that the Minister’s delegate decided Mr. Lai’s PRRA application fairly; the Minister’s delegate considered Mr. Lai’s submissions, examined and analyzed the evidence, and had arrived at an independent decision; and, certainly, did not mince words in regard to her reflections on the Chinese legal system as per the evidence before her.

b) PRRA Findings Were Reasonable

[38] The standard of review for PRRA decisions when considered in their entirety is that of reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 SCR 339).

[39] The nature of the decision of a Minister’s delegate warrants significant deference on judicial review. Where there is nothing unreasonable in the PRRA decision, there will be no serious issue for the purposes of a stay application. In this case, the Minister’s delegate’s decision was reasonable and does not warrant intervention by this Court (Tharumarasah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 211 at para 6; Bhalru v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1259 at para 24).

[40] As held by Justice Yvon Pinard in Weerasinghe v MCI, (January 22, 2004) IMM-10240-03, in order for a Court to substitute its assessment of risk for that of previous decision-makers, an applicant must provide clear and convincing evidence which would suggest that the Court ought to engage in this exercise. The same logic applies to a Minister’s delegate. Mr. Lai has not provided clear and convincing evidence of error and, therefore, has not raised a serious issue. Mr. Lai is ultimately asking this Court to substitute its opinion on risk for that of the Minister’s delegate. Absent compelling evidence due to the Chinese Government’s specific assurances accepted by the Minister’s delegate as valid, the Court will not do so.

[41] In assessing the application, the Minister’s delegate has set out how she considered the evidence and the conclusions that she drew from it. Her reasons are clear and also indicate that she did not fetter her discretion. She unmitigatedly described the Chinese legal system in regard to the matter in very clear and unequivocal terms, excerpts of which are quoted and discussed below.

[42] Mr. Lai argues that the serious issue raised in the underlying judicial review application is whether the Minister’s delegate’s findings are reasonable regarding the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the diplomatic assurances that the Applicant will not be tortured and whether those mechanisms are adequate.

[43] The Minister’s delegate considered and weighed all of the evidence before her; she considered the issue of whether it is more likely than not that Mr. Lai would be subjected to torture or mistreatment in China. The Minister’s delegate referred to the expert evidence as well as country condition documents. She found that the Chinese authorities in this case would not find it necessary or desirable to subject Mr. Lai to torture after his return to China.

[44] In her reasons, the Minister’s delegate, herself, specifically, made the following findings regarding the assurances against torture:

i. Assurances against torture contained in March 2011 would not be adequate in circumstances where authorities would otherwise rely heavily on the practice of torture as the United Nations Special Rapporteur has indicated that only assurances that include invasive monitoring and apply to a whole prison population would be sufficient; however, Mr. Lai does not find himself in circumstances where authorities would otherwise rely on the practice of torture;

ii. Criminal Procedure in China is flawed by Canadian and international standards, but has improved significantly since the changes to criminal procedure of the late 1990s. In Mr. Lai’s case the March 2010 specific assurances provide some additional safeguards which will help to ensure that Mr. Lai is treated in a manner that would not shock the conscience of Canadians; (It is recognized by the Court that Mr. Lai’s brother Lai Shui Quiang, and his accountant, Chen Zencheng, died in prison of unexplained causes.)

iii. A life sentence for Mr. Lai would not shock the conscience of Canadians, be degrading to human dignity or be disproportionate to a valid social aim and consequently would not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Reported prison conditions, in and of themselves, do not amount to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; (The Minister’s delegate was reflecting on the Chinese Government’s assurances in this regard.)

iv. Mr. Lai is unlikely to be tortured because he does not belong to a vulnerable group, because disincentives to torture exist in Chinese law, because torture does not appear to have occurred to other Yuan Hua group accused and because of the late stage of the investigation of his crimes. Mr. Lai is also unlikely to have his death “arranged” while detained/incarcerated;

v. Mr. Lai will not be executed should he be returned to China and is unlikely to have his death arranged while detained or in prison. On a balance of probabilities, Mr. Lai is unlikely to be subjected to cruel, unusual punishment or treatment, or tortured.

[45] The US Department of State – 2010 Human Rights Report: China, is subsequently quoted in the reasons of the Minister’s delegate at page 59:

Conditions in penal institutions for both political prisoners and criminal offenders were generally harsh and often degrading. Prisoners and detainees were regularly housed in overcrowded conditions with poor sanitation. Inadequate prison capacity remained a problem in some areas. Food often was inadequate and of poor quality, and many detainees relied on supplemental food and medicines provided by relatives. Some prominent dissidents were not allowed to receive such goods. Adequate, timely medical care for prisoners remained a serious problem, despite official assurances that prisoners have the right to prompt medical treatment.

Article 53 of the Prison Law mandates that a prison shall be ventilated, allow for natural light, and be clean and warm. However, in many cases there were inadequate provisions for sanitation, ventilation, heating, lighting, basic and emergency medical care, and access to potable water.

Forced labor remained a serious problem in penal institutions. Many prisoners and detainees in penal and RTL [re-education through labour] facilities were required to work, often with no remuneration. Information about prisons, including associated labor camps and factories, was considered a state secret.

[46] There are no special institutions for political or religious prisoners. Nowhere does the country condition information suggest otherwise. Political prisoners and those interned for religious practice and common criminals are all housed in the same institutions.

[47] The sourcing of the US Department of State Report is indicated in the Overview to the Country Reports. That Overview states:

The Department of State prepared this report using information from U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, foreign government officials, nongovernmental and international organizations, and published reports. The initial drafts of the individual country reports were prepared by U.S. diplomatic missions abroad, drawing on information they gathered throughout the year from a variety of sources, including government officials, jurists, the armed forces, journalists, human rights monitors, academics, and labor activists. This information gathering can be hazardous, and U.S. Foreign Service personnel regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuse, monitor elections, and come to the aid of individuals at risk, such as political dissidents and human rights defenders whose rights are threatened by their governments.

Once the initial drafts of the individual country reports were completed, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in cooperation with other Department of State offices, worked to corroborate, analyze, and edit the reports, drawing on their own sources of information. These sources included reports provided by U.S. and other human rights groups, foreign government officials, representatives from the United Nations and other international and regional organizations and institutions, experts from academia, and the media. Bureau officers also consulted experts on worker rights, refugee issues, military and police topics, women’s issues, and legal matters, among may others. The guiding principle was to ensure that all information was assessed objectively, thoroughly, and fairly.

