Date: December 14, 2007
Subject: RE: Say NO to Bill C3 !
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007
From: [email]
To: [email]
Ottawa, December 14th, 2007
Dear Sophie Lamarche:
Thank you for your recent correspondence in which you express your views and concerns on Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. I have duly taken note of your correspondence and please be assured that your views and comments have been carefully considered.
Last February, the Supreme Court ruled that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and gave the government one year to replace certain sections dealing with security certificates.
Liberals have been instrumental in making critical changes to the security certificates process so that the rights of foreign nationals and permanent residents are better protected and the national security of all Canadians is strengthened.These changes are vital to create the appropriate balance between the Canadian government’s obligation to protect the rights of foreign nationals who may pose a threat to national security in Canada while also protecting the rights of Canadians to live in a safe and secure country. On December 7th, 2007, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, several amendments were passed to address some of the key flaws in the Act - known as Bill C-3. They ensure that: - the inclusion of evidence that could be the result of torture is never admissible in these proceedings; - there are specific criteria for the Minister when creating the roster of potential special advocates to ensure that they are truly qualified and independent and that they have adequate resources; - a foreign national or permanent resident who is the subject of the hearing is allowed to choose his/her own special advocate to be appointed by the judge; and - traditional solicitor-client privilege exists between the special advocate and the foreign national or permanent resident so that the special advocate cannot be compelled to provide evidence against the foreign national based on the confidential conversations that took place between them. The Liberal Party is committed to carefully monitoring progress and acting quickly to make any necessary re-adjustments, if required. My collegue, Mr. Dosanjh, Critic for Public Safety pointed out that Liberal committee members fought hard to ensure extra hearings took place so that important voices like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Canadian Arab Foundation - groups that had been left off the initial witness list - were heard. Once again, I thank you for having shared your views on this issue. Sincerely, The Honourable Marlene Jennings, P.C., M.P. Notre-Dame-de-Grâce – Lachine Liberal Critic for Justice ====== From: Sophie Lamarche [mailto:[email]] Sent: December 12, 2007 1:39 PM To: Alghabra, Omar - M.P.; Barnes, Sue - M.P.; Beaumier, Colleen - M.P.; Brown, Bonnie - M.P.; Dhalla, Ruby - M.P.; Dosanjh, Ujjal - M.P.; Folco, Raymonde - députée; [email]; Guarnieri, Albina - M.P.; Holland, Mark - M.P.; Jennings, Marlene - M.P.; Patry, Bernard - député; Ratansi, Yasmin - M.P.; Rodriguez, Pablo - M.P.; Scarpaleggia, Francis - M.P.; Bains, Navdeep - M.P.; Dion, Stéphane - M.P.; Wrzesnewskyj, Borys - M.P. Subject: Say NO to Bill C3 ! Dear Liberal MP, I urge you to vote against Bill C-3, the new security certificate law, for the following reasons: During parliamentary committee hearings over the last two weeks, members of Parliament have heard numerous witnesses, including ICLMG, several of its members, The Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee, the Canadian Bar Association, the Quebec Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies, expressing strong concerns that the proposed legislation, even as amended, would likely not pass another constitutional challenge. These concerns rest on the belief that the proposed legislation fails to address the requirements of the Supreme Court that any alternative to the existing security certificate legislation must meet the basic principles of fundamental justice. Nothing short of criminal prosecution, or the introduction in IRPA of a standard of proof equivalent to that used in criminal prosecution, can meet these basic principles. We will definitely bring this issue back in the hands of the courts if the bill goes through as is. This Bill does not meet International Standards of Human Rights. 1. A two-tiered justice system Bill C-3 perpetuates a two-tiered system of justice, one for citizens and the other for the hundreds of thousands of permanent residents and refugees who are in the process of becoming Canadian citizens. It is based on the unspoken premise that non-citizens have fewer rights and are more dangerous than citizens, and that it is somehow justified to subject them to procedures that we would immediately condemn as unjust if used against citizens: indefinite detention based on secret allegations, denial of the right to know and challenge the evidence used to justify detention, and so on. 2. Deportation to torture or execution As the government has repeatedly stated, deportation is the primary goal of the security certificate process. The men currently under security certificates are now branded with the label "suspected terrorist". Deporting them to their countries of origin - Syria, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco - inevitably means torture, possibly death. In Charkaoui's case, Immigration Canada's latest pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), completed in 2007, evaluated Charkaoui to be at risk of cruel and unusual punishment, torture or death if deported to Morocco. In a decision rendered October 16, 2006 [2006 FC 1230], Justice MacKay of the Federal Court ruled that, "Mr. Jaballah faces a serious risk of torture or worse if he were removed to Egypt". On December 14, 2006 [2006 FC 1503], Justice Tremblay-Lamer of the Federal Court found that there was overwhelming evidence that Mahjoub would face a very serious risk of torture if returned to Egypt, notwithstanding Egypt's diplomatic assurances. 3. Violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms During Public Safety Committee hearings on November 29, representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, the Quebec Bar Association, and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada expressed the opinion that Bill C-3 is probably unconstitutional: Hon. Sue Barnes (Lib.): For the record, I'd like your opinion, if you care to give it, of whether the bill as it currently stands would pass a constitutional challenge. I will ask each association to respond, if you care to. Ms. Isabelle Dongier (Lawyer and Member, Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association): Well, according to the CBA review, the bill does not pass the charter's test right now. It definitely needs to be amended, on various accounts. Mrs. Frederica Wilson (Director, Policy and Public Affairs, Federation of Law Societies of Canada): I don't claim to be an expert in constitutional law, but I think there's a very serious question about whether it would pass. It does not provide the safeguards that the Supreme Court indicated would be required. Under the circumstances, one can assume it would have a rough ride. Mr. Pierre Poupart (Lawyer, Member of the Committee on Human Rights and Member of the Committee on Criminal Law, Barreau du Québec): At the Barreau du Québec, our opinion is that, as currently drafted, this bill is not different enough from its predecessor to be considered constitutionally valid. It is no small matter to vote in favour of a law which, according to leading legal experts in the field, is in all likelihood contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This implies deliberately voting for a law while knowing that there is a very strong likelihood that it violates fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, particularly due process guarantees (s. 7) and the guarantee of equality before and under the law (s. 15). These rights are guaranteed to 'everyone', which, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, includes non-citizens living in Canada. A vote in favour of Bill C-3 also means actively endorsing the continued imprisonment or house arrest of the men currently held under security certificates for a period of several more years under a law that, in all likelihood, will eventually be judged unconstitutional for a second time by the Supreme Court. Again, for all these reasons, I would urge you to vote against Bill C-3. If the Bill is adopted in the House of Commons, I would further ask you to encourage your colleagues in the Senate to oppose the Bill. Please send a strong message to Canadians that you are prepared to stand up for equality and human rights. BACKGROUND
www.justiceforharkat.com or [link] Take a stand for justice once and for all. Sophie Harkat Wife of Mohamed Harkat, Security Certificate detainee, arrested on Dec. 10th, 2002
