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.
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
The reality is that after 9/11, and a little before, as you said...six men now have recently been detained under a security certificate.
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
I understand the certificates were issued before 9/11, and that's your point. After 9/11 only three were issued against Arab and Muslim people. That's what you're telling me, right?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
All I'm saying is that you said the focus all of a sudden was on a group of people, but since 9/11 there have only really been three.
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
Yes, but since 9/11 we also had Maher Arar.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
No, but I'm telling you about the impact of 9/11 and this type of legislation and what it can do against a community. I'm not telling you the security certificate is written so we have to detain Arabs and Muslims. I never said that. The legislation doesn't say that, but it's the perception. The fact that of the six men who were detained recently, five were Arabs and Muslim adds to the perception and to the negative stereotypes. That's what I'm telling you. I didn't say the legislation was designed to go after Arabs and Muslims.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I agree with what you're saying, but what we're dealing with is what the Supreme Court directed us to do. All I'm saying is you have indicated that since 9/11 this was the focus, and I disagree with you. I don't think it is. I don't think the issuing of security certificates has changed as a result of 9/11.
However, if I go to one other statement you made about the individual claiming harassment by Air Canada, how far back does that go?
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
Yes, and he just tabled his complaint.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I take it you suggest that's indicative of some issues. Would you also agree with me that people claim harassment many times with many things? That is certainly one case that has not been proven in court, but that's his allegation.
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
That case was an example I gave you, but I can give you hundreds of cases of people calling us on a regular basis, being detained for hours for no reason.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I understand that, and we have, I think everyday, people who call our office and claim they are being harassed because they're male or because they're female or whatever. I think harassment is of a fairly broad type.
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
With all respect, sir, I don't remember when the IRA was putting bombs left and right in London that the Irish Canadian community was targeted, or that we had many complaints from the Irish Canadian community as being racially profiled and so on.
But this time around, the reality is you have a group in our society who, due to their religious affiliation or their colour, have been clearly the target of--
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I think that's where you and I would disagree. I don't think there is harassment. You believe there is. I say to you that in my office we hear from people who believe they are being harassed because they're male or they're female or whatever the case may be.
I just suggest to you that's a broad term, and to point to this legislation as being flawed because of what you're using as a term--
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Arab Federation
No, I said this legislation is part of much legislation that is clearly having an impact on our communities and contributing to the stereotype.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
I'll just be very brief, because I'm sure your time is short. I think it's really crucial around this issue of profiling to remember that there is reality and there is perception and that both are things that as legislators, as advocates, as a society we need to be very sensitive to and concerned about.
I think with respect to perception and zeroing in on immigration security certificates in particular, the fact that all this secrecy has surrounded the process is much of what fuels the perception of profiling. I think it's one more reason why it's so important that that process be opened up to become more open and transparent, more in conformity with international standards around fair process, because it might start to dispel some of the perception.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I don't disagree with you on all of those issues. We hear from an area I have come from that men felt they were discriminated against in the court system when it came to domestic violence, that they were not listened to or whatever.
I understand that, and if we can eliminate it, it's the best thing we can do.
The other thing I was interested in, Mr. Neve, when you were suggesting the changes with respect to the special advocate, is that I don't think the court in its ruling suggested that we look at the client's solicitor being security cleared to fulfill that role. It seems to me that what the court said was that we look at using a special advocate or a SIRC model.
4:45 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
I don't think the court actually pronounced on what model is necessary. I think they referred to things like the special advocate model and SIRC as illustrations of the fact that there are less rights-violating alternatives open to the government, such that the arguments that this didn't violate the charter were dismissed.
4:45 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
So I think with respect to special advocates, while, yes, it's true that they acknowledge the existence of it and pointed to that as something that would be better than the existing system, they did also acknowledge, without pronouncing on this at all, that there is criticism of that process as well.
So I think to a certain degree what the court will feel about this model remains an open question.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
But they didn't rule it out. My point is that they didn't rule out that it was one of the options, perhaps among many unstated, but it was given as an option by the court.
4:45 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
They didn't rule it out. I would think, though, as legislators trying to come up with a system that's going to be strong and withstand the inevitable challenges that will come in the courts, the fact that the U.K. model has been so widely and so publicly criticized by a range not just of radical advocacy groups but mainstream organizations, by Parliament, by special advocates themselves, obviously means there's a very powerful evidentiary record out there that will be put in front of courts, and that, I would submit to you, increases the chances that this proposal, too, will fall under charter challenges. I assume that is a prospect that you'd want to act to avoid.