VZCZCXRO7326
PP RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #1961/01 2961910
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231910Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6759
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001961 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER PGOV PREL CA
SUBJECT: GOOD PROSPECTS FOR REVISED SECURITY LEGISLATION 
 
REF:  OTTAWA 1924 
 
¶1. (U) Summary:  The Harper government on October 22 introduced a 
bill to amend Canada's long-standing system of immigration security 
certificates in response to a February 2007 Supreme Court ruling 
that had struck down key provisions as unconstitutional.  The 
certificates provide the government the means to detain non-citizens 
who are deemed to pose a serious threat to Canada's security, 
pending deportation to their countries of origin.  Parliament will 
also imminently review another bill to revive lapsed provisions of 
the Anti-Terrorism Act, as well as an omnibus crime bill, as the 
October 12 Speech from the Throne had promised (reftel).  Chances of 
passage of all of these measures are high.  End Summary. 
 
SECURITY CERTIFICATE PROCESS 
--------------  ------------------- ------------- 
 
¶2. (U) "Security certificates" have been part of Canada's 
immigration legislation since 1978.  The government has issued such 
certificates only 28 times to detain and attempt to deport 
non-citizens deemed to be serious threats to public safety and 
national security. The Minister of Citizenship and the Solicitor 
General must sign each certificate, which a Federal Court judge in a 
closed-door hearing must then endorse.  Detainees do not have the 
right to hear the evidence against them, but can receive a summary 
of the allegations.  Five individuals are currently subject to 
post-9/11 security certificates, of whom four are under strict house 
arrest, while one remains incarcerated.  Many detainees in the past 
have argued successfully that they would face a known risk of 
torture or death if they returned to their country of origin, and 
have won the right to remain here under surveillance, at least until 
conditions in their home country permit safe deportations. 
 
¶3. (U) On February 23, the Supreme Court had struck down the 
existing system of security certificates on the grounds that the 
process violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically 
section 7, which states that individuals may not be deprived of 
their liberty "except in accordance with the principles of 
fundamental justice."  The Court made clear that defendants must be 
able to know the case against them and to mount a meaningful 
defense.  The Court also ruled that different detention review 
provisions in place for permanent residents and for non-residents 
was discriminatory.  The Court suspended its judgment for one year 
to allow the government time to rewrite the law. 
 
BALANCING SECURITY WITH RIGHTS 
-----------------  --------------  -------- ---------- 
 
¶4. (U) The government tabled new legislation on October 22 to 
respond to the Supreme Court's conditions.  Minister of Public 
Safety Stockwell Day said the government believes that security 
certificates remain "an important tool to protect Canada from 
terrorist threats" but that the process "must also protect rights 
and freedoms."  The new legislation contains two major provisions: 
creation of "special advocates," government-appointed and 
security-cleared lawyers to represent and protect the interests of 
individuals facing security certificates; and, extension to foreign 
nationals of the same detention review rights as permanent 
residents. 
 
¶5.  (U) The special advocate will be able to challenge the 
government's claim that information against the individual cannot be 
disclosed for reasons of national security or public safety, as well 
as to question the relevance, sufficiency, and weight of the 
information.  Proceedings will nonetheless continue to be in 
closed-door hearings, and the defendants will still not have access 
Qclosed-door hearings, and the defendants will still not have access 
to the actual evidence.  However, any person subject to a security 
certificate will have the right to an initial detention review by a 
Federal Court judge within 48 hours, followed by ongoing reviews at 
six-month intervals.  The bill takes into account recommendations 
from the parliamentary committees reviewing the Anti-Terrorism Act 
as well as Supreme Court concerns. 
 
BILL EXPECTED TO PASS EASILY 
---------------------- ------------ ----------- 
 
¶6. (U) The bill must pass through the legislative process and be in 
place by February 23, 2008 when the one-year stay from the Supreme 
Court expires.  If not, the security certificate process will cease 
to function and all detainees could apply for the termination of 
their certificates. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Harper government has insisted that it "will not waiver 
when it comes to safeguarding of the security of Canadians" and has 
previously accused the opposition parties, notably the Liberals, of 
being "soft on terror."  However, the Liberals were quick to voice 
their support for the new bill, which likely will face only minimal 
opposition in Parliament. The NDP will oppose the bill, while the 
Bloc Quebecois has not revealed its position. 
 
NEXT STEPS 
 
OTTAWA 00001961  002 OF 002 
 
 
----------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) The Harper government next plans to introduce a bill, 
perhaps even on October 23 and probably - unusually -- in the Senate 
rather than the Commons, to restore two controversial but never-used 
clauses of the Anti-Terrorism Act permitting investigative hearings 
and preventative arrest.  The clauses had been subject to automatic 
"sunset" clauses and lapsed in March after the three opposition 
parties refused to support legislation to extend them.  Liberal 
justice critic Ujjal Dosanjh on October 22 said that the Liberals 
would approach a revised anti-terrorism bill "with no preconceived 
notions or bias."  The government has also introduced an omnibus 
crime bill, combining several pieces of legislation from the 
previous session - most of which had already made it through the 
Commons to the Senate - and this also faces likely adoption in the 
near future. 
WILKINS