Bill C-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to add provisions relating to a special advocate to Division 9 of Part 1 of that Act. The special advocate’s role is to protect a person’s interests in certain proceedings when evidence is heard in the absence of the public and of the person and their counsel. The special advocate may challenge the claim made by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to the confidentiality of evidence as well as the relevance, reliability, sufficiency and weight of the evidence and may make submissions, cross-examine witnesses and, with the judge’s authorization, exercise any other powers necessary to protect the person’s interests.
The enactment eliminates the suspension of consideration of the reasonableness of a security certificate that occurs when the person named in it makes an application for protection.
The enactment also provides that, when a person is detained under the security certificate regime, a judge of the Federal Court must commence a review of the detention within 48 hours after the detention begins and then, until it is determined whether a certificate is reasonable, at least once in the six-month period following the conclusion of each preceding review. A person who continues to be detained after a certificate is determined to be reasonable and a person who is released under conditions may apply to the Court for a review of the reasons for their continued detention or for continuing the conditions if a period of six months has expired since the conclusion of the preceding review.
The enactment permits the appeal of a determination whether a security certificate is reasonable and of a decision resulting from a review of a person’s detention or release under conditions to the Federal Court of Appeal if the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved.
It also permits a peace officer to arrest and detain a person who is subject to a security certificate if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has contravened or is about to contravene their conditions of release.
The enactment enables the Minister to apply for the non-disclosure of confidential information during a judicial review of a decision made under the Act and gives the judge discretion to appoint a special advocate to protect the interests of the person concerned.
It also contains transitional provisions and makes a consequential amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

There are 12 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-3. Motions Nos. 1 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 through 12 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-3 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we in the House are giving consideration to the bill before us, which is to address the Supreme Court ruling regarding the issue of security certificates. To quickly recap, security certificates themselves, or a process not unlike what we have had over the last few years, have been in place in Canada for some period of time, dating back to at least 1977.

Here is the situation in its most basic form. About 95 million people visit this country every year. The vast majority of those who decide to stay contribute in a very positive way. Approximately 260,000 of those are people who want to stay here. The vast majority of those people add greatly to the strength and stature of our nation. They bring their skills, values, beliefs, hopes and dreams for the future. Our country is strengthened by that and made a better place. But among the people who come here every year, there will always be a few who should be deemed inadmissible because they are a threat to our country.

Our country has a very generous system for people to appeal a notice of inadmissibility. The process of appeal can take quite a period of time. There are a number of different levels at which a person can appeal. What does a government do?

Any government's first responsibility should be the safety and security of its citizens. There are some people who arrive on our shores who are identified by intelligence agencies, because of information the agencies have, as possible terrorists or who have strong terrorist affiliations. They may be active members of an organized crime organization. They could be serious present and imminent threats to our own people. When people are told they are inadmissible and have to return to their countries of origin, they begin the appeal process, which can take years.

Actually, most people who decide to appeal a particular notice of inadmissibility or an order which does not allow them to come in are not security risks. They may have other issues, but they are not security risks. However, from time to time there are individuals who are deemed to be so dangerous and such a risk to our own citizens that we cannot contemplate allowing them to move around the country at will for possibly a number of years while they appeal the order to be removed. Therefore, a system of detaining them was put in place whereby a certificate would be signed.

The security agencies themselves, and in many cases it is our own intelligence service, will present to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in confidence the reasons a person should be declared dangerous. They will ask that a certificate be signed. The person would then be detained while appealing his or her status.

It does not stop there. That security certificate has to go before a judge to make sure that it complies with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the vast framework of other guarantees and rights that are available to individuals. When a judge grants it, the security certificate comes into play and the person can be detained. If the individual's appeal process takes a year, two years or three years, the person is detained in a detention facility.

The interesting thing about the nature of that detention is that detainees are allowed to leave the facility any time they want, if they choose to go back to their countries of origin. Some choose not to do that for some obvious reasons.

This whole process was challenged and validated at a number of levels right up to the Federal Court of Appeal and found to be constitutional, until last February 2007 when the security certificate process was challenged. The Supreme Court, although not saying the entire process was unconstitutional, pointed out a couple of areas that had to be strengthened if the process was going to remain in place.

That is what we have done. We have taken the time not just legislatively but to consult with a variety of individuals, groups and organizations across the country to deal with the two areas mentioned by the Supreme Court.

The first is the notion of having a special advocate dedicated to the interests of the person being detained. That person can already have his or her own counsel, and in most cases already does. The special advocate has special powers to review all the confidential classified information that the intelligence services have brought forward against the person declaring him or her to be dangerous. That obviously is information which cannot be made public because it has to do with our national security. It has to do with people who work for our intelligence services and how they acquire certain information. That information does at least have to be seen in confidence by a judge.

Now we have arranged in the legislation for a special advocate with powers to see the classified information, for the ability to talk to the person who is being detained. There is still the provision that once they have seen all this classified information to do with national security, they cannot discuss that with the person being detained.

An addition has been made to the legislation, clause 85.2(c), which would allow the advocate to appeal to the judge for any other type of special power that he or she deems necessary to complete the work and properly protect the interests of the person being detained. It is a catch-all phrase to cover unanticipated circumstances that may come up.

The special advocate can also challenge the witnesses, the intelligence officers and the information itself.

Broadly speaking, we believe the special advocacy provision has been addressed and will give significantly increased protection to the rights of the detained individual.

The other area of concern to the Supreme Court justice was the length of time of detention without a possible review. Presently, if a person who is being detained is a permanent resident, he or she can have a review of that order within 48 hours and then automatically every six months. Until recently, foreign nationals could have a single review 120 days from the time the certificate was put in place. We have changed that to allow them to have the same footing as permanent residents. They can have that certificate reviewed every 48 hours and then every six months. We believe we have addressed that.

We have also looked at another clause called the privative clause. This is in the IRPA itself. As it exists now, that clause limits the amount of judicial review on a case like this. We have removed that to give even greater breadth.

There is a difference between criminal proceedings and immigration proceedings. In a criminal proceeding, a person has broken the law and proceedings start so that can be proven in a court of law. The person can be not just charged but convicted and in fact detained in a penitentiary, in the jail system, for punitive reasons and for rehabilitative reasons. That is entirely different from an immigration review process, which is done simply to determine and protect the safety and security of our citizens.

Those are the main elements of the bill before us. I would encourage all colleagues to set aside partisanship to realize that the security certificates have been proven not to threaten the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians. As a matter of fact, the security certificate cannot even be applied against a Canadian citizen. It can only be used on foreign nationals or those who are not Canadian citizens.

Further to that, since 2001, with about a quarter of a million people a year coming into our country, these certificates have only been applied in six particular cases, or it could be argued that it is seven cases. They have been applied in literally a handful of cases. This is where a judge has agreed, not just with me as public safety minister and public safety ministers before me but also with the intelligence information, that the persons who are deemed to need detention have either significant terrorist affiliations or are significantly involved or deemed to be involved with violent possibly international criminal organizations. These are people who are deemed to be so dangerous, with the necessary documentation provided to satisfy a judge, that they should not be allowed to be in our country. This provision has not been applied in a haphazard fashion. It has been done very carefully.

If we do not have these in place and pass the bill, the security certificate system will collapse. The Supreme Court gave us a year to do this. The year is almost up. I believe we have honoured the declarations of the Supreme Court and at the same time we have balanced individual rights and freedoms along with security interests.

Our country will be safer because of the security certificate provisions being in place, but our country and our citizens will be somewhat at risk if the system is allowed to collapse.

I ask members, especially those opposite, in a non-partisan way to consider the important nature of the provisions that we have attained today and to pass this bill.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. He talked about people who were so dangerous to Canadian society that we should suspend some of the key principles of our criminal justice system in Canada, which would allow things like indefinite detention, secret evidence and even secret trial, and instead deal with these people by seeking their removal from Canada.

However, it seems to me that when we are talking about crimes of terrorism, espionage and plotting against the national security of Canada, we are talking about some of the most serious crimes that could be perpetrated in this country. Yet our response through this law is to seek the removal of those people, not their punishment, not their conviction, but their removal, and thus foist them on some other jurisdiction.

If we believe that these people are this kind of serious criminal, why are we not taking every possible measure to prosecute them criminally, to convict them and to incarcerate them here in Canada?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to address that in my earlier remarks. There are two types of proceedings that in fact in their very nature are different from each other.

