Serge Ménard

[Criminal Code, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us now is very similar to the one that the House of Commons rejected some time ago. In fact, the changes are technical, and I believe there are three of them. As a result, our arguments for opposing Bill S-3 are essentially the same as those we made for excluding these provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act.

We are here because these provisions were part of a sunset clause, which said that these provisions would disappear if these powers were not renewed within five years. Since the House refused to renew them, the government wants to reintroduce them, this time through the Senate. The bill reproduces almost entirely the provisions that the House refused to renew.

What is more, the House's arguments against the provisions are simple, and we must stand firm. These provisions are completely useless in the fight against terrorism, particularly when we want to arrest someone, bring them before a judge and make them sign a recognizance. But these provisions could be used by a government that would like to discredit political opponents.

They also put the people who are meant to sign the recognizance in a terrible situation. They are arrested or receive a summons and are brought before a judge based on mere suspicions that they might be involved in a terrorist activity. If the judge believes that the suspicions are reasonable, that is, that there is reason to believe that a serious crime would be committed, the judge can force a person to sign a recognizance. He can imprison the individual only if that person refuses to sign the recognizance, which is valid for one year.

I imagine that this would not help with the arrest of a very dangerous terrorist, since he would immediately be released. However, for the danger we want to prevent with these other provisions, the Criminal Code states that a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is about to commit an indictable offence. He can therefore interrupt the crime. The individual is arrested and brought before a judge. The judge can refuse bail if he believes there is a real danger and that this person could commit a serious crime if he were released. In this case, the judge cannot do that. The judge can only ask the individual to sign a recognizance.

However, the person who was arrested, as an accused, can eventually defend himself and say that the police officer did not have reasonable grounds and that the individual had no intention of committing a crime. This person can present a full defence and be acquitted, or perhaps have the charges withdrawn, because the Crown would realize that the person had not committed a crime. This person could continue to participate in society, as he was doing before.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of someone in this situation. It is difficult for us because, as parliamentarians, we have reached a certain standing in society. Before, we also had careers that likely put us above these types of suspicions. But let us put ourselves in the shoes of an ordinary citizen, a young union activist who speaks out against injustices. But other people also speak out against these same injustices, but would rather use violence to change society.

The police could think that since this young man keeps company with people who have terrorist objectives, he could be involved in terrorist activities. Accordingly, they could make him appear before a judge and ask him to sign a similar recognizance. This young man could deny everything and swear that his actions are purely democratic, even though he knows those other people. If the judge finds that reasonable, under the law, relative to the severity of the terrorist act that could be committed, the judge can force him to sign a recognizance.

First of all, this individual will of course not go to prison. He will choose to sign the recognizance and be released. However, how will he be able to prove later on that those suspicions were completely unjustified? He will have no way to do so.

Let us consider the consequences of such a decision on that individual for the rest of his life. Does anyone believe he will be allowed entry into the United States if he tries to cross the border, having been the subject of a legal ruling forcing him to sign a recognizance in a context where there were concerns about possible terrorist activity? I am sure that individual would be denied entry. And what if his employer learns that he had to go to court to sign such a recognizance? In any case, these proceedings would likely be public. He would probably lose his job and have a hard time finding another one. Furthermore, I am convinced that he would appear on the no fly list, not only in the United States, but here too. He would have a hard time travelling to any other country.

This person would be stigmatized because a court ordered him to sign a recognizance to swear he will not carry out an act of terrorism. No one here has ever signed such a recognizance. The fact that someone is judicially forced to sign such a recognizance places a stigma on him that he will have to carry his whole life.

If anyone believes that these fears are unjustified, let us consider our past.

We had our own terrorists in the 1970s. They were not as dangerous as those we fear today, but they nevertheless caused the death of one person. Naturally, the killing of a minister horrified the population and also created tremendous fear. More than 500 suspects were jailed in one fell swoop. Five or six years later we had to compensate all of them. They included a popular singer, Pauline Julien, and her husband, Gérald Godin, who later became the minister of immigration and cultural communities and one of the best ever in Quebec. He was also a poet.

With the exception of one or two, all candidates in upcoming municipal elections who were members of FRAP were arrested. The parents, brothers and sisters of these people were detained.

