:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, committee members.
My name is Alex Neve. I'm the Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada's English branch, and it's a pleasure to be with you this morning.
For many years, and this goes back before the events of September 11 and the aftermath of September 11, which drew much needed attention to the issue of security certificates, Amnesty International has gone on record with the government expressing our very serious concerns about this particular aspect of Canada's immigration laws. We've highlighted that we think there are a number of very serious shortcomings in the process that fall far short of Canada's international human rights legal obligations. That's our particular focus: standards dealing with fair trials, arbitrary detention, discrimination, and protection from torture.
There are many human rights concerns, absolutely, as I mentioned. But we very much welcome your particular focus on detention, because in many respects it is one of the very serious aspects to this human rights tragedy, which doesn't get the attention it requires and is in some ways the aspect of the security certificate process that has the most debilitating human cost and human toll.
Over the past several years, more and more voices have joined in to highlight the serious human rights shortcomings and pressing for much needed human rights reforms. That's been led by the current detainees themselves, their families, lawyers, and support groups.
Notably, I want to draw to your attention as well that there has been concern about this at the international level. A growing number of United Nations human rights experts—and the committee is likely aware of this—have looked at this issue over the past several years and have called on Canada to change the system, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, with very important reports from both late last year.
It is, then, a human rights concern that has been taken up at the global level, increasing the importance, I would say, of Canada's taking action to right the wrongs. Canadian failure to comply with UN-level human rights recommendations, on this or on any other issue, fails not only to remedy the particular concern at issue, but more broadly undermines the integrity and effectiveness of the UN human rights system, a system that Canada has helped to build and champion.
There is much at stake here: much at stake for the individuals whose human rights are on the line, and for their families, who of course have great concern and feel the effect as well, but more broadly with respect to the integrity of important human rights standards that Canada stands for nationally and internationally.
We all now have our eyes on the Supreme Court of Canada, with hope and expectation that the court's upcoming judgment in three of these cases will finally compel the government to act.
There are any number of detention-related issues that I'd like to be able to spend time going through with you today. I'm going to focus briefly on four particular aspects: issues regarding the treatment of detainees; some concerns around programming; some broader issues of discrimination; then I'm going to end very importantly with our concerns about the length of detention.
Let me begin with treatment. Since immigration detention is neither a prison nor a correctional sentence, the treatment of detainees should be as favourable as possible, and certainly not any less favourable than that of detainees who have been charged or are convicted prisoners.
I just highlight for the committee's information that this comes from international standards. There are a number of important international legal standards that govern detention. There are broad standards setting out the ban on arbitrary detention in international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But the UN has gone further and in a number of documents over the last 20 to 30 years has laid out detailed rules in a number of important instruments that give the specifics around treatment and conditions of detention. These include the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.
We can certainly make sure that committee members get copies of those documents, if members are interested.
As well, like all detainees, those held in immigration detention are to be treated in a humane manner that respects the inherent dignity of the human person.
All of that comes from international standards.
Due to the non-criminal nature that's related to detention of this sort, the services, facilities, activities, and programs should seek to minimize the differences between life in detention and life at liberty. They must meet the individual needs of each detainee, taking into account their history, their age, their gender, and their cultural, religious, and linguistic identity. Of course, discrimination among detainees based on such grounds as race, colour, sex, language, religion, or political or other opinion is absolutely prohibited.
International legal standards also make it clear that is very important for prisoners to maintain reasonably good contact with the outside world. Above all, a prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his or her relationships with family and close friends. The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world. Any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively and very strictly on security concerns of an appreciable nature. A minimum of weekly contact with family, friends, and the community should be facilitated through visits, through correspondence, and through telephone access for each detainee. Communication with the outside world should not be denied at any point for more than a few days at a time.
Despite these standards, the reality for security certificate detainees has been much different. For example, Hassan Almrei has no relatives in Canada. For the first two years of his detention at Metro Toronto West Detention Centre, he was not allowed to phone his family in Saudi Arabia. He was only allowed to make collect calls--he was not allowed to receive them--to people in Canada. About two years into his detention, an arrangement was made with a friend whereby he was finally able to do some three-way calling, using a phone card, to speak to family in Saudi Arabia. Since then he has been moved to the Kingston immigration holding centre, and three-way phone calls are not allowed. He is not allowed to phone his parents directly at all. It's our understanding that for the past six months now he has had no contact with his family.
