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.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
We have been talking about the rights of these people who are being detained, and I agree that it's an important consideration.
What about the need to protect information that comes from our allies? It could be harmful if that information got into the wrong hands. In other words, we would stop receiving useful intelligence if we betrayed those confidences. Do you have any concern about that at all?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
First, one of the suggested improvements—and I'm not sure we've discussed it explicitly today—is the importance of prohibitions against information that has the reasonable suspicion of having been generated from torture or degrading, inhuman, cruel behaviour.
Mr. Cullen, you had gone through that list of the six individuals who are under security certificates. Our organization hasn't done in-depth research. Indeed, we can't. No one really can, because no one has the information in terms of the credibility of their information. Indeed, it's a real question why the special advocates could.
When you look at that list, I think almost all of those countries top the list of countries that often are well known in the human rights world for practices that indeed involve inhuman, cruel, degrading kinds of behaviour, torture, etc. There is, I think, a prima facie assumption that information coming from those regimes and those secret services is in fact going to be information that we in fact don't want to have our security services eliciting, because of the practices that occur in those countries.
5:20 p.m.
Former President, Canadian Council for Refugees
If I may, I'd respond to your concern about information provided by allies that may not be countries practising torture and the concern that it will squelch information-sharing. Our response to that would be that there's nothing wrong with the information flow per se. It can indeed still be protected, but it need not be used to mount a case against a person. In other words, there's nothing to prevent Canadian government agencies from still receiving that information and assuring their allies that the information won't be shared. When they choose to proceed against someone in a criminal context, they must have corroborating open-source information. I would suggest that in cases in which there really are threats, there's no reason why evidence can't be gathered through a process of monitoring, surveillance, or whatever, that won't breach the undertakings to allies, and that allies wouldn't have any reason to worry.
I hope I'm being clear. In other words, you can use all that information at the investigative stage, but when it comes to actually initiating a procedure, that procedure must be based on evidence that should be open-sourced and that you don't need to worry—
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I just have one question as a follow-up.
I'm intrigued by the way you've expressed it—I appreciate the sentiment and the commitment to the values—by the way you suggest we can use the evidence, but once we have to detain a person or limit liberties, we have to then have evidence of our own that we can produce.
Using that logic, what has been troubling me is that we would not be able to detain anyone based on information that we get from abroad unless we have evidence of any criminal activity here. That is the quandary governments find themselves in. I'm not defending anything here, but if you were sitting around the cabinet table, you could not detain an individual, could not deport an individual under the security certificate, because you don't have the evidence of commission of crime in Canada—which you could gather, I agree with you; we should be able to do that.
What do you do in those situations if you find the evidence you have obtained from elsewhere to be reliable but you can't produce it?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
Isn't that the same quandary you find yourself in if the person affected is a Canadian citizen? What do you do if the person is a Canadian citizen?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
There are people you're stuck with, right? Whether they are born in Canada or they come to Canada and become citizens, you become stuck with them unless you can denaturalize them legally, and legitimately you should have some proof.
Obviously, if a person has come and is in the process of settling himself or herself permanently in the country, but we find out that the person is an extremely dangerous person because we have this evidence from a reliable ally but can't produce that evidence in an open court, what you're suggesting is that we do nothing in that regard unless we can find evidence that is here, that is available to us, that the person has committed an offence. We have first-hand evidence and we can produce that, and then we can deal with the issue.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
If I could just respond quickly, first of all, if there indeed is reliable evidence--not just information, but evidence--from a foreign source, such that the evidence suggests this individual who has arrived in Canada has committed crimes elsewhere, surely we have procedures to extradite that person, subject to a legitimate procedure in that other country.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
If the government is seeking extradition at the other end.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
Right. If they are seeking--
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
There may be governments that don't want to have extradition.
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Civil Liberties Association
Then we have to ask the question why they wouldn't. If they're governments we respect, they have a full democratic and fair judicial process.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to know if I understood your point correctly, and your impression of the governement's position. I believe that the Supreme Court explained why our procedure is not consistent with the Charter. The court told Parliament that it was up to it to find a solution that would pass the charter test, whereas the government's action suggests that it thinks the Supreme Court handed down a decision telling it what it should do in order to make the procedure Charter-proof.
In fact, you believe that that is not what the Supreme Court told us. That is the first thing the court told us, and you came here in order to help us do what we must in order to make it charter-proof, did you not?
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees
As parliamentarians, you must assume your responsibility and make choices that respect with the Charter. However, you are not limited by what the Supreme Court said. We, as members of a democratic society, encourage you to respect the rights of every member of our society as much as possible.
5:25 p.m.
Lawyer, Ligue des droits et libertés
The court said above all that section 7 of the Canadian Charter applies to people who are not Canadian citizens. That is very, very important and that is the context in which immigration decisions must be made.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay.
Thank you all very much.
This meeting stands adjourned.