There are times when we lose our reflex to defend a free society by respecting the freedoms of all and we feel obligated to restrict the rights of certain individuals.

I completely understand that the current international terrorist crisis and its consequences are worrisome. Yet I have not heard anyone reconcile the stigma that would be attached to the persons who have to sign these recognizance orders and the effectiveness of the fight against terrorism.

What do we think makes the secret service suspect that an individual is about to commit a terrorist act or will be involved in one? Judge O'Connor gave us a good example in the Maher Arar affair. It was believed that Maher Arar was involved in terrorist movements because he was seen walking in the rain, umbrella in hand, with someone who was also a suspect.

Apparently it is more difficult, even impossible, to record conversations when people are walking around under an umbrella. It has never occurred to me to criticize secret agents for operating on suspicion. Foiling terrorist plots is their job. Since these are secret organizations, these agents try to remain inconspicuous and analyze suspicions. It is normal for them to have suspicions.

However, they do not do surveillance on everyone. They target people of interest. A person of interest can be an individual who lends his car to a suspected terrorist, or people who take part in democratic organizations to denounce such injustices.

I am not criticizing these agents for having suspicions, but those suspicions must not have legal consequences. Those consequences happen because of suspicions; that is the criterion.

I want to say a few words about what the member before me said. He compared the degree of certainty we must have to arrest someone who is about to commit an indictable offence with the degree of certainty of our suspicions—can suspicions really be certain?—or rather the degree of knowledge or fear that pushes someone to make an individual appear before a judge to sign such a recognizance. In order to arrest someone without warrant because he is about to commit an crime, one must have reasonable grounds. It is true that this requires a little more than reasonable suspicion.

How do the police come up with their suspicions? By watching the people the individual spends time with. It is inevitable that some of the people who spend time with a person under police surveillance have nothing to do with terrorism. Therefore, it is also inevitable that people who have nothing to do with terrorism will be under suspicion.

I understand that surveillance of those people will continue. I understand, for example, that there may have been a good reason to keep Maher Arar under surveillance. The mistake made in the Maher Arar case is that he was clearly designated as a person of interest. A person of interest is not someone believed to be involved in the terrorist movement, but a person who has been observed among the entourage of those who are suspected, to be more precise, of being part of terrorist movements. That is the difference.

Now, instead of reasonable grounds, reasonable suspicion is enough. It is true that it is a small detail. However, I hope everyone grasps the potential stigma that could result from such a ruling by a court that orders someone, under the threat of imprisonment, to promise to comply with a number of conditions, including to stop participating in terrorist plots, of course.

When the police suspect someone is about to take action, to the point that they would make that person sign the recognizance, it is usually after wiretapping or something more substantial than just a suspicion. That being the case, the police probably have proof of a plot or the beginnings of a plot. And the plot, as well as its preparations, are considered criminal offences.

If it is important to intervene to prevent these plots from being carried out or ensure that the preparations are not completed, to the point that the individual is arrested and taken before a judge, it must mean that we have enough evidence to lay charges.

Yet laying charges allows the individual to go through the legal system and be acquitted, if that person is innocent. In the current situation, that person will carry the stigma of having been closely linked to terrorism and for the rest of his life will face all the major problems this could entail, given international travel these days.

I wanted to talk about something, but I have forgotten what it was. I will probably talk about it another time. I have been getting ready to give this speech since Monday, but it has been postponed repeatedly. About 15 minutes ago, I was told that I would be speaking now, but I do not have my notes.

Another thing that strikes me is how reluctant the rest of Canada is to look at what we are doing in Quebec. I am saying this to many nationalists whom I respect and who are not yet sovereignists. I was not born a sovereignist, I became one, as many others have done. I still understand that many Quebec nationalists in this House often look on Canada as an ideal. With two different cultures—we have two different languages and therefore different backgrounds—two sources of inspiration, two sources of reasoning, we could have a wonderful society built on the two languages that have played such an important role in the civilization we enjoy today. I understand those people. But I would have thought that both parties would benefit as a result. One party, inspired by the successes of the other, could take a page from the other's book, and the other party could learn from mistakes that were made and avoid repeating those mistakes. However, for many years now, it seems that successful initiatives in Quebec that could serve as a model for federal legislation have been systematically and completely ignored.

