The Government shares the Subcommittee's view that the security certificate process is necessary to fulfill the obligation of democratic state institutions to protect themselves from being undermined and attacked. As the Subcommittee noted, great efforts have been made to balance, on the one hand, the need to protect Canadian society and, on the other, the rights of those subject to the process. The Subcommittee has suggested that more needs to be done to assure individual rights and freedoms in the security certificate process. On February 23, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in the Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)10 case and held that the Government could do more to protect the rights of the individual during the process used to determine if a security certificate is reasonable. Specifically, the Court endorsed the development of a model which included an independent agent. The Government accepts the decision of the Supreme Court and notes that many of the principles set forth in that decision were shared by this Subcommittee. The Government also notes that the Supreme Court suspended the effect of its decision for one year to allow the Government to develop legislation.
The Subcommittee also recommended limiting the evidence used when assessing a security certificate. It expressed the view that allowing only evidence which is “reliable” as well as “appropriate” would help render evidence obtained by torture inadmissible. The Government supports the proposed amendment. The Government also notes that, pursuant to subsection 269.1(4) of the Criminal Code, the contents of any statement obtained as a result of the commission of the Criminal Code offence of torture (section 269.1) is already inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings over which Parliament has jurisdiction.
In relation to the recommendation that an application to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for protection be allowed only after a security certificate has been found to be reasonable by a Federal Court judge, the Government agrees with the stated objective of making the process more expeditious and will examine methods to do so.
Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page
Updated to April 1, 2008.