Second Letter to the Hon. Carolyn Bennett, regarding Bill C-3

Today, MPs will vote on C-3. If it passes this third reading, it will go to the Senate. With the vast majority of Liberals supporting the Conservative bill, it looks like C-3 will become law. However, a number of Liberals have taken a principled stance and expressed their intention to vote against the bill. I have been trying to convince my MP, Carolyn Bennet (Liberal), that this is a flawed and unjust piece of legislation (which it is). Below is my latest letter. I have yet to receive a response to my written communications (both email and snail mail) on this topic, but when (if) I do, I will post it.

*Update: I have received a short response from Carolyn Bennett's office, which is copied below:

February 5, 2008

Dear Mr Larsen,

Thank you for your correspondence to Dr. Bennett's office, dated on
February 5,2008.

Please rest assured that your comments regarding Bill C-3 ans security
certificates will be brought to the Hon. Carolyn Bennett's attention.

Thank you again for contacting us,


Elise BONNEAU
Special Assistant
Hon. Carolyn Bennett, P.C., M.P., M.D.

To: The Honourable Dr. Carolyn Bennett, MP St Paul's, Toronto

Dear Dr. Bennett,

Today, MPs will vote on Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As a citizen in your riding, I urge you again to vote 'no' on C-3. Please join your colleague and fellow Liberal Party member, the Hon. Andrew Telegdi (MP, Kitchener-Waterloo) in taking a stand against a flawed and unjust piece of legislation. In doing so, you would demonstrate your commitment to a substantive concept of human rights - one that does not treat non-citizens as persons undeserving of due process or full and fair trial.

In the current context, Security Certificates are an ineffective and unjust response to alleged national security threats. They are ineffective because, although they are intended to facilitate the deportation of non-citizens deemed 'inadmissible' to Canada, in reality they lead to prolonged and indefinite detention without charge or trial. Further, even if they did lead to the swift deportation of individuals deemed to threaten our national security, this would simply displace the threat, rather than dealing with it. They are unjust because - despite Conservative assertions to the contrary - they use immigration law as a stand-in for criminal law. This results in a two-tiered justice system. Security certificates lead to arrest, long-term detention on the grounds of a federal penitentiary, severe bail conditions and surveillance, lasting stigma, disruption to families, and potentially deportation to probable torture. This process is as severe in its ramifications as any criminal proceeding, but without the safeguards provided by a full and fair trial before a court of law.

Recently, members of the Liberal Party have criticized the Conservative government for its evasiveness and secrecy in relation to the handling of Afghan detainees. I applaud this criticism. Canadians do not want our armed forces involved detainee transfers if they result in the torture or abuse of prisoners. Security certificates can result in the deportation of individuals (officially alleged of links to terrorism by the Canadian government) to countries that routinely engage in torture, disappearances, and the abuse of prisoners. If you agree that it is wrong for us to follow policies that place Afghan detainees at risk of torture, I urge you to extend that principle to the cases of security certificate detainees. The only way to guarantee that we do not deport individuals to face torture is to get rid of security certificates, and the best way to do that is to make sure that C-3 does not pass.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that a vote of 'no' on C-3 does not represent a lack of commitment to Canadian national security. We have a robust criminal code, with extensive anti-terror laws. We are more than capable of issuing criminal charges against any individuals engaging in - or planning to engage in - terrorist activity. If security certificates disappeared tomorrow, we would not be any less secure.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mike Larsen

Researcher, York Centre for International and Security Studies

Fellow, Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime & Security