(http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/frontmatter/154328.htm).

[48] The US Department of State Report then is multi-sourced. The authors of the US Report would have taken into account the UN Report. The Report of the UN Special Rapporteur, in contrast, is single-sourced. The UN Special Rapporteur was reporting only what he saw on his pre-arranged visits to ten facilities. The UN Special Rapporteur was not reporting on prison conditions generally but only on that which he was shown; thus, what he specifically “found” at the ten facilities to which he had made pre-arranged visits. The Minister’s delegate preferred single source information (Decision at p 58). Yet, nevertheless, the assurances in themselves are a counterweight on which the Minister’s delegate reflected in her decision.

[49] As is discussed in the written material of the Applicant, the detention facilities and treatment of prisoners of the following groups are similar to the treatment of common criminals: Tibetan monks and nuns, the current, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians and other religious practitioners. External monitoring of Chinese detention facilities is not permitted except through pre-arranged visits, and China does not publish information in respect of its detention facilities. Prisoners, once released, are reticent to speak of prison conditions while in China for fear of revictimization. No evidence indicates that there are separate detention facilities for any of the groups listed. All prisoners are housed together indiscriminately, and, therefore, all, are subject to the same conditions.

[50] Based on a review of country condition documents, the Minister’s delegate found that certain vulnerable groups were disproportionately affected with respect to incidents of torture in detention which is not uniform across the prison population. These vulnerable groups or “typology of victims of alleged torture and ill-treatment” were identified by the Special Rapporteur on torture as Tibetans, Uighurs, political dissidents, human rights defenders, Falun Gong practitioners, sex workers, and other persons (HIV/AIDS infected persons and members of religious groups) (Decision at pp 63-64; Excerpt from Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Decision at p 69-71).

[51] The Minister’s delegate also assessed the treatment and torture of “common criminals”, since Mr. Lai does not fall into one of the “vulnerable groups”. The Minister’s delegate found that, during times of police crack downs on crime, there are increased reports of torture to coerce confessions. The Minister’s delegate also found that the main motivation behind torture of criminals appears to be at the investigation stage to force a confession instead of obtaining other types of evidence (Decision at p 67).

Diplomatic assurances
a) Torture

[52] The Minister’s delegate accepts that the diplomatic assurances, even as renegotiated, would not be sufficient in themselves to remove the likelihood of torture. She writes: “these assurances do fall short of a thorough monitoring mechanism necessary to ensure an inmate is not mistreated in custody where those in authority are determined to do the inmate harm” (Decision at p 39). She later writes that it is the access of Canadian officials to the cell of the Applicant promised in the diplomatic assurances, that “would mitigate any risk of abuse” [Emphasis added] (Decision at p 51).

[53] In regard to torture, the delegate finds, on a balance of probabilities, it is unlikely to occur. She makes this finding not based on the assurances alone, but based on other evidence as well. Nonetheless, assurances form part of the consideration. The assurances in her view do not ensure that there will be no abuse, but they do significantly mitigate the risk of abuse.

[54] The above issue was raised in a certified question by Justice de Montigny: “If there is a risk of torture in an individual case, what are the requirements that an assurance against torture should fulfill to make that risk less likely than not?” As one can see, one answer the Minister’s delegate gave to that question was cell visits. Cell visits then do diminish the risk of torture recognizing the word, honour and face of the Chinese Government is on the line.

b) The Death Penalty and Fair Trial

The assurance of Court attendance

[55] The Minister’s delegate relied on the assurances for the procedural safeguards which the Chinese Government provided. She wrote: “these assurances are most valuable in terms of the procedural safeguards they provide Mr. Lai … I note that criminal procedures, similar to the commitment on death penalty, are more easily verifiable as compared to whether or not torture has taken place” (Decision at p 40).

[56] The notion that criminal procedures or the death penalty are easily verifiable is difficult to ascertain. The death penalty and criminal procedure assurances suffer from the fact that the courts in China are not public and Canada cannot do otherwise but solely rely on these rare exceptional assurances that have the commitment of the Chinese Government.

[57] It is recognized that a judgment by the Supreme Court of China, that a person sentenced to death, is not issued as a public document; nor is the actual execution of the sentence. The country condition information shows that death penalty statistics in China are shrouded in secrecy. Many non-governmental organizations and governments have called on China to make available death penalty statistics. Such calls would be unnecessary if Supreme Court death sentences were issued in public documents. If they were public documents, death penalty statistics could be calculated simply by tabulating Supreme Court judgments.

[58] According to the Minister’s delegate, the assurances provide “[p]ermission for a Canadian Embassy or Consular official to be present at his hearing” (Decision at p 50). What the assurances actually specify is that “[w]hen the court holds open hearings of LAI Changxing’s criminal case of alleged smuggling under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Canadian side may send embassy or consular officials resident in China to attend the hearings” (Decision at p 14).

[59] The Minister’s delegate accepts the argument that a monitoring mechanism for torture is necessary because torture happens behind closed doors.

[60] The revised assurances from the Government of China do not say that Canadian embassy or consular officials will be given permission to attend the trial of Mr. Lai, but only that these officials will be given permission to attend “open hearings” of the criminal case of Mr. Lai. The Government of China could declare the trial of Mr. Lai closed, deny access to Canadian officials and respect the assurances; however, the assurances, received as valid by the Minister’s delegate are accepted as substantial in that the Chinese Government, according to the Minister’s delegate’s decision, will allow the necessary monitoring of Mr. Lai while he is in detention (Decision at p 14).

[61] The Minister’s delegates writes: “there is the possibility that Mr. Lai’s case could be characterized as a “state secrets” case” but fails to draw the consequence from that conclusion that Canadian officials would not be able to rely on the assurances to sit in on his trial (Decision at p 53).

The assurance of access to a lawyer

[62] A primary challenge Mr. Lai faces in respect of a fair trial in China is finding a lawyer willing, and able, to take instructions from him. He can find a lawyer; however, that lawyer will be instructed by the Communist Party and not Mr. Lai. Without the Chinese Government’s assurances, if a lawyer, bold enough to take the position that Mr. Lai would want him to take, would find himself in a potential precarious situation; and, again, it is only due to reliance on the specific assurances that the Minister’s delegate does find adequacy, recognizing the significant nature of the Chinese Government’s specific commitment to Canadian Government authorities in this regard.

