Good morning.
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.