Debates of Jan. 31st, 2008

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this will not make anybody safer. That is part of the issue. This is not going to make Canada safer.

On the minister saying earlier that releasing criminals across the country would not be considered acceptable, I agree with him. It would not, but I ask, please, for it to be proven that someone is a criminal. We cannot say that we are not going to release criminals across the country but also say that we cannot prove someone is a criminal, so we are just going to hold that person as long as we possibly can or send him or her back to be tortured or potentially to continue terrorist activities in his or her own country.

Not only will Canada not be safer, but as well, our justice system will not be made safer by this kind of legislation, which does not--I repeat does not--uphold the basic tenets of our justice system around the ability for full answer and defence.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who moved the motion why she put forward 12 amendments.

At this point, we do not support the bill that will be presented. I believe her party is also against it. Furthermore, I would have liked to have 20 minutes to explain why we are against this bill, instead of only 10 minutes. I do not understand this procedure.

Assuming that the arguments we present here could eventually convince other members, if people vote against the amendment after each clause, what would be the point of holding a debate on the bill itself? I must admit I do not understand this notion at all, unless of course it is some sort of filibuster.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not intended at all to be a filibuster. It is intended to show that the NDP, as we have said all along, is opposed to this bill. We did not make amendments at committee stage because that would have been trying to fix what we consider to be a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

This was our way of demonstrating and saying to the people of Canada that we cannot support any piece of this legislation and that we do not have an amendment to bring forward to tinker with it, to try to change part of it, or to do any of that. The Chair chose to group the amendments from one to twelve. This is the only way that we saw for being able to do this.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important piece of legislation. I want to say at the outset that were we in government in response to the position expressed by the court, we would have definitely presented a different piece of legislation.

This is a piece of legislation that during the committee we have tried to actually improve partly or fully because we believe that the court deadline is very important, and the issue of national and public security is very important for the country. In a way, it is a non-partisan issue. It goes beyond political partisanship.

The fact is that this security certificate regime has been in existence since 1977. The court obviously had the opportunity to review this matter and review it in the context of the Charkaoui case and provide us with its judgment.

The fact is that the government could have chosen any of the three or four models, that the court looked at, without expressing approval for any one of those models.

In fact, one of the models the government could have actually adopted, as I said earlier when I spoke to this matter, was the SIRC model, the Security Intelligence Review Committee model, where there was much fuller disclosure available, where SIRC actually set up an adversarial process, and where SIRC was able to set up essentially a courtroom type procedure to deal with these issues and deal with the security issues prior to the security certificate regime coming into being.

The other particular model that the court referred to was the process under the Canada Evidence Act which handles the balance between the protection of sensitive information and the procedural rights of individuals. The Attorney General of Canada of course has a role with respect to that matter about the potential disclosure of important national security information.

Then in fact the court looked at the Arar case, where the commissioner devised a process to deal with sensitive information in a way that as much disclosure as was possible could be provided to Mr. Arar and/or his counsel.

Finally, the court also examined the special advocate regime that is presently in existence in the United Kingdom. It has been criticized in the United Kingdom. It is a scheme that even if the government wanted to bring this scheme into our legislation, it could have been improved much more than it actually attempted to.

I want to say briefly that our committees, both of the Senate and the House, had made several recommendations to deal with the anti-terrorism legislation. Some of those recommendations were directed to the security certificate regime. Both of the reports of the committees found that there was a need for some form of adversarial challenge to the governmental claims that the secrecy was necessary. Both committees concluded that the affected party be entitled to select a special advocate from a roster of security cleared counsels who would be funded by the government but independent of government.

It should also be noted that both reports also provided several other recommendations for changes to be made to this particular legislation beyond just the issue of how to achieve the correct balance. One of the issues that they had dealt with was the faster process and dealing with the issue of the torture evidence.

When we looked at this legislation and looked at it in light of the fact that there was a court imposed deadline and we needed to proceed expeditiously to deal with the issue, we felt that there were some areas of the legislation we could at least quickly improve upon.

The Liberal members on the select standing committee were able to make four amendments. Let me just go through those amendments. They are very significant because they deal with the rights of the detainee with respect to these matters and enhancing the rights of the detainee.

