National Defence committee  I agree completely with that. I think foresight is absolutely what's necessary here. Obviously the agreement does not rule out the possibility of third-party transfers to almost any state. The range of actors that could involve is staggering and of grave concern. To figure that out on the run once that high-profile, very difficult, sensitive case arises would obviously be inadequate.

National Defence committee  Certainly it does. One of the fundamental rights that attach to any detention regime, be it in the midst of an armed conflict or not, is ongoing, reliable access to family members. Amnesty International has not done particular research on that, so I can't say we know of a certain number of cases where family contact has been impeded or difficult.

National Defence committee  Those concerns are fundamental. It's instructive I think to remind ourselves of the experience of Guantanamo Bay. It's a different detention regime, but many of those individuals are of course individuals who were apprehended on the battlefield in Afghanistan amidst vague, unspecified allegations that they were horrific individuals responsible for committing terrorism or aiding terrorists.

National Defence committee  I would just echo that. I would not want to imply at all that we're critical that the ICRC is using discretion and that it is quiet and behind the scenes in the way it goes about the work in Afghanistan. That is its role. That is the role that plays around the world. And it is vitally important.

National Defence committee  I would echo that. And I would stress, whether it be Amnesty International or legal academics or through media coverage or the work of parliamentarians, these issues are in front of the government. It's not that this is a new issue coming out of left field. The need to develop an approach to handling detainees in Afghanistan that doesn't lead to human rights violations has been in front of the government in various forms for quite some time--since early 2002, in fact.

National Defence committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, committee members. Amnesty International very much appreciates the opportunity to be here today to share our concerns and recommendations regarding the policy and practice of the Canadian government with respect to the treatment of battlefield detainees in Afghanistan.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think we've all clearly agreed that, yes, national security is a critical concern and it's a human rights concern. What we're trying to underscore is that the policies taken by any government, including the Canadian government, to address national security--be it immigration, security certificates, or any other practice--need to accord with the international human rights system.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I wholly endorse that. I can't emphasize enough how important it is around any detention issue, but there is something particular about security certificate detention. With this whole concern about its indefinite nature and the very serious sort of mental and psychological toll it takes on detainees, and so on, it is fundamentally important that there be some sort of independent mechanism in place to receive complaints, to ensure monitoring, and to bring some oversight to the whole situation.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  If you're asking particularly about the Arar inquiry, I think it obviously is one of the continuing very worrying pieces in the aftermath of Justice O'Connor's report that we heard from Commissioner Zaccardelli himself that it's not his plan or intention to discipline, let alone consider the possibility of criminal charges against the people responsible for that wrongdoing, if appropriate.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think there is a whole host of things that need to happen. Absolutely the process itself needs to be completely overhauled to ensure that it means fair trial standards, which obviously involves issues around access to evidence, effective legal representation, the standard of proof that's applied, and the kind of review that's put in place of decisions made around security certificates.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  There are similarities and differences, obviously, between the situation of security certificate detainees and what's happening at Guantanamo Bay. One could argue that at least the security certificate detainees have had access to some kind of legal process, as terribly flawed as it is, whereas of course many of the Guantanamo detainees have had access to nothing.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Unfortunately, Canada's voice on Guantanamo Bay has been rather mute. I would actually draw a bit of a comparison to what's been happening to some of the Canadian citizens who have experienced torture and ill treatment abroad, people such as Maher Arar. Obviously, here we even have Canadian complicity, and Canada's condemnation of those instances has been a bit mixed at best, but it's an example of where this really comes close to home.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  This is always pointed to as one of the ways to address the concerns about the secrecy of evidence, because the special advocate gets to see the evidence. But the minute they've seen the evidence they have to stop talking to or having any contact with the individual themselves.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It really becomes an empty improvement.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  What's unique about these security cases is this is immigration law to a certain degree masquerading as criminal law. It's immigration law trying to accomplish what truly is a criminal law purpose. If so, if that's the case, then the facade needs to come down, and it needs to be really understood as a criminal law issue and addressed accordingly.