Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I first would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Don Valley East.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in the House in discussing a very important piece of legislation that has been brought before us for our consideration.
Most people, on hearing the name of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, may think it deals with immigration policy, but in many respects this is a security bill. This proposed law of course deals with security certificates and, in particular, the issues that arise out of the February 23, 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision.
The reality is, as has been stated a number of times by various members, that if new legislation is not passed by this House to address concerns raised in the February 2007 Supreme Court decision, then the security certificate process will effectively terminate, so this is indeed an important debate.
The security certificate process itself has been in existence for approximately 20 years. In fact, a variation can be found as far back as the 1960s, when it was utilized to remove from Canada an organized crime figure.
Since 1991 we have seen in this country the use of security certificates 28 times. Since 2001, a pivotal mark, of course, in the history of anti-terror initiatives, the Canadian government has issued six security certificates. The system most notably has been amended twice, once in 1991 and again in 2001.
The whole security certificate system does represent a contentious process that has over the years created as many critics, it seems, as supporters. Among those that have opposed the system are the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Internationally, Canada also has come under criticism for its security certificate system from the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Notable Canadians such as former solicitor general Warren Allmand and former foreign affairs minister Flora MacDonald have also expressed opposition to the security certificate system.
At the same time, there has been support for the system both from Canadians at large and from successive Canadian governments that identified the security certificate system as an important and indispensable tool to deal with individuals who represent terror, crime or human rights threats to Canada.
It should be noted that an earlier court challenge to the security certificate system resulted in the December 10, 2004 decision by the Federal Court of Appeal that found the process constitutional. This, of course, remained the prevailing judicial ruling until June 2006, when arguments were made with respect to two individuals being held on security certificates.
The result of these June 2006 arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada was the judicial decision of February 23, 2007, which immediately changed some provisions of the security certificate system and required the government to amend the law within one year, that is, the court issued a suspended ruling with effect by February 2008.
Among the court's rulings with immediate effect was the decision to strike and effectively replace the provision that distinguished between refugee claimants or non-residents and those with permanent resident status.
The suspended ruling dealt with, of course, the fairness of the exclusionary provisions with regard to evidence being used to sustain the security certificate. This part of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling goes to the heart of the issues that the government has indicated it is trying to address with Bill C-3, which we are debating today.
We all know that the court essentially ruled that the absolute inaccessible nature of the evidence used to hold a person on a security certificate was inconsistent with sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ruling is of significant consequence to Canadians.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms represents for Canadians not only a document, but rather a depository of our national values and our traditions of freedom. When our highest court finds provisions of a law are incompatible with the charter, we are called to take note.
Essentially, Bill C-3 is designed to address the issue of secrecy with respect to evidence. The Supreme Court, in simple terms, found the total secrecy and inaccessibility of evidence used to hold a person under a security certificate to be egregious and in need of redress.
The bill, by creating the so-called advocate, has, as its purpose, the redress of the Supreme Court's concerns.
Under Bill C-3, the justice minister would create a list of advocates. These would be lawyers, as we understand it, with at least five years of relevant experience, have no conflict of interest and in possession of the appropriate security clearance. These advocates would have an opportunity to meet with their clients prior to reviewing the evidence using only the court summary that is not considered sensitive. Then they will have access to the evidence. Once this has taken place, they cannot reveal to their clients the contents of the evidence. They can make a judicial appeal based on their viewing of the evidence with respect to the contents but they cannot reveal its contents to their clients. This is, of course, a major departure from the traditional view of lawyer-client privilege.
The reality is that there remains a secrecy aspect of this process that still seems to challenge most conventional views of judicial fairness.
However, we need to remember that these situations are unique and rare. They apply only to non-Canadian citizens and there is judicial recourse, albeit limited in comparison to standard legal practices with which we are generally accustomed as citizens.
As a country, we are not alone in these challenges. The United Kingdom has undergone similar debates and challenges. In 2004, the House of Lords, or law lords, ruled against the system in place there that allowed for unlimited detention. The result, after much debate and angst within the political arena, was a significantly modified and much more limited system of non-traditional detention for potential terror and human rights suspects.
The question for us today as parliamentarians is not unlike that which has faced legislators in the United Kingdom and other traditional western democracies. What is the proper balance between fundamental human rights protections and the need to protect the state and its citizens from persons of risk and, in particular, non-citizens who seek to take up residence in Canada?
This is a fundamental question, a question that we will need to consider carefully over the next short period of time leading up to our vote on this matter.
We must tread carefully when we venture into the realm where fundamental legal rights need to be compromised or withheld. We must exercise caution when we make decisions that afford to our security services and the court's secrecy that we would normally consider inconsistent with the principles of our democracy and our judicial system.
However, over the coming days we as legislators will determine and finally vote upon the bill that is before us today.
Does the need for security of our state and of Canadians require the measures we are bringing forward into law? This is a question we will reflect upon as we prepare to vote on Bill C-3.
The world has changed. There are threats that would once have seemed inconceivable to us that now present themselves as real. Is Bill C-3 justified? Does the need for this kind of law outweigh the concerns?
I know all members of the House will ask, as I will, these important questions as they cast their vote in the very near future. Canadians expect no less than this from us and we must serve them well in this regard.