Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
One of the initiatives that our government launched in our last mandate through the Canada Border Services Agency was the fairness initiative, and a consultation process was started. I don't know if you're aware of it, but it was to deal with people who came across the border and felt they were being treated unfairly. They had an objective third party that would look at it. Part of the rationale was to deal with people who felt they were singled out because of their race or religion or creed.
I don't know if this government is planning to implement that, but I would suggest that's something you should press them to do. Even though at the border they operate on a risk-management model, there are some circumstances, some occasions, when the officials will be unfair, and this is an opportunity to challenge that. I'd suggest you take that up with the government, because it's on the website, but it's being archived slowly as we speak.
I'd like to go to Amnesty International. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Neve.
First, there's only so much that can go into legislation. I don't think you were arguing, or maybe you were, that the job description of a special advocate, the qualifications--whether they should be a lawyer, how much law they had practised--would actually be in the legislation. I know everything's important and we'd like to see it in the legislation, but I think in practical terms a lot of that information will be in regulation. Maybe you could just comment on that.
I have a second question for you, sir.
People who are being detained under a security certificate select their own lawyer. I think there are some practical issues with that in the sense that there is some training and sensitivity work that needs to go on. Secondly, it wouldn't be enough just to say, “We promise not to tell anybody.” They'd have to be sworn, and they'd have to be sworn for life, I would submit.
The idea of having a cadre of special advocates.... In fact, in our subcommittee report we recommended special advocates not only for security certificates but also for the listing of terrorist organizations and the delisting of charitable organizations, because they also have a certain star chamber, if I can use that expression. The government is still pondering those recommendations.
So there are two questions. How much can you actually put in a bill? Secondly, it takes time for people to be security cleared. You can't pick up the phone and say, “We'd like this lawyer.” It takes time to security clear people. And they have to be sworn in a very rigorous way for life, because there are people's lives at stake out in the field, and our confidentialities with our friends and allies.
I wonder if you'd comment on that.