A good example of this was given here when a bill was introduced to amend the Young Offenders Act. The youth crime rate in Canada was 50% higher than in Quebec. Quebec had taken very seriously the old law, which was concerned with rehabilitating young offenders. In fact, the chief justice of the youth court in Quebec had summarized in a few choice words the Quebec courts' approach to young offenders: the right measure at the right time. Today, when he talks to me about the new law, he says that we used to judge a young person who had committed an offence; today, we judge an offence that was committed by a young person.

I know that in the west, for all sorts of reasons, people were terribly afraid of young offenders. People said that all they get is a slap on the wrist. The government decided to make a change and create a completely objective system that, in my opinion, does not produce the results Quebec had gotten.

Here, we have yet another example. We experienced terrorism and the reaction it elicits from those in power. Once again, we are unable to learn from those who lived through it.

I was a young lawyer at the time. In the 1970s—you can imagine that I was much younger than today—we had legal assistance. The difference between legal assistance and legal aid is that we were not paid. The young members of the Bar defended people. I defended many people accused of terrorism.

I learned a thing or two and I am realizing that these provisions could very well be used when the government panics. It has not done so in the past five years and that is a good thing. However, when such provisions are put into the Criminal Code, someone will find a way of using them eventually. In turbulent times, it could become a weapon used by a government to discredit its adversaries.

I believe that I have proven that not only is this bill futile, it is also dangerous. The risks of this bill outweigh by far its supposed advantages.

[Criminal Code, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.

Could he give me just one example of a situation where a person should be brought before a judge to sign a recognizance in order to prevent a terrorist act from being committed? Such a thing could be handled better through regular application of the Criminal Code, especially the provisions authorizing a peace officer to arrest without warrant anyone he or she believes is about to commit an indictable offence.

[Public Safety, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this happened six months ago. The Vancouver International Airport Authority has had the time to learn some lessons. But not the RCMP. It could not even enlighten the members of the committee who travelled to Vancouver to investigate this matter. It is using the investigations as an excuse for inaction and silence. However, it is obvious that there is a serious divergence between the measures that it acknowledges should be taken before using the taser and what happens in reality.

Will the minister acknowledge that a moratorium is necessary? How many deaths will it take to convince him?

[Public Safety, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has learned that 10 seconds elapsed from the time police arrived at the Vancouver airport room where Robert Dziekanski was being held to when he was tasered. That was 57 seconds after they entered the building. The RCMP was quick to use this electro-shock weapon. Does this not clearly show that the taser has become an easy solution used without even considering other, less dangerous options?

What does the minister responsible for the RCMP think?

[Communications Security Establishment, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if it is important, he would already have acted. But it has been over a year and still nothing has been done.

It is currently the Minister of National Defence himself who can approve the interception of these kinds of private communications, as opposed to an impartial, competent judge. Given the importance of the rights we are talking about, will the minister agree that CSE should obtain the authorization of a judge to be able to intercept private communications of Canadians, even if they are with parties outside the country?

[Communications Security Establishment, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there have already been three reports asking the federal government to clarify the law governing the Communications Security Establishment, the CSE, to better protect the privacy of Canadians who communicate with parties outside the country. Since May 2007, the CSE Commissioner himself has urged the government to act as quickly as possible.

How can the Minister of National Defence justify his inaction? Is it not because, in the end, he is perfectly comfortable with the potential invasion of Canadians' privacy?

[Cigarette Smuggling, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, last November, I asked the same question and received pretty much the same answer. However, smuggling has been shown to be on the rise. To fight this scourge, several organizations and departments must work together. If that happens, one minister must take the lead on concerted action, and the most logical person for the job is the Minister of Public Safety.

Why is he so weak and missing in action? Why does he not assume leadership of such an operation? Can he tell us about the measures he plans to take?

[Cigarette Smuggling, February 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this problem is so serious that it deserves four questions. Cigarette smuggling is flourishing and is now out of control. Federal and provincial governments are currently losing millions of dollars in tax revenues. Over the past few years, consumption of illegal cigarettes has doubled in Quebec, and things are getting worse.