First, we were able to actually specify in the legislation, through the amendment, that there ought to be specific criteria for the minister when creating the roster of potential special advocates to ensure that they are duly qualified, that they are independent, and that they have adequate resources, which means that they are funded by the government in an adequate fashion but they are independent of the government.

Second, we were able to make an amendment to the effect that the detainee, foreign national or permanent residence, who is the subject of the hearing, be allowed to choose his or her own special advocate from the roster and that advocate in cases would be appointed by the judge.

Third, and in fact very important, there was the absence of the solicitor-client relationship altogether in the legislation, and we were able to reinstate the solicitor-client privilege for the detainee to the extent of the information that the detainee may have given to the special advocate, so the special advocate is barred from sharing that information with anybody else other than the detainee himself. Therefore, that provides a degree of solicitor-client privilege which we believe was appropriate in the circumstances.

Fourth, and most important of all, we were actually able to successfully make a very broad amendment that dealt with the issue of evidence that may be the product of torture, whether it is the primary evidence or derivative evidence. Based on the amendment, if the judge that might be hearing the case believes, on reasonable grounds, that the evidence may be the product of torture, directly or indirectly, that evidence would not admissible in the proceedings before the judge with respect to the particular detainee.

I believe that we have been able to make improvements. Let me just go back and recap, and say that if we were the government, this would not be the piece of legislation. The government could have done a much better job. The government could have actually adopted and built upon the homegrown concept and the process that the SIRC model uses. It did not do that. That would have been much better.

Therefore, we will be monitoring this. We will be attempting to make as many changes or improvements as possible over the next number of months and years, but it is important that the legislation pass. We have a deadline upon us and that is the deadline of February 23. It is important that we show some degree of responsibility, so that the court deadline that has been imposed upon us does not go by. We want to have a system in place before that happens.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member saw a news report in the Ottawa Citizen earlier this week, a story about how the government is having difficulty finding lawyers who are willing to act as special advocates, who are even willing to apply for the position. Apparently, so far only 50 have responded to the month-long recruitment campaign.

There were reasons given for that by two very prominent legal experts. Lorne Waldman, a very prominent immigration lawyer, actually an expert on the special advocacy process, said, “Given the nature of what the lawyers are being asked to do, it does not surprise me that there has not been an overwhelming response”. He further went on to say that the system “fundamentally abrogates” the right of the accused to know the evidence against them. He points out very serious problems.

Vanessa Gruben, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, also says that she thinks that the low number of applications for special advocate positions may stem from concerns about the proposed security certificate legislation.

There are concerns among the legal community that the model proposed in Bill C-3 falls short of the constitutional standards set by the Supreme Court. That is also supported by the Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies in Canada.

I wonder, given those very serious concerns, why the member can support this legislation.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Lorne Waldman. I believe it was his evidence and that of others like him that enabled all of us to make the improvements that we were actually able to make to this legislation. I want to publicly thank him and others for making the contributions they did.

On the question of the shortage of applicants, I do not know whether the number 50 means that there is a shortage of applicants with respect to the role of special advocate. Everyone knows that the special advocates have to be in the vicinity of Ottawa or Toronto, mostly for these matters. Everyone that knows the requisites in this particular case, knows that one needs to be experienced in areas of constitutional, immigration and criminal law.

There are very few lawyers in this country who are equally familiar with all those three areas of law. Therefore, I think there could be a shortage of applications for that reason.

Also, I was talking to a very learned Queen's counsel in British Columbia the other day and he told me that in British Columbia they are finding it hard to find senior counsel who can do ad hoc criminal work, prosecutions. That tells me that lawyers are not necessarily going into certain areas of specialization as they ought to, in numbers as they used to.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that we as parliamentarians sometimes have a series of objectives in our society that we have to maintain and sometimes these objectives can be in conflict with one or another, whether it is security and human rights. As citizens it is true to say that we have as much right to be protected by the state as from the state.

The security certificate decision that was taken by the Supreme Court in September 2007 was a very important decision. The court at that time had serious concerns with the security certificates in this country and there was not an adversarial role that was taking place in the process.