[63] This case has been highly politicized, generating many statements over the years by Chinese political leaders. These statements have assumed the guilt of Mr. Lai. The political leaders of China consider Mr. Lai to be the country’s number one fugitive and, it is assumed that all the evidence will be brought forward due to the assurances given to the Canadian executive branch which is deemed acceptable to the Minister’s delegate.

[64] The reasoning of the Minister’s delegate that Mr. Lai would get a fair trial is predicated on a conclusion of his guilt. The Minister’s delegate reasons: “I acknowledge that politically-directed verdicts can be a problem in China but in Mr. Lai’s case there would appear to be no need for the government/the “Party” to direct a verdict. The evidence of criminality, as accumulated by the 4-20 investigators is significant” [Emphasis added] (Decision at p 52).

[65] The response of the Minister’s delegate to the submissions of counsel that a lawyer for Mr. Lai in China will not be able, at trial, for political reasons, to raise the defenses Mr. Lai wishes to raise the following. She writes: “if Mr. Lai is returned to China he will most likely be convicted of bribery and smuggling” (Decision at p 52). Although the notion that only the innocent need fair trials is untenable, it is again, due to the extraordinary assurances in this specific case that it is acceptable to the Minister’s delegate, on account of the Chinese Government’s commitments on this core issue.

[66] This Court did review the Minister’s delegate’s reasons in their entirety with a view to understanding what the Minister’s delegate decided. The Federal Court of Appeal emphasized this point recently in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Ragupathy, 2006 FCA 151, [2007] FCR 490:

[15] Although trite, it is also important to emphasize that a reviewing court should be realistic in determining if a tribunal’s reasons meet the legal standard of adequacy. Reasons should be read in their entirety, not parsed closely, clause by clause, for possible errors or omissions; they should be read with a view to understanding, not to puzzling over every possible inconsistency, ambiguity or infelicity of expression.

B. Irreparable Harm

[67] In order to satisfy the second branch of the Toth test, the onus is on an applicant to establish the existence of risk of harm that is not speculative or based on a series of possibilities. An applicant must satisfy the Court that the harm will occur if the relief sought is not granted (Molnar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 325 at para 15; Akyol v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 931 at para 7).

[68] Mr. Lai has failed to establish that he will suffer irreparable harm if he were returned to China. He argues the following irreparable harm:

a) The serious issues raised in the underlying PRRA judicial review application is linked to the irreparable harm; and

b) The same allegations of risk of harm put forth in his PRRA application.

a) No Serious Issue to Establish Irreparable Harm

[69] Mr. Lai links his “irreparable harm” argument to having established a serious issue in regard to risk, and as he has not established a serious issue, his irreparable harm argument fails due to the specific assurances which, to the Minister’s delegate, are assurance enough as they are interpreted as safeguards.

[70] Irreparable harm does not automatically follow that of a serious issue, if a serious issue is established in the case of a PRRA judicial review application. In Onojaefe, the Court held that the simple presence of a serious issue arising out of a risk assessment in a PRRA is not automatically determinative of the issue of irreparable harm. The serious issue identified may not necessarily meet the test for irreparable harm, and deference is owed to the Minister’s delegate, trier of fact, with respect to risk (Onojaefe v MCI (May 10, 2006) IMM-2294-06 at paras 13-16).

[71] Even if this Court were to find there is a serious issue to be tried, the Court would then have to consider whether that serious issue raises clear and convincing evidence (not speculative based on a series of possibilities) that Mr. Lai would suffer irreparable harm if removed to China at this time. None of the issues, due to the Chinese Government assurances, raised by Mr. Lai, amount to clear and convincing proof of risk necessary to support the “irreparable harm” portion of the tri-partite test for a stay.

b) Alleged Risk of Return to China

[72] With respect to the alleged risk of return to China, Mr. Lai has made the same allegations of risk in his refugee claim before the CRDD and PRRA application. The CRDD finding was upheld by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. The SCC denied Mr. Lai’s application for leave. This Court has held that an applicant’s narrative that the CRDD has found to be not credible, cannot then serve as the basis for an argument supporting irreparable harm. Mr. Lai has provided no evidence in support of his stay motion that he would now be at risk upon return to China, due to the specific assurances provided (Molnar, above, at para 15; Akyol, above, at para 7; Nalliah v Canada (Solicitor General), 2004 FC 1649, [2005] 3 FCR 210 at para 27).

[73] Furthermore, it is apparent that Mr. Lai has been negotiating his return to China with the Chinese authorities. This willingness to engage in negotiations to return to China belies the alleged risk of return to China.

C. Balance of Convenience

[74] The balance of convenience in this case favours the Respondents. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is mandated by statute to enforce the removal order as soon as reasonably practicable. Mr. Lai is also under a statutory obligation to leave Canada immediately once the removal is enforceable (subsection 48(2) of the IRPA).

[75] The IRPA (s 48) requires that the Minister of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness enforce a removal order as soon as is reasonably practicable (Akyol, above, at para 12). Only in exceptional circumstances will a person’s interests outweigh the public interest. As the Federal Court of Appeal in Tesoro v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 148, [2005] 4 FCR 210, recently explained: “[i]f the administration of immigration law is to be credible, the prompt removal of those ordered deported must be the rule, and the grant of a stay pending the disposition of legal proceedings, the exception” (Decision at para 47).

[76] Mr. Lai arrived in Canada in August 1999 and has remained here since. He has had full access to Canada’s immigration processes and has been found to be excluded from the definition of “Convention refugee” and is “not a person in need of protection”. The CRDD conducted an extensive hearing into his refugee claim and concluded on June 21, 2001 that he was excluded from the definition of “Convention refugee” by Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention for there are serious reasons for considering that he committed the serious non-political crimes of large scale bribery and smuggling outside Canada before he was admitted to Canada. The CRDD decision was upheld by the Federal Court on March 19, 2004 and the Federal Court of Appeal on April 11, 2005, with leave to appeal dismissed by the SCC on September 1, 2005. Mr. Lai submitted his PRRA application to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Minister’s delegate carefully considered his application and provided a thorough, well-reasoned PRRA decision on July 7, 2011.

[77] In Mr. Lai’s situation, his family members, who accompanied him to Canada, have already returned to China voluntarily.