One is a criminal proceeding whereby we are pursuing people from the point of view of them having violated a law inside our borders and we want the charges seen through to a conviction and then incarceration for the purpose of both punitive and rehabilitative measures.

That is not the case with immigration proceedings. We have immigration proceedings that go on literally through the year by the thousands. As a matter of fact, last year, through immigration proceedings being appealed, and with the rules of immigration proceedings, possibly 12,000 people were removed from the country.

Is the member seriously proposing that there be separate trials set up in terms of inadmissibility to Canada? These are not Canadian citizens we are talking about. In terms of those who have been removed, these are people who came here under the wrong pretenses or who for some reason have come up against the rules and regulations of this country.

Is the member suggesting that there should be 12,000 more cases a year applied to individuals who are already allowed a very generous and extensive review process, sometimes with information that has been acquired with means that, if the information and how we got it were made available, would put our own people at risk and put our own intelligence networks at risk?

Is the hon. member saying to give the benefit of the doubt to somebody of whom a judge has said, and of whom a number of judges have said, that there is significant enough evidence to link this person, let us just say, to a terrorism network, so that person should not be put in some other jurisdiction, as he said, but sent back to their country of origin? He is saying that we should give the benefit of the doubt to the person who has evidence against him or her, certified by a judge, that shows him or her to be a possible imminent danger. He says to give the benefit of the doubt to that person instead of to Canadians who deserve to be protected.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry, but we have reached the time for statements by members. There will be one minute and 50 seconds left to question the Minister of Public Safety when the House returns to the consideration of Bill C-3.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the House broke for question period, the hon. Minister of Public Safety had the floor for questions and comments as a consequence of his speech. There are two minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments. I therefore call on the hon. member for York South—Weston for questions and comments.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for clarifying the difference between Criminal Code violations and the processes and the security certificate process. He also made it clear that the security certificate process does not relate to Canadians.

However, I have been asked by constituents to clarify with the minister with respect to the role of the special advocates. In the criminal process there is protection with respect to client-solicitor relationship. If during the process of certificate implications are made with respect to allegations against Canadians, is there the same degree of protection that exists under the Criminal Code and natural justice? Could the minister explain whether that similar client-solicitor relationship applies?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question came up in the committee and it was as a matter of some concern.

A number of provisions are in place to protect the individual who is being detained from untoward situations that may arise in the course of the actions that would unfold. As a matter of fact, in the committee discussion it was agreed that there could be some things that would come up that would actually be unpredictable and that there needed to be something in place to allow for that.

One of the ways of addressing that is in clause 85.2(c), which is a catch-all provision that can be applied for and asked for by the special advocate himself or herself. There would also be provisions for the person being detained and I think, if in not all cases, in most cases they would have their own counsel. There would be provisions to ensure the person is protected from such an eventuality related to client-solicitor privilege.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the concern that the NDP and I as the critic have with this, and the reason for putting forward all of these amendments, is that we have considered this to be completely the wrong way to go about dealing with the issues of terrorism. We are as concerned as anyone else that this country is protected, that its citizens are safe and that terrorism has absolutely no place and no acknowledgement in our country.

I think most Canadians would consider safety to be some kind of balance between freedom and security. They expect security in the country in which they live and raise their children but also they have a certain expectation of freedom.

I am a bit puzzled, I have to say, by the motions today to sit until the bill has finished report stage and by the rush to get it through. I understand perfectly well the deadline of February 23, but that was a year ago. If we had come back in September when we were due to come back, we would have had an extra month to work on this. Instead, we have had nine weeks.

It seems to me rather inconsistent that a bill that is of such great importance, and, by the way, I think it is, is left to the last two months of the year, because it has to go to the Senate as well, which has been known since the date was established last February. It seems to me that unless there is some other motive, the action does not reflect the gravity of the issue the bill has presented.

From the beginning, we have always seen this as the wrong way to go about dealing with terrorism, espionage and organized crime, and let us be sure that we are talking about all three things. Although terrorism is the phrase that is used most frequently, this is about also espionage and organized crime.

As members can see, we believe that if one has come to Canada to commit a terrorist act one should be charged and punished. To consider an act of terrorism in any country, but speaking of our own country, is one of the worst things imaginable. We have seen those examples in other countries as well as countries to the south of us.

So why would we not put in place legislation that would allow punishment of people instead of sending them back to their country of origin, where they may very well wish to go, and where they can or may continue their activities? I think in many cases they do continue to engage in the planning of terrorist activities, again, perhaps toward Canada, and it may not be them but somebody else they have trained.

But to send them back with no repercussions whatsoever is not acceptable. I expect people to be punished for such an odious type of crime. I also, by the way, expect people to prove that the odious crime is in the process of being committed or that there is a demonstration of its planning.

I think we know that significant numbers of members in this House will publicly say they think this bill is flawed. Some will privately say they know this bill is flawed. We know that members of the legal community believe that this bill will not withstand, albeit its rewriting, a constitutional challenge again, and there will indeed be another constitutional challenge. I do not think we should mistake that at all.

The human rights issue within this bill is a concern for all Canadians, I would hope, because human rights are something that we hold dear. Standards, procedural fairness and due process are things we consider to be inherent in human rights.

The ability to fully answer and defend ourselves is a basic human right. That is not reflected at all in this piece of legislation, unless we say there is a level of human rights and we believe only certain people have human rights, but I do not think that is what most Canadians believe. I think they believe people have a right to know fully what they have been accused of and to be able to defend themselves against it.

The NDP believes, and many community organizations who made presentations to the public safety committee said the same thing, that the use of what we would call secret evidence is a grave threat to fundamental justice. This bill proposes that if a special advocate were to be put in place, the advocate could speak to the detainee and his or her counsel and then see the full file, but could not talk to the detainee again, or at least have any conversation about what is in the file, even if it might be helpful to the detainee.

We know it is a flawed system because there have been other circumstances where we have used information without the full advantage of having all of it. We have seen the kind of prosecution people have been put through.

The special advocate is being championed by this piece of legislation, but it does not explicitly give any kind of special powers to the special advocate to seek and obtain other government records that might be believed to be relevant. If the advocate reads in a file something that refers to another record that he or she thinks would be helpful, there is nothing that explicitly states the advocate has the right to see that information.

Certainly there are other models that people have suggested, such as the SIRC model, where there has been full disclosure of information that CSIS has available. That kind of process was used and was in place before the current process.

There also is a concern about how long people can be detained without any charge being laid at all. One individual has been in detention for seven years. Other individuals have been in detention for somewhat shorter lengths of time, but certainly not short lengths of time. There is nothing to protect them. Yes, detainees can have their cases reviewed on a regular basis, but that does not mean they cannot continue to be told no for some indefinite length of time.

They can be kept in prison-like settings that I think are built for two or three people, without any idea of why they are there, and without anybody presenting the charges to them. If we were to even consider that as a principle we would use anywhere else, Canadians would rise up in anger, as they should.

It is a basic premise. If we are charged with something or detained in jail, we have a right to know why. We have a right for our counsel to see the evidence and a right to defend ourselves. Under this piece of legislation, which we do believe is completely flawed in dealing with the issue of terrorism, which we believe should be criminally punished, we do not have that.

I look forward to other speakers.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have seconded the motions my colleague put forward this afternoon, which delete all the clauses of this legislation as a way of showing our fundamental disagreement with this security certificate process, as well as the fundamental flaws and the supposed fix that the government has provided for this legislation.

Earlier I was incredulous when I heard the Minister of Public Safety say that he believed the security certificate process was appropriate, even though its sole aim, the whole deal, was to send someone accused of some of the most serious crimes against our society, those of terrorism, security threats and espionage, out of the country. It did not matter if they were ever charged, convicted or punished for perpetrating those serious crimes. What is more is that the only thing this legislation and this process seek to do is to get them back to their country of origin, where there is no guarantee that they will be charged, convicted or tried for those very serious crimes either.

This seems to be a piece of legislation that seeks to avoid dealing with the most serious crimes in our society. Would the member comment on that? How does this legislation make Canada or Canadians safer? How could a Minister of Public Safety support that kind of legislation?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this will not make anybody safer. That is part of the issue. This is not going to make Canada safer.