The decision came in February 2007, yet the government waited until October 2007 before tabling anything in the House. I find that very lamentable that it took so long to do that. It did not give Parliament sufficient time to deal with this very important issue.

Although I congratulate my hon. colleague for all the amendments he made at committee,--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I regret to have to cut off the hon. member for Davenport, but I do have to allow enough time for the hon. member for Vancouver South to answer the question.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying that he did not ask the question, but I understood the thrust of his remarks.

Those are very important issues he raised, but as parliamentarians, as members of the government and members of the responsible opposition, we have to sometimes work with haste expeditiously to meet the deadlines that may have been imposed by the court. We must also try to create as appropriate a balance between individual rights and national security, as are possible under the circumstances. This is not the most ideal piece of legislation and is not what I would have done, but we need to move with some haste.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the security certificates we are talking about are misnamed. As a result, most people have difficulty understanding what they are. They are actually deportation orders, whereby a sovereign nation exercises its right to refuse to admit foreigners who are deemed to represent threats to national security.

When security certificates are used only when people arrive in Canada, as was done in the summer, far fewer problems arise. Security certificates are always issued against foreigners and cannot be issued against Canadians, for the simple reason that section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that any Canadian has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. Consequently, this sort of procedure cannot be used against Canadian citizens.

There is a separate procedure for Canadian citizens who are deemed to be dangerous even though they have not committed any crime. In my opinion, many people believe the government could use the same procedure against foreigners, but that is neither here nor there. This law has been in existence for some time, and we cannot say it has been abused. Although it has been invoked 27 times, it has been used only five times since September 11, 2001.

A security certificate creates a real problem when it is issued against someone who has entered Canada, has been a permanent resident for many years, has started a family, has had children and, after spending considerable time in Canada, suddenly wants to become a Canadian citizen. Just when he qualifies to become a Canadian citizen and applies for citizenship, the government issues a security certificate against him.

That is what happened to Adil Charkaoui. He came to Canada in 1995 with his parents and, I believe, the person he married here. He had children. A security certificate was not issued against him until 2003.

When the security certificate applies to someone who can return to his country of origin, there is no real problem. We can accept the fact that a sovereign nation is simply exercising its right to refuse to admit someone if it considers that person dangerous. A problem arises when the person will face torture and perhaps even death if he is returned to his country of origin. That is why this person does not want to go back.

The government often defends these measures by saying that the person is in a three-walled prison. One wall is missing, so all the person has to do is leave. For some people, the fourth wall of their prison is actually a cliff. Leaving would mean certain death or torture. This is where serious problems arise. How long will we hold this person?

We must understand what a security certificate is based on. If ministers intervene, it is because the security agencies believe, based on the information they have, which is usually confidential, that this person is a risk. Why do they not reveal this information? There are three reasons. First, because the information was obtained from a country on the condition that it not be made public. It is also because the information comes from secret agents who have infiltrated terrorist organizations. Revealing the source of the information could mean a death sentence for these secret agents. The last reason is that, in the fight against terrorism, which is much more important that the fight against crime, if we were to reveal investigation methods, such as how the information was obtained, the terrorist organizations would have a leg up on our defences. I think these reasons are understandable.

Consequently, after the ministers have signed the security certificate, which is in effect a request for the court to authorize a removal order, the reasons must nevertheless be submitted to the judge—proof that we are a civilized country. He must be given the real reasons or sufficient reasons demonstrating that the decision is not being taken lightly. He must be presented with the facts and the methods and these cannot be revealed to the person in question. That creates a legal problem that is extremely difficult to resolve.

After reading the decisions of the Supreme Court, I was personally convinced. Given the significance of the risks related to terrorism today, I recognize that such procedures must exist to a point, especially procedures used in such an exceptional manner.

However, we do not agree with the government on the measure to be used. It never stops repeating that we must balance—and it is a fine principle—security and the respect for rights. That goes without saying. However, the Supreme Court, which is examining this issue, realizes that the individual involved cannot know all the reasons why they are suspected, in fact, very often, most of them.

