Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is my first amendment dealing with part 5 of the bill. I think it's a fair statement, having sat through the committee hearings, that this was the least studied section as we went through the process of reviewing Bill C-51, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act section.
The changes in the language that are found in section 54, the insertion in relation to what the minister must file with the court in order to get a security certificate.... The new language is “that is relevant to the ground of inadmissibility stated in the certificate”.
It's very strange language. We've consulted with a number of special advocates who have found this to be essentially poor drafting. It's confusing. The words, “The ground of inadmissibility”, information “on which the certificate is based”, and “the case made by the Minister” are likely to lead to confusion for the court about what needs to be shared with special advocates.
The language as amended here is to replace the confusing language found in the current version with:
and all other information related to the information's origin and reliability, as well as
“a summary of information”, and so on with the rest of it.
There is a risk here—and Professor Donald Galloway, from the University of Victoria, has identified it—that the way it's currently drafted could allow a minister to submit to a judge information that had been obtained by torture, without revealing that to a judge. That is also a concern.