Evidence of meeting #8 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.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
It seems that no one saw the problem. I hope I won't be the only one.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
As regards the Canadian Arab Federation—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Mr. Ménard, the translator cannot hear you. Can you move closer to your microphone? They're not getting the full message.
Go ahead, Mr. Boudjenane.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
I wasn't going to answer your question directly, but rather make a comment on the spirit of this bill.
We have repeated a number of times that, as far as we are concerned, this kind of bill has no purpose in a democratic, transparent society that is respectful of the process of law.
Regardless of the situation, our penal system—you know this better than I, since you are a lawyer—has all the necessary levers to deal with criminals. As regards terrorists—at least if someone is considered a potential terrorist—they are criminals as well. So we don't see why there would be any reason to debate this kind of bill.
According to Ms. Barnes, it seems you virtually don't have a choice: you've received a bill on second reading, you're limited to the type of amendments that you can make to it and you have to work within these limits.
In our view, as far as the Arab community is concerned, the Bloc Québécois has always been progressive. It has always been the path to follow when it came to protecting our civil liberties and human rights. How can it even consider debating such a bill?
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
You apparently don't understand our procedure very well. Wait until the end of the process; you'll understand better.
For the moment, you nevertheless have to realize that the Supreme Court accepts this kind of process if it is improved.
We can have a difference of opinion over the improvement. You can obviously have a different opinion from that of the government as to whether the improvement is enough to prevent a successful challenge of this bill before the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it must live. However, we can improve it, and that's what we're trying to do right now.
I listened closely to your proposal, Mr. Neve, which moreover took up most of your speech. I understand that you are rather in favour of the person choosing his own advocate.
We're told these lawyers will need training and security. You know that, once the person has chosen his lawyer, the lawyer will be asked to submit to a security check to determine whether he or she can in fact be trusted with secret documents, so that the secrets are kept, and that he or she will be given that training.
Is that how you would adapt this? That would enable us to avoid needlessly training a lot of them.
4:30 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
Our focus isn't so much on the issue of training. It's clearly the individual who already chooses their own lawyer, and in proceedings, individuals do have representation. As we all know, there's a group of lawyers in Canada who have developed considerable expertise and specialization in national security cases in an immigration context, so individuals concerned are probably most likely going to look to that group and emerging lawyers who continue to develop expertise. The key would be that they need to obtain the necessary security clearance so that they can get access to the information, subject to whatever undertakings are necessary, and, as I said, there are precedents throughout the Canadian legal system of those kinds of models working, including in the national security context.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
And if he doesn't get his security certificate? I can't help thinking of Robert Lemieux, who defended the FLQ terrorists in 1970 and who was constantly monitored by the police. I'm sure he wouldn't have been trusted with secret documents.
4:30 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
Undoubtedly, there would be individual cases in which there would be a tussle between the individual's choice of counsel and the ability to get security cleared. There may even be instances in which security clearance ultimately is not possible, and the person concerned would then have to choose another counsel, again of their choice, but we would hope those instances would be limited.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
You're aware that we can find large numbers of lawyers in Canada.
4:30 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Canadian Arab Federation
There would be a couple of points to make, and one is that we're not looking at hundreds of cases that we're dealing with. Even if training were required for each individual lawyer who's going to be coming forward, we would not be talking about a very large pool. There would be a major difference between telling somebody that you must choose among this pre-selected pool and saying that out of all the lawyers in Canada, that one lawyer you chose is one we can't security clear, and then they can go back and choose any one of the others. There's a major difference between these two prospects.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the Canadian Arab Federation for being here today.
To set some context for my question, as you may or may not know, the NDP is opposed to this piece of legislation and believes it could be done in a different way. We think security certificates actually undermine a number of democratic values that our country believes in and that our democracy is founded on, and therefore our job at this table is to ask the questions and, where possible, see that we do as little harm as can happen.