On the minister saying earlier that releasing criminals across the country would not be considered acceptable, I agree with him. It would not, but I ask, please, for it to be proven that someone is a criminal. We cannot say that we are not going to release criminals across the country but also say that we cannot prove someone is a criminal, so we are just going to hold that person as long as we possibly can or send him or her back to be tortured or potentially to continue terrorist activities in his or her own country.

Not only will Canada not be safer, but as well, our justice system will not be made safer by this kind of legislation, which does not--I repeat does not--uphold the basic tenets of our justice system around the ability for full answer and defence.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who moved the motion why she put forward 12 amendments.

At this point, we do not support the bill that will be presented. I believe her party is also against it. Furthermore, I would have liked to have 20 minutes to explain why we are against this bill, instead of only 10 minutes. I do not understand this procedure.

Assuming that the arguments we present here could eventually convince other members, if people vote against the amendment after each clause, what would be the point of holding a debate on the bill itself? I must admit I do not understand this notion at all, unless of course it is some sort of filibuster.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not intended at all to be a filibuster. It is intended to show that the NDP, as we have said all along, is opposed to this bill. We did not make amendments at committee stage because that would have been trying to fix what we consider to be a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

This was our way of demonstrating and saying to the people of Canada that we cannot support any piece of this legislation and that we do not have an amendment to bring forward to tinker with it, to try to change part of it, or to do any of that. The Chair chose to group the amendments from one to twelve. This is the only way that we saw for being able to do this.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important piece of legislation. I want to say at the outset that were we in government in response to the position expressed by the court, we would have definitely presented a different piece of legislation.

This is a piece of legislation that during the committee we have tried to actually improve partly or fully because we believe that the court deadline is very important, and the issue of national and public security is very important for the country. In a way, it is a non-partisan issue. It goes beyond political partisanship.

The fact is that this security certificate regime has been in existence since 1977. The court obviously had the opportunity to review this matter and review it in the context of the Charkaoui case and provide us with its judgment.

The fact is that the government could have chosen any of the three or four models, that the court looked at, without expressing approval for any one of those models.

In fact, one of the models the government could have actually adopted, as I said earlier when I spoke to this matter, was the SIRC model, the Security Intelligence Review Committee model, where there was much fuller disclosure available, where SIRC actually set up an adversarial process, and where SIRC was able to set up essentially a courtroom type procedure to deal with these issues and deal with the security issues prior to the security certificate regime coming into being.

The other particular model that the court referred to was the process under the Canada Evidence Act which handles the balance between the protection of sensitive information and the procedural rights of individuals. The Attorney General of Canada of course has a role with respect to that matter about the potential disclosure of important national security information.

Then in fact the court looked at the Arar case, where the commissioner devised a process to deal with sensitive information in a way that as much disclosure as was possible could be provided to Mr. Arar and/or his counsel.

Finally, the court also examined the special advocate regime that is presently in existence in the United Kingdom. It has been criticized in the United Kingdom. It is a scheme that even if the government wanted to bring this scheme into our legislation, it could have been improved much more than it actually attempted to.

I want to say briefly that our committees, both of the Senate and the House, had made several recommendations to deal with the anti-terrorism legislation. Some of those recommendations were directed to the security certificate regime. Both of the reports of the committees found that there was a need for some form of adversarial challenge to the governmental claims that the secrecy was necessary. Both committees concluded that the affected party be entitled to select a special advocate from a roster of security cleared counsels who would be funded by the government but independent of government.

It should also be noted that both reports also provided several other recommendations for changes to be made to this particular legislation beyond just the issue of how to achieve the correct balance. One of the issues that they had dealt with was the faster process and dealing with the issue of the torture evidence.

When we looked at this legislation and looked at it in light of the fact that there was a court imposed deadline and we needed to proceed expeditiously to deal with the issue, we felt that there were some areas of the legislation we could at least quickly improve upon.

The Liberal members on the select standing committee were able to make four amendments. Let me just go through those amendments. They are very significant because they deal with the rights of the detainee with respect to these matters and enhancing the rights of the detainee.

First, we were able to actually specify in the legislation, through the amendment, that there ought to be specific criteria for the minister when creating the roster of potential special advocates to ensure that they are duly qualified, that they are independent, and that they have adequate resources, which means that they are funded by the government in an adequate fashion but they are independent of the government.

Second, we were able to make an amendment to the effect that the detainee, foreign national or permanent residence, who is the subject of the hearing, be allowed to choose his or her own special advocate from the roster and that advocate in cases would be appointed by the judge.

Third, and in fact very important, there was the absence of the solicitor-client relationship altogether in the legislation, and we were able to reinstate the solicitor-client privilege for the detainee to the extent of the information that the detainee may have given to the special advocate, so the special advocate is barred from sharing that information with anybody else other than the detainee himself. Therefore, that provides a degree of solicitor-client privilege which we believe was appropriate in the circumstances.

Fourth, and most important of all, we were actually able to successfully make a very broad amendment that dealt with the issue of evidence that may be the product of torture, whether it is the primary evidence or derivative evidence. Based on the amendment, if the judge that might be hearing the case believes, on reasonable grounds, that the evidence may be the product of torture, directly or indirectly, that evidence would not admissible in the proceedings before the judge with respect to the particular detainee.

I believe that we have been able to make improvements. Let me just go back and recap, and say that if we were the government, this would not be the piece of legislation. The government could have done a much better job. The government could have actually adopted and built upon the homegrown concept and the process that the SIRC model uses. It did not do that. That would have been much better.

Therefore, we will be monitoring this. We will be attempting to make as many changes or improvements as possible over the next number of months and years, but it is important that the legislation pass. We have a deadline upon us and that is the deadline of February 23. It is important that we show some degree of responsibility, so that the court deadline that has been imposed upon us does not go by. We want to have a system in place before that happens.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member saw a news report in the Ottawa Citizen earlier this week, a story about how the government is having difficulty finding lawyers who are willing to act as special advocates, who are even willing to apply for the position. Apparently, so far only 50 have responded to the month-long recruitment campaign.

There were reasons given for that by two very prominent legal experts. Lorne Waldman, a very prominent immigration lawyer, actually an expert on the special advocacy process, said, “Given the nature of what the lawyers are being asked to do, it does not surprise me that there has not been an overwhelming response”. He further went on to say that the system “fundamentally abrogates” the right of the accused to know the evidence against them. He points out very serious problems.

Vanessa Gruben, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, also says that she thinks that the low number of applications for special advocate positions may stem from concerns about the proposed security certificate legislation.

There are concerns among the legal community that the model proposed in Bill C-3 falls short of the constitutional standards set by the Supreme Court. That is also supported by the Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies in Canada.

I wonder, given those very serious concerns, why the member can support this legislation.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Lorne Waldman. I believe it was his evidence and that of others like him that enabled all of us to make the improvements that we were actually able to make to this legislation. I want to publicly thank him and others for making the contributions they did.

On the question of the shortage of applicants, I do not know whether the number 50 means that there is a shortage of applicants with respect to the role of special advocate. Everyone knows that the special advocates have to be in the vicinity of Ottawa or Toronto, mostly for these matters. Everyone that knows the requisites in this particular case, knows that one needs to be experienced in areas of constitutional, immigration and criminal law.

There are very few lawyers in this country who are equally familiar with all those three areas of law. Therefore, I think there could be a shortage of applications for that reason.

Also, I was talking to a very learned Queen's counsel in British Columbia the other day and he told me that in British Columbia they are finding it hard to find senior counsel who can do ad hoc criminal work, prosecutions. That tells me that lawyers are not necessarily going into certain areas of specialization as they ought to, in numbers as they used to.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that we as parliamentarians sometimes have a series of objectives in our society that we have to maintain and sometimes these objectives can be in conflict with one or another, whether it is security and human rights. As citizens it is true to say that we have as much right to be protected by the state as from the state.

The security certificate decision that was taken by the Supreme Court in September 2007 was a very important decision. The court at that time had serious concerns with the security certificates in this country and there was not an adversarial role that was taking place in the process.

The decision came in February 2007, yet the government waited until October 2007 before tabling anything in the House. I find that very lamentable that it took so long to do that. It did not give Parliament sufficient time to deal with this very important issue.

Although I congratulate my hon. colleague for all the amendments he made at committee,--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I regret to have to cut off the hon. member for Davenport, but I do have to allow enough time for the hon. member for Vancouver South to answer the question.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that he did not ask the question, but I understood the thrust of his remarks.

