Evidence of meeting #50 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ensure.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay, let me just reword it.
If someone was a known terrorist or a convicted war criminal and was outside of Canada, would you bring them back—yes or no?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
If they were here, you'd want to try them before deporting them—yes or no?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay. I'm going to lead into a particular case I have in front of me. It has to deal with a gentleman, Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, who carried out terrorist acts with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Now, this person is in Canada. Are you saying that we should try him here, as opposed to deporting him?
4:40 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
There's a difference. Extraditing someone is sending them to another country where they can be tried and charged.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
If they're here, you're saying we should be trying them on whatever acts of terrorism—
4:40 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
If we have the resources to do that—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay.
His connection to terrorism was established a long time ago. He's still in Canada. He's been here since 1987, and he is continuing to launch judicial appeals. I think you're saying we should try him here for war crimes and then we should allow him to go through all of this judicial review, and so on.
Is that what you're saying we should be doing, or do you not think we should just simply deport this person?
4:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I think we have to be clear that we need evidence regarding people, you know? We need to deal with them on the basis of evidence. If you have evidence, then certainly deportation is one possibility. One of the obligations we have, if they have not been convicted, is to prosecute them. That's my understanding.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Okay. I just want to get back to this particular case.
His presence in Canada since 1987 and his series of judicial appeals has cost Canadian taxpayers $3 million. When I learned of this—I'm looking at it—I actually asked if it was a typo. I couldn't believe it myself.
I'm very concerned when I hear witnesses state that we should be trying these particular criminals here in Canada and then allow them to go through judicial appeals. We're talking 1987, and it's now 2012. That's a long time. I'm sure that there isn't a single person watching this committee right now who would agree that this is actually the way to go. I'm very concerned about that.
Getting back to the actual screening policies, I'm wondering what recommendations you would make to correct the flaws in Canada's screening policies. I know you've talked about an independent regime to deal with complaints, but I'm not talking about complaints; I'm talking about how we can better screen people coming into Canada.
4:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
I think there's the obligation to correct the bad information. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario recently published an article to recognize how bad information creeps into data. She recommends that people be able to trace where the information comes from to ensure they have the possibility for correcting it. That's one of the issues. It's important that we ensure we base decisions on correct information.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Would you agree that it's better to stop someone from coming into Canada than it is to have them here at a cost to taxpayers of $3 million? Am I correct?
4:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
If it's the correct information, I have no problem with it.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
Second, do you think that so far Canada as a whole, at our border crossings and so on, has done a fairly good job of screening people and preventing criminals from entering our borders?
I read this one example; I know there's a dozen more. Do you think there's room for improvement, that we need to crack down and do better screening? What's your—
4:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
There's always room for improvement, certainly. That's not the position. I think we have to continue to improve regimes to ensure we have correct information and that we have procedural fairness attached to it so that we are certain we are acting in the best interests. It's not in the interest of anyone if we act on the wrong information.
My point is that certainement, there's always room for improvement.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
You're going back to correcting bad information or making sure we have the correct information, but how do we actually go about that? What is the recommendation to make sure that information is correct?
4:45 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Well, I draw direction from the privacy commissioners, who suggest that people have the ability to challenge information about themselves and to know where it comes from. In that context you need to have some procedural norms around this. I think that's where we're going: ensuring there is a way in which people can respond to the information about them to ensure it is correct.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to begin by thanking our witnesses.
My first question is for Mr. Waldman.
The deportation of certain foreign criminals to their country of origin involves risks of torture and endangers their lives. How do you think deportations should be carried out so that the balance between the imperative of protecting the security of Canadians and the human rights requirements is not broken in a constitutional state like ours?
4:45 p.m.
Partner, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
Thank you for that question. I think it picks up on the question from the previous speaker.
The case she cited was a case involving a gentleman who had already been convicted. It's a different situation from the situation we're discussing here about people who have been accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity but who haven't yet been convicted. The question is, they may have been found by an immigration member at a very low threshold. Remember, there are three thresholds, and the immigration threshold of proof is less than a balance of probabilities. It's a very low threshold of proof; it wouldn't be enough to find a person guilty.
We are dealing with people who have been found to be war criminals at a very low threshold, and then we have to decide what to do with them. As the previous speaker said, there are circumstances when we should consider trying them in Canada.
I can give you one example, and that was the gentlemen from the most wanted list who was actually deported. He was from Honduras. In fact, Honduran human rights groups contacted people in Canada and said, “Don't send this gentleman home. If he gets home he won't be tried; he'll be free. He is someone who should be tried, and we have evidence to prove that he may well be a war criminal. Please keep him in Canada.” That's an example illustrating that if we are committed to holding people accountable, we should seek to try them in Canada.
The other example you gave, of course, is of people who are war criminals and can't be deported, because to deport them would be to risk subjecting them to torture. That's one of the cases I'm dealing with now. In those types of situations we have to consider the possibility, if we believe they really are war criminals, of trying them in Canada.
Of course we have the International Criminal Court, and that gives us another option. If we believe that a person is a war criminal and he can't be sent home because he won't get a fair trial or he'll be tortured in his country, it's possible to ask the International Criminal Court to consider dealing with those cases.
It's a very complex question, and it's not one that has a simple answer.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you.
My second question is for Mr. Waldman, and it's about the notion of accountability.
Obviously, you advocate an independent accountability mechanism for ensuring good governance. Could you elaborate on that, please?
4:50 p.m.
Partner, Lorne Waldman and Associates, As an Individual
I'll be brief.
We need to create an independent regime to which people can make complaints about the conduct of officials of CBSA. It would have powers to conduct hearings and hold inquiries to determine whether there had been abuses of persons' rights.
It is a basic, fundamental right that exists in every other context. CBSA officials have huge powers. There has to be an accountability regime for them as well as for other officials. That is a basic principle of the rule of law. I'm sure that my friend Ms. Des Rosiers has more to say.
4:50 p.m.
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Accountability regimes must have the following characteristics: they must be independent and they must have a civilian component. That means that the screening should not be done only by agency employees. Those civilian parties must have the authority to carry out screening. They must be able to conduct investigations not only in response to complaints, but also on their own initiative, to ensure that the policies are complied with and that the law is being respected.
There is a regime for information services, as well as an improving regime for the RCMP. We are simply asking that an equivalent regime be established for the Canada Border Services Agency, as that body has very significant powers.