I found that Mr. Charkaoui was quite convinced and sincere when he said that he did not know why a security certificate had been issued against him. He had some suspicions because they asked him to be a double agent and he refused. I understand why a father would refuse to be a double agent, especially since he told them that it was not true that he knew terrorists, that perhaps he knew them without knowing that they were terrorists and that, in any case, he did not want to get involved.

It is nevertheless very difficult to make a decision about someone in such a case because the final consequences are exactly the same as for the most serious criminals in Canada. In terms of seriousness, it is the second most severe type of sanction imposed on criminals that we have in Canada. The most severe sanction is life imprisonment. In that case conditional release is a possibility. The other most serious sanction is indefinite detention.

A number of conditions had to be fulfilled before making that kind of decision. Improvements had to be made in accordance with the Supreme Court's recommendation to the government. This government still believes that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Supreme Court decisions set limits that cannot be exceeded. The government is very proud of the fact that it abided by a Supreme Court decision. It seems to me that if the government had reviewed the Supreme Court's reasons for amending the legislation, it would have noticed that it should be doing a little more than what the court suggested, and that it is not up to the court to come up with the system.

I was prepared to talk about this for 20 minutes. The brilliant procedure proposed by the NDP would allow me to speak 12 times for 10 minutes, plus 20 minutes. However, at some point I still would have wanted to put together the reasons that we are likely to support. I will probably have a chance to come back to this.

In closing, we believe that when making a decision as serious as this one—upholding a security certificate—the judge must be certain that the person represents a real risk.

Then they decided to give the person the right to appeal, but it was not really a right to appeal. It was something that allowed judges to discuss issues that could be raised during a hearing. That is not a real right to appeal. I would prefer to give that person the same right to appeal that dangerous offenders get under section 159 of the Criminal Code, that is, a real right to appeal on questions of fact, of law or of fact and law.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention in the debate. His comments are always very helpful and very well informed, given his great experience.

Yesterday, the families of the five post-9/11 security certificate detainees gathered here on the Hill, Mohammad Mahjoub's wife, Mona El Fouli, Adil Charkaoui's mother, Latifa Charkaoui, and Mahmoud Jaballah's son, Ahmad Jaballah. A representative of Sophie and Mohamed Harkat, Christian Legeais, also attended. As well, we remembered Hassan Almrei, who is the only person still detained at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre on a security certificate.

One of the pleas that the families made was to ask that MPs and senators not support this legislation because of their great concerns about the injustice that it does. Ms. Charkaoui, Adil Charkaoui's mother, said that she did not believe there was a place in Canada for a justice system that involved “justice à deux vitesse”, I believe that was the expression she used, two systems of justice, one for Canadians and one for permanent residents or visitors to Canada. She believed that we should be proud of our justice system in Canada and that everyone here should have access to that system.

I wonder if the member could respond to Latifa Charkaoui's concerns about what she believes this security system represents.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about these issues in a strict, legal sense, we have to include nuances that are not always understood.

First, like many people, Ms. Charkaoui probably does not realize that this is not a criminal trial procedure, since the person involved has not been charged with anything. In fact, the first decision made about this person was not to incarcerate him, but to expel him. A citizen cannot be expelled unless it is a matter under extradition law, if he is being sought by the country where he allegedly committed a crime.

This is a process related to immigration law, which enforces the principle by which a sovereign country has the right to refuse entry to foreigners it considers dangerous.

I would have liked to have seen legislation that made concrete improvements, but I cannot propose amendments to change the legislation in that way.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that if the minister were truly serious in asking for a non-partisan attitude toward this matter, he should have talked to us, and we would have—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. I believe there are other questions and comments.

The hon. member for London West.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member before. When we had witnesses before committee, as he knows, they came with some excellent suggestions for improving the bill. Not only that, members around the table tried to put in amendments to this bill.

The public needs to understand why some of these very good suggestions could not be incorporated into the bill at this point in time, because of the stage it was at when it came to the committee. I remember that the member had an amendment that was ruled out of order. I would like the member to go over some of the activity that occurred to try to improve this bill, but which improvements could not be incorporated because of the way in which the government chose to send the bill to committee.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my view, the opposition parties—at least two of them—took their work very seriously in addressing this question. I am convinced that this power must exist somewhere, but the balance has been shifted.

