REFUGEE

What would happen if Osama bin Laden washed up on the coast of Vancouver Island in a rusting old hulk and claimed asylum? If it was left to our immigration system, he'd share the same fate as the one that probably awaits the 76 Sri Lankan Tamils who arrived in Canada last month aboard the Princess Easwary -- that is, he'd walk free, be set up in a hotel, told he was entitled to work and handed a welfare cheque.

In both cases, experts argue, Ottawa's hands would be tied by the laws presently on the books -- thanks to the recent court decision that imperilled the use of security certificates. As with the Tamils, bin Laden would initially be detained by the Canada Border Services Agency and then obliged to appear before an Immigration and Refugee Board review hearing to establish his identity.

As with the Tamils, the Minister of Public Safety would likely ask the IRB to detain him while it investigated whether there was "reasonable suspicion" of inadmissability on security grounds.

As with many of the Tamils, the al-Qaeda leader would probably find his refugee claim turned down -- in their case, on the basis that some of them are suspected of being Tamil Tigers, seeking to regroup and rebuild their terror organization in Canada (traces of explosives have been found on the migrant ship, while one expert said it is owned by the Tigers); in his, because he is the world's most wanted man. Yet in both cases, any attempt to deport them back to whence they came would likely founder on the grounds that they would be tortured in their home countries. Removal to torture is not only inconsistent with Canada's international obligations, it very likely violates our constitution. Regardless of the alleged atrocities an individual may have committed, a pre-removal risk assessment by the federal department of Citizenship and Immigration trumps all other evidence.

This comparison is, of course, more than slightly facetious. In all likelihood, the immigration process would not come into play against the al-Qaeda leader, who would probably be thrown in jail on arrival under the Criminal Code and charged with crimes against humanity. But it does show how bankrupt the immigration process has become when it comes to dealing with terrorist suspects.

In the days of yore -- that is, up until last month -- the government had the option of detaining and deporting foreign nationals it suspected of violating human rights or being a threat to national security, through the issuance of a

security certificate. However, the case of Adil Charkaoui, a Moroccan living in Montreal, which collapsed in court last month has, in the eyes of many security experts, killed the security certificate as a tool against terrorism. Mr. Charkaoui's security certificate was lifted after the government withdrew evidence that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service deemed too sensitive to be disclosed publicly, as the Federal Court had demanded.

Richard Fadden, director of CSIS, expressed his frustration in a recent speech, saying the court's decision presented the agency with a fundamental dilemma: "To disclose information that would have given would-be terrorists a virtual road map to our tradecraft and sources; or to withdraw that information from the case, causing a security certificate to collapse." The implication is that no new security certificates will be sought any time soon.