[78] A stay of removal is an “exceptional remedy”. In Tesero, above, Justice John Maxwell Evans heard a stay of removal in the Federal Court of Appeal and held that if he had determined that the removal of this serious criminal would cause “irreparable harm” for reason of family separation (which he did not find), then he would have dismissed the stay for having failed the arm of the “balance of convenience test” for prompt removal must be the rule, and the granting of a stay, the exception. Justice Evans held:

[47] … if I had determined that Mr. Tesoro’s removal would cause irreparable harm, on the ground that the effects of family separation were more than mere inconveniences, I would have located the harm at the less serious end of the range, and concluded that, on the balance of convenience, it was outweighed by the public interest in the prompt removal from Canada of those found to be inadmissible for serious criminality. If the administration of immigration law is to be credible, the prompt removal of those ordered deported must be the rule, and the grant of a stay pending the disposition of legal proceedings, the exception.

[79] Mr. Lai is a common criminal fugitive from the Chinese justice system who has had full access to Canada’s immigration processes over the last eleven years and has been found not to be at risk if removed to China on the basis of extraordinary assurances received and held as valid by the Minister’s delegate; therefore, the balance of convenience does not favour further delaying his removal, but favours removing him at this time (Selliah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 261 at paras 21-22).

VI. Conclusion
[80] Due to the Chinese Government’s assurances and the reasons for acceptance of those assurances by the Minister’s delegate, Mr. Lai has failed to satisfy any of the three criteria of the Toth test required for an order to stay the execution of a valid deportation order issued against him, the stay is dismissed.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion for a stay be dismissed.

“Michel M.J. Shore”

Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4373-11

STYLE OF CAUSE: CHEONG SING LAI v

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINSITER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

MOTION HELD VIA TELECONFERENCE ON JULY 21, 2011 FROM OTTAWA, ONTARIO AND VANCOUVER, B.C.

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER: SHORE J.

DATED: July 21, 2011

ORAL AND WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

David Matas

FOR THE APPLICANT

Helen Park

Jan Brongers

FOR THE RESPONDENTS

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
David Matas, Solicitor
Winnipeg, Manitoba

FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Quebec

Here is his report, copied below for your reference. I will attempt to explain the actions of the police from a Chinese perspective.

Law in China serves to protect the Chinese government from the people. In this case the law is there to assist the government in routing out an illegal church. Mr. Schiller, by knowing about the meeting and being in attendance of an illegal protest put himself in harm’s way and was therefore participating in an illegal activity. He took photos of the illegal event and of police. Any illegal activity should not be published for others to see. They are illegal.

The fact that Mr. Schiller is a foreigner is of no consequence. Foreign or not, assembly of this illegal church was illegal. The fact that Mr. Schiller was a reporter is of no consequence. The police confiscated his press badge, which serves no purpose in the eyes of the police. All photos of the illegal event were deleted, all photographic equipment confiscated and examined to make sure that the illegal photos were gone. Because the event was illegal, Mr. Schiller was made to sign a document admitting his guilt. This is justice in China. This signed document can be used in the future as legal grounds to deport Mr.Schiller. This is perfectly legal.

The important message to Mr. Schiller is that a reporter can and will be detained and interrogated by police at any illegal event. The police will now watch Mr. Schiller more closely in the future. Further participation in future events can result in deportation. The police can also intimidate Mr. Schiller without any negative repercussions. They are the enforcers of the law on the people and specifically Mr.Schiller.

It matters little that Mr.Schiller’s right to do his job as a reporter was violated. It matters little that China had agreed that reporters should be able to do their job with relative freedom and without trouble from the police. Chinese law is there to protect the government, not the people nor Mr. Schiller. For Mr. Schiller to say he was doing nothing illegal and happened to be there to “see what would happen” holds no logic. While a church gathering in Canada is certainly not illegal, this is obviously untrue in China. Mr. Schiller was forced to sign a document admitting guilt before he was allowed to leave. He was also not given a copy. This allows the Chinese government to write down all the terms to its advantage. Mr. Schiller cannot receive help from a lawyer in this case because does not have the document he signed. This is to the advantage of the Chinese government and this is done on purpose.

It is good that Mr. Schiller was not beaten by police. He should get his press pass back, but should remember that to police the press pass means very little. In the future Mr. Schiller may be tailed and his phone bugged, as has been done with past foreign reporters in China.

China is not Canada. We cannot put our Canadian values onto Beijing and vent indignation when our right to free speech and other human rights are violated. We nor Chinese citizens have none of these rights in China. They simply do not exist today and have never existed in the past. The important take away message here is that the rule of law in China is to protect the Chinese government from the people, not the people from the government. Understand this and you will live better and longer in China.

Note that before Canadians condemn the actions of Beijing police on Mr. Schiller, remember that over 1,100 citizens of Toronto were also arrested, illegally detained and interrogated by Toronto Police during the G20 last summer. Only a handful were ever charged. The remaining 1,093 detainees were all let go without charge. Detainees were denied food and water and basic human rights for up to 48 hours. Peaceful protesters as well as locals walking around their neighborhood got their heads bashed in and bones broken. Today only 2 police officers are charged with any offenses. Toronto police removed their ID tags prior to beating people up. Illegal it was, and they did get away with it. Before we condemn Chinese police we should fix the same problem in our own backyard here in Canada.

I wish Mr. Schiller well and hopes he continues to report on China affairs. His job and his fellow reports have a though act to follow.

BEIJING—He was young, smiling, wearing purple track suit pants.

She was middle-aged — old enough to be his mother — and wore a print jacket, with dark slacks and a white sun hat.

“Are you here for the church service?” the young Chinese man inquired.

Yes she was, the Chinese woman nodded.

“Well you’ll have to register over here,” he said, and pointed off toward a waiting police van.

The woman hesitated for a moment and seemed to totter. Then several men, who also looked like plainclothes police, surrounded her and corralled her toward the van.

Just as she was getting in and about to be driven off, I decided to take a picture.

That’s when police surrounded me.

I was filmed, photographed, asked for my passport with my journalist’s visa, as well as my press card, and handed them over.

All were returned — except for my press card. An officer said, there “might” be a problem with it. No explanation was given.

It was about 8:30 a.m. Beijing time when I arrived in the city’s northwest precincts to see a group of Chinese Christians conduct a planned Sunday service outdoors, in plan view — a rarity in this country.

But followers of Beijing’s Shouwang Church said they had no choice but to worship outdoors since they had been evicted from their rented premises — and blocked from occupying a new site that they’d purchased with the equivalent of $4 million of their own hard-earned money 15 months ago.

