Thank you very much.
“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.