Is the Minister of Public Safety ready to ask the RCMP to take this matter firmly in hand and put an end to cigarette smuggling?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that question is more difficult to answer than one would think initially. I am certain that there are many other things we could do. I believe that five security certificates have been issued since September 11. Five individuals were identified. It seems to me that there are far more bad guys at large and some that are deemed to be quite dangerous. When individuals are considered dangerous, they are watched. Quite frankly, I sometimes have the impression that it would have been far less expensive to have had them under surveillance than to have undertaken all these proceedings against them.

I imagine that if we believe that they are dangerous, we can monitor their phone calls and their relationships. When these people meet to plan a terrorist attack or to plan any crime, they have an agreement and with that agreement there is conspiracy. Thus, we can charge them with conspiracy. The Criminal Code states that an individual about to commit a criminal offence can be arrested without a warrant. We could also avail ourselves of anti-terrorist provisions.

The problem here is that we are dealing with people who cannot be charged with anything. Not only are we unable to find them guilty of any crime, we are unable to charge them with anything. If we could, they would be brought before a court, bail would be set and eventually they could defend themselves, plead not guilty and have the right to a reasonable doubt.

After September 2001, there was panic because dormant cells were discovered involving people who had never been suspects. However, others had been under surveillance. We should have taken action when we realized that there was at least one person who was taking flying lessons but was not interested in the landing procedures. That is when the light should have gone on.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are now finally discussing the substance of the bill in order to decide whether to accept or reject it. We will be voting against this bill for the following reasons.

We believe that if a judge is to make a decision that will result in the incarceration of an individual for an indeterminate period of time, he must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the criterion which the judge should use to make his decision. That is what the law prescribes for all Canadians—for those governed by Canadian law and for Canadians.

I will point out shortly that security certificates only apply to foreigners. In this case, since we decided to give them the right to appeal, this appeal should be of the same sort, that is it should deal with a question of fact, a question of law or of law and fact.

We were also not satisfied with how the whole issue of the special advocate is dealt with, although we recognize that a significant improvement has been made to the legislation.

At this time, perhaps, people are still watching us, or some may watch us later. I would like to make it easier for them than it was for me to understand this legislation. Few people unfamiliar with the bill understand what we are talking about, the term used and our discussions.

I would first like to say, so that it is clearly understood, that the security certificate is badly named. We should really be talking about a deportation order because, in practice, that is what is being requested. This is why it applies only to aliens and not to Canadians. Indeed, under section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians have the right to live in Canada, to leave the country and return, which is not the case for aliens. The charter refers to every Canadian citizen. Therefore, it does not apply to aliens.

What is a security certificate? Generally speaking, secret services may believe that a person is dangerous. In our modern world, dangerous people, the kind of people we fear, are terrorists who have been trained and sent to live in Canada, remain unnoticed if possible and, at a given time, carry out a terrorist act. That is what happened on September 11. Many of the people in those planes, who took part in the take-over of the planes and the subsequent suicide attack, were model citizens. They are known as “sleeping cells.” By the way, this is a ridiculous term, not that we are accusing anyone here, because the definition of a sleeping cell is a model citizen. He is here to go unnoticed among us. So he is a model citizen. It seems a bit unfair when we think about it.

Let us return to the security certificate. We are talking about a deportation order that has been requested by two ministers, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because this deals with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the Minister of Public Safety, because, he, obviously, is responsible for national security.

If they believe an alien is dangerous, they issue what we call a security certificate to expel that person from Canada. The certificate is brought before a judge who must be convinced that the person is dangerous. In fact, it is not necessary to convince the judge, only to have him think that it is reasonable to believe that the person is dangerous based on the evidence presented to him.

Obviously, if they feel that way, it is because they have secret information about that person. That is the reason you will often hear people say they do not know what evidence was presented to the judge. In fact, very often, the evidence comes from three kinds of sources.

First, the source might be an ally who gave us information on the condition that we not make it public. Second, the source might be an undercover agent, whose life may be at risk if he is discovered or who at least risks never working as an undercover agent again and losing his secret agent status. Third, the evidence can come from investigation methods or terrorist group surveillance activities that should not be disclosed for fear of helping those concerned get around those methods.