Moreover, we managed to get some amendments adopted. For instance, the person in question can choose his or her counsel from the approved list of lawyers. There was a clear amendment that states that the counsel is bound by solicitor-client privilege. We would have liked to go even further, yet we were held back: the bill, as it stands, provides that it would have to be the most ignorant of counsel. One can sense, once again, that the government was reluctant to fully cooperate, with a view to ensure there were enough members at the meeting to restore the balance. It is unfortunate.

In particular, it would have required provisions to make a distinction between the decision to be made when someone has just entered the country and the decision to be made in the case of a father who has been living here for years, whose parents have received citizenship and whose children were born here and have Canadian citizenship. I do not see why such a person should not be treated like a Canadian citizen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3, the government's response to the Supreme Court decision with respect to security certificates and also the government's response to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the subcommittee that reviewed this aspect.

Getting the balance right between the civil liberties of citizens and the duty to protect citizens from criminals and terrorists is never easy.

I must say, in Bill C-3, the legislation we are debating today, I believe the government has made an attempt to achieve that balance. The government has paid attention to the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act.

Recommendations of the subcommittee relating to the use of special advocate for processes other than security certificates, that is the listing of terrorist entities, the deregistration of registered charities and denial of charitable status, and applications for the disclosure of information under the Canada Evidence Act are still under study by the government. The government has, however, incorporated the subcommittee's recommendation to employ special advocates counsel for the security certificate process.

Security certificates are not a post-9/11 product. They have been around for more than 30 years. They are an instrument used very sparingly. Only 28 security certificates have been issued since 1991 and only 6 since September 11, 2001. Nineteen individuals have been removed from Canada as a result of security certificates. They are used to remove from Canada foreign nationals or permanent residents, not Canadian citizens, who are deemed to be security risks to Canadians. Individuals detained under security certificates may leave Canada at any time. Admittedly it is not always possible to find a jurisdiction that will accept these people or locate a jurisdiction that will not torture or cause them harm once they arrive. However, there have been many successful removals.

The subcommittee of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security reviewed the anti-terrorism legislation, which was required after five years that it was brought into play. The committee decided to include a review of security certificates even though they were not a feature of the anti-terrorism legislation. They are instruments administered by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

I had the honour to work on this committee and participated in the review of the anti-terrorism legislation. Testimony from witnesses completed in the 38th Parliament before it was dissolved. Therefore, we had witnesses in the 38th Parliament and that testimony was regurgitated or brought back before the new Parliament. The subcommittee and the standing committee issued an interim report in October 2006 and a final report in March 2007 in the 39th Parliament.

The interim report had to be released to deal with the provisions of preventive arrest and investigative hearing contained in the Anti-terrorism Act. These provisions had been sunsetted and were about to expire.

There is often misinformation in the minds of the public about how security certificates work.

For example, the individual about to be detained is informed of what they are accused of. What they are not told is the sources of information employed by the Canadian authorities (CSIS, RCMP etc.) to convince a judge that the person constituted a threat to the security of Canada.

Persons detained, as I said earlier, may also leave Canada at any time. This can be problematic, admittedly, for some individuals for some countries. However, there are examples of people returning to their countries and not being persecuted.

The security certificates process has been challenged in the courts in Canada and had been affirmed as not violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, on February 23, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced that the security certificates process was inconsistent with the requirements of the charter.

The Supreme Court concluded that these provisions of the act that allowed for the use of in camera, ex parte proceedings from which the named person and his or counsel were excluded violated the right to life, liberty and security of a person under section 7 of the charter.

The court found that the right to a fair hearing included the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial judge who decided the case on the facts and the law, the right to know the case that had to be met and the right to meet that case. Since evidence heard in camera and ex parte could not be tested by the named person and could not be disclosed by a judicially authorized summary of that evidence, the provisions of the act violated section 7 of the charter, the right to liberty.

The court also concluded that the provisions could not be saved by section 1 of the charter as being demonstrably justified limitations necessary in a free and democratic society. The Supreme Court gave Parliament one year to replace and reform the relevant provisions of the act.

