Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the things I noticed as I looked through the bill and the issuance of the certificates under section 77 was that it talks about being reasonably informed of the case against, and it talks about the judge determining whether the certificate is reasonable, or adequate, as I would understand. To me that means there would be sufficient content in the claim that there's a reasonable determination that this person should be detained. Is that correct? Is that what the act says? Okay.
We might have a detainee who is not necessarily a wanted criminal or who does not necessarily have a past record of a conviction or who is not known to have committed acts that have violated human or international rights, but due to the documented association evidence, that person could be determined to be a threat to public safety and security. Would you agree with that?
So you have all of the documentation presented to the detainee and the advocate, and then this person might, for instance, get involved with organized crime. Perhaps they have been observed in their country of origin, where maybe their tax documents say they're a plumber, but they're living the lifestyle of a lawyer. So they suspect that this person is being supported by criminal activity in his association with those people in the country of origin, but he has never been convicted.
If they landed in Canada and this information was gleaned, there wouldn't be any substantial conviction or evidence against this person, because there hadn't been any in the country of origin, but it would not necessarily be desirable to introduce this person to Canadian society because they could pose a safety and security threat. How would you deal with that?