The government has provided its response to the Parliamentary Committee on Public Safety's sub-committee report on the Anti-Terrorism Act and security certificates. The response is available at: [link] ou en français à [link] Sections H and I are of interest for security certificates. Key points: - They say the security certificate process is necessary. - They give a wonderfully coy interpretation of the central finding in the Supreme Court's Charkaoui decision. Instead of saying that the Court held that the government is violating the Charter, they say the Court "held that the Government could do more to protect the rights of the individual". They also say that the Court endorsed the development of a model which included an independent agent" (not true).- They graciously accept the decision of the Court.

- They support the Sub-Committee's suggestion that only evidence that is "reliable" and "appropriate" should be allowed. This is intended to ensure that evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible.

- They support the objective of making the security certificate process more expeditious, but don't say how. (The Sub-committee had suggested allowing the PRRA application only after the certificate is upheld).

- Re. special advocates, the gov't is reviewing what to do.

- Legislation is to be tabled asap.

- They suggest that the special advocate is not needed when Charter rights are not engaged (or not engaged "to the same extent" as in the Charkaoui case).

The last point confirms a disturbing line of thinking that we have heard about previously. This involves an interpretation of the Charkaoui decision that makes it say that secret evidence is OK if a person's life, liberty or security of the person is not at stake. It goes even further to say that some secret evidence is OK if the threat to the life, liberty or security of the person is not too serious. I am wondering whether they will try to set up a system where you get half a special advocate if the threat is "only" to your security of the person.