Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Wilson was the only one on the committee who hadn't been given an opportunity to speak, so I decided to stick within the very narrow parameters of the motion and give everyone a chance.

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

I'm giving you notice, Chair, that I haven't given up on your departure from the usual speaking order at committees, and I will want to pursue that matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I've been deviating from the motion a little bit. We can get on to a question now from each member if we want to, but if we persist in putting up our hands on points of order, we're eating up valuable time.

Mr. Karygiannis was next.

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

Mr. Chair, in fairness, I think if you would seek unanimous consent, all those who want to ask one or two questions should be able to put those questions, regardless of the party. Each of us can put one or two questions--I realize that the room is not being used next--and we can give ample time to the witnesses to answer those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

This is what I put before the committee. Does the committee wish to have a few minutes to have an additional question from each party?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, I detect that this is the will, and I will go to the representative from the Liberal Party to begin. No, I will go to Mr. Siksay to begin, since he only had one round in the whole thing. So I'll start with him.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to follow up on Mr. Wilson's question. The correctional investigator of Canada, Mr. Sapers, recently, in his annual report, suggested that he should be given the mandate to investigate or hear complaints from the security certificate detainees. He noted that when they were in detention in provincial facilities, especially in Ontario, they did have access to the Ontario ombudsman if they had complaints or grievances that weren't being addressed, but when they were transferred to Kingston they didn't have access to any kind of ombudsman process. He asked that they be added to his mandate.

I'm just wondering if you folks had a response to that suggestion.

[Alex Neve]

I wholly endorse that. I can't emphasize enough how important it is around any detention issue, but there is something particular about security certificate detention. With this whole concern about its indefinite nature and the very serious sort of mental and psychological toll it takes on detainees, and so on, it is fundamentally important that there be some sort of independent mechanism in place to receive complaints, to ensure monitoring, and to bring some oversight to the whole situation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

I'll go to Mr. Telegdi. Is there agreement that there will be one question from each party?

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

Yes, that's what I understood, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, the agreement is for one question from each party.

We'll have Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Vincent, and then Mr. Komarnicki, and then we will adjourn our meeting.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

People are asking what the balance is. And I guess what bothers me in this whole process is that people we depend on to provide us with information in turn end up abusing human rights. When they give false information, as they did in the Arar case, or they withhold information, surely to God there has to be accountability for these folks who have abused the human rights of a Canadian or an individual--a human person. Right now, there doesn't seem to be.

[Alex Neve]

If you're asking particularly about the Arar inquiry, I think it obviously is one of the continuing very worrying pieces in the aftermath of Justice O'Connor's report that we heard from Commissioner Zaccardelli himself that it's not his plan or intention to discipline, let alone consider the possibility of criminal charges against the people responsible for that wrongdoing, if appropriate.

That's obviously not the kind of response needed to a serious human rights travesty like what happened in Maher Arar's case. Things don't get better unless there's justice, accountability, and consequences. I think the pressure needs to continue to ensure that the government is going to make sure that proper investigations are conducted into what happened in that case, and that if policies were transgressed there will be appropriate discipline, and if laws were breached there will be a criminal consequence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I very much liked the answer that was given in response to Mr. Kormarnicki’s question on how we could balance the protection of the country and individual rights. Mr. Preston spoke of balance. I think that in terms of human rights, the first concern has to be knowing why someone is arrested and put in jail. You might say the country’s security may be at stake, but before knowing why it is at stake you have to know why someone is being arrested. I think that you provided a good answer.

My question is simpler. I would like to know what question you would have liked us to ask you. What is your answer?

Do you understand my question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I guess he's wondering if there's a question we didn't ask you this morning that you would have preferred to hear so you could expound upon it a little bit more.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

It’s a good question.

[Mary Foster]

Steps could be taken.

[Christian Legeais]

What we’re really waiting for are not questions from the government or political parties, but rather an announcement on when these human rights violations will end. The problem with respect to each of these issues is that security certificates and immigration policies come from the government and the House. It is certainly not somehow the responsibility of organizations like the Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee or other organizations in Montreal and Toronto, which defend rights as best they can without the means necessary, to explain to the government, which created this mess, how it is supposed solve the problem. Our responsibility is to protect these men and to fight for their rights and for the rights of all.

It’s not up to us to come here today and tell you that your system of repression isn’t working and that something different must me done, that you have to do this or that. It’s not up to us to find a solution. We dedicate enough time and funds to this situation with what little money and resources we have, while the government has thousands of employees, thousands of experts, who could examine the issue of rights violations. But they haven’t done it yet. That is where the problem lies. You ask us what the best question is when what we’re looking for are answers. The best thing that can happen is for you to tell us that these men will be released and that you will all support defending their rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, from the response of Mr. Wilson, the decision is expected in weeks, and not months or years. It's a fairly considered decision.

So as not to leave any misconceptions before this committee or the Canadian public, these security certificates are used quite infrequently. Since 1991, there have only been 27 security certificates. It wouldn't be fair to say the evidence isn't probed or tested, because we have the appeal court judges, who are trained quite well, and designated judges who look at the evidence and probe it and try it. They provide a summary of the reasons why there is a concern for national security, which the other parties are entitled to rebut. There's certainly a right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses during the public part of the hearing. It sometimes lasts for several days.

It's not as if there's no evidence or secret evidence. A probing takes place, and of course the prime concern is a balancing of interests. In my mind, national security takes precedence where it is proved to be so.

Even the Liberal Party had its own member, Mr. Bains, introduce a private member's bill that accepts the concept of security certificates. It requested a special counsel be appointed to be present when the judge hears information or the evidence referred to for the purpose of ensuring the public interest is protected. Special counsel may present arguments before the judge relating to any matters prescribed by the regulations to say someone needs to present a fairly significant public interest.

There is a balancing. Wouldn't you agree with me that there is a provision there for someone to look at the overall security of the country in the best interests of the community at large?

[Alex Neve]

I think we've all clearly agreed that, yes, national security is a critical concern and it's a human rights concern. What we're trying to underscore is that the policies taken by any government, including the Canadian government, to address national security--be it immigration, security certificates, or any other practice--need to accord with the international human rights system.

This is the system that governments themselves set up. In its very terms, the system already recognizes the particular ways in which national security issues do interact with human rights. It recognizes that there are certain human rights that can never be infringed in the name of national security, and some can be infringed in only the most limited circumstances, in times of extreme national emergency.

So a whole framework within the international human rights system already addresses this.

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

Isn't that what the courts are attempting to do, to balance the various rights and interests?