Dave MacKenzie

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought up a number of issues, some on which the courts have already ruled. The Federal Court has determined that the security certificates issued against these individuals are reasonable and that the individuals continue to be a danger to national security or the safety of any person. That is why they are in Kingston. It is not because the government wants them to be there.

The hon. member knows that these individuals have been held in custody for quite some time. They were there before January of last year when our government was formed. They were there a few years before that.

The whole issue is one that has developed over time. This could have been in place if the hon. member and his party felt that way three years ago. Where we are now is reasonable. These men have a redress process within the organization. They have also now applied to the Federal Court for additional redress that they believe is owed to them.

With all due respect, I believe the proper process is in place. The proper facility is there. As I have already indicated, it is a three-sided cell. These men are welcome to leave the country at any time and go to a country that will accept them. They would then be free and clear to go wherever they wished to go.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the difference is that the inmates of the Kingston Penitentiary are people who have been convicted of crimes. They are there for a different purpose. Rehabilitation is certainly one of the issues, but they are there for a defined length of time under sentence of the courts.

These individuals are being held in an immigration facility for the purpose of removal from Canada. Rehabilitation, as I already indicated, is not part of the process. The facility has frequently been described by many in the House as a three-sided cell. They are held there until they are removed from Canada. They are free to go to any country that will accept them. They can leave tomorrow if that is their desire.

It is a totally different process than the people who are held at Kingston for a pre-determined length of time under sentence of the courts. These individuals are not there under sentence of the court. They are being held there for removal from our country.

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member opposite who brought the motion before the House as it gives me an opportunity to shed light on the origins and operations of the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre.

First, I would like to highlight that Canada is known internationally as a welcoming and compassionate country. Each year we admit more than 95 million people to our country, including more than 200,000 permanent residents and many thousands of refugee claimants. Canadians treasure their open, democratic and compassionate society. They welcome visitors and immigrants who seek to experience Canada's natural beauty, freedom and opportunity.

Canadians also insist on vigilance against individuals and organizations who would exploit our generosity and openness. Canadians do not want our doors to be open to people who endanger our national security and the safety of our communities.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to understand that in protecting the Canadian public against threats to their safety and security, the use of security certificates is an exceptional measure that is used rarely. In fact, only 28 security certificates have been issued over the past 16 years. This represents an average of less than two per year.

The point is that this measure under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is used rarely and only in cases where individuals who are not Canadian citizens are inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.

I would like to highlight that the Federal Court has determined that the security certificates issued against each of the individuals being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre are reasonable and that these individuals continue to be a danger to national security or the safety of any person. That is why they remain in detention. These individuals are being held for purposes of removal and not rehabilitation.

The creation of the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre came about to address previous concerns regarding detention conditions at provincial facilities. The Federal Court and the province of Ontario expressed concerns about the appropriateness of conditions at Ontario correctional facilities for individuals subject to security certificates.

In October 2005 the Government of Canada committed to move individuals subject to a security certificate to a federal facility within four to six months. It resulted in the establishment of the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. This was a coordinated action between Correctional Service of Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, medical services branch, Justice Canada, ministries of the government of Ontario and Kingston, Ontario municipal authorities.

This brand new facility known as the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre was opened in April 2006. It is located adjacent to the grounds of the Millhaven Institution at Bath, Ontario just west of Kingston.

One of the considerations in building the facility in the Kingston area was the facilitation of family visits for the individuals who would be held there. At the time there were four people being held in Toronto and Ottawa facilities and Millhaven represented a central point between the two cities.

In addition, it was top of mind for the government to provide secure accommodation for the individuals subject to security certificates while making sure that there were no additional risks to staff or the nearby community and more broadly to the Canadian public.

I would like to remind the House that these individuals pose a threat to national security and public safety. The courts so far have supported the Government of Canada's position that they must remain in detention until they are removed from Canada.

I do understand the member opposite who put forward this motion wishes to address specific issues relating to the detention conditions at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. Regrettably, I am prevented from addressing these issues as they are part of a legal action filed in Federal Court last week by counsel representing the three individuals subject to security certificates being held in Kingston.

Having said that, I will outline the redress process for those being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. First, I would like to point out that the Canada Border Services Agency applies national detention standards for all those detained under immigration legislation.

Let it be known that all individuals subject to security certificates being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre have the right to file a complaint to be heard and achieve resolution. In fact, the centre's redress process allows individuals subject to a security certificate to file a complaint about any situations with which they are not satisfied.

The first step in the process attempts to achieve resolution through dialogue between the individual filing the complaint and the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre detention supervisor or the holding centre manager. Should the issue remain unresolved or if the individual filing the complaint is not satisfied with the response, he or she can file a grievance with either the director of the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre or the director of the Canada Border Services Agency, Northern Ontario region, depending on the issue to be resolved.

If not satisfied with the response provided at the first level, a second level grievance may be filed with the Canada Border Services Agency regional director general or the Correctional Service Canada regional deputy commissioner.

