Public Safety Committee on Dec. 5th, 2007

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

Essentially, we believe that, in our legal system, in our criminal system, there are enough measures to fight crime. If ever someone is considered a potential terrorist, statutory measures and laws can enable us to judge and convict people, but in a process that is consistent with democracy and the Canadian legal system.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Perfect, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Last night I attended a reception where an Ontario judge gave a presentation to a group of decision-makers. One of the pieces of advice he gave us was to make sure we had the facts before we delivered a decision, as naturally he would do.

It's interesting, because--I'm just looking at this submission by the Canadian Arab Federation--there are some accusations here and profiling right in this document, if you look at it. It says “the Harper administration indicates the level of racial profiling”. That's profiling me because I'm part of that government. And I don't like the lack of respect, because it's Prime Minister Harper, and I think as citizens we should always recognize the title given to our Prime Minister, no matter which government it is.

Then if you look on the second page, it says, “Security officials have made several grievous errors in the past”. That's a generalization of security officials. If you go further down, it says, “security agencies are therefore given free rein to violate our rights and freedoms”. That's completely broad-brush, stereotyping security agents.

We talked a little jokingly about lawyers, and you profiled lawyers. This is the sort of thing that happens. And for you to believe that you're a victim of this.... I'd like to have the facts--not what is written in the media--of how many times the Government of Canada and the people who are serving our nation as civil servants, whether they be security officials or not, have violated the rights and freedoms of any of our citizens. It's very rare.

I'd like to make that statement because I think we're accusing people who are working for the security of this country, and I really have more confidence in them than you have put in this document.

I'd like to ask Madam Hall this question, if she would just let me know: what are the procedures in France and Germany with regard to these types of procedures?

[Julia Hall]

Thank you for asking that, actually, because it's very interesting. One of the members commented that security certificates are used in Europe. In fact, returns, under the immigration laws, yes, are made in Europe, and in France there have been a number of them.

You may have heard of radical Islamist imams preaching certain things in certain mosques having vulnerable immigration status and being deported, and then in some of those instances, even after having been deported, lodging an appeal in either a French court or, for example, with the Committee against Torture or with the European Court of Human Rights. So it is a feature of the human rights and immigration landscape and counter-terrorism landscape in Europe that almost every single western European country--and we just had a case in Slovakia--is attempting to deport or expel or otherwise transfer people who they suspect of having committed either offensive acts of speech or who may have been associated or alleged to be associated with terrorist activity.

Deportation, in some ways, is now very quickly becoming the tool of choice over prosecution. In Germany, it's very much the same thing. You may have heard of the case of Metin Kaplan, who is a radical Islamic imam who was extradited to Turkey. Deportations and returns, stripping of refugee status--I would say it's fairly well established in most of the west European countries that this is an acceptable counter-terrorism tool.

I might just add, however, that in one recent case that was just cited this year, the case of man named Adel Tebourski, who was sent back from France to Tunisia, I believe it was, the Committee against Torture ruled that France did violate his article 3 rights, that he was in fact at risk of torture.

So we do have slowly building, because this has happened mainly in the last couple of years, some jurisprudence that is saying that European governments themselves are violating the non-refoulement obligations by using immigration laws to send people back to places where they will be unsafe.

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

Can I make comments on your comments, if you don't mind?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Your time is actually up. Did you have anything else, Mr. Mayes?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. We can come back.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I just have a comment rather than a question, but then you can comment on my comment if you so wish because I may not be right.

The security certificates as a device go back a long time, several decades in Canada. If I understood it correctly, they were brought in to deal with organized crime that may have roots elsewhere and have branches here, in the form of aliens or immigrants, permanent residents or visitors. So when you had to deal with people who were engaged in espionage or terrorism, at least for those of us who were not citizens, the tool came in handy because it was being used for criminal activity.

Although I understand all the concerns you have, because I come from that part of the world in terms of human rights, I don't think it's true to say that it's now being used. I think it's been used for deporting criminals who you otherwise couldn't prosecute because you didn't have the evidence here, the evidence was somewhere else, and the evidence may not be produceable in a way that would prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So you took the liberty, because these were permanent residents and visitors--less than citizens--of saying, you're undesirables and we want to keep you out.