While Hassan Almrei was at Metro West, he received visits almost every week, beginning in July of 2003, although they were limited to a maximum of 40 minutes. In the last six months, since moving to the Kingston immigration holding centre, he has been visited only three times.
Of course, this is an issue for all of the detainees. Visits to Kingston now take a full day and far more money than family and friends can afford, largely because of the distance. For many of the detainees' families, it's about two and a half hours each way.
I want to underscore that access to family visits is not just something nice but a fundamental right that is clearly enshrined in the international standards. It is not enough to say that visits can happen; for the right to be real, it must be effective. Authorities should take steps to address concerns about access to phone calls and the cost and distance of making family visits.
Let me move on to say a couple of words about programming. Security certificate detention is assumed--of course, the reality is different--to be a temporary status meant to facilitate the speedy removal of those designated by the government to pose serious security threats. However, the intention is far removed from reality. Several of the men in detention have been held for years as they wait for their removal. During that time, they have spent time in provincial correctional facilities before being moved to Kingston, more recently.
Serious concerns have been brought to the government's attention on numerous occasions about the lack of access to programming for these detainees. They had no programming at Metro West for over five years, in some instances. Immigration officials promised at various times to provide them with a library of books that they requested, but that didn't materialize.
Unlike Metro West, which at least allowed mail-order books to come in to the men, the Kingston immigration holding centre has been deducting the value of books that are sent in from the $1,500 yearly value of goods they are allowed to receive in total. There have been reports that they have held back many books and articles that were sent in, claiming that they needed to be checked as security threats.
Again, I'd draw to the committee's attention that there are international standards here that govern, for instance, the importance of having access to education and cultural materials from public sources, reasonable quantities of it, and subject only to reasonable and absolutely necessary conditions that are put in place to ensure security.
I'm worried about discrimination. In April 2006 the UN Human Rights Committee, in reviewing Canada's implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, voiced particular concern over the use of security certificates under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and, in particular, the mandatory detention of foreign nationals who are not permanent residents.
The Human Rights Committee report calls into question the automatic detention of all non-permanent-resident aliens under the security certificate process and the seeming hesitance of the Federal Court to grant bail, despite extraordinary guarantees being given. This raises serious issues of discrimination. It is a concern that Amnesty International has highlighted in our intervention before the Supreme Court.
The Human Rights Committee has previously affirmed that foreigners cannot be held merely on the basis of their status as non-nationals. They can't be treated differently only because of the kind of immigrant or nationality status they bear. This would be a clear violation of Canada's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There can be no place for discrimination when decisions about detention, about denying someone's liberty rights, are being made.
Last, I want to turn to the question of the length of detention. One essential principle governing detention is that it can never be indefinite. Indefinite detention without end is not only unjust and arbitrary, in that it doesn't stem from a clear decision imposing an appropriate term of detention, but it is also of concern because of the very serious impact on the mental health of detainees. To not know when or if you will be liberated is agonizing, and as it extends can become so debilitating as to constitute torture or ill treatment. Amnesty International, UN human rights experts, the Red Cross, and other organizations have documented that concern in prisons all over the world. That is why indefinite detention is clearly prohibited under international law.
The men who are held under security certificates have often languished in detention for many, many years. This is where human rights concerns begin to overlap. International law is absolutely clear: no one can be deported to a situation where they face torture. Despite that clarity, Canada continues to insist that it is okay to deport certain individuals to situations of torture if they do pose security risks. That position has been frequently and roundly condemned, including last year by both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee Against Torture.
Canada's position is a setback in the crucial global struggle to eradicate torture, a concern that has become of increasing concern, I would say, to Canadians in the wake of cases such as that of Maher Arar.
Last month there was an important ruling from the Federal Court in the case of Mahmoud Jaballah, in which the judge very importantly affirmed and recognized the importance of the absolute ban on torture and took a decision that, given that there is a serious risk that he would face torture if returned to Egypt, his deportation cannot go ahead.
That is what sharply brings the human rights concerns into focus: no deportation to torture. So what is to happen? Detention without charge or trial simply still cannot be an option.
It is time now for Canada to realize that something has to be done about this, that immigration remedies are often not the road to pursue in these cases. Torture is often a likelihood in cases of this sort, but deportations don't further justice. If there were a case with serious concerns about active involvement in terrorism that came up in Canada, we would want—
I'm a member of the Coalition for Justice for Adil Charkaoui. We're a group that formed a few days after the arrest of Mr. Charkaoui in Montreal, in May 2003. Since that time we've struggled to inform ourselves about the situation and the process he is being subjected to. We have engaged in a wide range of activities to bring to public attention the injustice that has been done to him and his family.
Most of the community members we have spoken to--very broadly, the community members of Montreal and other centres where we've spoken and done some of this public education work--have responded very openly to the concerns we raise. It's a fact that many members of the public are not aware of what's going on, and once they are aware of what's going on with Mr. Charkaoui and the others they are very supportive. We've enjoyed a great amount of community support, and I would characterize our group and the network surrounding it as the community response to the security certificate process.
The core of the question that we believe needs to be addressed is the issue of equality. The security certificate process is being applied only to people without legal status and full citizenship in Canada--permanent residents, refugees, and people who are applying for refugee status. This constitutes a situation of discrimination where people, on the basis of their legal status, are being subject to violations of their fundamental human rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.
We have not yet heard a satisfactory answer to why or how that discrimination can be justified--we do not believe it can be justified--and we think that is the core question that needs to be addressed in any solution to this problem that's put forward. Solutions and reforms that do not ensure that the equal treatment of non-citizens is guaranteed on issues of fundamental human rights simply do not go to the heart of the matter.
I hope you are acquainted with some of the ways in which the security certificate review process fails to meet international standards for a fair trial. I have put together a brief and some background information, which I would like to make available to members of the committee afterwards. It gives a short summary of six of the key ways in which security certificates do not meet the standards of a fair trial. I'll highlight three of them very briefly.
The standard of proof that's used in the security certificate process is “reasonable grounds to believe”. That is far lower than the criminal law standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. It's certainly very low relative to what is at stake for the individual.
I would also like to highlight the fact that the information is famously withheld from the detainee and their lawyer. The secrecy of the evidence makes it impossible for people to respond to precise allegations in any meaningful way to defend themselves and clear their names.
As you know, if the judge upholds the certificate there is no appeal for that process, so judicial error cannot be remedied through an appeal process.
The failure of the legislation to provide adequate safeguards allows far too much room for error and abuse on the part of the Canadian intelligence services. We have no reason to believe that these agencies have made use of the discretion they enjoy in security certificate cases in a more responsible way than they have in the cases of Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati, or Muayye Nureddin. There's no reason to believe that the discretionary power given to them by virtue of this flawed process is used in a more responsible way in the security certificate cases than in the cases that have undergone some form of public review.
Tolerating abuse and error on the part of intelligence agencies under this security certificate process serves the security of no one--on the contrary.
Without a fair trial, the imprisonment and detention we're talking about today is arbitrary. The same can be said of the conditions under which Mr. Charkaoui and Mr. Harkat have been released. If there is no fair trial, the loss of liberty they are subjected to is an arbitrary one. Mr. Charkaoui was released in February 2005 under conditions that Amnesty International has described as among the most restrictive ever imposed in Canada--and Mr. Harkat more so.
I believe that the committee will be given an opportunity to meet with Mr. Charkaoui on November 23 in Montreal. He will be able to describe in more detail the ways in which these conditions have impeded his and his family's right to work, enjoy leisure time, and freely practise their religion.
Detention under a security certificate is arbitrary and indefinite. It's being done under threat of being sent to a place where people risk torture or death. In the case of Mr. Charkaoui, in August 2003 it was assessed that if he were deported he would be at risk of torture, threat to life, and cruel and unusual punishment. This creates a situation that I can personally tell you is torture for him and his family every day.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Our committee agrees with your committee’s decision to examine the security certificate and conditions of detention. The objective of the Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee is to obtain justice for Mohamed Harkat, a Convention refugee imprisoned under a security certificate for more than 41 months at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, known for having the worst conditions in Ontario, and at Millhaven. He has been under house arrest in Ottawa since June 2006.