The court made reference to the existence of special counsel, special advocate or amicus curiae measures used in Canada and in the United Kingdom where there was a requirement to protect sensitive information while still recognizing the right of individuals to meet the case with which they were confronted.

With respect to security certificates, our committee recommended changes to the process in our March 2007 final report. We recommended the use of security cleared special advocate counsel for the security certificate process, but also for the listing of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code, the deregistration of registered charities and denial of charitable status to applicants under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act, and applications for the disclosure of information under the Canada Evidence Act.

These three processes all have star chamber characteristics, in my judgment and in the judgment of the committee, and we recommended changes to improve the transparency and fairness of these processes. In Bill C-3 the government has accepted the recommendation to create special advocates to deal with security certificates.

With respect to the use of special advocates for processes other than security certificates, the ones I have just mentioned, the government, in its response to the subcommittee's report this summer, seemed to be lukewarm. The government's comment was as follows:

At the present time, the Government believes that further study of the use of special advocates in other processes is required.

I am hoping that the various government portfolios are still reviewing that and I would like to see some action on that in the future or a wholesome and fulsome response.

It would appear that changes to these other processes are not reflected in Bill C-3 and hopefully they will come later. These processes have the same in camera, star chamber qualities, in my judgment.

The role of the special advocate counsel is spelled out in clause 85 of Bill C-3.

The subcommittee of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had other recommendations on the topic of security certificates. One of these was as follows:

The Subcommittee recommended that sections 79, 81, 112, and other provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended so as to allow for an application to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for protection only after a security certificate has been found by a Federal Court judge to be reasonable.

In its response to the House of Commons report, the government responded this past summer to this recommendation as follows. The government stated that it agreed “with the stated objective of making the process more expeditious and will examine methods to do so”.

Bill C-3 eliminates the suspension of consideration of the reasonableness of a security certificate that occurs when a person named in it makes an application for protection. In addition, Bill C-3 requires that a judge of the Federal Court must commence a review of the detention within 48 hours.

With these two provisions, the government has responded to the recommendation of the sub-committee on this matter. This improves the sequencing of the process such that people will not be seeking protection from being sent to a country where they would be at risk until a Federal Court has determined whether or not the security certificate is reasonable.

The sub-committee also recommended the following for security certificates:

The Subcommittee recommends that section 78(j) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be amended by adding the words “reliable and” before the word “appropriate”.

The government has incorporated this wording into section 83(1)(h) of Bill C-3. In my view this provides greater certainty that evidence presented to a judge, if obtained by torture, will be inadmissible. Our party at committee introduced amendments to make that even more clear. I am glad to say that the government supported that amendment as well.

Bill C-3 addresses the key concerns of the Supreme Court of Canada and the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. For these reasons, I believe Bill C-3 deserves the support of the House.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the changes to the act with which the official opposition is pleased, does the member think there will be enough financial resources for the special advocate to not only do administrative work, but further investigative work if it is necessary? Will the special advocate have the kind of freedom to information that he would want to see available if he were in the position?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Surrey North for her hard work on the sub-committee and the committee on this matter.

This matter was raised and discussed in committee. There was some concern that not only did the special advocates need the sort of rum and ration type of support, but they needed to be able to do all the research and have the resources available as well so they could act and respond in a timely way. The government responded, not unreasonably, that the matters could not be built right into the legislation. We looked at the wording at the time and some improvements perhaps were made to make it more clear.

All of us in the House and all Canadians and people who are interested in this legislation will be watching, I am sure, as the government brings in the regulations to support the special advocate process. That will begin to spell out more clearly how this will work. The next stage will be the estimates and the budget building process to see what actual resources are made available. If they are not sufficient, the House, or the committee or both should flag that and take it on with the government.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians would be stunned to hear that people have been incarcerated in Canada for periods as long as five to seven years on evidence that potentially was obtained through torture. The bill as it stands now has been amended so that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used.

We also know that evidence is provided by countries from the Middle East, developing countries and third world countries that do not have the same standards of evidence that we have here in Canada and other democracies. What guarantees do we have that evidence from countries that have different standards than ours in terms of evidence, that people will not be incarcerated as a result of that type of evidence?