The government was “interfering” with their constitutional rights of religious freedom, they claim on their website.

In Chinese terminology Shouwang is an “underground church,” because its 1,000 followers worship without the blessing of the Communist Party government.

The government allows some Christian worship in China — but only churches it approves and oversees.

Still, tens of millions of Chinese Christians daringly worship independently of Communist control, and Shouwang is among them.

“You’ll have to come with us,” a policeman said after I had taken my photo.

“Under what law or regulation are you preventing me from doing my work?” I asked.

“I will tell you,” he said.

“Well I’d like it if you’d told me now,” I replied. “I have the right to do my proper job as a journalist.”

“I will tell you,” he said with greater volume. “Now come with us!”

I was not roughed up, but a group of police held, pulled and “guided” me out from the plaza where the aborted service was supposed to take place. We walked a couple of blocks to a nondescript building and down a grotty stairwell toward a basement room. A suitable table and set of chairs couldn’t be found there, so we headed up and out toward 15 Zhongguancun Rd., a private building with a small security room.

Along the way we passed scores of police, both uniformed and plainclothes who were shooting video of anyone who passed by.

Finally, I was seated in a tiny room, a camera was set up and turned on, one policeman sat at a desk to take notes, another asked questions and a third observed.

I asked if I could tape the interrogation and was told that I could not.

Then, despite having filmed or photographed all of my documents, we began with a review of all of their contents again.

Then I was asked, why did you come here today?

I had heard an event was about to take place, I said, and I wanted to observe it.

How did I know about it, I was asked.

I had read the church’s website, I said.

Did I know it was illegal to interview people without their permission?

I was not interviewing people, I said.

But did I understand that it was illegal to interview people in Beijing without their permission or the permission of the people for whom they work.

I was not interviewing anyone, I repeated, and I would seek clarification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about its regulations.

At one point I asked one of the police, “Am I being detained?”

No, the officer said, you are not being detained.

Well if that was the case, I said, then I’d be heading off.

It was made plain — in no uncertain terms — that I was not going anywhere.

Well, if I wasn’t being detained, I said, we could take this session across the street to a restaurant and continue it there.

Again, it was made plain: no one would leave the room.

The policeman doing the questioning was wearing an earpiece and communicating with someone off-site who was passing on questions from time to time.

Then the policeman said: We’d like you to delete the photographs you took today.

I had taken several photographs, including of policemen photographing me, and those photographing my documents.

I was not keen to comply. But I also understood that I had none of the rights that I would have in a similar situation in Canada or the United States or any Western country for that matter. In such countries, I wouldn’t expect to be kept in a room in a private building either for showing up at an event and taking a photograph.

I deleted the photographs as the policeman leaned over to verify that they were in fact deleted. And then he demanded that I quickly review all the photographs currently on the camera to reassure him that the photos I had taken Sunday were in fact deleted.

I complied with that demand, too.

When it came time to review the contents of my interrogation, it was read out loud to me and included a phrase that said I took all “legal responsibility” for the contents of the interview — and it was then that my ears really perked up. Everything would have to be reviewed with utmost care.

And so I did for each of the four pages.

The imagined or mistaken part in which the transcribing policeman had me apologizing for doing my job was then deleted. I had not done so and would not do so, I said. And so the detailed review of my “interrogation” proceeded.

Until a fourth policeman showed up and began shouting.

You’re wasting our time, he said. You don’t need to read this back three or four times. This is ridiculous! Ridiculous, he shouted.

It wasn’t in the least ridiculous, I said. If I, as an employee of my company, was to take legal responsibility for the contents of a policeman’s notes, I had a responsibility to take proper care.

This has nothing to do with your company, he shouted. This is about you, he said, waving his finger.

I reviewed the transcription for a final time, and then they asked me to sign the statement.

Will I get a copy for my records, I asked?

No you won’t, the loud speaking policeman said.

“This isn’t bargaining,” he shouted. “You’re not at the market.”

But how can I be expected to sign a statement and not leave with a copy, I asked.

That’s the way it’s done in China, I was told.

Chinese citizens don’t get copies, he said. You’re not getting a copy either.

Then, suddenly, he left the room and returned moments later demanding my camera.

I had deleted the photos, I said, and those deletions were verified.

He didn’t care and grabbed for my camera and there ensued a little tug-of-war.

After a few minutes he said I could remove the battery as well as the disk.

We only want to take a photo of it, he said.

I complied again, but insisted I come with him.

But no, I was told, I would not be allowed to come with him.

The camera was returned in a few minutes. Whether anything odd was done with it, I can’t say.

But after complying with all the requests, I was informed I’d be leaving without my government-issued press card.

I called the Foreign Ministry and spoke with official, Zhou Li, informing her that the police had confiscated my press card.

“That really shouldn’t be possible,” she said, saying that she would look into it.

The card is issued by the Foreign Ministry and is, in fact, their property.

I had been detained for three hours, interrogated, asked to delete photos and had my press card seized.

An interesting day, but still — nothing compared to the detention of dozens of churchgoers, and the detentions, arrests and disappearances of lawyers, writers, activists and an artist named Ai Weiwei in recent weeks.

China returns press card to Star writer, with a stern warning

BEIJING—Chinese police returned a government-issued press card to a Toronto Star journalist Tuesday, issuing a formal warning that “further violations” of Chinese reporting regulations could lead to “punishment,” including cancelling his visa.

The press card, a separate document also necessary to conduct journalistic work inside China, was seized Sunday by police during a three-hour detention and interrogation session, after the Star photographed police rounding up Christian worshippers as they arrived for an outdoor religious service in Beijing.

Chinese authorities said the service was illegal, since the church — known as Shouwang, or “The Watchtower” — is not approved by the ruling Communist government.

And police claimed that by simply taking photographs without prior permission from local authorities that the Star had violated China’s press regulations.

That interpretation, if strictly enforced, would rewrite the slightly relaxed media regulations that were introduced in 2007, just before the 2008 Olympics.

“It sounds like a reversion to how things were in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when we were frequently detained and threatened with visa non-renewal if we did not behave,” says Rebecca Mackinnon, a former CNN journalist, who is now senior fellow at the Boston-based New America Foundation.

The squeeze on journalistic activity here in recent weeks accompanies China’s biggest rights crackdown in a decade.

