Bill C-3 is legislation the Conservative government is proposing to "fix" the security certificate process after the Supreme Court ruled that the existing process was a violation of the Charter of Rights. One of the remedies for the fact that previously both the suspect and the defence could be prohibited from viewing evidence was supposed to be the appointment of "special advocates" to represent the accused. These would be lawyers who would have the necessary clearance to see evidence that would otherwise be off-limits for — all together now — reasons of national security.
The government must have assumed their new legislation was going to pass because they've already begun recruiting lawyers to fill the special advocate role.
The federal government is having trouble recruiting an experienced pool of lawyers to work as "special advocates" on behalf of terror suspects under Canada's security certificate law.So far, only 50 have responded to a month-long national recruitment campaign by the Justice Department aimed at finding a list of experienced practitioners who can defend people facing deportation in secret judicial hearings.
The article reports that 50 may be enough but it also points out that there are 57,000 practicing lawyers in Canada so 50 isn't exactly an overwhelming turnout. And why, you may ask, would that be?
"Given the nature of what it is lawyers are being asked to do, it doesn't surprise me that there hasn't been an overwhelming response," says Lorne Waldman, a Toronto lawyer who represented Maher Arar, who was wrongly accused as a terrorist .Mr. Waldman says many lawyers are deeply conflicted about participating in the controversial system.
On the one hand, they feel a duty to ensure that people have the best legal defence possible. On the other hand, they consider the law an affront to civil liberties and don't want to lend it legitimacy by taking part.
Some, he says, are worried about being labelled as traitors by colleagues if they participate in the system.
The Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada have criticized the proposed security certificate law as unconstitutional.
Gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, doesn't it? Think this will cause Steve of the Steely Resolve to rethink things? Not on your life.
I'm surprised that any lawyers at all responded to the call to become special advocates.
The Supreme Court for sure is going to knock down this legislation in time to come, and anyone associated with it is going to be permanently tainted.
Meanwhile, Mohamed Harkat, being held on a security certificate lite after being freed on bail by the Supreme Court decision, has been re-arrested on really dubious grounds. Note here the conditions this guy had to meet under his certificate. Why on earth does the government need anything more onerous?
Thanks. There's also a post on the Harkat arrest here. This is another case of interesting timing as the article points out that Harkat is to go before the Supreme Court on Friday to challenge the new legislation.