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.