It has come in the wake of revolutions rocking North Africa and the Middle East, which have made authorities here nervous.

China’s powerful internal security apparatus, which already commands a bigger piece of the national budget than China’s military machine, is believed to be gaining ever greater clout inside the corridors of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese equivalent of the White House.

Reports say the state’s security czar, 68-year-old Zhou Yongkang, a member of the Politburo Standing Committee who commands the police and the courts, is growing even more powerful.

On Tuesday, during another interrogation by police, the Star learned that the current tightening of media restrictions could turn on the translation and interpretation of two Chinese characters: “cai fang.”

According to an English translation on the foreign affairs website, “cai fang” means “interview.”

Hence, the English translation of the key reporting regulation reads, “A foreign journalist who intends to interview organizations or individuals in China needs to obtain their prior consent.”

The Star conducted no interviews Sunday, but took only photographs.

But on Tuesday, police insisted “cai fang” included photography and a range of journalistic activity — not just interviewing.

Chinese dictionaries indicate that “cai fang” means to gather or to look, but when used in connection with news gathering, some say it can mean interviewing, as well as taking notes or photos, filming and tape-recording.

Mackinnon recalls that in the China of the 1990s she and her CNN crews would occasionally get detained for filming and interviewing on the streets.

“Once we were detained for interviewing bystanders right before president Bill Clinton’s motorcade was scheduled to drive by,” she says. “At that time the police included filming and taking pictures in their definition of ‘cai fang.’ ”

Recent graduates of Chinese journalism schools say the precise meaning of “cai fang” isn’t clear.

“There is no real, clear-cut definition of ‘cai fang,’ ” says one, “even among academic circles.”

Are Canadians that passive to allow these atrocities to simply pass? We Canadians got a firm dose of reality check in June 2010. Should not those that were supposedly in the “wrong place at the wrong time” have their legal rights restored? We really need to fix this now so this does not happen again.

Canada cannot cast the first stone at international regimes who brutalize their citizens when we do the same in our own country. We are hypocritical.

Addendum Mar 01 2011: G20 ‘rights violations’ require public inquiry: report

Addendum May 31 2011: Toronto’s shame: Probe the G20 travesty

Addendum June 02 2011: Citizens urge review judge to get to bottom of G20

You are the upholder of the Charter right now,” Vikram Mulligan said, holding his gaze on Morden, [the retired judge leading the Toronto Police Services Board’s independent civilian review of the G20], a full second after he spoke.

Several people said they no longer trust Toronto police and called on Morden to restore confidence in the institution by making it more accountable to the public.

How many times do citizens need to ask in order to right this terrible violation of our Charter of Rights? Our Prime Minister has ignored the citizens of Toronto, and still won the election. Next up is the Premier of Ontario, with an election in October 2011.

Wu Yuren, husband of Canadian Karen Patterson and daughter Hannah

No doubt about it, I am Canadian, and for a short time, I lived in China. Thinking that the Rule of Law in Canada is interpreted the same in China would seem logical but incorrect. Just because there are laws on the books, decreed by the government, similar in both countries, is insufficient to take the Canadian view of law and apply it to the People’s Republic of China. A case in point is Karen Patterson’s Chinese husband, Wu Yuren, who offered moral support for a friend and ended up beaten up and detained, with little access to his family or lawyer. He is still detained. His case is a good lesson to both Chinese and foreigners that China’s legal system works differently from Canada.

Firstly, the Chinese Rule of Law does not apply equally to all citizens, politicians and police. While it is codified into law by the government, its application varies. The Rule of Law is to protect the government from its citizens, and not the other way around. To note this subtle distinction will save you much grief. There are many documented cases of Chinese laws seemingly being flouted, even though they are written on the books.

Documented and what happens in practice should be noted. There are so many cases where people disappear for months at a time, beaten by police, denied access to a lawyer and family. All these are supposedly illegal in China, but happens regularly. Such is the case with Karen Patterson’s husband, a Chinese national.

China uses black jails, where citizens that have petitions of wrongdoing are rounded up and thrown into jail, petition squelched, beaten up, then deported back to their provinces. All this underground, by the police, who deny such treatment exists. Yet there are so many documented cases.

There are cases of defense lawyers being arrested for defending a client. They disappear for months, eventually emerge beaten up, stripped of their legal credentials and thrown into jail.

Most trials are not open to the public, not even for immediate family members. Held in secret, punishment can be severe, appeal almost impossible.

In the case of Karen Patterson’s husband, Wu Yuren, he is a Chinese national, and naturally subject to all the laws and treatment by the Chinese government. This would be so even if he had immigrated to Canada and renounced his Chinese citizenship. While China does not acknowledge dual citizenship, those born on Chinese soil can still be considered Chinese. This issue should be noted by those that immigrate to Canada and believe a Canadian passport will offer some additional protection. This may not be necessarily so. As for Karen and Yuren’s daughter, she was born in China and is therefore a Chinese citizen. She could apply and come to Canada, but until she leaves the country she can and will be held as a Chinese citizen. Others have tracked Wu Yuren’s legal troubles.

For those foreigners not born in China that visit China, they must abide by Chinese law. Your embassies will attempt to visit you and talk with the Foreign Services representative of the Chinese government, but there is no guarantee of help from your country. You are in China and must abide by Chinese law.

Forewarned is forearmed. Living in China carries a certain amount of legal risk. While the vast majority of foreigners experience no issues with China’s legal system, note that in China you may be locked up indefinitely, denied access to your family and legal representation, beaten by police, and there may be nothing you can do. It’s not that there is discrimination against foreigners, because these are the same conditions that face native Chinese. That is life in China.

When I travel to China I do worry about being caught in China’s legal system. Even for those fluent in Chinese, even if one is a lawyer in China, all issues are not clear and transparent. There may be political or business connections that aim to hurt you and your family.

If you visit or study in China for an extended period of more than 3 months ensure you register with the Canadian embassy. At least if they have a record of you and you disappear, they’ll know where to start the search. Chances are that nothing will happen during your stay, as nothing happened when I studied in Beijing. Just remember that all is not as it seems, that Canada and China look so similar but can be very dissimilar.

Yang Licai’s account in full:

What Wu Yuren and I went through at Jiuxianqiao police station

In the afternoon of May 30, 2010, the property management of 798 art district again cut the power to my studio. I called the property management maintenance department but they wouldn’t provide the electricity. In order to for work and life to resume, I borrowed a gasoline generator from a friend Wu Yuren.