Second, we also know that many of these countries are not democracies, they are dictatorships. People often seek refuge from those countries because they are political opponents to those dictatorships and seek refuge in countries such ours, Canada. We have a tradition of providing refuge.

We also know that some of those countries are quite adept at forging documentation and have in the past taken out personal vendettas against their political opponents who have escaped their grasp. What guarantees do we have--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the hon. member, but I do need to give the hon. member for Etobicoke North adequate time.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the hon. member's riding, he has a large population of Muslim Canadians, as do I. In fact, I think my riding has the third largest population of Muslims in Canada.

Some of the Muslims in my riding are not very happy with my stance on these particular issues. However, I can tell the House that the mainstream Muslim community that represents the vast majority of Muslims in Canada, I believe, have told me the reason they came to Canada was to escape the kind of intolerant societies, the risk to their personal lives, the corruption and the violence that goes on in those countries. They want a country that is safe for them and their children.

I am not suggesting they would all agree with Bill C-3, and we on the Liberal side are not suggesting that the bill is perfect. However, in response to threats to Canada, I think it is a reasonable solution. Ultimately, it could be challenged in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will decide.

I should say that the subcommittee--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced following a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in February 2007, which stated that the procedure for the judicial approval of security certificates established by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, furthermore, that it was of no force or effect. First of all, I have serious doubts about five particular provisions of Bill C-3.

First of all, arrest without warrant is a serious concern to us. As we know, a warrant can be obtained very quickly if sufficient evidence is presented to a judge. Why is this not the case here?

Second, are security certificates really necessary? Yes, they are, in very exceptional cases. They should only be upheld if the individual is considered dangerous beyond any reasonable doubt. However, with this bill, reasonable doubt is sufficient grounds for the continuing detention of a permanent resident or foreign national subject to a security certificate.

My third concern is whether it is acceptable for the term of incarceration to be indefinite. People are sent to prison but not told how long they will be there, and that evidence is being gathered. Deadlines keep getting pushed back. We are worried about the fact that people can be detained indefinitely. The mere fact that indefinite detention is possible for subjects of security certificates seems extreme to us.

For how long can a society that claims to abide by the rule of law keep people locked up with no evidence that they have committed a crime? It makes no sense that in a free and democratic society, people can be detained without ever having been found guilty following a trial.

My fourth point is that special advocates are not given access to all of the evidence. We think it is important for a special advocate bound by solicitor-client privilege to have access to all of the evidence. Currently, they may be given only a summary of the evidence, but we think they should receive the evidence in its entirety. We think it is important for advocates to be able to defend the rights of an individual facing deportation.

The people involved should be able to select security-cleared advocates from the Minister of Justice's list. Is it not logical to ensure that special advocates have the resources they need to do their jobs? Special advocates should also be allowed to see their clients more than once so they can get additional information once they have received the evidence.

My fifth point is that, clearly, appeal procedures have to change.An appeal will only be allowed if the judge, having heard the government's and the special advocate's representations, upholds the order for removal or incarceration. If the individual cannot be deported, there can only be an appeal on a question of law or general interest raised by the judge. For the individual concerned, it is not very reassuring to know that the person confirming the deportation is the same one who drafted the notice of appeal.

I do not understand why the government went so far. A similar burden does not exist elsewhere in the law, at least not in our law. I still have a number of very serious reservations about Bill C-3.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask a question. I do not believe that the Canadian public really understands what a security certificate is all about. I would like my colleague to confirm one thing.

For example, my in-laws live in the United States; they are American. In theory, if they were to come to Canada and if they were suspected of wrongdoing, they could be arrested and put in jail without being given a reason and without having access to a lawyer. Is that true? Are security certificates a threat to us?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Security certificates cannot be issued against Canadian citizens. However, they could be a threat to any visitor or anyone who has permanent residency but not citizenship, so any individual who was granted permanent residency by the government.

Any foreign national, any visitor or any individual living in or visiting Canada could be incarcerated with no access to a lawyer and without being told what evidence exists, if a security certificate was issued against this individual on our territory.