Those are very important issues he raised, but as parliamentarians, as members of the government and members of the responsible opposition, we have to sometimes work with haste expeditiously to meet the deadlines that may have been imposed by the court. We must also try to create as appropriate a balance between individual rights and national security, as are possible under the circumstances. This is not the most ideal piece of legislation and is not what I would have done, but we need to move with some haste.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the security certificates we are talking about are misnamed. As a result, most people have difficulty understanding what they are. They are actually deportation orders, whereby a sovereign nation exercises its right to refuse to admit foreigners who are deemed to represent threats to national security.

When security certificates are used only when people arrive in Canada, as was done in the summer, far fewer problems arise. Security certificates are always issued against foreigners and cannot be issued against Canadians, for the simple reason that section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that any Canadian has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. Consequently, this sort of procedure cannot be used against Canadian citizens.

There is a separate procedure for Canadian citizens who are deemed to be dangerous even though they have not committed any crime. In my opinion, many people believe the government could use the same procedure against foreigners, but that is neither here nor there. This law has been in existence for some time, and we cannot say it has been abused. Although it has been invoked 27 times, it has been used only five times since September 11, 2001.

A security certificate creates a real problem when it is issued against someone who has entered Canada, has been a permanent resident for many years, has started a family, has had children and, after spending considerable time in Canada, suddenly wants to become a Canadian citizen. Just when he qualifies to become a Canadian citizen and applies for citizenship, the government issues a security certificate against him.

That is what happened to Adil Charkaoui. He came to Canada in 1995 with his parents and, I believe, the person he married here. He had children. A security certificate was not issued against him until 2003.

When the security certificate applies to someone who can return to his country of origin, there is no real problem. We can accept the fact that a sovereign nation is simply exercising its right to refuse to admit someone if it considers that person dangerous. A problem arises when the person will face torture and perhaps even death if he is returned to his country of origin. That is why this person does not want to go back.

The government often defends these measures by saying that the person is in a three-walled prison. One wall is missing, so all the person has to do is leave. For some people, the fourth wall of their prison is actually a cliff. Leaving would mean certain death or torture. This is where serious problems arise. How long will we hold this person?

We must understand what a security certificate is based on. If ministers intervene, it is because the security agencies believe, based on the information they have, which is usually confidential, that this person is a risk. Why do they not reveal this information? There are three reasons. First, because the information was obtained from a country on the condition that it not be made public. It is also because the information comes from secret agents who have infiltrated terrorist organizations. Revealing the source of the information could mean a death sentence for these secret agents. The last reason is that, in the fight against terrorism, which is much more important that the fight against crime, if we were to reveal investigation methods, such as how the information was obtained, the terrorist organizations would have a leg up on our defences. I think these reasons are understandable.

Consequently, after the ministers have signed the security certificate, which is in effect a request for the court to authorize a removal order, the reasons must nevertheless be submitted to the judge—proof that we are a civilized country. He must be given the real reasons or sufficient reasons demonstrating that the decision is not being taken lightly. He must be presented with the facts and the methods and these cannot be revealed to the person in question. That creates a legal problem that is extremely difficult to resolve.

After reading the decisions of the Supreme Court, I was personally convinced. Given the significance of the risks related to terrorism today, I recognize that such procedures must exist to a point, especially procedures used in such an exceptional manner.

However, we do not agree with the government on the measure to be used. It never stops repeating that we must balance—and it is a fine principle—security and the respect for rights. That goes without saying. However, the Supreme Court, which is examining this issue, realizes that the individual involved cannot know all the reasons why they are suspected, in fact, very often, most of them.

I found that Mr. Charkaoui was quite convinced and sincere when he said that he did not know why a security certificate had been issued against him. He had some suspicions because they asked him to be a double agent and he refused. I understand why a father would refuse to be a double agent, especially since he told them that it was not true that he knew terrorists, that perhaps he knew them without knowing that they were terrorists and that, in any case, he did not want to get involved.

It is nevertheless very difficult to make a decision about someone in such a case because the final consequences are exactly the same as for the most serious criminals in Canada. In terms of seriousness, it is the second most severe type of sanction imposed on criminals that we have in Canada. The most severe sanction is life imprisonment. In that case conditional release is a possibility. The other most serious sanction is indefinite detention.

A number of conditions had to be fulfilled before making that kind of decision. Improvements had to be made in accordance with the Supreme Court's recommendation to the government. This government still believes that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Supreme Court decisions set limits that cannot be exceeded. The government is very proud of the fact that it abided by a Supreme Court decision. It seems to me that if the government had reviewed the Supreme Court's reasons for amending the legislation, it would have noticed that it should be doing a little more than what the court suggested, and that it is not up to the court to come up with the system.

I was prepared to talk about this for 20 minutes. The brilliant procedure proposed by the NDP would allow me to speak 12 times for 10 minutes, plus 20 minutes. However, at some point I still would have wanted to put together the reasons that we are likely to support. I will probably have a chance to come back to this.

In closing, we believe that when making a decision as serious as this one—upholding a security certificate—the judge must be certain that the person represents a real risk.

Then they decided to give the person the right to appeal, but it was not really a right to appeal. It was something that allowed judges to discuss issues that could be raised during a hearing. That is not a real right to appeal. I would prefer to give that person the same right to appeal that dangerous offenders get under section 159 of the Criminal Code, that is, a real right to appeal on questions of fact, of law or of fact and law.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention in the debate. His comments are always very helpful and very well informed, given his great experience.

Yesterday, the families of the five post-9/11 security certificate detainees gathered here on the Hill, Mohammad Mahjoub's wife, Mona El Fouli, Adil Charkaoui's mother, Latifa Charkaoui, and Mahmoud Jaballah's son, Ahmad Jaballah. A representative of Sophie and Mohamed Harkat, Christian Legeais, also attended. As well, we remembered Hassan Almrei, who is the only person still detained at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre on a security certificate.

One of the pleas that the families made was to ask that MPs and senators not support this legislation because of their great concerns about the injustice that it does. Ms. Charkaoui, Adil Charkaoui's mother, said that she did not believe there was a place in Canada for a justice system that involved “justice à deux vitesse”, I believe that was the expression she used, two systems of justice, one for Canadians and one for permanent residents or visitors to Canada. She believed that we should be proud of our justice system in Canada and that everyone here should have access to that system.

I wonder if the member could respond to Latifa Charkaoui's concerns about what she believes this security system represents.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about these issues in a strict, legal sense, we have to include nuances that are not always understood.

First, like many people, Ms. Charkaoui probably does not realize that this is not a criminal trial procedure, since the person involved has not been charged with anything. In fact, the first decision made about this person was not to incarcerate him, but to expel him. A citizen cannot be expelled unless it is a matter under extradition law, if he is being sought by the country where he allegedly committed a crime.

This is a process related to immigration law, which enforces the principle by which a sovereign country has the right to refuse entry to foreigners it considers dangerous.

I would have liked to have seen legislation that made concrete improvements, but I cannot propose amendments to change the legislation in that way.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that if the minister were truly serious in asking for a non-partisan attitude toward this matter, he should have talked to us, and we would have—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. I believe there are other questions and comments.

The hon. member for London West.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member before. When we had witnesses before committee, as he knows, they came with some excellent suggestions for improving the bill. Not only that, members around the table tried to put in amendments to this bill.

The public needs to understand why some of these very good suggestions could not be incorporated into the bill at this point in time, because of the stage it was at when it came to the committee. I remember that the member had an amendment that was ruled out of order. I would like the member to go over some of the activity that occurred to try to improve this bill, but which improvements could not be incorporated because of the way in which the government chose to send the bill to committee.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my view, the opposition parties—at least two of them—took their work very seriously in addressing this question. I am convinced that this power must exist somewhere, but the balance has been shifted.

Moreover, we managed to get some amendments adopted. For instance, the person in question can choose his or her counsel from the approved list of lawyers. There was a clear amendment that states that the counsel is bound by solicitor-client privilege. We would have liked to go even further, yet we were held back: the bill, as it stands, provides that it would have to be the most ignorant of counsel. One can sense, once again, that the government was reluctant to fully cooperate, with a view to ensure there were enough members at the meeting to restore the balance. It is unfortunate.