Since December 2002, the Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee has been calling on the Canadian government to abolish security certificates, which are an anti-democratic instrument contrary to fundamental human rights that do nothing to guarantee the security of Canadians for the simple reason that they do not protect rights. And without the protection of rights there can be no security.
I will not expand any further on the security certificate process, which has been explained at length by my colleagues, but I do wish to underscore, in the name of national security, that security certificates violate every principle of justice. They are contrary to the limited rights contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Torture Convention.
As for the conditions of detention, we believe that those faced by people held under security certificates are linked to what is at the heart of security certificates: impunity, arbitrariness and the violation of rights. Everything that contributes to the horror of security certificates can also be found in the conditions of detention. Mohamed Harkat was arrested under a security certificate on December 10, 2002, which ironically is Human Rights Day. Because he is a Convention refugee, he was immediately detained, without the possibility of release until 120 days after the Federal Court ruled on the reasonableness of the certificate. This release, moreover, was left to the discretion of the court.
From December 2002 to April 2006, Mohamed Harkat was held in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre under conditions in which cruelty and vengeance prevailed. Nothing can justify this type of treatment, not even the hysteria caused by the war on terrorism. His first year was spent in isolation, the first four months of which were in complete isolation without even a book, newspaper or radio. His hands were cuffed and his legs chained when he was allowed out of his cell for 20 minutes twice a month. He would be taken to the detention centre’s exercise yard where he would remain chained. For the first few weeks, he was also chained when taken to his weekly visits, which he received twice a week from his wife, Sophie Harkat, and his family.
From April to June 2006, Mohamed Harkat was held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. You already know about the conditions of detention at this centre. You heard them being described. In late June 2006, Mohamed Harkat was placed under house arrest in Ottawa at the residence of Sophie Harkat and her mother. This is someone who has never been found guilty or even accused of any crime and yet he is subject to 23 conditions, the strictest in Canada. Now, along with Mohamed Harkat, his whole family, particularly Sophie Harkat and her mother, are under house arrest.
The conditions that Mohamed Harkat must currently abide by include: always wearing an electronic ankle bracelet; never being alone in the residence or outside of it, in other words, he must always be accompanied by Sophie Harkat or Ms. Brunette; complying with a curfew from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., which includes going out into the yard of the home, where he must be accompanied by his wife or her mother; not leaving the residence more than three times a week and for no longer than four hours at a time, in other words 12 hours a week; having his outings approved by the Border Services Agency in advance; in his request for permission to leave the residence, specifying the reason for the outing and the location, including which stores he will visit and who he plans to meet.
This process is repeated for every outing. He can only receive visitors that have been approved by the Border Services Agency. His friends can visit him. This permission extends to Sophie Harkat’s niece, who is seven years old. It took a special request and most likely intervention by the court so Sophie’s niece could spend the night in the house.
All verbal and oral communications are monitored and intercepted. No wireless devices, computers or cell phones are allowed in the residence. Other conditions regarding limitations on his movements also restrict him. The conditions surrounding his authorization to leave the residence are among the reasons that Mohamed Harkat did not appear before this committee today. For him to be able to testify, each of you would have had to receive approval from the Border Services Agency to speak to him.
House arrest is a practice will never replace justice. In March 2005, the Canadian Minister of Justice publicly announced the possibility of adopting a new system of certificates that would allow the release of detainees by replacing imprisonment with an assortment of humiliating measures including searches of the home, prohibiting or limiting access to means of communication, requiring an electronic ankle bracelet to be worn and restricting movements.
The danger is that such a system will be codified and instituted. The new security certificate system would allow the government to extricate itself from the legal fiasco it created by implementing the following measures: first, indefinite detention, without the support of any accusations or based on unfounded allegations of terrorist ties of refugees or permanent residents and, second, denying these people a fair trial.
A new certificate system cannot replace a fair and equitable trial. The new proposed system would continue being implemented without a trial, whether for refugees and immigrants who are not Canadian citizens, or for any citizen accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act. By adopting a new certificate system, the government would continue denying the principles of human rights.
In Mohamed Harkat’s case, house arrest extends his detention to the members of his family. Neither he nor Sophie Harkat is able to work. Added to this is uncertainty about the future and the threat of being deported to face torture, death or disappearance. These are the anxieties faced by all those held under security certificates, whether they are detained at Millhaven or under house arrest.
I for one am particularly opposed to the bracelet being standardized for those held under a security certificate or for anyone else. I will never forget the moment during a 2005 press conference at the Parliament Buildings, when Ms. Charkaoui expressed the humiliation she felt when her son came home. She said that the bracelet he was wearing strongly resembled those worn by the slaves in her country that indicate the name of their owner. We feel this same humiliation in the case of Mohamed Harkat, as we do for anyone forced to wear a bracelet.
Finally, house arrest and Kingston are heralded as progress, but this is certainly not the case. It is not about meeting a challenge as stated by the Border Services Agency. These people are being deprived of their rights and now they are fighting for their rights. We believe that this fight includes the rights of all.
Thank you.
:
Hello, everybody. I'm happy to be here among you today.
I am not an activist. I'm not a member of an organization. I'm just a caring mother and a wife. I am the wife of Mohamed Mahjoub, whom I met in 1997. We got married and now we have two lovely kids, Ibraim and Yusuf. We lived together for four years before Mohamed was picked up off the street on his way to work, not knowing the reason why he was being taken to West Detention. Since then, we've been struggling and trying to find out what the reason was for my husband to be taken.
For almost seven years now, he has been deprived of being with his lovely kids, two little ones who are growing up without a dad. Our sons are wondering what their dad did to deserve to be in West Detention. They hear every day new stories about oppression and mistreatment of their dad in West Detention, and lately in the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. They're wondering what this is all about and how they can help him. They come up with so many different ideas of how to help their dad. Up to now, their questions have not been answered about why their dad isn't there and why he is being treated that way.
In West Detention, my husband developed chronic hepatitis-C. He had injured his knee and needed an operation urgently. He lost his sight and reading ability. He developed high blood pressure and heart problems. All his medical treatment was denied just because he's under a security certificate. My husband is going through hard medical problems that have not been met until now.
For over five years, we were asking for an operation for his knee, but the answer was they could not help him because he is under a security certificate. Until now, he has not been treated for his hepatitis-C just because he's under a security certificate. It took him eighty days on a hunger strike—and it wasn't only one time, it was a series of hunger strikes—just to try to get it heard that he needs medical treatment. He ended up getting his eyeglasses, and he ended up seeing a specialist for his hepatitis-C, but he had to go through a lot of struggle and trouble that put his life in more risk physically.
And he is not the only one who struggles. We struggle too.
When he moved to Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, he was able to see a specialist. He was able to be assigned medical treatment, but always there was something that acted as a barrier to keep him from getting his treatment.
There is a guard in Kingston Immigration Holding Centre who has accused Mohamed of threatening him. I have the report if anyone would like to see it. It is completely untrue, but at the same time it is a barrier. Mohamed fears for his life because of this, and he fears for his case in court because this is a serious allegation. He doesn't feel like leaving the unit that he lives in to go to the other building for any reason without a supervisor, just to make sure he is in a safe position.
The answer was a refusal. He was refused to get the supervisor to move him from the place he's in to the other building to get treatment. Before this allegation, doctors and nurses used to go where he lives to see him, but after this they refused to send a doctor or a nurse to him or to provide him with a supervisor to be able to go to the other building to receive his treatment. He feels this is a complete violation of his rights as a detainee.
In West Detention he went through a whole lot of trouble, a whole lot of abuse, physically, emotionally, mentally from all the guards. And not only him; I had to go through some of it too, just to access my rights to visit him. One time, my kids were banished from visiting their dad in West Detention, just because they went rallying to ask for their dad to be released. The guard said we were not able to visit. When I asked why he said it was because we rallied around here. I said the kids came all the way, that I'd taken them out of school to visit their dad and they were anxious to see him. I asked if they were rallying too and the guard said they couldn't go in, so they were banished from seeing their dad. The kids were very disappointed.
