Public Safety Minister helped in Sri Lankan man's immigration case even though wife was not a constituent
Lorne Waldman, whose law firm represents the wife of a Sri Lankan whom federal officials had barred from entering Canada over previous claims of links to a banned terrorist group, says she does not live in the Toronto-area riding of Mr. Anandasangaree as previously claimed.
Before he became a minister, Mr. Anandasangaree wrote to the Canada Border Services Agency supporting an application to overturn a decision not to let Senthuran Selvakumaran into the country.
Carney backs Public Safety Minister over letters supporting Sri Lankan's immigration case
Canadian immigration officials had denied Mr. Selvakumaran entry after determining that he may have been affiliated with the militant Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers.
He had previously told British immigration authorities he had links with the Tamil Tigers, and they denied his asylum claim. But he later told Canadian authorities, after seeking to come to this country, that he had lied to the British authorities about those ties on the advice of a British lawyer.
Mr. Anandasangaree, who was born in Sri Lanka and is a Tamil Canadian, asked the CBSA if it would review its decision to advise the former public safety minister not to grant Mr. Selvakumaran permanent residence in Canada so he could join his wife. The Liberal MP wrote two letters in support of his case in 2016, as well as in 2023, when he was a parliamentary secretary.
In his 2023 letter, he said he had 'met and counselled the applicant's wife and sponsor, Nilushie, many times over the course of the seven years as a Member of Parliament.'
He told The Globe and Mail earlier this month that he was trying to help her as a constituent, as he had done with many other immigration cases in his riding.
'That a constituent, a Canadian citizen, with a Canadian child, would want to reunite her family in Canada is not unusual,' the minister said in the statement earlier this month. 'MPs from all parties provide letters of support for constituents as a routine matter, including in Ministerial Review cases.'
Mr. Waldman, a member of Nilushie's legal team, said on Tuesday that she did not live in Mr. Anandasangaree's riding, but rather in Markham, Ont. Nilushie's surname is not given in the court documents.
Mr. Waldman had previously believed she was his constituent, but recently checked after being contacted by Global News on the matter, and found she lived in a different riding. He said she had been referred to Mr. Anandasangaree by a distant relative who lived in his riding.
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Mark Carney gave his backing to Mr. Anandasangaree, saying he 'is being transparent about the details of that situation, and he has my confidence.'
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister's Office said it had nothing to add to this statement.
Mr. Anandasangaree's spokesman, Simon Lafortune, said in a statement Tuesday that 'providing guidance, advocacy, and letters in support of Canadians is a standard responsibility of Members of Parliament across all parties. It is part of an MP's duty to assist, in accordance with federal rules, Canadian citizens seeking to reunite with their families.'
'It is also not uncommon for MPs to assist Canadian citizens that are out of their riding, especially if the local MP is unable to assist due to their role in Cabinet, as was the case in this situation. It is also important to note that this particular applicant's family was introduced by a known constituent of Scarborough-Rouge Park.'
Mr. Lafortune added that Mr. Anandasangaree is 'proud of his Tamil heritage and denounces terrorism in all its forms.'
He said that 'out of an abundance of caution,' Mr. Anandasangaree has voluntarily chosen 'to recuse himself from any matter related to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or the World Tamil Movement (WTM).'
A member of Mr. Anandasangaree's staff had been mistaken about Nilushie being a constituent at the time the minister's statement to The Globe was issued, his office said.
In his letters, Mr. Anandasangaree does not refer to Nilushie as his constituent.
In the July, 2023, letter he said she had married Mr. Selvakumaran in 2005 but they had spent 'most of their nearly 18 years of marriage separated from each other, relentlessly striving to be reunited.'
'Senthuran's claims of affiliation to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was erroneously made when he sought asylum in the United Kingdom in 1998 to escape the growing conflicts in Sri Lanka. He was wrongfully counselled by his legal representative to lie,' Mr. Anandasangaree's letter said.
'However, his claims were found lacking credibility, and the U.K. Refugee Tribunal had established that Senthuran did not have any affiliations to the LTTE. This is consistent with Senthuran's position all along.'
Court documents relating to a judicial review decision about his case earlier this month noted inconsistencies in Mr. Selvakumaran's accounts about whether he had links to the Tamil Tigers.
The court documents said he had 'provided U.K. immigration authorities with inconsistent explanations for his involvement with the LTTE.'
'At various times, he claimed that he joined the organization because: i) he wanted to help; ii) because he was paid for the work; iii) in response to a friend's request, and; iv) under compulsion from the LTTE.'
A Canadian visa officer had asked him about his inconsistent narratives, and he gave differing explanations, the court document said.
The document said that in subsequent permanent-residence applications, he had said 'the narrative about his involvement with the LTTE was fabricated based on advice he received from a solicitor in the UK.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
18 minutes ago
- CBC
Gaza's hunger crisis + Duty-free fears
The National takes a closer look at the rapidly deteriorating hunger crisis in Gaza and the significance of Canada's plan to recognize a Palestinian state. And family-run duty-free shops fear Trump's trade war will put them out of business.