In particular, it would have required provisions to make a distinction between the decision to be made when someone has just entered the country and the decision to be made in the case of a father who has been living here for years, whose parents have received citizenship and whose children were born here and have Canadian citizenship. I do not see why such a person should not be treated like a Canadian citizen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3, the government's response to the Supreme Court decision with respect to security certificates and also the government's response to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the subcommittee that reviewed this aspect.

Getting the balance right between the civil liberties of citizens and the duty to protect citizens from criminals and terrorists is never easy.

I must say, in Bill C-3, the legislation we are debating today, I believe the government has made an attempt to achieve that balance. The government has paid attention to the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Recommendations of the subcommittee relating to the use of special advocate for processes other than security certificates, that is the listing of terrorist entities, the deregistration of registered charities and denial of charitable status, and applications for the disclosure of information under the Canada Evidence Act are still under study by the government. The government has, however, incorporated the subcommittee's recommendation to employ special advocates counsel for the security certificate process.

Security certificates are not a post-9/11 product. They have been around for more than 30 years. They are an instrument used very sparingly. Only 28 security certificates have been issued since 1991 and only 6 since September 11, 2001. Nineteen individuals have been removed from Canada as a result of security certificates. They are used to remove from Canada foreign nationals or permanent residents, not Canadian citizens, who are deemed to be security risks to Canadians. Individuals detained under security certificates may leave Canada at any time. Admittedly it is not always possible to find a jurisdiction that will accept these people or locate a jurisdiction that will not torture or cause them harm once they arrive. However, there have been many successful removals.

The subcommittee of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security reviewed the anti-terrorism legislation, which was required after five years that it was brought into play. The committee decided to include a review of security certificates even though they were not a feature of the anti-terrorism legislation. They are instruments administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

I had the honour to work on this committee and participated in the review of the anti-terrorism legislation. Testimony from witnesses completed in the 38th Parliament before it was dissolved. Therefore, we had witnesses in the 38th Parliament and that testimony was regurgitated or brought back before the new Parliament. The subcommittee and the standing committee issued an interim report in October 2006 and a final report in March 2007 in the 39th Parliament.

The interim report had to be released to deal with the provisions of preventive arrest and investigative hearing contained in the Anti-terrorism Act. These provisions had been sunsetted and were about to expire.

There is often misinformation in the minds of the public about how security certificates work.

For example, the individual about to be detained is informed of what they are accused of. What they are not told is the sources of information employed by the Canadian authorities (CSIS, RCMP etc.) to convince a judge that the person constituted a threat to the security of Canada.

Persons detained, as I said earlier, may also leave Canada at any time. This can be problematic, admittedly, for some individuals for some countries. However, there are examples of people returning to their countries and not being persecuted.

The security certificates process has been challenged in the courts in Canada and had been affirmed as not violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, on February 23, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced that the security certificates process was inconsistent with the requirements of the charter.

The Supreme Court concluded that these provisions of the act that allowed for the use of in camera, ex parte proceedings from which the named person and his or counsel were excluded violated the right to life, liberty and security of a person under section 7 of the charter.

The court found that the right to a fair hearing included the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial judge who decided the case on the facts and the law, the right to know the case that had to be met and the right to meet that case. Since evidence heard in camera and ex parte could not be tested by the named person and could not be disclosed by a judicially authorized summary of that evidence, the provisions of the act violated section 7 of the charter, the right to liberty.

The court also concluded that the provisions could not be saved by section 1 of the charter as being demonstrably justified limitations necessary in a free and democratic society. The Supreme Court gave Parliament one year to replace and reform the relevant provisions of the act.

The court made reference to the existence of special counsel, special advocate or amicus curiae measures used in Canada and in the United Kingdom where there was a requirement to protect sensitive information while still recognizing the right of individuals to meet the case with which they were confronted.

With respect to security certificates, our committee recommended changes to the process in our March 2007 final report. We recommended the use of security cleared special advocate counsel for the security certificate process, but also for the listing of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code, the deregistration of registered charities and denial of charitable status to applicants under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act, and applications for the disclosure of information under the Canada Evidence Act.

These three processes all have star chamber characteristics, in my judgment and in the judgment of the committee, and we recommended changes to improve the transparency and fairness of these processes. In Bill C-3 the government has accepted the recommendation to create special advocates to deal with security certificates.

With respect to the use of special advocates for processes other than security certificates, the ones I have just mentioned, the government, in its response to the subcommittee's report this summer, seemed to be lukewarm. The government's comment was as follows:

At the present time, the Government believes that further study of the use of special advocates in other processes is required.

I am hoping that the various government portfolios are still reviewing that and I would like to see some action on that in the future or a wholesome and fulsome response.

It would appear that changes to these other processes are not reflected in Bill C-3 and hopefully they will come later. These processes have the same in camera, star chamber qualities, in my judgment.

The role of the special advocate counsel is spelled out in clause 85 of Bill C-3.

The subcommittee of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had other recommendations on the topic of security certificates. One of these was as follows:

The Subcommittee recommended that sections 79, 81, 112, and other provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended so as to allow for an application to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for protection only after a security certificate has been found by a Federal Court judge to be reasonable.

In its response to the House of Commons report, the government responded this past summer to this recommendation as follows. The government stated that it agreed “with the stated objective of making the process more expeditious and will examine methods to do so”.

Bill C-3 eliminates the suspension of consideration of the reasonableness of a security certificate that occurs when a person named in it makes an application for protection. In addition, Bill C-3 requires that a judge of the Federal Court must commence a review of the detention within 48 hours.

With these two provisions, the government has responded to the recommendation of the sub-committee on this matter. This improves the sequencing of the process such that people will not be seeking protection from being sent to a country where they would be at risk until a Federal Court has determined whether or not the security certificate is reasonable.

The sub-committee also recommended the following for security certificates:

The Subcommittee recommends that section 78(j) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended by adding the words “reliable and” before the word “appropriate”.

The government has incorporated this wording into section 83(1)(h) of Bill C-3. In my view this provides greater certainty that evidence presented to a judge, if obtained by torture, will be inadmissible. Our party at committee introduced amendments to make that even more clear. I am glad to say that the government supported that amendment as well.

Bill C-3 addresses the key concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada and the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. For these reasons, I believe Bill C-3 deserves the support of the House.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the changes to the act with which the official opposition is pleased, does the member think there will be enough financial resources for the special advocate to not only do administrative work, but further investigative work if it is necessary? Will the special advocate have the kind of freedom to information that he would want to see available if he were in the position?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey North for her hard work on the sub-committee and the committee on this matter.

This matter was raised and discussed in committee. There was some concern that not only did the special advocates need the sort of rum and ration type of support, but they needed to be able to do all the research and have the resources available as well so they could act and respond in a timely way. The government responded, not unreasonably, that the matters could not be built right into the legislation. We looked at the wording at the time and some improvements perhaps were made to make it more clear.

All of us in the House and all Canadians and people who are interested in this legislation will be watching, I am sure, as the government brings in the regulations to support the special advocate process. That will begin to spell out more clearly how this will work. The next stage will be the estimates and the budget building process to see what actual resources are made available. If they are not sufficient, the House, or the committee or both should flag that and take it on with the government.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians would be stunned to hear that people have been incarcerated in Canada for periods as long as five to seven years on evidence that potentially was obtained through torture. The bill as it stands now has been amended so that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used.

We also know that evidence is provided by countries from the Middle East, developing countries and third world countries that do not have the same standards of evidence that we have here in Canada and other democracies. What guarantees do we have that evidence from countries that have different standards than ours in terms of evidence, that people will not be incarcerated as a result of that type of evidence?

Second, we also know that many of these countries are not democracies, they are dictatorships. People often seek refuge from those countries because they are political opponents to those dictatorships and seek refuge in countries such ours, Canada. We have a tradition of providing refuge.

We also know that some of those countries are quite adept at forging documentation and have in the past taken out personal vendettas against their political opponents who have escaped their grasp. What guarantees do we have--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the hon. member, but I do need to give the hon. member for Etobicoke North adequate time.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the hon. member's riding, he has a large population of Muslim Canadians, as do I. In fact, I think my riding has the third largest population of Muslims in Canada.

Some of the Muslims in my riding are not very happy with my stance on these particular issues. However, I can tell the House that the mainstream Muslim community that represents the vast majority of Muslims in Canada, I believe, have told me the reason they came to Canada was to escape the kind of intolerant societies, the risk to their personal lives, the corruption and the violence that goes on in those countries. They want a country that is safe for them and their children.