At around 3 pm on May 31, 2010, about 20 men came to my studio and took the generator by force. I recognized some security guards from 798 property management among them. I went to the police station at 798 to report the case and identified the man who took the generator to a policeman named Hou Kun.

Hou Kun told me that they are all from 798 property management and my generator was there too. He said I can only file a police report at the police station. I called 110 as he suggested. I also called Wu Yuren and my younger brother to tell them about the generator. Soon Wu Yuren came to the 798 police station in a scooter and we sprayed a few graffiti at the walls in 798 in protest, such as “798 property management robs, shameless.”

Then a policeman from Jiuxianqiao police station arrived in a police car. I decided to go to the police station to file a report and Wu said he would go with me. So he put his scooter away and went to the police station with me in the police car.

At around 4 pm, police told us to wait in the waiting room. About 20 minutes later they took us to an interrogation room. The police officers who handled the case didn’t ask us anything about the crime we were there to report, instead they held me and Wu Yuren (without any oral or written subpoena).

We were not allowed to leave the room or make phone calls or go buy drinking water. I questioned the police: I said I was the victim and came to report a case, so why didn’t you record my report but hold me in custody? Wu Yuren was only accompanying me, why did you hold him in custody? On what legal grounds did you do this? The police didn’t reply, but instead, said that I was not cooperating.

Their attitude was bad, so Wu argued in my defense. Several policemen pushed and shoved Wu into a small room separated by iron bars with “women’s” written on the door. Officer X [name deleted], deputy chief of the police station who was on duty that day, also grabbed Wu’s cell phone (without showing us any search warrant).

Police asked me to hand over my cell phone too and I refused and put it in my pocket. Police approached me, trying to take the phone by force, and I warned them that forcible physical search is against the law, so they backed down.

Wu and I protested the policemen’s misconduct many times, and asked Officer X to give Wu’s cell phone back, but the policemen all turned a deaf ear. Some policeman was shooting us with a digital video camera. Wu and I requested to call our families and call the police inspectors to complain. Police said they asked their supervisors who denied our requests.

At around 7 pm, my brother came looking for me at the police station. But the police wouldn’t let me see him. Wu and I asked to see our families so that they could send us food. Police agreed. Wu and I met my brother. I gave him my cell phone and told him that the police didn’t accept my report according to legal procedures but held Wu and I in custody and grabbed Wu’s cell phone. My brother and his friend bought dinner and sent to the police station. Wu and I had dinner in the interrogation room.

On the night of May 31, I don’t know when exactly, Wu and I were led out of the small room and put into the same interrogation room. Wu said to the policemen guarding us that he wanted Officer X to return the cell phone. Several policemen at the scene started scorning him in contempt tone and abusive language, such as, “You f**ker…you behave yourself”, “You f**ker, Are you trying to give me a hard time?”, to provoke and taunt Wu. Some pointed fingers, some cursed, and some pushed and shoved. Wu protested aloud, saying, “Please clean up your language and don’t touch me!”

‘Officer X’ came to the interrogation room and told Wu, “You behave yourself!”and said scornful things to him. Wu told him, “give me my cell phone back. On what grounds did you take my cell phone?” ‘Officer X’ told the policemen nearby, “get him out of here.”

Then Officer X and several policemen grabbed Wu by force, dragged him out of the room. Soon I heard Wu screaming loudly. It lasted about 30 seconds and then the voice weakened. About 3 to 4 minutes later, I heard him screaming again. It sounded like he was going through tremendous pain.

I suspected that he was been beaten by the police so I protested loudly, asking them to stop violating Wu. Police didn’t answer me. So I went to the window, opened the screen window and cried for help towards the street outside, saying on top of my voice “police are beating people!” but no one answered me. The street light was on outside, and there were not many passers-by or cars. Several policemen dragged me away from the window and put me in the separate room again. I started a hunger strike in protest of what the police did to Wu.

In the early morning of June 1, I saw Wu in the hallway at the police station. He looked tired and in pain, with one arm hanging down stiffly. I asked him what had happened. He said, “I can’t move this whole arm. And It hurts so bad. Police did this.” Then we were separated again. In the afternoon when I came back from the toilet, I saw Wu briefly again. He said his wife came to see him but the police wouldn’t allow it.

Then police showed me a subpoena, saying that I was subpoenaed for the graffiti. I refused to sign it in protest against the unjust treatment before. Police again show a “inspection permit”, asking to check my belongings. I said if they want to search my body they need a warrant, so several of them held me and searched me by force. They also took my belongings. The police again asked me about the graffiti and recorded. I refused to answer any questions except giving them my basic personal information. And I refused to sign the report.

After a while, two policemen started to ask me about the generator being robbed. So I recounted the whole thing to them in great detail, signed and put my fingerprint on the report. Then the police returned my belongings.

At almost dusk I was taken away from the Jiuxianqiao police station by the police without prior notice and sent to the Chaoyang district detention house. While waiting in an interrogation room, policemen from Jiuxianqiao police station brought Wu to my room. Policeman B read a “written decision of detention” in front of him and asked him to sign. Wu asked him, “Why are you asking me to sign when it doesn’t even say how long I will be detained?” Policeman B said, “That will be decided after you are sent to the detention house. Sign first.” Wu refused and was taken away by police. After that I never saw Wu again.

At around 10 pm that night, I was detained for 10 days by Beijing Public Security Bureau Chaoyang district branch for “obstructing police duty, later caught by the police.” I was then transferred to Chaoyang district detention house.

Yang Licai

July 3, 2010

Note: During the G20 Summit here in Toronto, Canada, the Ontario provincial enacted a new law in secret. Police used this law to search, arrest and beat up common citizens. All this without a required warrant. While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were seemingly suspended, certain parts of Toronto looked like they were under martial law. This was the first time I have seen this happen in Canada. Maybe the differences between China and Canada are not so dissimilar after all.

President's Choice (Loblaws) Concentrated Orange Juice, Canada Grade A, tastes great!

For the life of me I could not find the definitions for the various grades of frozen orange juice for Canada. Personal experience has shown me that Canada Grade A frozen orange juice tastes better than Canada Grade C. I searched Google and came up empty. I then got onto the Canada Food Inspection Agency website and sent them a question. Here is their answer as a followup to yesterday’s blog, thanks to Jean-Claude Jura, Ontario Region Manufactured Food, Food Labelling Line: Processed Products Regulations, Schedule I, Table II, Section 27.2.