This type of evidence is presented to the judge. The judge hears this evidence in the absence of the accused. In fact, we should not use the term “accused”. We should always avoid talking about the “accused” and instead talk about the “person concerned”, since that person is not being accused or charged. That person is believed to be dangerous and because he is considered dangerous and he is a foreign national, we want to deport him from the country. We do not want to inform the person concerned because if he is indeed a terrorist, as we suspect, he could later tell others about the investigation methods or the name of the undercover agent.

The judge hears the evidence in the absence of the person concerned and in the absence of his lawyer, if he has one. Then the judge decides which pieces of evidence the person concerned can be informed of. For example, if we know that the person received training in Pakistan and he was seen in a certain village doing a certain thing, the judge can tell him he was seen without telling him who saw him or mentioning how that information was obtained and without disclosing the names of the people who were directly responsible for providing that information.

The person concerned can try to explain why he went to Pakistan and try to convince the judge that he did not receive terrorist training and that he is not part of one of those sleeper cells we are so afraid of. As you can see, there are limited ways to challenge the arrest since the person is not provided the confidential information, which is also probably the most important information.

In fact, we are talking about a removal order. The individuals need only to leave the country to pursue their activities. Then why do some people not leave? Because in some cases—increasingly so—if these people go back home after being deported for security reasons, they are sure to be sent to prison in the destination country, like Morocco, Syria and many countries in the Middle East. Not only are they sure to go to prison, but since they are suspected terrorists, they will likely be tortured. This has happened a lot lately. Sometimes they are tortured to death.

Consequently, these people do not want to leave Canada and contest the removal order because they are afraid to go back to these countries. Others contest the removal order because they have been in Canada for a number of years. They have started a family here, they have jobs and Canada has become their country, even though they have not taken out Canadian citizenship. Those are some reasons why people contest the removal order.

Now, because it considers these people dangerous, the government is thinking of incarcerating them during the procedures, to prevent them from escaping and going to live somewhere else in Canada under a new identity or whatever. The government is thinking about a form of incarceration. It is true that these people can always leave the country if they wish. That is why some members of this House say that it is a three-walled prison, although they never explain what that means.

Keeping the same image, I would answer that it may be a three-walled prison, but in some cases, there is a cliff where the fourth wall should be. The person who is incarcerated cannot really leave, because leaving would mean certain death. That is why these people do not want to be deported.

When we understand that, the situation becomes much clearer. We understand that these people are not Canadian citizens and that they have not been accused of anything. The government simply has information that they belong to a terrorist group. But that does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. All it takes to keep these people in prison is for the judge to be satisfied that this belief is reasonable. And they can be kept in prison for many years. In fact, they are incarcerated indefinitely. That is why the Supreme Court ruled that this was not just an administrative matter. These people have certain rights. In my opinion, that is the most important thing.

I would like to read some excerpts from the Supreme Court decision so we can have an idea of its intentions. According to the court, it is not simply an administrative decision, but it is also as serious as criminal charges. Even if they were never charged, it is just as serious and they must be granted certain rights. In paragraph 60, the court said:

It is one thing to deprive a person of full information where fingerprinting is at stake, and quite another to deny him or her information where the consequences are removal from the country or indefinite detention. Moreover, even in the less intrusive situations, courts have insisted that disclosure be as specific and complete as possible.

As they say, it is a serious decision. The information must be revealed.

I will go a bit further to understand the background. It is about a removal procedure. People will perhaps remember that this summer, an individual was arrested at Dorval. I believe he was Russian, but his nationality was not known when he was arrested. He had several pieces of ID, a considerable amount of money in different denominations, and so on. A security certificate was issued against him and he left. It was not long. He left and was not sent to prison. He returned home or went elsewhere. Those who stay here do so because they cannot leave Canada for fear of torture or death.

In paragraph 91, the Court stated:

[The government] asserts that when the provisions were drafted, it was thought that the removal process would be so fast that there would be no need for review.

Because of what I explained, we can see that it takes more time. Some people have remained in prison for five, six or eight years on a security certificate. So it is a very difficult detention. In paragraph 96, the Supreme Court said:

Detention itself is never pleasant, but it is only cruel and unusual in the legal sense if it violates accepted norms of treatment. Denying the means required by the principles of fundamental justice to challenge a detention may render the detention arbitrarily indefinite and support the argument that it is cruel or unusual. (The same may be true of onerous conditions of release that seriously restrict a person’s liberty without affording an opportunity to challenge the restrictions.)

