Thank you.
It is the position of the Canadian Islamic Congress that these provisions are not only damaging to Canadian values and fundamental legal principles but also unnecessary. In 2005 the Canadian Islamic Congress issued a position paper entitled “Security with Rights: Justice is the Ultimate Guarantor of Security”. In it, the CIC cited Muslim Canadian commitment to Canada and its security. The CIC further expressed its concern that the potential abuse of newly expanded security powers by CSIS and the RCMP would lead to abuse and the erosion of civil liberties. The CIC's concern remains unchanged. However, we have now nearly a decade of history that includes a narrative of how post-9/11 security concerns have led to a general undermining of our Canadian values and civil liberties.
The reliance of our international airports on measures now widely described as “security theatre” has alienated a growing segment of Canadians. No-fly lists, botched security certificates, and even indirect responsibility for the torture of Canadians overseas, as was found at the Iacobucci and other inquiries, have all taken their toll on public confidence, yet it must be noted that Muslim Canadians have played a critical role in supporting genuine Canadian security concerns. The Toronto 18 group, for example, was broken primarily because members of the Muslim community notified the authorities of their concerns. What is missing under the present security plan is a genuine partnership between Canadian security and the Muslim community.
An illustration of how strained things have become is the recent cancellation by the Minister of National Defence of a speaking engagement extended by the Canadian armed forces to the CIC's executive director, Imam Delic. The fundamental question is whether either draconian measure in this legislation is even necessary. Reid Morden, the former head of CSIS, believes that these measures are unnecessary and that they present significant dangers for civil liberties. The CIC agrees with him. Interestingly, the recognizance with conditions power has never been used during the five years of its existence, while the investigative hearings power was used only once, with no significant outcome.
Indeed there is no evidence that the Criminal Code, as currently composed, has failed to meet the demands of Canada's legitimate needs relating to security and justice. This prompts the question: why are these provisions being brought back?
If the committee decided to move ahead with this legislation, we would submit the following:
We don't agree with this bill, but we submit and recommend the following to minimize damage done to our legal system, Canadian values, and the fabric of our society: one, the revised investigative hearing provision should limit its scope to deal only with imminent terrorism offences.
Two, subsection 83.28(2) should be amended to make it clear that a peace officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence will be committed before making an ex parte application.
Three, it should be clarified that anything done under sections 83.28 and 83.29 would be deemed proceedings under the Criminal Code.
Four, the investigative hearing powers should include the granting of full immunity from prosecution on all matters about which only truthful information is provided.
Five, access to a lawyer of the compelled person's choice should be facilitated without delay or interference and be funded at the cost of the crown before, during, and after the investigative hearing.
Six, the compelled person should also have unrestricted access to a special advocate having unfettered access to all information in the care, custody, or control of the crown in relation to the compelled individual.
Seven, the provision for detention without charge for a period greater than 24 hours should be removed entirely from Bill C-17.
Eight, the power set out in Bill C-17 should not be implemented until the accountability framework for the RCMP has been fully enacted and is fully operational.
Nine, compensation for the wrongful use of these powers must be provided to harmed persons.
Ten, an independent oversight mechanism answering directly to Parliament should be established to oversee the provisions in Bill C-17 for as long as these provisions remain part of the Criminal Code.
Eleven, a sunset clause with an evaluation framework must be included with the legislation.
I will close with a couple of thoughts.
We are often told during difficult times that what we need to do is find the correct balance between security and rights. I conclude with the words of Benjamin Franklin, who well over 200 years ago shared the wisdom that those who compromise their liberty for security soon find that they have neither. The recent example of the security measures at last summer's G-20 conference in Toronto and the devastating impact they had on the quality of our civil liberties provide a timely reminder that Mr. Franklin's wisdom remains relevant today in the discussion of this security legislation before this committee.