I am not suggesting they would all agree with Bill C-3, and we on the Liberal side are not suggesting that the bill is perfect. However, in response to threats to Canada, I think it is a reasonable solution. Ultimately, it could be challenged in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will decide.

I should say that the subcommittee--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced following a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in February 2007, which stated that the procedure for the judicial approval of security certificates established by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, furthermore, that it was of no force or effect. First of all, I have serious doubts about five particular provisions of Bill C-3.

First of all, arrest without warrant is a serious concern to us. As we know, a warrant can be obtained very quickly if sufficient evidence is presented to a judge. Why is this not the case here?

Second, are security certificates really necessary? Yes, they are, in very exceptional cases. They should only be upheld if the individual is considered dangerous beyond any reasonable doubt. However, with this bill, reasonable doubt is sufficient grounds for the continuing detention of a permanent resident or foreign national subject to a security certificate.

My third concern is whether it is acceptable for the term of incarceration to be indefinite. People are sent to prison but not told how long they will be there, and that evidence is being gathered. Deadlines keep getting pushed back. We are worried about the fact that people can be detained indefinitely. The mere fact that indefinite detention is possible for subjects of security certificates seems extreme to us.

For how long can a society that claims to abide by the rule of law keep people locked up with no evidence that they have committed a crime? It makes no sense that in a free and democratic society, people can be detained without ever having been found guilty following a trial.

My fourth point is that special advocates are not given access to all of the evidence. We think it is important for a special advocate bound by solicitor-client privilege to have access to all of the evidence. Currently, they may be given only a summary of the evidence, but we think they should receive the evidence in its entirety. We think it is important for advocates to be able to defend the rights of an individual facing deportation.

The people involved should be able to select security-cleared advocates from the Minister of Justice's list. Is it not logical to ensure that special advocates have the resources they need to do their jobs? Special advocates should also be allowed to see their clients more than once so they can get additional information once they have received the evidence.

My fifth point is that, clearly, appeal procedures have to change.An appeal will only be allowed if the judge, having heard the government's and the special advocate's representations, upholds the order for removal or incarceration. If the individual cannot be deported, there can only be an appeal on a question of law or general interest raised by the judge. For the individual concerned, it is not very reassuring to know that the person confirming the deportation is the same one who drafted the notice of appeal.

I do not understand why the government went so far. A similar burden does not exist elsewhere in the law, at least not in our law. I still have a number of very serious reservations about Bill C-3.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask a question. I do not believe that the Canadian public really understands what a security certificate is all about. I would like my colleague to confirm one thing.

For example, my in-laws live in the United States; they are American. In theory, if they were to come to Canada and if they were suspected of wrongdoing, they could be arrested and put in jail without being given a reason and without having access to a lawyer. Is that true? Are security certificates a threat to us?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Security certificates cannot be issued against Canadian citizens. However, they could be a threat to any visitor or anyone who has permanent residency but not citizenship, so any individual who was granted permanent residency by the government.

Any foreign national, any visitor or any individual living in or visiting Canada could be incarcerated with no access to a lawyer and without being told what evidence exists, if a security certificate was issued against this individual on our territory.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like that in the U.K., which has often been quoted as being a country from which we should learn. There was a special advocate with seven years of experience, Ian Macdonald. He quit over the failure of the government to address the problems of the system.

It seems to be that the advocate proposal that is part of the bill does not really address the whole issue. Does the hon. member have an opinion on whether the advocate system really addresses the whole question of the denial of human rights?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, elsewhere in the world, people have access to a special advocate, for example, in England, where that is part of their code. It has been proven that this method is ineffective.

The Bloc Québécois believes that allowing a special advocate to visit the person being held under a security certificate, but not allowing the advocate to reveal all of the evidence, is not consistent with the law in this country. The advocate should be able to reveal all the evidence to the person being held under a security certificate.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have the Canadian Charter of Rights, a charter that makes us very proud. We talk about it with our friends who visit us from other parts of the world. It is one of the reasons that a lot of immigrants come to our country. We are mighty proud of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

In the Charter of Rights we give every person in Canada the same rights: the right not to be tortured, the right to be treated equally, all rights under the law that are basic fundamental rights. The charter is supposed to protect every individual in Canada, which means that if Canada does not tolerate torture then we do not want to see torture in other countries.

Bill C-3, regarding security certificates, treats people as two kinds of human beings. One kind is Canadian. The other kind is everyone else who may be subjected to a security certificate. A person, for whatever reason, could be given a security certificate without the person having any idea what the Canadian government has against him or her. It is supposed to be a national security issue.

In Canada, one would think that people who commit a crime would be charged and, if convicted, they would go to jail and be punished. Actually, the security certificate in Bill C-3 sets up a second class of human being. They will not be charged nor convicted. They will not be jailed nor punished.

I keep hearing the Conservative government and the Liberals saying that they want to be tough on crime. If they want to be tough on crime, why are they not punishing people who are supposed to be criminals? What are we doing with them? We just deport them back to their own country.

If they are real criminals, why do we want them to be deported elsewhere? They may be terrorists and we are supposed to be having a war on terror. If they are terrorists, rather than charging and jailing them here in Canada and keeping them under lock and key in a place that is secure from the rest of the world and from Canadians, we deport them back to their home country.

If people are real terrorists and they are set free in their home country, they could wreak havoc in their home country. They may even come back to Canada and who knows what will happen. I thought we were supposed to be tough on criminals.

How does deporting a person from Canada make Canadians safe? I do not know. Why are we afraid of the truth? What does the Canadian government have to hide? Are we seeing a pattern? Why are we keeping the offence hidden from Canadians and from members of Parliament? We do not know, Canadians do not know and the lawyers do not know what kind of offence was committed. The person detained has no idea what kind of offence he or she is being charged with.

What is the minister afraid of? Why will the government not tell Canadians the truth: that it believes the person is a security risk and that is why the person will be jailed and punished.

This kind of thing is a real problem. I will give some examples of people disappearing and people not knowing exactly what happened to them.

A story recently came to light about a gentleman named Benamar Benatta whose timing was really unfortunate. He came from New York City to Canada to declare refugee status just before the September 11 attacks a few years ago. I believe he was born in Algeria but left because he did not want to do what his country wanted him to do.

He joined the military at the age of 18, had some basic training, went to university and became an engineer. After graduation, he went back to the military and started teaching. He was uncomfortable with the military crackdown in Algeria after the 1992 general election so he decided to move to the U.S. However, because he spoke French he thought that rather than stay in the U.S. he would move to Canada where he would feel comfortable being in a bilingual country. He said, “I had the impression that Canada had protection for human rights. Hell, it depends what kind of human beings. If you are not Canadian you may not get protected”.

What happened? He came across the border, declared refugee status but was put into the back of a car and driven to the U.S. He was then jailed in New York where he was held with 83 other people who were high interest suspects of FBI investigations. He could not get to a lawyer. He said that he repeatedly had his head slammed against the wall, et cetera, and interrogated.

However, by November 15, 2001, the FBI decided that it did not have a case against him and officially cleared him from any connections to terrorism but he remained in detention.

After almost four and a half years, he was able to be finally return to Canada. I will not bore members with all the details, but it went back and forth. It was because of the good work of the Canadian Council for Refugees that he was able to get back to Canada. This person was a refugee claimant and, by the way, his refugee claim has been dealt with and he is now formally a refugee in Canada, so obviously he has a good case. This poor innocent man was in jail for five years because Canada was so afraid of people who may cause terror that the man was denied the basic fundamental rights that we accord every human being in Canada. We did not give him fair treatment, in my mind, and as a result he lost five years of his life.

Under this security certificate in Bill C-3, we will be sending people back to their home country. If they face torture that is fine with us. As long as we and the Canadian public do not really know what the charges are, perhaps we can say that we will be blameless.

That is not my definition of accountability, of being tough on crime, of being tough on criminals and certainly not my definition of being a proud Canadian.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that over the last couple of years our country has been sliding away from being in the front to fight for human rights to kind of taking a back seat. We are not standing up for the young kid in Guantanamo Bay who has been there for three years. Some of us parliamentarians have had to sign petitions in the hope that someone does that work on our behalf.

