Evidence of meeting #21 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was person.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
For health issues?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
For health issues, it goes to Correctional Service Canada health authority. For operational issues, it goes to Correctional Service. And for policy issues, it goes to the Canada Border Services Agency.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Could you provide us—not now, but maybe later—with the names of the specific people?
October 26th, 2006 / 9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
We have a redress process in one of the president's directives, so when you get a copy of that, you'll see it as well.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Does it name the specific individuals who would handle the grievances?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
No, it would list the level, because of course the names of the people would tend to change.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Can you tell me what kind of programming is available for the detainees at the Kingston facility?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
The detainees are detained because they are supposedly awaiting removal and because of their security certificates. They're not being detained for rehabilitation purposes, so our goal is not to rehabilitate them. But at the same time, we recognize that there are some benefits to providing access to certain programs. For example, they get a daily newspaper, and we do allow them to have self-study. There is no formal provision made for education or work, and of course we'd have to consult with our CIC colleagues to see if work or student permits would be required in those cases. There is no problem with self-study.
The facility is also unique in the sense that we're not talking about hundreds of people, which would make it easier to do programs or provide work opportunities. So it's a challenge.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
So it's very limited in the sense of what's even contemplated to be available for these detainees, even though it could be a long period of detention, and has been for some of them.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Can I ask about some specific questions and issues around the facility? I understand that there were questions about air conditioning and heat issues. Have those been resolved to your understanding?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
To my understanding, yes, they have. It was a new centre and the first time we created such a facility, so it's been a learning process along the way. Many improvements have been made since we first started, one of them being the installation of air conditioning.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I understand another issue is that there is never any direct sunlight in the exercise area. Could you describe the exercise yard?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
The exercise area is about the size of a house lot. So in many respects it would be bigger than most people's backyards, a city home. I'm unaware of the fact that there is no direct sunlight there. I've been to the place myself, and it's certainly a nice facility.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
You mentioned a 120-bed facility in Toronto. How many people would be in that facility?
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
One hundred and twenty.
9:50 a.m.
Director, Inland Enforcement, Canada Border Services Agency
Not all the time; it varies. Sometimes it's full, and we have to refer our clients to other detention areas; sometimes it's not totally full.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
From what I'm hearing, it seems that one of the issues is the reasonableness and fairness of the process itself. I know that the distinctions between whether you're a foreign national or a resident or a citizen are starting to blur, but I think Mr. Telegdi made some rather interesting and precise points as to the concerns with the process. Even though you might indicate that it's a civil process as opposed to a criminal process, the fact is that many of the detainees are there for a significant period of years, so the consequences would be quite severe if an error were to be made. In that context there obviously is a balancing that needs to take place.
I realize that sources of information and investigation techniques need to be protected, but when you get information from foreign governments that is to be kept in confidence, then of course some of the veracity of that is an issue. As I understand it, there is no appeal to the process, so the first crack, so to speak, at the evidence is an important one because it determines a lot of the consequences that will follow.
When we look at what the judges have to say, they say two things are significant: the substance of the allegations and the opportunity to respond. Our judges, as Mr. Telegdi points out, are not necessarily advocates, and they don't make a point of probing the evidence; they generally try to hear it on an unbiased basis and then make a decision. A judge has to decide what information is passed on to the potential detainee and what information is held back; the detainee or his counsel do not have access to the information that's held back, and some of that, or even that decision, may need some probing. I think judges find themselves uncomfortable--or at least that's the implication--in having to be judge, jury, and advocate, and it is that very narrow point that many have a concern with.
Of course, when that evidence is there, it could be probed, not necessarily by counsel for the detainee; an impartial third party with security clearance could do that kind of independent probing, so that the judge could weigh the evidence as opposed to being involved in the process. Is that a possibility, given everything that you know about the functions and processes of the system?
9:55 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Absolutely it's a possibility. The system we have has been sanctioned. Its constitutionality has been approved so far, subject to what the Supreme Court will say. But there could be other ways of trying to balance fairness and national security considerations, and certainly giving that kind of role to a security-cleared counsel would be a possibility.
As Mr. Telegdi said, this is something that currently is in practice in Britain. One could say it affords more fairness. That's a judgment call parliamentarians will have to make. I will say this, though; it is absolutely a possibility.
On the question of whether judges are comfortable or not in the inquisitorial type of process that we have, we have a variety of comments by trial judges on this point, but at the end of the day this raises questions about judicial independence.
For sure the Supreme Court, when it heard the cases in June, was interested in the fairness of deciding without fully disclosing the government's case. That was one concern or line of questioning that the court had.
Another line of questions had to do with judicial independence. Even if it's fair to ask the court to have this role, does it impinge on judicial independence to ask that of a judge? These questions are before the court.
A special advocate could conceivably address these questions. I will just say on special advocates and their use in Britain that they've not been considered or felt after practice to be a panacea. Obviously, even if you have a special advocate, there have to be limits or parameters around roles—concerning the communications between the special advocate and the individual once the information has been disclosed to a special advocate—which mean that there are limitations that can never bring that kind of process to the standard of criminal trials. In part for these reasons, some of the special advocates who were used actually withdrew from their role because of concerns with this.
So it's a possibility, but it's not a panacea.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I appreciate that it's not a panacea, and if the advocate felt uncomfortable and wanted to withdraw, obviously you're able to imagine what position a judge may feel himself or herself to be in, in that case. Really, it is a balancing act, but it's asking how you can protect the interests of the state, or all of us in a general sense, with the least obstruction to the individual.
10 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Absolutely.