We believed that transferring them from West Detention to Kingston Immigration Holding Centre was to help better their conditions and situations. We used to visit them weekly, forty minutes a week, every week, unless we had trouble with guards allowing us in, but we used to see them frequently. We used to see my husband frequently. But moving to Kingston Immigration Holding Centre was a complete separation between us and him. It wasn't getting us closer.
We understood when he moved there that he would have the right to education, which we found was completely wrong, because he is denied education. We understood we were supposed to have access to a touch visit like the rest of the detainees, who are criminals. My husband is not a criminal. They have the right to touch visits three days a month or every two weeks. My husband is not allowed to do that.
We happened to be in a very small area. I am sure some of you took a look at the area where four of the detainees' families are supposed to be in if they happen to come together. It is a very, very small area. It is smaller than this area. The chairs are connected to the tables and are very close to the tables. The father cannot even put his child on his lap, which he would love to do. He can't.
If we go with Mr. Jaballah's family, which is a big family, everybody is hitting one another. It's too crowded, too noisy. No one is allowed to have some peace with their own family.
I don't drive on the highway, and there is no transportation. I struggle just to visit my husband. I wait for a ride from somebody who is willing to give me a ride, and when I arrive there, sometimes they let me wait outside for half an hour or more than a half an hour, just because they feel they're not ready to pick me up.
When we go in, we're not allowed to have a cup of water or a bottle of water. They don't provide us with water. We go to the washroom to drink. One time I didn't feel like it, and I asked one of the guards--the one who made this allegation--if I could please have a glass of water because I felt dizzy. He told me I had the washroom. I said I was sorry but I don't drink from the washroom. He told me I had the machine. I said you don't put water in the machine. He said you can drink pop. I said I can't drink pop; I'm sorry, but I can't drink pop. He said if I felt I was dizzy.... He became very upset. His face was red. He started to get up. He was saying he was going to cut my visit short. He was punishing me for asking for a cup of water. He didn't even give me a chance to answer. I told the other guard I couldn't leave, as my ride was not there and the area was not safe. I can't be punished for asking for a cup of water.
Since this allegation, my husband has not come out from where he is living. It has been over two months now, and he's never been out for medication. Even though he makes requests to see the doctor, he needs a supervisor and he can't. Since the end of August we have not visited him, because they don't provide him with a supervisor. I wonder what is going to happen to him.
I believe that anyone who has done anything is entitled to a fair and open trial. Saddam Hussein had an open trial; he got to know the evidence against him. What did these people do to deserve this? They need to be with their families.
“Security certificate” as such is a real misnomer, especially when we take a look at it in an historical context. You can look at the abuses that have taken place in Canada under the name of security certificates. You depend on untested information from the RCMP, CSIS, and international spooks, and we saw the result of that. We saw the result in what happened with the Arar case. Not only were there initial suspicions when Arar was sent to Syria, but when those security forces had information to clear him, they chose to cover up.
If you look at the United States, there are all sorts of examples of what has been done under the name of security. I agree with you in total when you say that you can't delink security from human rights, because essentially the greatest abusers of human security have been governments under the guise of security. When Thomas Jefferson says that those who give up freedom in the name of security deserve neither freedom nor security, that's exactly what happens. If you look at history and at countries, the greatest abuser of security has been the state apparatus of terror, and this is the really unfortunate thing. You cannot compromise the justice system, because as soon as you do, it becomes like a cancer, and if you have untested evidence going before the courts, which is happening right now under security certificates, then you really have a problem.
Madam El-Fouli, you're right; Saddam Hussein got a heck of a lot fairer trial than your husband is getting, and we really have to change this. Madam Foster, I really caution you about saying it's not happening to citizens; it's not happening to citizens because the citizenship committee has refused to pass the legislation that would have made security certificates part of the process. I think it's important for that to get out to Canadians as much as possible--the whole concept that my security as an individual is tied in to the security of my human rights, and that if you compromise human rights, you end up doing so much damage that it's really quite incredible.