Right now we are saying that if someone is a terrorist we will just send them back or round them up. I will use the example that is kind of humorous. If my in-laws were to come to Canada they could theoretically be rounded up and put in jail because of these security certificates.

What will happen to Canada if the bill does not go through? Will we be in danger from terrorists?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we do not use security certificates, it will mean that someone who is not a Canadian citizen, not a landed immigrant and is here either without status or trying to declare refugee status or landed immigrant status can be deemed to be a suspect of committing a crime. If we truly believe that his or her presence in Canada will jeopardize our security or our national security, let us get the proof and let us make it public so Canadians know what kind of people we have in Canada. We will then collectively, through the courts, which we have faith in, say to this person that we believe he or she is a problem and we will put the person in jail. However, if the person is innocent, we must let them go free and allow them to stay in Canada. If the person is not qualified under the refugee immigration process, then the person will be deported in any event.

However, I must say that refugee claimants should have a chance for an appeal. The House of Commons has said over and over again that we should implement the refugee appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board but we do not have such a body, which is not fair.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making a statement, which is that suspicion is not guilt.

This past summer I had the occasion to travel to Edmonton to speak to some new Canadians and then some well-established Canadians from the Muslim community.

I was sitting with a gentleman who had been in Canada for 30 years. He had been a contributing member to the society in Edmonton for 30 years and was well respected in his community and in the broader community. He was telling me how, following 9/11, investigative officers from CSIS would drop by and speak to him about all the money that he was sending home, the money he had been sending home for 30 years to raise the standard of living for his family in his homeland, a commitment that we would all do.

In fact, I myself celebrated an anniversary recently of 40 years moving from New Brunswick to Ontario. In some people's minds that is like coming to a new world, at least it was in the sixties. Some of the good Canadians from the east coast would send some of their money back home in the same way. I was never questioned but perhaps I was fortunate that it was a different time or that I had different colour skin than the other gentleman.

What is happening to us as a country is a tragedy. It is an affront to our democratic processes that has occurred in the reaction that has followed 9/11. It has followed the Americans' approach to 9/11 and the Americans' fight on terrorism.

I rise to speak on security certificates, but I wish to heaven I would never have to do this again. I believe, along with the rest of the NDP caucus, that Bill C-3 continues to fail Canada and Canadians.

Canadians are not more free because of Bill C-3 and they certainly are not feeling any more secure. Furthermore, the NDP opposes Bill C-3 because, as we have heard repeatedly in this place, there are already measures in our Criminal Code to deal with the activities, to deal with crimes against Canada and crimes against Canadians. Security certificates themselves fail Canadians in a grand fashion.

A security certificate does not allow the presentation of evidence that would support the accusations against a person who is accused or suspected of terrorist activity. Instead, the security certificate simply removes the individual from Canada and in doing so, in my opinion and as expressed earlier by the member for Trinity—Spadina, it fails Canadians. If the individual is actually guilty, then a process should be enacted in this country to deal with that guilt.

A security certificate does not offer or support justice for either the accused or for Canadians. In fact, security certificates in themselves are an affront to Canada's national sense of what justice is. If the accused is guilty, the person should be charged and tried under our Criminal Code and the appropriate penalties applied and then the person should be deported, but not held in detention without the opportunity to face his or her accusers or see the evidence against him or her.

There is another side to this. The people in detention who proclaim their innocence and have not had a chance to speak to it in a court of law, the day comes when they are found to be innocent. If they had gone through our Criminal Code procedures, our courts, our justice system, they would have had a right to return to Canadian life, to pick up where they had left off, pick up the pieces. But they have spent years upon years in detention and again they have not been able to see the evidence against them, to refute the evidence, the most fundamental tenets of our justice system. That has put a chill through our country.

I alluded to the individual in Edmonton, Alberta, but there are more cases than that individual. Talk to Mr. Almalki who was detained in a cell which was more like a coffin for three months. We all know the case of Maher Arar. We all know when we fail, and we are setting ourselves up for failure again.

I am pausing because I tend sometimes to get a little emotional. I was raised to take great pride in our justice system, the fact that people can face their accusers and walk away. I am going to be speaking later today about a family incident and I will give a small piece of it here to make the point of what I understand is our justice system.

My sister was strangled to death as a 10-year-old child. My father was mistakenly accused of that crime. We were a poor family. A great fear went through us that we would not be able to save my father from those accusations. Later he was proved to be innocent and there was a mentally disturbed person in the family who was dealt with and spent time in an appropriate hospital following that. Let us consider for a moment the place we are putting people, where they cannot face their accusers and they cannot refute the evidence, and how terrible that is.

From time to time I will do my best to take a breath, but it is so crucially important to the sense of justice that all Canadians have that the people in this place pause, stop the rhetoric and think about the deterioration of our justice system if we gerrymander process, to put in place a process like this that is so ugly and disgusting. I cannot understand how anybody in this place could support it.

Our Criminal Code is among the best. Our justice system is among the best in the world. Canada will send people to other parts of the world to teach them our justice system. We should keep that pride. One of the few ways we can keep that pride is to ensure individual rights and the rights for people to face their accusers and the evidence against them.

For the NDP, the security certificate is an affront to civil liberties. There is a sense in my gut of how wrong this is that I just cannot put it aside.

We understand with Bill C-3 that the Conservative federal government is trying to address a flaw in the process that was pointed out by the Supreme Court. It is far more than a flaw. What it is trying to do today is move around something that was a violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We should think about rights and freedoms for a moment. We should think about the fact that there are individuals detained in our country. Their freedom has been taken away and they have no rights. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Imagine the setting aside of well respected, fundamental terms of justice and how that was so cavalierly done. The detainees have not seen any of the critical evidence against them. Their legal representation has not seen the evidence against them.

Let us just say that tomorrow, for whatever reason, it is deemed acceptable that they return to Canadian society, that there had been an error. They will always be besmirched by the fact that they have been detained. They will always live beside neighbours who doubt them. If they returned to their country of origin, many of the countries those folks would return to are countries where we know torture is committed. It is time for our country to take a strong stand for the liberty, for the human rights of our citizens and guests in our country, as well.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the emotion the hon. member put into his remarks. One of the things that I think he got wrong is that security certificates have been around for about 30 years. In fact, they were brought in during the Trudeau era, the same prime minister who brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are not a new vehicle. In fact, Bill C-3 and the work of our subcommittee and the decisions of the Supreme Court are actually going to lead to improvements in the process.

I will never forget a meeting we had of the Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security when we were reviewing the anti-terrorism legislation. Someone from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness brought forward a briefing document that was a dossier on someone who was being detained under a security certificate in Canada. The dossier had to be blanked out for the sources of information, but it was a chronicle of the charges that were made against an individual as to why the individual was being detained under a security certificate.

There was also someone from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association on the witness panel.

There is another misunderstanding people have. A person detained under a security certificate understands fully why he or she is being detained. What the person does not know are the sources of the information. It is the role of the judge to make sure that that information is corroborated and reliable and not the result of torture. That is why the special advocate process will improve that sort of process.

When this dossier was presented to the subcommittee, I recall asking the member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association if he would like the person being detained under a security certificate to be his next door neighbour. This individual, who is someone from a civil rights organization, said no. I asked him what the problem was and he replied that the problem was the process.

That is why we are here today debating Bill C-3. This bill will improve the process. Will it be a perfect solution? Of course not. Our primary responsibility as parliamentarians is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. There is no perfect balance between dealing with those responsibilities and protecting the civil rights of Canadians.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly take the hon. member at his word for the process he was talking about and the information that was provided. I agree with him that the certificate has been around for 30 years, but its intent has been misdirected. That certificate was never intended to be used in cases of terrorist activity.

Our party is very clear. We still believe that within the Criminal Code of this country there are mechanisms and resources that we can turn to to deal with this.

Individuals are not being told what the evidence is against them. The question of facing their accusers and national security could be addressed in another manner. Very clearly, it is important that people and their legal representatives be allowed to see the evidence and that they be allowed the opportunity to access the most fundamental aspect of justice, and that is to face their accusers and to defend themselves against what may well be false allegations.

There are many times that people in the U.S. have been rendered to other countries. We know that in the justice system in the U.S., many times people are imprisoned because they are poor and they cannot afford proper representation. As I alluded to in my remarks earlier, my family faced such a thing. It leaves a mark.

