Evidence of meeting #7 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was evidence.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
That was exactly my point. It's been over a year now. When are we going to see those reforms? When are the RCMP and the minister going to come and tell you exactly how he's managed to implement the recommendations in the Arar report?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you very much.
We'll now go to the government side. Mr. MacKenzie, please.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panel.
You might think from my questioning that I don't appreciate your being here, but I very much do. I say that because I'm on the government side and this current amendment is ours.
Mr. Peschard in particular, I found some of your comments to be a little off. Number one is there are six, not five people currently under certificates. You indicated about groups targeted, and I took it--and correct me if I'm wrong--that it was groups targeted basically since 9/11. I took it that would be refugees of a particular kind, dealing with terrorism.
Would I be wrong in that assumption? If I am, say so.
4:25 p.m.
President, Ligue des droits et libertés
I'm talking about the six persons who are considered security risks, from what we understand, because of their links with terrorism in one way or another, although of course we don't know what the evidence is, for obvious reasons.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
President, Ligue des droits et libertés
Yes, I'm talking about the...yes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Okay.
If I told you three of these people were way before 9/11 and one was three weeks after 9/11, so only two since 9/11 are currently subject to security certificates, that becomes a little bit different in perspective. And the very last person is one this government used a security certificate on, and that was industrial espionage.
I would suggest to you that security certificates became what they are not because of terrorism but to keep people from coming into this country who were deemed to be people who represent some threat. It might have been organized crime, it might have been industrial espionage, it might be terrorism.
So if we look at it, I think we've had 28 security certificates since 1991, representing 27 people. It's not a tool that's used to keep a lot of people out of this country. It's a pretty small number; I think you would agree with me on that--since 1991, 27 people. The last individual left the country because he was satisfied to go home. So we're not talking about 9/11; this is a longer period of time.
Would you agree with me that the country has a sovereign right to keep people from coming into the country who represent a threat to Canadians?
4:30 p.m.
President, Ligue des droits et libertés
The level of justice that has to be applied has to be measured in relation to the consequences. The fact is, despite what the intention of the law may be, as you stated, the result is there are people who are kept in indefinite detention for years. When they are released, it's into a form of house arrest. They face the prospect of eventually being deported to a country where they may be tortured. This is a very serious situation. It's equivalent to a severe criminal sentence, and it's not acceptable that people be subjected to this sort of treatment without having a fair trial and being able to defend themselves.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Of the 21 people who have left this country on security certificates, do you have any evidence those people went back and were tortured or any harm befell them?
4:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Ligue des droits et libertés
We don't have any information on that.
4:30 p.m.
President, Ligue des droits et libertés
But the people the government is presently trying to expel, such as Charkaoui, for example, face a risk of torture if they're sent back to Morocco.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Would you agree with me that the vast majority of the individuals with security certificates we have dealt with have had those same arguments, some of whom have gone back?
And that would be my question: for those who have been in this country and alleged that they faced torture when they went home, do you have any evidence that that has in fact occurred?
4:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Ligue des droits et libertés
To answer your question, we have no evidence—
4:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Ligue des droits et libertés
—but I do appreciate the fact that you come out with information. I had not looked closely at the six cases that are presently subjected to certificates, and it is quite true that some of them were before 9/11. There can be a short-circuit sometimes when we deal, because one of our very grave concerns since 9/11 is the risk of stereotyping people within a certain group.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Would you agree with me that hasn't occurred, though? It simply hasn't occurred.
4:30 p.m.
Lawyer, Ligue des droits et libertés
This we don't know. We don't know about the day-to-day practices.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
But the security certificates have not been used by the former government nor this government in a willy-nilly fashion since 9/11, and in fact the legislation was originally put in place long before the issue of terrorism as we know it today.
It is my understanding that it was to deal with a variety of things, of people who would not be eligible to be in this country but for whatever reason didn't want to go back. If we had organized crime figures.... And I appreciate the concern about using the Criminal Code. You people are loyal. You recognize, I'm sure, that a criminal organization in eastern Europe may wish to have its people come here to set up a cell. Can you tell me how we prosecute that in Canada? How would you use the Criminal Code?
4:35 p.m.
Lawyer, Ligue des droits et libertés
May I just go back to the intention that we had in coming before this committee?
The question was, is Bill C-3 an answer to the objections that the Supreme Court saw to the process? We say no. This is why we are here.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Sure. I don't debate that, and I understand that's the role of a lawyer, to advocate on behalf of clients, and that's only appropriate. I'm not debating that.
All I'm saying is that it would appear to me that your concerns may very well be legitimate from your perspective. It seems that the concerns are larger than the....
What I hear is that England has a bad system and Canada has the best. Would you tell us if you have looked at the systems of France and Germany?