Madam El-Fouli, I don't know how to respond to you in terms of what's happening to your husband, except to say there's a member of Parliament who happens to believe in human rights. I really am ashamed when I go down to those holding cells and see what's happening to those people who are not sentenced, who have not been charged, who have not been found guilty of anything. They are there on nothing more than suspicion, and the state doesn't have a case against them. If they had a case against them, they would have proceeded. As a democratic nation, we really have to make sure we fight for those values.
I have a question to the panel. What kind of education have you done as to how this whole security certificate issue has now gone into the IRPA? I voted against that, and I will certainly be supporting Mr. Siksay's motion if it ever gets through, gets drawn. It is just to show how gradualism under the name of security has really compromised our freedoms.
:
Thank you for being here today.
As many of the good questions on my list have been asked, I'm down to some different ones. I want to thank all of you for being here today.
I think it's fair to say, on behalf of all of us who visited the detention centre last week in Kingston, it made a powerful impact on us in many ways.
I am not a lawyer, but as I listen to this discussion about the balancing out of overlapping or potentially conflicting interests in terms of personal rights versus national security, I guess what I wonder about is the threshold you have to get over to get a particular verdict in some sort of proceeding. In a criminal process, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, so it's set very high. I am not a lawyer, but I appreciate that there is the reference to what would be called the balance of probabilities, and it's my understanding that in the very famous O.J. Simpson trial, while they failed to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a criminal court, they actually did meet the balance of probabilities in a civil trial. That was how he was found not guilty criminally, but was actually sued for millions of dollars in a civil court.
Today we heard reference to “reasonable grounds to believe”, and I'm thinking that if a balance of probabilities means there's a better than fifty-fifty chance that it's true, I don't know if reasonable grounds to believe are 50%, or maybe even lower than that—maybe 20% or 30%. That's where I see this sitting, so when someone gets off an airplane in Canada and there are some reasonable grounds to believe they may pose a threat to Canadian security, the notion that a person could be detained seems reasonable to me. But the question is, for how long, and what is the actual process that needs to be put in place then? It also seems reasonable to me there can't be an indefinite holding pattern that never lands.
If Canada were to set up a situation where, once someone has been detained, and until a process were launched.... I'm not comfortable with the notion of just moving it into a normal criminal court system, where beyond a reasonable doubt is the test, because then you could easily have a situation where you're 90% sure there's a problem, but because it's not beyond a reasonable doubt, you would actually release the person and say okay, you're free to go.
Just from a practical point of view, in other countries, is that the test they use once someone is detained, such that there is a process where the evidence is brought forward—whether it's in a closed court or with a special advocate are details—with a lower threshold? Is it a possibility, theoretically, to have such as process in Canada? There would be a hearing process, and whether it's a balance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether some new phrase is established.... I do think at the end of the day that if things are not entirely clear—and I suspect they're usually not—the national security of Canada, on some level, should trump the rights of a non-citizen.
Thank you, witnesses. As you know, the committee has had an opportunity to visit the Guantanamo Bay of the north, the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, recently.
The government is in a difficult situation, as has been discussed, with the security certificates and how that relates to the individuals who are being held, as I believe the minister has said, in a three-walled jail where they're free to return to their own countries at any time. But as your testimony today evidenced, they face the risk of torture in the countries they have to go back to: Algeria, Morocco, Syria, or Egypt.
So on the one hand, to keep someone in detention indefinitely, or even for an extended period of time, raises significant concerns respecting fairness and liberty, as Ms. Foster said, but on the other hand that person represents or is alleged to represent an actual danger or a potential danger and a threat to the security of Canada. So at this point in time, based on the evidence that we have, or the secret evidence that has been put forward, there is a perceived threat there, and it would be unwise for the Canadian government to release these people into Canadian society.
If, on the one hand, removal from Canadian society is not an option, and on the other hand, there is a perceived threat to society, what options does the Government of Canada have to deal with situations like this?
If, Mr. Neve, as you said, the security certificate process needs to be reformed on a wholesale basis, what types of specific reforms would you be recommending to try to deal with the situation?