Parallel to this is a grievance process for health care issues. These are referred to the health services unit at Millhaven Institution and reviewed there by the chief of health services. The regional administrative health services at Correctional Service Canada can review decisions on health issues taken by the chief health services at Millhaven.

The third and final step in this process, should the individual filing the grievance not be satisfied with the response provided by the second level authority, is to bring the grievance to the vice-president of operations at the Canada Border Services Agency, the assistant commissioner of correctional operations and programs at Correctional Service Canada, and the director general of health services at Correctional Service Canada.

At this point, there is a review of the previous decision. They will either provide confirmation of that decision or a new decision on the particular grievance. This process provides individuals being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre with three levels at which they can raise their concerns and achieve resolution. All complaints are taken seriously and every effort is made to resolve the complaint as quickly as possible. In fact, the redress process has been used at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, and it works.

I thank the member opposite for providing this opportunity to talk about the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre and the redress process.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this legislation has not been utilized to this point. I think what is equally important is that this should be renewed for a further three years, so that all the implications of the subcommittee's report and ultimately the committee's report can be brought forward before the House so that the House can make decisions on where we go from here.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the toxicity here is in terrorism. There are provisions within the Criminal Code for other arrest provisions dealing with the prevention of crime. I see nothing in this act that abridges any of that. I draw the member's attention to the former minister of justice and public safety who said in Hansard on October 16, 2001:

Canadians can rest assured that we kept in mind the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter when drafting our proposals. The bill reaffirms the equal right of every citizen of whatever religion, race or ethnic origin to enjoy the security, protections and liberties shared by all Canadians.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all his help during the subcommittee process that we just went through.

With regard to police officers and the relationship with accused or persons in custody and lawyers, as illustrated in the case of which he spoke, a lawyer could have been present if he had asked. The hon. member has already indicated that the conversation ended when there was talk of a lawyer being there. I do not think there is any question that anybody's rights to legal counsel have been removed or somehow hindered in this process.

However, he is right that lawyers frequently enter into discussions with accused and police officers or people being arrested. As a member of the bar, I think my friend would tell us that usually the conversations were as a result of the lawyer's intervention.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code contains many laws that govern a great deal of what Canadians can and cannot do, and most of those laws do not have a sunset clause.

The sunset clause in this case was put in for us to have that opportunity to review what has happened in the five years since its implementation. The fact that it has not been used does not mean that it is not a good tool to have in the tool box. As a matter of fact, I suggest that it is a wonderful tool to have there.

The subcommittee viewed it in the light that although it had not been used that it should be retained. Our original intent was that it would stay for another five years so it would have a full ten years of experience in the country.

However, with all due respect, I believe that the past five years has proven it to be such a good idea that it should be retained. I think Canadians expect us as legislators to provide those tools for the law enforcement community in the battle against terrorism.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the opposition who took part in the subcommittee report. The broader community should know that a great deal of the study was done before this Parliament convened. The members on this side of the House were all new to the committee and we received a great deal of assistance from the opposition, for which we are thankful.

I am pleased to stand today to show support for the three year extension of the provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act that deals with preventive arrest and investigative hearings. I do so with the knowledge of the critical importance of these provisions for the work of law enforcement agencies across the country.

As a former police officer, I understand what a difficult job it can be to keep Canadians safe. I also understand the need to do everything possible to get that job done. Canada's new government has made the safety of Canadians one of its top priorities.

Over the past few months, the government has taken many steps to bolster the security of Canadians. We provided more funding to hire more federal police officers, to enact new measures to enhance the security of passenger rail and urban transit, to improve Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, and to strengthen Canada's capacity to respond to catastrophes and emergencies of any kind.

We have also begun the process to arm border guards and to eliminate work alone border crossings. All these measures and others demonstrate the significance that we place on the security of Canadians. The Anti-terrorism Act is important to our efforts and those of all stakeholders involved in keeping our country safe.

The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted in response to the tragic events that befell our American neighbours on September 11, 2001. On that day we realized that we were not as prepared as we had thought to deal with such devastating acts of terrorism.

The Anti-terrorism Act provided some of the tools we needed to root out terrorists and prevent our nation from falling victim to their cowardly crimes. We needed them then and we still need them now, measures to allow us to stop such events before they happen. That is why, in my opinion, recognizance with conditions and investigative hearings are crucial.

There is an old adage that definitely fits this bill, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. I believe most Canadians would agree and they would do so because they understand that these provisions are not used every day, that they are to be used in extreme circumstances.

To use recognizance with conditions and investigative hearing provisions, law enforcement professionals must adhere to precise criteria. In the case of recognizance with conditions, it can only be used where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be carried out and reasonable grounds to suspect that imposing conditions or arrest is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

The threat must be credible and involve a specific individual. The consent of the attorney general must be obtained. In all cases, the person in question must be brought before a judge within 24 hours or as soon as possible. In order for the investigative hearing provisions to be used, the judge must be satisfied that the consent of the attorney general is obtained and that, among other things, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist offence has been or will be committed.

