Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm not questioning the member of Parliament; I'm questioning the person--

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You're questioning whether I have raised it with them. I don't think that's appropriate, and I'm asking the chair to disallow that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I don't know if that's a proper point of order, or even if it's proper to ask officials if a member of the committee ever really asked those questions in the privacy of a meeting with the officials.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No, not in the privacy of a meeting; it was just whether he has raised those issues with officials.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You can do an access to information request and find out. I don't think that's an appropriate question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's okay, you can have a huddle. Just don't dock it from my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, that question would be very much out of order, because it's a matter of privacy between the individual committee member...and the questions he might have asked or not asked to officials at another time.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You might be trying to muzzle; I don't think you want to muzzle me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

So the officials, if they wish, may disregard that question.

I'll ask Mr. Komarnicki to move on to his questioning. We're rapidly running out of time here.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, once again, I appreciate your ruling, and accept it of course, as I always have in the past. We'll move on.

I wanted to point out that as I look at all of the active cases, including Suresh and others, these security certificates, the legislation surrounding them, and the operation of them were during various ministers, such as Wayne Easter, Mr. Coderre, Anne McLellan, and many others, who may or may not have a say in how these have been handled procedurally.

Having said that, I guess one of the issues I found in the discussions was that if you find that someone is a security risk—and it has been in a couple of the cases—and you can't export them back to where they came from because they're at risk of torture, and there's no trial process that would actually convict or acquit them of the charges, we come to the inevitable conclusion that they are in detention perhaps indefinitely. Assuming nothing changes and no review brings new evidence, do we not find ourselves in the awkward position of somehow having to deal with these individuals who have no hope of release?

How would you handle that? What's the answer to that issue?

[Daniel Therrien]

That's the ultimate dilemma. What I can say is that as I've mentioned, the Federal Court has found that under the current law, so long as removal is possible—ie., while the risk of torture assessment has not been completed, including judicial review of the risk assessments—detention has been set by the Federal Court of appeal not to be indefinite. Not that it's not long—everybody agrees that it's for a long duration—but it's not indefinite while removal is still a possibility. What happens when removal is no longer a possibility?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, sir.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

He hadn't quite finished his point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Were you finished your answer? Please go ahead and complete your answer.

[Daniel Therrien]

It's a dilemma.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We will now go to a five-minute sharing here between Mr. Telegdi and Mr. Karygiannis.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Therrien, you're a lawyer, you're a senior counsel, and you talk about protecting the interest of the state. I would suggest to you that part of protecting the interest of the state is protecting the integrity of the system. We know that evidence extracted under torture and evidence given by jailhouse snitches are not very credible. There's no capacity within the system to test that evidence before the justice. Then the whole process becomes tainted and ends up being contrary to the interest of the state.

So I'm going to get back once again to that question. The English system might be no panacea, but it's better than the system we have. Why could we not be proactive? Why do we always have to fight it to the last barricade, as the department has done by going to the Supreme Court? Why can't we be proactive and say we want a system that protects the integrity of the process?

[Daniel Therrien]

As I've said, despite not being a panacea, it is a very legitimate policy question for parliamentarians to consider, whether to add a special advocate. But I would suggest that this is a policy issue for parliamentarians, and it is not one for an official to answer at this point.

What I can tell you is what the current law is, and I certainly agree with you that part of the interest of the state is to ensure that democratic values and values of respect for the rule of law are seen in the procedures that exist in Canada. To that extent, the certificate process is an attempt to achieve that balance.

But there may be better ways to achieve that balance. Again I say that at the end of the day, this is a policy issue for parliamentarians, whether to change the current law that we have.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

It may be a policy issue for parliamentarians, Mr. Chair, except that it is the department that comes forward with suggestions for new legislation through the minister.

I'm going to pass at this point in time to Mr. Karygiannis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You are right on cue, Mr. Telegdi.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mrs. Kramer, when did Ramadan finish?

[Susan Kramer]

It was October 24.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I understand that facilities for the inmates to be with their families finished at 4:30. Is that correct?