I was impressed that this standard was codified as one of the laws of Canada. Of course I knew that there were strict standards written somewhere in government, but did not know where. This law covers all fruits and vegetables, so it is quite long but very thorough. It is also a public document. While Google is a very good search engine, I still could not find this information on my own.

FROZEN CONCENTRATED ORANGE JUICE
27.2 (1) In this section,

“frozen concentrated orange juice” means the frozen product consisting of

(a) unfermented juice obtained from clean, sound and mature oranges that has been concentrated to at least one half of its original volume, the total soluble solids content of which is derived from

(i) not less than 85 per cent of sweet oranges of the species Citrus sinensis,

(ii) not more than 10 per cent of the species Citrus reticulata or hybrids of any species of oranges, and

(iii) not more than five per cent of sour or bitter oranges of the species Citrus aurantium;

(b) concentrated orange juice for manufacturing prepared from the juice of a lot of oranges from which the pulp may be removed and to which the water extract of that pulp may be added prior to evaporation; or

(c) a mixture of the juices referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

(2) Frozen concentrated orange juice

(a) may contain orange essences, orange oils and orange pulp derived from orange juice referred to in paragraph (1)(a) and potable water;

(b) shall not contain solids or water extract of the pulp of oranges except as provided in paragraph (1)(b); and

(c) shall not contain mould filaments in more than 10 per cent of the microscopic fields when examined in accordance with the method of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists of the United States of America entitled the Howard Mold Counting method published in Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (14th ed.), 1984.

(3) Frozen concentrated orange juice shall be stored at temperatures below -15°C.

(4) Canada A is the name for the grade of frozen concentrated orange juice in prepackaged product form that, when reconstituted

(a) has the appearance of fresh orange juice;

(b) shows no separation or coagulation of material;

(c) has a very good colour;

(d) has a very good flavour;

(e) is practically free from defects;

(f) has a Brix content of not less than 11.8;

(g) has a Brix/acid ratio minimum of 12.5/1; and

(h) has a recoverable oil percentage by volume of 0.010 to 0.035.

(5) Canada B is the name for the grade of frozen concentrated orange juice in prepackaged product form that, when reconstituted

(a) has the appearance of fresh orange juice;

(b) shows no separation or coagulation of material;

(c) has a good colour;

(d) has a good flavour;

(e) is reasonably free from defects;

(f) has a Brix content of not less than 10.6;

(g) has a Brix/acid ratio minimum of 12.5/1; and

(h) has a maximum recoverable oil percentage by volume of 0.035.

(6) Canada C is the name for the grade of frozen concentrated orange juice in prepackaged product form that, when reconstituted

(a) has the appearance of fresh orange juice;

(b) shows no separation or coagulation of material;

(c) has a good colour;

(d) has a good flavour;

(e) is reasonably free from defects;

(f) has a Brix content of not less than 9.7;

(g) has a Brix/acid ratio minimum of 10.0/1; and

(h) has a maximum recoverable oil percentage by volume of 0.040.

Definition of Terms
(7) For the purposes of this section,

“acid” means the percentage by weight of the total acidity calculated as anhydrous citric acid and determined by titration, in accordance with the method of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists of the United States, entitled “Acidity (Titratable) of Fruit Products”, published in Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, (14th ed.), 1984; (acide)

“Brix content” means the refractometric sucrose content to which the applicable correction for acid is added, and determined in accordance with the method of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists of the United States, entitled “Solids (Soluble) in Fruits and Fruit Products”, published in Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, (14th ed.), 1984; (valeur Brix)

“Brix/acid ratio” means the ratio of Brix content of the juice to the grams of anhydrous citric acid per 100 grams of the juice; (rapport Brix/acide)

“colour” means that colour of orange juice determined by comparing the colour of the juice with the United States Department of Agriculture Orange Juice Colour Comparator, in which colour standard #1 is the best colour on the scale and colour standard #6 the worst on the scale or by any colorimeters used by the Agency that have equivalent scales of colours and yield values equivalent to those of the United States Department of Agriculture Orange Juice Colour Comparator; (couleur)

“concentrated orange juice for manufacturing” means the product having a Brix content of not less than 20, packed in bulk containers, prepared by concentration of the unfermented juice of clean, sound, mature, sweet oranges of the species Citrus sinensis and containing not more than 10 per cent total soluble solids from the species Citrus reticulata or hybrids of any species of oranges and not more than five per cent total soluble solids from the species Citrus aurantium; (jus d’orange concentré pour transformation)

“defects” means any seeds or portion of seeds, specks, particles of membrane, core, peel or any other distinctive features that adversely affect the appearance or drinking quality of the orange juice; (défauts)

“good colour” means that colour of orange juice that is not as good as the United States Department of Agriculture colour standard #5 for orange juice but that is not off-colour; (bonne couleur)

“good flavour” means the flavour that is characteristic of orange juice extracted from fresh, mature, sweet oranges that may be slightly affected by processing, packaging or storage conditions; (bonne saveur)

“practically free from defects” means the presence of defects that do not detract from the appearance or drinking quality of the orange juice; (à peu près exempt de défauts)

“reasonably free from defects” means the presence of defects that do not seriously affect the appearance or the drinking quality of the orange juice; (raisonnablement exempt de défauts)

“reconstituted” with respect to frozen concentrated orange juice, means the form of orange juice that results when frozen concentrated orange juice is thoroughly mixed with the amount of water prescribed on the label of the container; (reconstitué)

“recoverable oil” means the volume of oil that may be recovered from the reconstituted juice by the method of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists of the United States, entitled “Oil (Recoverable) in Fruits and Fruit Products” published in Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, (14th ed.), 1984; (huile recouvrable)

“separation” means the separation of orange juice whereby lighter suspended material rises upward and heavier suspended material sinks downward leaving between the two materials a clear or transparent liquid; (séparation)

“very good colour” means that colour of orange juice which is equal to or better than the United States Department of Agriculture colour standard #5 for orange juice; (très bonne couleur)

“very good flavour” means the flavour that is fine, distinct and characteristic of orange juice that is extracted from fresh, mature, sweet oranges. (très bonne saveur)

SOR/88-8, s. 2; SOR/95-548, s. 2; SOR/2000-184, s. 27; SOR/2003-6, s. 65(F).