I'd like to first ask Amnesty International, if I might, what may be a bit of a side question, but not totally. A number of organizations, I think including yours in the past, have raised issues about flaws around security-related immigration procedures in general. Could you quickly—because I want to get to everybody, and maybe with different questions—share any brief comments you want to make with the committee on this topic?
December 5th, 2007 / 4:35 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
I think it is important that Bill C-3 is focusing on one particular aspect of how security plays out in the immigration system. There are various other ways, proceedings, and procedures wherein this plays out and wherein a lot of these same concerns about secrecy and adequate representation arise.
Then there are the wider concerns I've flagged, which are not addressed in either Bill C-3 or anywhere else in Canadian law, around those sorts of proceedings, either possibly leading to the deportation of individuals to situations where there's a serious risk of torture or to instances of an individual against whom there are quite serious allegations of criminality, be it terrorist criminality or involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity, being deported and thus escaping justice.
Both of those should be of concern to us in our immigration system. We should not be contributing to injustice by sending people off to face human rights violations. We should not be contributing to a lack of justice by sending people off to face nothing.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Okay, thank you.
Ms. Hall, would you comment for me on our choosing, as the NDP, to look at this as a case where, if somebody plots against our country, they should be tried with due process, convicted, and punished as we would punish anybody else who would do that?
Can you comment, please, on that perspective? I think you're the one person I didn't necessarily hear speak to it. You may have done so when I was getting up.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Program, Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch's official position, whether in the case of Guantanamo Bay or of people left for years in detention up here in Canada under security certificates, is to prosecute or release. Prosecution is the primary mode for accountability of any person who is suspected of a crime related to terrorism.
Since I do this work globally, it is increasingly clear to me that in Europe, in the Americas in particular, and now even moving into some of the central Asian republics, immigration law is being used as a proxy for criminal prosecutions, and when it's used in that respect, we should all take note, I think, because there is a seepage now.
Whereas Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States may think that using immigration laws for these purposes can be controlled, can be fixed, can somehow be tested and measured, we see countries that may not be quite so conscientious also using immigration mechanisms to do the very same thing.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
All right. Thank you.
Do I have time for one more? I have a very quick question.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Oh, I'll slow right down or I'll add some questions.
To the CAF, you prefaced your remarks at the very beginning, Mr. Boudjenane, with comments around the StatsCan information that came out yesterday. Some of us, depending on the constituents we represent, weren't very surprised by that. I live in Surrey, with an already grown Sikh population and a growing Muslim population. I certainly wasn't surprised to see what it looked like in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
But I was wondering, if you could comment on this, whether you see those statistics having relevance for the future of this kind of legislation.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
As I said, the message we're sending to people who are aspiring to come to this country, to contribute to this country, is that if you are an immigrant and are suspected of a crime we consider may be a threat to our national security, you can be detained, and, with this legislation, indefinitely. Basically the message we're sending them is that we're clearly creating a two-tier system: one for Canadians and one for immigrants, the people who are going to be Canadian at one point. I think for the social cohesion of this country, for the image of this country, and for the future, it's not appropriate.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Do you think it will affect all immigrants, or do you think it will affect those immigrants that you see as currently targeted or profiled?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
It does affect many immigrants. I remember 9/11, and one of the first acts of vandalism and hate crimes was against the Sikh community in a temple in Hamilton. Because you have a turban on your head or you have a beard...we're all the same. Racialized minorities and minorities in general are the target of these types of anti-terrorism legislation.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the panel. I know it was short notice. I know it's sometimes difficult to get to these things with a long notice, and I do appreciate your being here.
I would like to clarify a few issues. To the Canadian Arab Federation, I heard you earlier when you made your presentation, and you said how 9/11 directed a focus to racial profiling. I'm sure you're quite well aware of the number of security certificates that have been issued in this country. You'll not be surprised if I tell you there are really only two. Immediately after 9/11, there was a third one, plus one more, a Russian individual who decided to go home because of industrial espionage. There have been only three, and 28 certificates have been issued since 1991. Would your suggestion not seem illogical that immediately after 9/11 we started to focus on one group of people?