We have read in the papers about people who complain about the bracelet, conditions of house arrest and so on. In paragraph 98, the judges say:

More narrowly, however, it has been recognized that indefinite detention in circumstances where the detainee has no hope of release or recourse to a legal process to procure his or her release may cause psychological stress and therefore constitute cruel and unusual treatment.

Further on, in paragraph 105, they add:

It is thus clear that while the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) in principle imposes detention only pending deportation, it may in fact permit lengthy and indeterminate detention or lengthy periods subject to onerous release conditions.

In paragraph 107, the Supreme Court states:

Drawing on them, I conclude that the s. 7 principles of fundamental justice and the s. 12 guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual treatment require that, where a person is detained or is subject to onerous conditions of release for an extended period under immigration law, the detention or the conditions must be accompanied by a meaningful process of ongoing review that takes into account the context and circumstances of the individual case.

Clearly, it is because of the consequences that these decisions may mean indefinite incarceration in exceptional cases and the Supreme Court believes that enhanced procedural safeguards are needed.

We can take the Supreme Court's reasoning and apply it to the provisions that are before us. We understand that security certificates cannot be issued against Canadians, but sometimes people are so dangerous that the government wants to make use of certain legal provisions, such as those in part XXIV of the Criminal Code. Sometimes the government says that these people have to be held in prison indefinitely. This is a very harsh sentence, although it is not quite as harsh as life imprisonment.

In such cases, judges must be certain. They must not just believe that the reasons for which the person is thought to be dangerous are reasonable, as in cases of foreigners who are the subject of removal orders. Judges must be certain. We would have preferred that the judge's decision, which may result in indefinite detention, be made on the basis of the same criteria: being certain beyond a reasonable doubt. That is one of the two main reasons we will be voting against this bill.

The second reason concerns the decision to appeal. I should clarify that they decided to reinstate the appeal process. There was one before for the security certificate process, but it was abolished at the beginning of the last decade. Nevertheless, they decided to reinstate it, albeit in a very strange way. To keep the person in jail and maintain the security certificate and the removal order, the judge must determine if his or her own decision is a legal issue of general public importance. An appeal can be allowed on those grounds, and the judge drafts the notice of appeal for the person.

If I had just been convicted, I might not have much faith in the way the judge would present my case to the court of appeal. The purpose of the appeal is to advance the law, which is very noble. It is a bit like medical research, except that in this case, it does not really affect the patient.

I asked some officials where they found this appeal procedure that I had never heard of in my 30 years of practising law. They said that it came up in administrative law cases. However, the judges have told the officials that this is not administrative law. That is why conditions are needed to make it constitutional. The ruling is so serious as to be almost criminal in nature. That is not what they tell us, but that is what it boils down to. We are asking for improvements to the procedure so that the person involved can have a better opportunity to tell his or her side of the story, with full knowledge of the evidence, where possible.

This is what section 759 of the Criminal Code says about what happens when a Canadian is found to be a dangerous offender and the courts want to sentence him or her to time in prison:

An offender who is found to be a dangerous offender under this part may appeal to the court of appeal against that finding on any ground of law or fact or mixed law and fact.

In cases that are just as serious, why would we not grant the same rights to a person who, I would remind the House, has never been charged or convicted of anything, when all we have is some information held by security agencies that suggests that the individual is dangerous? If we must consider foreign nationals believed to be dangerous based simply on reasonableness, I think we should give them at least the same opportunity we give to Canadians we want to put behind bars because they are dangerous offenders, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and who have been convicted for several offences before they were declared dangerous offenders. We must grant the same rights to foreign nationals. That is why, once again, we would have liked to improve that piece of legislation. That was impossible, which is why we cannot accept this and why we will vote against it.

When the minster says this is a matter that should go beyond party politics and that we should have a different attitude, I do not see anything partisan about our attitude. For such an important decision, he should have sought the consensus of all members.

After such a long day, I hope to have nevertheless enlightened a few people who did not understand what a security certificate is. What is important to remember is that it is a deportation order because someone thinks such people are dangerous. The security certificate applies only to foreign nationals and not to Canadians. They are not given all the evidence because—