Do we need a Canadian Declaration of Visitors' Rights?

[Machjo]

To my surprise, I've learnt from personal dealings with the CBSA lately that Charter rights do not apply to extraditions. For example, a tourist who is charged with studying or working in Canada without proper authorization can be arbitrarily detained for extradition with no obligation to inform him of his right to retain and instruct counsel or even to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The reason for this is simply that such charges are not considered criminal.

In other words, if a foreign visitor to Canada should be charged with killing someone, his Charter rights to the presumption of innocence, to retain and instruct counsel, and to a fair trial would be protected because it would be a criminal charge. If he is accused of studying or working in Canada illegally, it does not qualify as criminal and he can therefore be detained at the CBSA's discretion without recourse unless someone from the outside finds him a lawyer, and even then rather than going to a regular court based on the presumption of innocence, he goes to the IRB based on a presumption of guilt.

Essentially, a visitor to Canada can easily be extradited on a mere suspicion of guilt. How many have been so extradited and how does that affect Canada's image among foreign nationals as a country that respects due process? We might as well put an ad saying 'Welcome to Canada but leave the presumption of innocence at home unless you are accused of a criminal offence.'

We can imagine the abuses that this allows for. Should the police suspect a foreign visitor of a criminal offence for which the police have insufficient evidence, it could pretty well write any bogus charge and turn him over to the Canada Border Services Agency for extradition with no recourse.

Another example: a foreign visitor decides to visit Canada for six months as is his legal right according to his specific circumstances. The CBSA decides he can't possibly have that much money without working and so arrests and detains him for deportation without even giving him the opportunity to prove that he is wealthy or at least has enough money from back home to live off of while visiting. A CBSA officer could pretty well approve extradition because he does not like a visitor's face as long as he writes a different quasi-legitimate rationale that of course will never be investigated unless someone from the outside hires him a lawyer.

This is nuts. How does the Constitution allow for this just because the charge for which he is being extradited is not 'criminal?'

If that is the case, then why not recognize studying or working illegally in Canada as a criminal charge so that a person's right to due process can be protected?