CBC
18 minutes ago
- CBC
Top army commander says 'completely unacceptable' behaviour is eroding trust in the Canadian Forces
The credibility and reputation of the Canadian Army is once again being questioned following an investigation into alleged extremist activities involving soldiers in Quebec and revelations of inappropriate social media posts by members of an Ottawa-based reserve unit, the country's army commander acknowledged Wednesday. Lt.-Gen. Mike Wright said in an interview with CBC News that the recent twin controversies are eroding the trust the military has worked to regain following the high-profile sexual misconduct scandal, which saw the resignation or retirement of a number of high-profile leaders. The military as a whole is on the cusp of a major re-armament program and is desperately trying to recruit and retain troops after years of underfunding and thinning ranks. "I need the confidence of the government. I need the confidence of Canadians that we are an institution that they can trust," Wright said. "What really makes me angry, makes me livid, something I probably shouldn't say on CBC, but pisses me off, is that the important work that the Canadian Army needs to do to modernize — our eye is being taken off that … so we can deal with completely unacceptable and inappropriate behaviour." The RCMP have charged four men, including two CAF members and one former member, of amassing a trove of weapons and explosives and being part of an extremist plot to take over land near Quebec City. WATCH | CAF members charged in alleged extremist plot to seize land: RCMP says active members of Canadian military charged in terrorism plot 23 days ago Separately, a set of investigations are underway, including a military police probe, over a now-defunct Facebook group where members of the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa (Duke of Edinburgh's Own) allegedly posted hateful and inappropriate content. Faced with a series of allegations and cases of extremism in the ranks during the run-up to the pandemic, the army, under its former commander, the now-retired general Wayne Eyre, introduced a series of policy changes meant to crack down on racism and hateful conduct in the ranks. Among the provisions was a demand that soldiers call-out inappropriate behaviour when they see it. Concern about the contents of the Blue Hackle Mafia Facebook group, which included hateful comments directed toward women, derogatory sexual comments about former prime minister Justin Trudeau, as well as discussions about raping grandmothers, were first brought to light internally last year. The private social media page has existed for more than a dozen years. 'Disturbing' that soldiers didn't call out behaviour "That's most disturbing to me," said Wright. "I'm asking soldiers to be prepared to ultimately … have the courage to go into combat. There are some who did not have the moral courage to step forward and call out inappropriate behaviour when they saw it." Wright ordered the temporary removal of Lt.-Col. Ryan Hendy, the commanding officer of the Camerons, after the Ottawa Citizen approached the army with screenshots of the social media site. It was revealed on Monday that Hendy's immediate superior, Col. James McKay, stepped down from command over his handling of the matter. Wright, who has previously said he was unaware of the social media site until alerted by the media, denied the unit commander was being made a scapegoat. "I have not hung Lieutenant-Colonel Hendy out to dry," he said. "We made a decision to temporarily remove him from command. He is being given due process and we will then determine his future as the commanding officer of the Camerons." Fresh questions about lack of investigation But there are fresh questions being raised about how seriously allegations of inappropriate conduct were being taken by military police. Retired Lt.-Col. Rory Fowler, a former military lawyer now in private practice, has been retained by Hendy. He says military police received two complaints about the content of the Facebook group — one a referral from his client, the other from a whistleblower. WATCH | Ottawa officer suspended as army investigates 'Blue Hackle Mafia' Facebook group: "Lieutenant-Colonel Hendy received a complaint back in December of 2024. He received the complaint, he consulted with his brigade commander, and within a week, the two of them had referred the complaint to the military police, which was the appropriate investigative agency," said Fowler. "Three months later, the military police kicked it back to Lieutenant-Colonel Hendy, indicating that they were not going to investigate and that they didn't have anything to investigate with respect to the complaint." In March of this year, Hendy initiated an internal disciplinary investigation. The Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, which oversees the military police, refused to discuss why the matter was referred back to the Cameron Highlanders for investigation even though the optics of a unit investigating itself are troubling. "Details regarding the complainant or the origin of the complaint cannot be disclosed in order to protect the integrity of the investigation," said a statement from the defence department. Military police reopen case Military police have re-opened the case, saying there's new information. "Lieutenant-Colonel Hendy did his job when the military police refused to do theirs," said Fowler, who added that he wondered what sort of investigation, if any, took place in the three months the provost marshal had the initial complaints. "My concern is the military police came back and said, 'There's no service offence to investigate.' How would they know that unless they investigated?" Fowler asked. The social media also contained a series of lewd photos. Fowler says there are existing provisions under the National Defence Act, notably Section 129, to punish soldiers for breaches of discipline and good conduct. "I have to admit I'm utterly flabbergasted that they thought that there was nothing for them to investigate," he said.
