Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Christian Legeais]

Aside from the construction of the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre at the Millhaven Penitentiary, which was a way of giving in to public pressure, nothing concrete has been done to release these five people, who are victims of allegations and have been targeted by security certificates. This was one of the major themes of the last two election campaigns, during which the issue of security certificates was constantly raised. It cost Minister McLellan, among others, her position as MP.

What’s really astounding is that the party in power, the opposition and the third parties could resolve this issue very easily if they met to discuss it.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Yes, ok.

[Christian Legeais]

Security certificates are a democratic, non-partisan issue that involves defending human rights and the rights of all. It is extremely surprising that the political parties in the House have not yet come to the conclusion that security certificates must be revoked and that none of the provisions prescribed by security certificates should be included in other legislation such as Bill C-36.

This discrimination is applied to Canadian citizens: naturalized citizens have fewer rights than Canadian citizens; refugees have fewer rights than naturalized citizens; and at the bottom of the ladder are those without status, who have absolutely nothing. This hierarchy of rights in Canada must be abolished.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

How do you think we should proceed? Everyone here seems incensed at seeing how these people are imprisoned, but, on the one hand, when I look around, no one there seems to have done much in the past four years. On the other hand, I don’t know if there is more they would like to be doing.

I imagine if someone is arrested in the street that, first of all, it is important to know why and the person involved should also know why. It’s one thing if the authorities want to maintain confidentiality and not divulge some information, but at least the person’s lawyer should be informed of the information in order to prepare a defence.

According to what I understand and what you’ve told me today, we arrest someone on the street, we think that maybe we have reason for doing so, but we don’t tell anyone. This is kept secret and the files are hidden. We put the person in prison and we leave him there. Then, one day, we let him out.

Is that how it works?

[Christian Legeais]

Yes, that’s a good description of how it works.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

So what can we do? How can we help you? How can we help you direct attention and foster awareness among the people that can take concrete action on this issue?

[Mary Foster]

I think many individuals have already begun to take some steps. I think it's a matter of some of the parties following the lead of the NDP and taking clear positions as parties, and also of individuals speaking out and taking a clear position.

Three men are still in prison. Mr. Mahjoub will be asking for release on bail soon; there is no reason for members of Parliament, such as yourself and others, not to support him in those steps to give the court confidence that there's a public behind him supporting his liberation. There are many steps individuals and parties could be taking, but the first is to take a clear public position on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, we will now go to Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being with us this morning.

I just want to put on the record that I have a motion on the order paper of the House of Commons calling for a repeal of the security certificate sections of IRPA, because I believe they're unnecessary. I do agree that the Criminal Code can deal with these, and if there are problems with the Criminal Code, then we should address those problems with the Criminal Code. That would be the appropriate way of proceeding.

I did want to ask Ms. El-Fouli a question. You talked about your sons, Ibraim and Yusuf. How do you explain it to them? They've had to deal with this situation, I guess for most of their lives, where their father's been in detention. When they ask why he's there, how do you respond to them?

[Mona El-Fouli]

That's very good. I just want to mention something before I answer your question.

When Mohammad was taken, Yusuf was only eight months old, and Ibraim was less than three. When he went to visit him he started to call him Uncle, until I mentioned that he's Daddy. He said, “Why he's not here?” Then I started to answer questions. Of course, Ibraim had to struggle and he had separation anxiety because of that. But I started to say to them, “You believe that you're a human being?” They said, “Yes, I am a human being. I'm entitled to make a mistake, and you're entitled to make a mistake.” I said, “Well, the government are human beings. Do you agree with that?” They said yes. I said, “Well, they made a mistake, and that's why we go around to demonstrations and rallies--to tell them they have made a mistake and to please correct their mistake”. And soon enough you will be out.

They felt really eager to go out and hand out flyers, to try to meet with the Prime Minister, who they'd never met, and to try to tell him, “Well, you made a mistake. Try to fix it, please. We need our Daddy out.”

That's my explanation to them.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

The graciousness of that response, given what your family's going through, just amazes me, Ms. El-Fouli.

[Mona El-Fouli]

Thank you.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I appreciate your explaining that to us.

Mr. Neve, you talked about the length of detention and about establishing time limits that would counter indefinite detention. Is there a specific time limit? Do we know anything about the mental health effects and when they kick in?

I can't imagine that any detention that's indefinite, when you know it's indefinite, is good for anyone's mental health for one second, let alone six or seven years. Is there any wisdom you can offer on that?

[Alex Neve]

There's no clear, absolute international standard that's been established. There is absolute consensus at the international level that standards are necessary and that detention can't be indefinite.