In addition, during the hearing the witness is protected from self-incrimination and laws relating to privilege and the non-disclosure of information, as well as the right to counsel, continue to apply.

As all members of the House can see, these provisions are subject to strict checks and balances. This is consistent with our values. The rights and freedoms that we hold dear as a nation have been integrated into the development of these measures.

The fact that these provisions are not used often does not mean they are not needed. Some people may believe that because we use these provisions so infrequently they are not necessary. That is dangerous and even irresponsible reasoning. We do not pass laws against grievous crimes in the hopes of having to use them. We, rather, hope that we never need to use them.

However, there are instances where these laws are necessary. Having ways of dealing with the most extreme of events, however infrequent, is vital to keeping our society safe. Removing these provisions because we have not used them is like saying that we do not need air bags in our cars because we are very good drivers. These provisions are there against the eventuality that using them will save lives and will bring those who commit or plan to commit these cowardly, indiscriminate acts of destruction to justice.

Keeping these provisions is the responsible thing to do and the right thing to do. Should something terrible happen on our soil I do not believe Canadians would accept the excuse that we got rid of preventive measures because they had not been used enough in the past. I know I would not.

Extending the sunset provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act for a period of three years is a necessary part of our duty as legislators. Back in 2001, members of Parliament understood the tremendous need for this act and all of its provisions. The tragic events of September of that same year were fresh in our minds. Images of the collapsing towers were burned in our minds. We remember the thousands of innocent Americans and 25 Canadians who lost their lives needlessly.

While those wounds run deep, time has passed and we have healed a great deal. However, since that time, 30 countries have been victims of terrorism: England, Spain, Russia, and the list goes on. We have a duty to our people to learn from these terrible events, to be prepared and to take steps to keep Canadians safe in light of the horrific nature of terrorist crimes. We cannot be complacent. We cannot let ourselves believe that our country is immune. We have been mentioned as a possible target by certain groups.

I am not here to be a fearmonger but I want to make it clear that we need to have these provisions. Police officers must be able to count on effective tools when they carry out their work. They need to know that they can indeed take steps to keep us all safe.

The government does support our police forces and all those who work tirelessly to track down terrorists, uncover plots and protect our families. These provisions make that work easier. We should not create unnecessary challenges and burdens for our law enforcement officials.

The question before us today is simple: Do we continue to provide the tools needed by police to counter terrorism or do we take those tools away and help stack the deck against our own country? I know where I stand. I stand with the country, with Canadians and with our security professionals who put their lives on the line in what is the most civic of duties, the protection of our security and our prosperity.

I urge all members of the House to stand with me as we extend the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act.

I will end with a quote by the former minister of justice and public safety dealing with the Anti-terrorism Act. She said:

We have reviewed the legislation in detail. It has gone through the most intense scrutiny in terms of whether or not it is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe that this law is consistent.

That was taken from Hansard, November 27, 2001.

[Reverend George Leslie Mackay, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to honour a great Canadian, Reverend George Leslie Mackay. Canada can be rightfully proud of the accomplishments of this man that occurred 125 years ago.

Reverend Mackay was born and raised in Oxford County. He went to northern Taiwan as the first modern missionary. Reverend Mackay made Canada proud in cultivating and inspiring humanity in Taiwan.

An unconventional character, but sensitive to local needs, Reverend Mackay practised dentistry and trained local clergy. During his time in Taiwan he established over 60 chapels, several schools and a hospital, and even founded a university that was at one time known as Oxford University. Members of this House have travelled to Taiwan and they will be familiar with these institutions.

Reverend George Leslie Mackay is still deeply imprinted in the hearts of the people of Taiwan. He laid the groundwork to help foster good relations with Canada and Taiwan that are still developing in a positive manner today.

Reverend Mackay is being honoured in a Rogers OMNI 2 documentary entitled The Black-Bearded Barbarian of Taiwan which will air tomorrow at 7 p.m.

[Criminal Code, November 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of what my colleague across the floor had to say. I may have spent more time in courtrooms than most lawyers have. One of the things I noticed during that 30 year career was the fact that lawyers continually challenged the law. I do not think we should be concerned about that.

He is fully aware that reverse onus provisions in the code already have been challenged and upheld as constitutionally strong.

The member talked about plugging up the courts. The courts do not continually deal with these people, but they deal with them enough times that we need to do something. We are talking about the worst of the worst offenders. They are not shoplifters or people who break windows. These people have run afoul of the law in the most heinous way. We should not, as a society, necessarily have to wait for them for a fourth, fifth or sixth time. This is a law that only makes sense to ordinary Canadians.

What do we have to fear if someone does challenge it in the courts, being that a lawyer's role is to continually challenge the law? We should not prejudge what the courts would say.