I will not call into question the motivation of any member of the House. I am sure members are giving their best judgment. I just ask them to err on the side of caution and the side of justice.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon in this debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. I was pleased to second the amendments put forward by my colleague, the member for Surrey North, on behalf of the NDP caucus today.

It is a somewhat controversial process to suggest that all the clauses of this bill be deleted, but it is a way for us in this corner of the House to show our very serious concerns with the legislation, to show our fears that this is the wrong process to protect Canadians, and to ensure fundamental justice in Canada. In the traditions of this place, putting forward those kinds of amendments is one way of showing that kind of deep concern.

The security certificate legislation is a feature of our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but my fear is that we are now using it essentially to prosecute very serious criminal matters, and in fact some of the most serious criminal matters that could face our society, those being terrorism, espionage and threats against the national security of Canada.

What this is saying is that we are prepared to use this lesser immigration process, which is essentially an expedited deportation process, to ensure that dangerous people are kept off the streets in Canada. It seems to me that this is short-circuiting our criminal justice process, especially when it comes to very serious crimes such as terrorism, espionage and threats against national security.

If there is a time when those crimes should be prosecuted, and prosecuted vigorously, it is when we have information about people who are present in Canada and participating in any of those kinds of activities. We should be ensuring that they are charged, prosecuted, convicted and then punished for those activities, but we should be doing it according to the principles of our justice system.

We should not be trying to short-circuit those very basic principles. I think that is what we are doing by using what I believe is a lesser provision of law in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to indefinitely detain people who have not been charged or convicted of any crimes and to deny them access to the evidence that is presented against them. They do not have the ability to fully test what is being presented and is leading to their continued detention.

Currently, post-September 11, this is being applied to six people in Canada, five of whom are Muslim men. I am very concerned that these men have had very serious allegations and accusations levelled against them, accusations that will follow them for the rest of their lives and make it difficult for them wherever they live, here in Canada or in any other country. Once people are labelled as suspected or accused terrorists, especially in the current world climate, their lives become very difficult.

Given the consequences of those kinds of allegations, we owe it to people to subject them to the highest possible standards of our justice system, not some lesser process. That is why I am fundamentally opposed to this legislation.

I would like to see us repeal the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relating to security certificates. If there is a problem with our criminal law such that we are unable to prosecute people accused of these very serious crimes, then we should fix those problems in our Criminal Code to ensure that this kind of prosecution can take place.

I am also concerned that if the security certificate process went through to its logical conclusion, these people could be deported to countries where their lives would be in danger or where they might be subjected to torture. Canada must never deport someone to torture. We should never deport people when we have reason to believe that they will be killed once they return to their countries. We have a responsibility in that matter. Ultimately, the security certificate process allows us to avoid those kinds of responsibilities. We must never deport someone to torture.

I have to reiterate that using the security certificate process as provided in our immigration law is a lesser process that does not meet the important and longstanding traditions and standards of our criminal justice system. The appropriate way to deal with these very serious crimes is under the Criminal Code.

Of the five Muslim men who are currently the subjects of the security certificates, Hassan Almrei is the only detainee now being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. “Holding centre” is a nice way of describing what it actually is. It is a maximum security prison within a maximum security prison.

It is a maximum security prison located within the walls and the fences of Millhaven maximum security penitentiary, so it is not exactly a picnic of a place to be. I have been there on several occasions. It is a very difficult place. To be detained there indefinitely is I think a very severe penalty for anyone, especially someone who has never been charged or convicted.

Mr. Almrei is the only prisoner there. I believe that raises serious issues of solitary confinement, which we have to struggle with in this place and in our justice system. I do not think it is ever appropriate to hold someone in solitary confinement for a long period of time. Now that Mr. Almrei is the only prisoner there, that is the situation he faces.

The other four men who have been released on very strict conditions, Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, Adil Charkaoui and Mohamed Harkat, are living with very difficult requirements. There are very severe restrictions on their lives and the lives of their families.

The reality is that those four men have been released from detention because they have family members who have been willing, on behalf of Canadian society, to act as their jailers. I think that is a very difficult proposition to put to any family member: that on behalf of Canadian society they should have to be responsible for one of their loved ones 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to make sure they remain in custody and meet these very rigorous conditions.

The effect on the lives of those families is very severe, and again, when their loved one, their father, brother or spouse, has never been convicted of or charged with a crime in Canada. These are very severe restrictions and we see how difficult it is for these families. We have seen just recently how Mr. Harkat has been arrested for an alleged breach of his release conditions. We are waiting anxiously to hear the outcome of his hearing today.

In a sense, I believe that those conditions have been set so strictly so that they will fail. It is hard to imagine how anyone could live under those conditions. It is a testament to the strength of the relationships in those families that they have been able to hold those families and those relationships together given the conditions that they are required to live in.

I am very convinced that this legislation violates some of the fundamental tenets of our justice system and that it uses a lesser mechanism in immigration law to deal with one of the most serious criminal issues that could face our society, that being terrorism or threats against our security. That is why I strongly will be voting against this. I am glad that the New Democrat caucus in this Parliament will also be voting against it.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the member opposite, in this whole discussion the factor that seems to be missing is the whole question of sources of information that Canada relies on for national security purposes.

This information comes from a variety of sources. It comes from agencies all around the world. There is an exchange of information. If this information were to become public, then of course those agencies and foreign countries would no longer give information to Canada. That would be an unfortunate development because a lot of that information is useful for our national security purposes.

The way the process goes is that under the current regime the government goes to a Federal Court judge and makes the argument on the information of CSIS, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence or other agencies. I note that a Federal Court judge does not get there because he or she is a rookie or does not have any experience or is just out of Osgoode Hall Law School. These judges have been around for a while. They are charged with challenging the credibility of the evidence being put forward.

Is the evidence corroborated? Is it reliable? Has it been derived from torture? That is the job of the Federal Court judge. What this bill is doing is actually enhancing that process, because a special advocate will actually pursue those questions quite vigorously on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of those who might be detained under security certificates.

To say that people do not know why they are being detained is not right. They know why they are being detained. They do not know all the sources of the information.

I would like to know from the member how he would deal with the question of sources of intelligence that are important for our national security interests if they got onto the floor of a court or into the public domain.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canada's Criminal Code does deal with that. If a Canadian is charged with these kinds of crimes, there are mechanisms which accommodate exactly that. We do not need a special process like this. Those mechanisms already exist in the Criminal Code of Canada. We can see that right now, because there are Canadians charged with these kinds of crimes and those processes are in court. Those kinds of issues will be dealt with by the court as well.

To say that we need this lesser process to deal with people who are not Canadian citizens I think is a very flawed thing. To say that we need a separate system of justice or a lesser system of justice for someone who is a visitor in our country or is a permanent resident I think violates the charter at a very fundamental level. It certainly violates my hopes for what the charter might mean to someone who is present here in Canada.

I am someone who believes that the charter should apply to anyone who is here in Canada and that what is good for a Canadian citizen should be good for any of our brothers and sisters around the world, that we should respect that hope with all of those people. I do not accept that we need a separate process to deal with that.

I also do not accept that the special advocate in any way will address the problems of hearing secret evidence. We have seen that it has been a flawed process in Britain and in New Zealand. We have seen many recommendations made by experts in Canada about what a special advocate process might look like here. Unfortunately, the government chose not to implement any of them in the legislation it brought forward. It had that possibility and it had the studies for a long time, yet the bill that was presented here did not reflect any of that wisdom.

Some of the special advocates in other jurisdictions in Britain have said they have had to leave that work because all they were doing was adding a veneer of respectability to a very flawed process. I do not want to put a lawyer in Canada in that position. I think that is why the government has had to extend the deadline for applications for people who wish to be special advocates in Canada: because lawyers in Canada are unwilling to participate in that kind of flawed position. It is a flawed position that the Canadian Bar Association has said is likely to be held unconstitutional, so here we are debating a law that is going to end up back in court and which is likely to be rejected again according to many of the experts who appeared before the committee.

I do not think that is an acceptable process. We need to be clear about what our hopes are for our justice system. We need to be clear about protecting the principles of that justice system that has been established over hundreds of years and that we have fought hard and long for in this country. I believe this legislation flies in the face of that experience and that tradition. That is why I will not be supporting this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred until Monday, February 4, at 6:30 p.m.

The House resumed from January 31, 2008, consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-3.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #32

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 12 lost.