Certainly the impact that indefinite detention has on any particular detainee does differ depending on their personal circumstances, their mental health, the conditions of detention, how much access they are or are not getting to their family, and a whole host of other circumstances.

I think this would be a particular issue.... I wish I had a number to put on the table for you with authority. I'd hesitate to do so, because I think it's something that really merits and needs authoritative expert study and recommendations to you from psychologists in particular, from people involved in the penal system who would really be able to give some very clear recommendations to you as to where that limit should be set.

From a human rights perspective, what I can tell you is that it has to be set.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I wonder how any member of the panel would respond.

Last week, when I asked the Minister of Public Safety a question around the specific detention conditions at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre he responded in a way that's been typical. I think the previous government responded that way too; it seems always to be part of an answer around the security certificate detainees. He said they're free to leave whenever they want.

I'm just wondering what your response would be to the assertion from this minister, and from previous ministers as well, that they are free to go.

[Alex Neve]

That shows complete contempt for Canada's international human rights obligations. All of the men who are held under security certificates in Canada right now, whether they're in detention or are released on restrictions, face serious, well-documented risks of severe torture in Algeria, in Morocco, in Egypt, in Syria.

To say that there's a freedom to choose to head off to a torture chamber is an irresponsible statement from a government minister, and it flies in the face of some of the most serious human rights commitments that this nation has made.

[Mona El-Fouli]

My understanding is that it is very, very difficult for anyone to leave their homeland, and people do not so do for no reason. Those men left because of complete oppression. They came to live their lives in peace. For example, my husband came and married me, we had our kids and we were trying to live our life in a peaceful way, until that happened.

To be free to leave, that's a wonderful word. But what are the consequences of that? And where would they go, if we were to let them be free to go anywhere else? We care about Canada, but we should care about the rest of the world. If they are dangerous, they are dangerous. But how are they dangerous? What have they done to be dangerous? That's what we'd like to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

Mr. Komarnicki, then Mr. Telegdi.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you very much for attending.

We certainly had the opportunity to visit the Kingston centre. It's fair to say that one of the issues you raised regarding the family and the children is a significant one. You mentioned that there weren't touch visits or conjugal visits, or an opportunity to visit with the children. That's something the committee certainly looks upon seriously. We'll be making some recommendations in that regard. I, for one, believe that family contact ought to be cultivated wherever possible, given the circumstances.

Having said that, the Supreme Court of Canada has obviously been hearing both sides of the argument on this issue more recently. National security and personal rights are pretty well presented. Would you agree with me that before taking any precipitous action at this point, one should await the decision, which should be down, I would expect, this year or perhaps early next year, to see how the court defines both those issues?

Perhaps Mr. Neve could reply to that, a yes or no.

[Alex Neve]

It doesn't surprise me to hear that there'd be a temptation to wait for the court. Obviously we have great hope and expectation that there's going to be an important and powerful ruling from the court. Amnesty International was one of the organizations that had intervenor status in those hearings.

That being said, the fact that there is a Supreme Court ruling expected doesn't mean that the committee can't, nonetheless, start to identify what the issues of concern are for the committee and be prepared, therefore, when the court ruling comes down, with your analysis, your very clear set of recommendations, which one hopes will have some consistency and conformity with the Supreme Court's rulings—

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I want you to answer my questions fairly quickly, because I have limited time.

I agree with you that the committee wants to identify the issues, look at the various alternatives and options that might be available, but in real terms, a fairly high-level court will be deciding on this issue fairly quickly, and it would be good to hear what they have to say.

The other aspect I'd like to draw to your attention is that in a previous court ruling, a judge had been dealing or struggling with these security certificates and actually found them to be valid, pending what the court will now say. What he said there was--and he was referring to some of the arguments made by the solicitors or lawyers for the detainees--that:

...national security cannot justify any derogation from the rules governing adversarial proceedings, we would be reading into the Constitution of Canada an abandonment by the community as a whole of its right to survival in the name of blind absolutism of the individual rights enshrined in that Constitution.

I guess what he was saying was that we have to sort of accept the fact that the security of the country, the security of the community, has to be a paramount right. Would you agree with that statement or that analysis? Yes or no.

[Alex Neve]

Are you asking me?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Briefly, yes.

[Alex Neve]

No, I wouldn't. I think they're inextricably bound. The security of the individual and the security of the nation go hand in hand.

No one is suggesting that governments shouldn't be taking steps to address security concerns and shouldn't be doing so through punishment, through a penal process, or through criminal proceedings. But it has to be done in complete conformity with fundamental human rights standards.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

But there is the fact that if there are security interests that are legitimate, they must be addressed by this nation and this country. Would you agree with me on that?