Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a honour for me to be here with you, my colleagues. I believe that the work of this Committee is very important. The security of our citizens from sea to sea is a priority for our government, and I am convinced that it is also a priority for you.
Because of that, I'm always interested to receive the information you have, the advice you give, and the questions you ask on a variety of issues. You've heard us say a number of times that the safety and security of citizens is the primary role of any level of government. I know that's your focus also, and I appreciate that.
In a year Canada has about 95 million people who cross our borders for a short period of time or a longer period of time—95 million. About 263,000 of them are people who are applying for or who have received some type of immigrant status. I believe that reflects the generosity and history of our country in welcoming people, and also in terms of sending the signal that we need people to immigrate to this country to continue to build this nation into the nation of strength and peace that it is. We have a very welcoming approach to that.
From time to time there are people who come to our country who are of concern or interest. From time to time, and it's rare, they are people who are deemed as being dangerous to Canada, its citizens, and possibly to our interests. They could be people with known terrorist affiliations or backgrounds. They could be people involved in organized crime. They could be people who are known to be those who would spy upon Canadian citizens.
That presents a problem. In the course of the year, with 95 million visitors, a quarter of a million of whom want to stay for long periods of time, there are people who are deemed to be inadmissible. As any country does when that has been noted, those people are not admitted to the country. In those cases many of them return to their country of origin, or they go to another country. But there are times when people want to appeal that particular decision. When that happens, there's a bit of a dilemma for our authorities.
What must we do when people who represent a threat for our citizens and our country appear at our borders?
So what do we do in a situation where a person is deemed inadmissible because they are a threat, but they do not accept that designation and they say they're staying?
And they can stay. They can appeal. Appeals take place every day. Thousands of appeals take place, and we have a generous appeal system. In fact, people can appeal that status. Once you start an appeal, maybe by claiming refugee status, that appeal can go on, in some cases, for years.
The dilemma is, here you have a person deemed to be dangerous, and yet they're making an appeal. Most people, when they are in the appeal process, make their appeal and then they're free to stay and move around the country. But here you've got a situation where somebody is deemed highly dangerous.
So a process of having security certificates was developed. As you know, this is not new. It was a process developed years ago by the Liberal government. It doesn't get used a lot, but that particular process allows the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to sign a certificate saying this person, while they are here, needs to be detained while they're going through the appeal process.
That also has to be approved by a Federal Court judge, who will see all the information about that person that would lead them to have this designation of being dangerous. If the court agrees with the minister who signed it, then the person is detained. Their appeal still continues, but they are detained.
It's an interesting detention process because we call it a three-sided detention facility. It only has three sides, meaning that person can return to their country of origin at any time. However, there are cases where the person says if they return to their country of origin, they fear they will be tortured or something might happen to them, so they are detained while the appeal takes place.
As I said, that process has been in place in Canada for a number of years. It's been used 28 times since 1991. It's not used extensively when you figure that a quarter of a million people a year come in on some kind of immigration status. It's been used six times since 2001. It's always been used under Liberal governments. That's not to diminish it in any way. We have supported this particular process.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Charkaoui case, looked at this a little over a year ago, and contrary to what you often read by those reporting on it.... We often read it was struck down as unconstitutional. The security certificate process was not struck down, and it was not, as a broad process, deemed unconstitutional. But there were some areas the Supreme Court said needed to be fixed. If they weren't fixed, then that process would become null and void. That will happen by February 23, 2008, I believe.
In carefully going through what the Supreme Court has said, listening to testimony and concerns from around this table, and pursuing this matter with all the appropriate experts and various interest groups, we believe we have respected what the Supreme Court has asked for.
First, they have asked that there be a designation of an individual known as a special advocate. Somebody who is being detained can have a lawyer, and most of them do. The lawyer, however, is not allowed to see items related to national security, which could put the country at risk, and which could put at risk certain individuals who have maybe gained information through their intelligence activities about the particular person being detained.
That lawyer will have some limited ability to see all the information. However, the special advocate who is going to be designated, or is allowed to be designated, will be able to see the full range of information, even what has been deemed of national security interest.
A continuum takes place. First of all, that special advocate would meet the individual being detained and their counsel and would get an idea of all the types of questions he or she might be able to ask in camera.
The special advocate will get the unclassified document with the background about the individual and then that special advocate can go before the court in camera and see all the information, even the classified stuff.
From there, that special advocate has the ability to appeal on behalf of the individual detained and is there for that purpose, to protect the interests and to speak up for the interests of the person being detained. As you can see and as you know—I know you've gone through the act—there is detail in the act on how that will work.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that following the one hour here there are people available on the technical side if there are important questions related to the minutiae of the act itself.
So that's the first provision we responded to. The second one is the area of allowing for a review of the certificate. With the previous act, in the way it was written, there was a review process in place that applied to those who are permanent residents—and remember, the security certificates cannot be used on Canadian citizens—but permanent residents had a review that took place, first of all, within 48 hours of them receiving the security certificate that indicated it would detain them. Within 48 hours they would have a review, and then every six months, at least, they would have a review, because, as I said, this process can carry on for a number of years.
That was not available to those who were deemed to be foreign nationals if they weren't permanent residents. The Supreme Court said that had to be fixed, so we believe we have fixed that, addressed that. The same provisions that apply to permanent residents will apply to foreign nationals. They will have a review immediately within 48 hours of that designation and at least every six months.
The third area—there are a number of smaller areas also—has to do with something called the privative clause. That had a limiting effect on areas that could be reviewed and that the particular justices could order to be reviewed and looked at. It was actually the Senate committee, I believe, looking at the Anti-terrorism Act, that wanted a repeal of that, and we have done so.
I see the chairman giving me the wrap-up sign, even though I think I'm still within ten minutes, but I would not want to take my full time because I want to hear from you folks.
That, I believe, shows that we have responded to the Supreme Court direction and that this act will in fact withstand further tests. I would ask members—we're not asking for undue haste nor asking people to be imprudent in terms of how quickly you move on this—to keep in mind that we need this done. This has to be passed before February 23. Otherwise, not only will the provision be quashed, but people who are presently under detention who have been deemed by the Federal Court to be under detention would in fact not be in that case. There is not a rash urgency, but there is a compelling time constraint here, and I would ask that you respectfully consider that also.
Thank you for your questions and suggestions.