CBC
18 minutes ago
- CBC
This is the court case that could kneecap most Trump tariffs
Most of the tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed on countries around the world face a crucial legal test on Thursday. The hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit involves a pair of lawsuits challenging the 25 per cent tariff Trump levied on imports from Canada and Mexico in March and what Trump called his "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed on nearly every other country in April. At issue is whether Trump's justifications for the tariffs hold any legal water, given the president has limited powers to levy duties on foreign countries. Canada is watching the case closely because of its implications for the tariffs Trump imposed ostensibly to combat cross-border fentanyl trafficking — tariffs that he's threatening to raise to 35 per cent on Friday. Todd Tucker, director of industrial policy and trade at the Roosevelt Institute, a Washington think-tank, says the legal challenge to Trump's tariffs has global economic implications. "Trump is disrupting global trade relations in a way that we haven't seen since the 1930s," Tucker said in an interview with CBC News. WATCH | Carney on European Union's trade deal with U.S.: Carney says Canada is 'in a different position' than EU on trade deal with U.S. 3 days ago When asked by a reporter if Canada could see a similar trade deal with the United States as the European Union's, which includes a 15 per cent tariff, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Europe and Canada have different relationships with the U.S., particularly because the U.S. needs Canadian energy. "Some kind of favourable, even partial victory for the plaintiffs in these cases will sort of put the global economy back on a more secure footing," he said. The case, which has moved further through the courts than any other legal challenge of Trump's tariffs, brings together two related lawsuits: Five small businesses, led by a New York wine importer, challenging the Liberation Day tariffs. Twelve states, led by Oregon, challenging both the Liberation Day tariffs and the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Both sets of plaintiffs won their case at the U.S. Court of International Trade in late May. That ruling found the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statute Trump used to impose both sets of tariffs. Oral arguments take place Thursday in the Trump administration's appeal of that ruling Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center, a non-profit public interest litigation firm representing the five small businesses, says the case aims to rein in what he describes as presidential overreach. "The case is about whether the president has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants, at any rate he wants, at any time he wants, for any reason he wants," said Schwab in an interview with CBC News. "Congress ultimately has that power under our constitution, and although Congress can delegate that power to the president, they have not done so." Do tariffs 'deal with' fentanyl crisis? The IEEPA gives the president the authority to use emergency economic measures to "deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States." The Trump administration's argument — both in his executive order levying the tariffs on Canada and in its legal brief filed for the appeal — is that the flow of fentanyl across the country's northern border constitutes that "unusual and extraordinary threat." The administration claimed the tariffs "deal with" the fentanyl threat by giving the U.S. leverage to pressure Canada to address the issue. Trump's justification for the tariffs on Mexico is similar: that drug trafficking and illegal immigration across the southern border constitute an emergency, and that tariffs provide leverage to force the Mexican government to take action. But the Court of International Trade didn't buy those arguments. WATCH | Canada might not get deal on tariffs by deadline, says Trump: Trump says U.S. 'hasn't had a lot of luck with Canada' in trade talks 5 days ago 'Pretty major national significance' The court ruled that the tariffs on Canada and Mexico do not actually deal with the specific threats Trump cited. It also ruled that the "Liberation Day" tariffs were applied too broadly across the globe to be truly addressing an emergency. That ruling struck down both sets of tariffs, but almost immediately, the Trump administration requested and obtained a stay, which meant the tariffs have continued to apply. Molly Nixon, a Washington-based attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a national public interest firm, says whichever side wins the appeal, it's very likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "This is a question of pretty major national significance," Nixon told CBC News. "I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court didn't review the case." No president before Trump has used the IEEPA to impose tariffs. His predecessors have used its powers to levy sanctions on enemy regimes, to ban transactions with groups that are deemed terrorist organizations or to freeze the assets of designated transnational criminal organizations. Small business owner 'deeply invested' in case While Canadians are predominantly interested in the case for its impact on the fentanyl tariffs, David Levi, an electrical engineer in Charlottesville, Va., is deeply invested in the "Liberation Day" side of the case. Levi owns MicroKits, a small business that designs and sells make-them-yourself gadget kits and musical instruments. His company is one of the five small-business plaintiffs pursuing the lawsuit. "The tariffs really affect me, because I have to buy parts internationally," Levi said, adding that the high tariff rates announced on Chinese imports and the uncertainty over costs disrupted his business. "My worker who actually puts all the parts together, her hours have been cut 40 per cent and in the last three or four months we've missed out on thousands of units of production," he said. WATCH | Trump press secretary reacts to court ruling on tariffs: White House accuses 'unelected judges' of interfering with Trump's tariff agenda | Power & Politics 2 months ago Appeal court ruling expected within weeks Thursday's hearing is before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. The case is moving through the courts at what is, for the U.S. legal system, lightning speed. Legal observers say they expect the appeal court to issue a ruling within weeks, likely by early September. That could soon be followed by the losing party petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal. The case does not address Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from around the world, which he imposed using a different statute, the president's long-established power to levy duties on imports for reasons of national security. Other Canadian exports that comply with the rules of origin in the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement are exempt from the fentanyl tariffs, which means .