It has been extended currently to use in the case of those who we might fear might do damage to us. It's not that it is the most ideal tool, but there has been a regime for decades to deal with inadmissible permanent residents or visitors, so that even if you were less than a terrorist and you were simply a convicted rapist or somebody, you're deportable based on the decisions made by the Immigration Appeal Board, without having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you should be deported, that you would always be a threat to society.

Many of the presenters have raised this issue to say that because it is slightly a different system from the criminal law system, it is less justified. I may agree with you, but what do you have to say about that?

[Alex Neve]

Could I just say that I think we probably all have slightly different perspectives and things we would want to say about the relationship between immigration and criminal law in this area.

Amnesty International has never said there is not a role for immigration law, including in dealing with national security cases. What we have stressed, though, is two important limitations that simply have not been part of Canadian law or practice.

The first is clear, binding obligations not to use immigration law and thus instead turn to criminal law when deporting, extraditing, or removing anyone from Canada under any guise would lead to serious human rights violations such as torture. In those instances we do say, and the international legal system is very clear in saying, Canada must instead either prosecute or release, as Julia Hall said earlier.

The other, though, is impunity. I think this doesn't get enough attention in this debate, and there is a long tradition not just with respect to terrorism cases with but all sorts of criminality: international criminality, war criminals, people who've committed crimes against humanity. In Canada and around the world, and as Julia Hall just highlighted, it is very much the norm in Europe these days of deporting instead of prosecuting, which does us no good in terms of the broader goal of ensuring that there is a response when individuals have these kinds of serious allegations against them.

Is it difficult sometimes to go forward with those prosecutions? Yes. It can be cumbersome. It can be expensive. I think, though, that now, in 2007, certainly as opposed to 1997 or 1987, there is a lot more expertise, wherewithal, and resources that have been marshalled around this whole idea of how to do those kinds of prosecutions.

This is the era of the International Criminal Court. This is the era of the world recognizing that we have to be able to deliver justice on a global scale. That may sometimes be in national-level courts, it may sometimes be in international-level courts, but we have to grapple with that because it's fundamental to both protecting rights and ensuring security.

[Julia Hall]

I would add that factually you may say we've always had security certificates, and factually the United Kingdom government might say we've had the special immigration appeals commission since post-Chahal, since the European court gave the decision that gave rise to the court. But it's not just the human rights organizations and the minority groups organizations who see a clear difference post-9/11. It is the media, as one member noted, but also the government.

You will take note that Gordon Brown and Tony McNulty, when they came into office, made a very concerted effort to dissociate themselves from Blairist post-9/11 policies. That was for a very specific reason. I believe that Gordon Brown, the party, and his administration recognized the damage that had been done in the race to the bottom with counter-terrorism measures that violate civil liberties and human rights after 9/11. They were trying to re-establish a higher bar.

So it's not just our friends from the Canadian Arab Federation; governments themselves are starting to recognize that we hit a nadir, perhaps, and that some sort of balance should be re-established. This is coming from the one government where this project of a special immigration court that only deals with national security deportations and special advocates arose. This is coming from that government.

I see factually how you would say we've had these for a very long time, but it's not just we who see that 9/11 and the bombings in Spain and in London really did put a different sheen on the whole issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Is there anybody else? We're all done?

Please wait around. I would like to make an announcement for the committee.

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

Can I comment on the gentleman's comment, briefly, before we finish?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

He didn't ask you a question. You wanted to comment?

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

Do you mind if I...?

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I don't have a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

[Mohamed Boudjenane]

It's important. I just want to let you know that this is not a political paper. It's not a critique of Harper or the Conservative government. We are addressing this because you are the government of the hour, and there's no other way for us to express our view and concern. It's indeed very critical of your government because we do have concern.

That being said, you have, I'm sure, a lot of respect for Justice O'Connor and his recommendation in the Maher Arar commission. Clearly, he said that the security officials were incompetent and that there was a pattern of racial profiling and that many of those decisions were directed toward certain groups and a certain community.

There are many reports out there. The OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, released its report about hate crimes recently and targeted these policies and the hate crime in Canada, talking about hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims.

I'm not just coming here to be critical of your government; that's not the purpose. The purpose is to tell you how we feel, and how your government is perceived, and maybe how you can change that perception and those prejudices.

[An hon. member]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

This meeting stands adjourned.