Article content continued

Farooq said he had no doubt of the outcome.

“The way the system is structured, he’s getting a one-way ticket out of Canada. That’s what’s going to happen. The end result is guaranteed,” Farooq said.

“We’ll never know whether the case would have been made out against him in a criminal court.”

In fact, Farooq said, the government is sending a message to those who might want to commit terrorist acts in Canada that all they need to do is ensure they aren’t citizens.

So far, Canadian authorities have refused to discuss the decision to go the immigration route. However, they have not been shy about branding Malik as a terrorist who planned to build remote-controlled bombs to attack his targets.

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said Malik was “willing to commit a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.”

Justice Minister Peter MacKay refused to weigh in on Thursday, saying he didn’t want to compromise proceedings. He did say “there’s still discussions happening” when asked if a decision to deport Malik had already been made.

Lorne Waldman, a defence lawyer who has handled national security cases, said the standard of proof and rules of evidence in immigration proceedings are much lower than in criminal court.

“It’s safe to say that if they had enough evidence to charge, they would do so,” Waldman said.

“The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the evidence is not evidence that could be admitted in a criminal trial, and it is not strong enough to meet the higher burden of proof.”