The named person can still be incarcerated indefinitely, without trial, whereas in a criminal trial he/she would know the criminal charges, would be able to present a defence, and would be either acquitted or sentenced to a finite prison term. That's precisely what the Supreme Court denounced in Charkaoui.
13. [...] For both foreign nationals and permanent residents, the period of detention can be, and frequently is, seven years. Indeed, Mr. Almrei remains in detention and does not know when, if ever, he will be released.
Since this judgment was handed down almost a year ago, Mr. Almrei remains detained in Kingston.
The burden of the proof is still the mere obligation to establish "the reasonableness of the certificate", which is a derisory burden in comparison to the burden of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the requirement when a person is liable to lose his/her freedom.
Point number nine. It remains possible to send a person to torture—despite the fact that Stockwell Day denied this when he appeared before you on November 27 last. On this question, it is important to point out that the United Nations Committee against Torture has just issued a blame to Canada, on November 16, in the case of Bachan Singh Sogi, an Indian national that Canada expelled in July 2006, even though the Committee against Torture had asked Canada on two occasions to withhold deportation until such time as it had examined the complaint. The committee concludes:
The committee concludes:
The Committee against Torture [...] is of the opinion that the expulsion of the applicant to India on July 2, 2006 is in violation of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention.
You are aware that article 3 does not provide for any exception. This expulsion to place under the responsibility of Minister Day.
You are aware of the recent successes against organized crime and biker gangs in Quebec. Many were condemned and are now serving jail sentences. This was accomplished using criminal procedures and evidence that complies with traditional rules. Yet, in this case, as in the case of antiterrorist activities, sensitive questions are raised regarding the need to protect the identity of police informers and to conceal police investigation techniques and strategies.
We therefore believe that instead of having recourse to security certificates and secret evidence, we should rely on traditional criminal procedures and thus ensure all persons on Canadian territory that they will not have their freedoms and rights infringed upon without tested and admissible evidence, without a fair trial, and a full and complete defence.
Especially when by expelling people Canada considers to be too dangerous to remain here, they are sent to other countries where they are just as dangerous! How does this enhance security?
In conclusion, let us not repeat historical errors.
Each time in the past we have allowed the erosion of traditional safeguards, consequences have been disastrous and have forced the Canadian government to recognize its errors, to apologize and sometimes offer compensation. Just take, for example: the expropriation and imprisonment of Canadians of Japanese descent during the Second World War; the hundreds of needless and unjustified arrests and imprisonments during the 1970 October Crisis in Quebec; and more recently, the responsibility in the extraordinary rendition of Maher Arar to torture in Syria by the United States.
Therefore, the Ligue des droits et libertés recommends: the abolition of security certificates and of the possibility of depriving a person of freedom and expelling him/her from Canada on the basis of secret evidence; that Canada's participation in the struggle against terrorism be governed by due process and non-discriminatory access to a fair and open trial in compliance with international law.
Thank you.