Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Christian Legeais, Campaign Manager, Justice for Mohamed Harkat Committee]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mona El-Fouli, of the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada.

[Mona El-Fouli, Wife of Mohamed Mahjoub, Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much for telling your story. It must be very emotional for you to do that. We thank you for coming here today.

We'll go to questioners. I'll begin with Madam Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague Andrew for allowing me to go first. I have to go after this.

First of all, I'd like to say, Madame El-Fouli, that your testimony was heard. We realize it is very difficult for you. What happens to one individual happens to the friends and family around him, particularly the wife and children, the mother, the immediate family. We have a great deal of sympathy for what you're going through.

That is the personal message I would like to send you.

If you don’t mind, I would like to ask a question that doesn’t involve a specific case.

I am opposed to secret trials and security certificates. However, I’m wondering what we can do when we believe an individual has broken a Canadian law related to security. How do we ensure that there truly is a threat or the possibility of a threat to security? This is the role of the security forces, but it is also our role as Members of Parliament. How can we protect the rights and freedoms of people like Mr. El-Fouli, whose wife is here testifying before us, and those of others who are currently being detained? It doesn’t matter whether they’re Canadian citizens or not, they are human beings. We already provide protection for some refugees.

I am asking each one of you this question. In my past work with NGOs, I noticed that it was these organizations that asked the questions, but that often the people responsible for these questions didn’t provide all the answers, but only part of the answers. That is why I am asking you this question. I don’t want you to feel attacked or that, in the end, it’s up to you to solve the problem. Rather, I believe that because you have faced these questions day and night, you may have part of the solution to offer to help us find a balance that satisfies one group while respecting the rights of the other.

I direct this question to anyone who can answer it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Anyone may answer if they wish.

[Alex Neve]

Thank you very much for the question. I'll start and others may have something they want to add.

I think it's absolutely critical to begin by underlining the principle that security and human rights are inextricably linked; that it isn't one or the other; that when it comes to our national security, we best ensure, enhance, and protect security by ensuring that we are at all times fully complying with human rights obligations; that it's not a separate goal and a separate objective. I think that needs to be our starting point.

Be it here in Canada, south of the border, or anywhere in the world where laws, policies, and practices have been or are being adopted in the name of security, in the name of countering terrorism, and that give a nod to torture or turn a blind eye to arbitrary detention or facilitate discrimination, those laws and policies are of course not only causing injustice, but they're also increasing insecurity.

When it comes to a particular case, obviously if there are concerns, if there's evidence, if there are allegations, no one here is suggesting that the government shouldn't take action. The action should be through the lawful processes that we expect of governments when there is a concern that someone's involved in criminality or terrorism, and that is almost always going to be through the criminal law process--charges, a fair trial, leading to conviction. That's the best way to ensure that human rights are protected. It's also the best way to ensure security is protected.

Deportation often is just setting a person free. Be it in Canada or elsewhere around the world, we've documented for years a far too common practice that suspected terrorists or individuals suspected of committing serious human rights abuses of another description are simply being deported, and then walking away scot-free at the other end of the plane. There is no justice and the security risk continues.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I will interrupt you, because I don't have a great deal of time. I would like to narrow this down.

Yes, I agree with everything you say. At the same time, there are documents in the possession of the RCMP or others that are not rendered public for security reasons, so they tell us. Once again, how do we manage through lawful processes, as you suggested, to get through these documents, through this so-called proof that the individual is guilty? We're all looking at the lawful process.

[Alex Neve]

Well, it is through a lawful process. If the RCMP has evidence, it may be evidence that they're not prepared to disclose to the public at large, but there are ways in which trials can be conducted that nonetheless ensure fairness for the individual concerned. It may mean that the public is not always going to have access to those proceedings, but that the individual and their legal team need access of a sufficient nature that they're able to mount an effective defence. It can, and it does, and it has happened in numerous trials around the world. Fairness and security trials can go hand in hand.

I think here in Canada there's an overstated exaggeration that we see on the part of the RCMP and CSIS--this is absolutely one of the prevailing things that came through the Maher Arar case--of secrecy, secrecy, secrecy for secrecy's sake. The cost of secrecy is justice.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Is there any more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Well, we're into seven minutes and ten seconds. Did you have a brief—? I realize you have to leave.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

No, I'd just like to hear from other witnesses, because I have to leave.

I don't want to take the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, we could have a brief reply, in view of the fact that you do have to leave to go to the House.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That doesn’t prevent the question being asked, even if you want to leave. We’re also going to the House.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

No, certainly, you are asking the same question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

[Mona El-Fouli]

Actually, I'd like to add to the previous speaker, Alex. With respect to the information that you receive from countries that are really convicting people by links of communications with others, is it lawful information? We have to take that into consideration and we have to search for the right information and for the truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I have several questions to ask you. First, I imagine this is not the first time you’ve come to Ottawa to condemn these situations.

Second, why has no government reacted until now?

[Christian Legeais]

No, this is not the first time we have come to Ottawa.

Since 2002, I believe the families have met in Ottawa at least five times for lobbying campaigns. I myself am a resident of the Gatineau area. Mohamed Harkat was a resident of Vanier in Ottawa. Most of us have appeared before the Sub-committee on National Security that was examining Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and decided to look into the issue of security certificates as well.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

What has been done until now? What progress and advancements have you made to this point?

[Christian Legeais]

We have addressed at least two committees.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes, I understand that you’ve addressed the committees, but were there any results? It’s all fine and good to address a committee as you are doing here today, but there has to be follow-up or some kind of action afterwards. Has anything been accomplished or is everyone still asleep at the switch?

[Christian Legeais]

Are you referring to action on the part of the Canadian government?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes.