Bill C-3: Many media items inside, also some reaction from opponents

posted on October 23, 2007 | in Category Bill C-36 | PermaLink

Original author: "Justice for Adil"
Source: Coalition Justice pour Adil Charkaoui Listserv
URL: N/A
Date: October 23, 2007


TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW:
[link]

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS:
[link]

BELOW:

1. Media coverage of introduction of draft law;
2. Press Release from Canadian Council for Refugees and the International
Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.

==========

Le Soleil
Ottawa présente ses modifications aux certificats de sécurité
Tuesday 23 October 2007
La Presse Canadienne

Le gouvernement fédéral propose d'autoriser des "avocats spéciaux" à
assister les personnes visées par un certificat de sécurité, qu'on
soupçonne de terrorisme et qu'on menace de déporter sans pour autant leur
dire exactement pourquoi.

Cette idée est contenue dans un projet de loi déposé hier par le ministre
de la Sécurité publique Stockwell Day en réponse à un arrêt de la Cour
suprême qui a jugé "inconstitutionnelle" cette procédure qui ne s'applique
pas aux citoyens canadiens. Le plus haut tribunal du pays avait donné aux
conservateurs un an soit jusqu'en février 2008, pour repenser le régime.Dans sa décision, la Cour affirmait que pour respecter la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, il fallait communiquer les renseignements nécessaires à la personne visée par un certificat ou alors trouver une façon de l'informer sur l'essentiel. Aux yeux des juges, le régime en place ne permettait ni l'un ni l'autre. Après huit mois de réflexion, Ottawa a jugé que les certificats demeuraient "un outil important pour protéger le Canada de la menace terroriste" mais aussi que le régime "devrait protéger les droits et libertés" au pays. En dépit des commentaires de défenseurs des droits de la personne, le gouvernement a donc décidé de maintenir la procédure en fournissant toutefois des outils supplémentaires aux personnes visées. En plus de leur avocat, les suspects auront ainsi droit aux services d'un "défenseur" qui aura pour mandat de contester les arguments du gouvernement en ce qui a trait à la nécessité de garder la preuve secrète. Ce spécialiste, trié sur le volet par le ministre de la Justice, aura accès au dossier secret du présumé terroriste et pourra donc mettre en doute la pertinence et l'importance des faits allégués lors d'audiences à huis clos. Il ne pourra cependant discuter de la preuve avec personne, pas même son client. Par ailleurs, la nouvelle loi donnera aux ressortissants étrangers les mêmes droits de révision des motifs de leur détention qu'aux résidents permanents. Hier, le ministre Day a assuré que ces modifications suffisaient à rendre le régime des certificats conforme à la Charte et donc à la Constitution canadienne. Cet avis n'est cependant pas partagé par tous. Le chef néo- démocrate Jack Layton a dit craindre que les détenus n'aient pas droit à un procès juste et équitable. Les représentants des autres partis d'opposition ont indiqué qu'ils souhaitaient étudier le projet avant de faire des commentaires. Le chef libéral adjoint, Michael Ignatieff, a toutefois confié que, de prime abord, les propositions semblaient améliorer le régime en place. Cinq personnes sont actuellement visées par des certificats de sécurité, dont le Montréalais d'origine marocaine Adil Charkaoui, l'Algérien Mohammed Harkat ainsi que le Syrien Hassan Almrei. Les deux premiers sont en liberté surveillée, tandis que le troisième est toujours détenu à Kingston, en Ontario. Dans un communiqué, la Coalition Justice pour Adil Charkaoui s'est dite déçue de la décision des conservateurs de ne pas faire disparaître les certificats, qui relèvent de la Loi sur l'immigration, pour confier le sort des personnes visées aux tribunaux ordinaires. =================== Castonguay, Alec Le Devoir Certificats de sécurité: effort minimal; Avocat spécial et processus d'appel, en réponse à la Cour Tuesday 23 October 2007 Ottawa - Le gouvernement fédéral a fait le strict minimum hier pour se conformer à un jugement de la Cour suprême qui l'oblige à modifier la procédure d'application des certificats de sécurité. Le ministre de la Sécurité publique, Stockwell Day, a déposé un projet de loi qui permet à la personne frappée d'un tel certificat d'être mieux représentée pour défendre ses droits. Par contre, il n'est toujours pas question de dévoiler à l'accusé les charges qui justifient son expulsion du pays, ce qui a immédiatement soulevé des critiques. Le certificat de sécurité existe depuis 1978 et s'applique uniquement à ceux qui ne possèdent pas la citoyenneté canadienne. Il est activé en tandem par les ministres de la Sécurité publique et de la Justice sur les recommandations de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC) et du Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité (SCRS). Un magistrat de la Cour fédérale détermine le caractère «raisonnable» de la preuve avant d'autoriser la procédure d'expulsion du pays de cette personne jugée dangereuse pour le Canada. Lors des audiences à huis clos, la personne visée par le certificat n'a pas le droit d'être représentée, ce qui l'empêche de connaître les soupçons qui pèsent sur elle. Actuellement, cinq personnes sont sous le coup d'un certificat de sécurité et contestent leur expulsion, y compris les cas plus médiatiques d'Adil Charkaoui, de Mohamed Harkat et d'Hassan Almrei, à l'origine du jugement de la Cour suprême. Le 23 février dernier, les neuf juges de la plus haute cour du pays ont confirmé la validité des certificats de sécurité, mais ont affirmé qu'il était «inconstitutionnel» d'empêcher une défense raisonnable de la part de l'accusé. Les juges ont donc accordé 12 mois au gouvernement pour trouver un nouveau mécanisme. «Il faut soit communiquer les renseignements nécessaires à la personne visée, soit trouver une autre façon de l'informer pour l'essentiel», écrivait la juge en chef, Beverley McLachlin. Stockwell Day a donc annoncé hier la création d'une liste d'avocats spéciaux qui posséderont une cote de sécurité - accordée par la GRC et le SCRS - leur permettant de consulter les charges qui pèsent sur la personne menacée d'expulsion. Le juge choisira dans la liste un avocat pour représenter l'accusé lors des audiences à huis clos. Mais là s'arrête l'ouverture du gouvernement. L'avocat spécial, que le ministre a appelé le «défenseur», ne pourra pas divulguer à la personne visée les preuves retenues contre elle. Un résumé des charges sera disponible pour discussion avec l'accusé, mais dès que l'avocat aura pris connaissance de la preuve complète, il ne pourra plus en parler à la personne visée par le certificat, ce qui lui garantit de rester dans le noir. La Cour suprême avait d'ailleurs soutenu que «le droit d'une partie de connaître la preuve qui pèse contre elle n'est pas absolu». Elle ajoutait que «la cour a reconnu à de nombreuses reprises que des considérations relatives à la sécurité nationale peuvent limiter l'étendue de la divulgation de renseignements à l'intéressé». L'accusé peut engager son propre avocat, mais ce dernier ne pourra pas être mis au courant de la preuve par l'avocat spécial. D'ailleurs, selon l'article 85.1 du projet de loi, l'avocat spécial n'aura pas à conserver le secret professionnel avec l'accusé menacé d'expulsion du pays, puisque le gouvernement précise que l'avocat spécial «n'est pas partie» et que «les rapports entre lui et l'intéressé ne sont pas ceux qui existent entre un avocat et son client». Comment l'accusé pourra-t-il alors faire confiance à cet avocat spécial pour le défendre s'il ne peut pas tout lui dire, s'est demandé le critique du Bloc québécois en matière de sécurité publique, Serge Ménard. Le projet de loi précise aussi que le juge peut admettre en preuve «tout élément, même inadmissible en justice, qu'il estime digne de foi et utile». Devant cette phrase qui ouvre la porte bien grande, le Bloc québécois aimerait que le projet de loi spécifie que les éléments de preuve obtenus sous la torture ne sont pas admissibles. Un droit d'appel limité Toujours à la demande de la Cour suprême, le gouvernement devait également clarifier le droit d'appel. Ainsi, une personne visée par un certificat de sécurité «aura droit à un examen initial des motifs de détention par un juge de la Cour fédérale dans les 48 heures suivant son arrestation, et cela peut être suivi par un nouvel examen tous les six mois», peut-on lire dans les documents du ministère de la Sécurité publique. Mais à la lecture du projet de loi, on constate que ce droit est très limité. A l'article 79, on peut lire que l'appel est possible uniquement «si le juge certifie que l'affaire soulève une question grave de portée générale et énonce celle-ci». Cette contrainte a fait bondir Serge Ménard. «C'est quoi une question grave? Pour une personne qui risque une incarcération indéfinie, ce n'est pas très rassurant», dit-il. Malgré les critiques, Stockwell Day estime que le gouvernement se conforme au jugement de la plus haute cour du pays. «La Cour suprême a donné son appui au principe du certificat de sécurité, mais elle a demandé deux changements. C'est ce que nous aurons en place [grâce] à un avocat spécial pour défendre et protéger les intérêts des gens qui sont accusés, et avec un processus d'appel tous les six mois», a-t-il dit après la période de questions. Selon le ministre, plusieurs pays ont mis en place des avocats spéciaux, et cela ne devrait pas «affaiblir» les certificats de sécurité. «Je ne vois pas de problème», a dit Stockwell Day. Ce processus est effectivement en place en Grande-Bretagne, où il est toutefois contesté parce que l'accusé doit s'en remettre entièrement à un tiers pour le défendre, sans possibilité d'intervenir. Le projet de loi ira de l'avant Le porte-parole libéral en matière de sécurité publique, Ujjal Dosanjh, a d'ailleurs évoqué l'exemple britannique pour critiquer le gouvernement, mais a rapidement affirmé que son parti allait assurer l'adoption du projet de loi. «Je pense que ça répond aux demandes de la Cour suprême et c'est satisfaisant», a dit M. Dosanjh. Le NPD était plus critique hier. Son porte-parole, Joe Comartin, a soutenu que ce n'était «vraiment pas assez» pour se conformer à la Cour suprême. «Le gouvernement a encore le contrôle sur ce qui est divulgué et empêche toujours l'accusé de prendre des actions pour se défendre. Il y a encore trop de limites», dit-il. Le NPD, tout comme le Bloc québécois, espère pouvoir modifier certaines choses en comité parlementaire avant la version définitive du projet de loi. Serge Ménard estime que le projet de loi est «incomplet» et «imparfait». Dans un communiqué, la Coalition justice pour Adil Charkaoui s'est dite déçue de la décision des conservateurs de ne pas faire disparaître les certificats de sécurité. «En vertu des lois sur l'immigration, le gouvernement est obligé de faire un choix entre deux alternatives inacceptables: la détention pendant un temps indéterminé ou la déportation vers la torture», a affirmé Mary Foster, porte-parole de la Coalition. =================== De Grandpré, Hugo La Presse Ottawa modifie le régime du certificat de sécurité Tuesday 23 October 2007 Le gouvernement conservateur a répondu à un jugement de la Cour suprême, hier, en ajoutant la notion d'"avocat spécial" pour défendre les intérêts d'un accusé faisant l'objet d'un certificat de sécurité. Mais, comme c'est présentement le cas, l'accusé n'aura pas le droit de voir la preuve que le Canada détient contre lui. A partir du 24 février, cependant, cet avocat spécial, nommé par le ministre de la Justice, pourra en prendre connaissance et en contester le bien-fondé. En février dernier, dans une décision unanime, la Cour suprême avait déclaré que la situation actuelle violait des droits fondamentaux d'une personne faisant l'objet d'un certificat de sécurité. Ces certificats permettent aux autorités canadiennes d'accuser, de détenir et d'éventuellement expulser des non-citoyens que l'on soupçonne de représenter une menace pour la sécurité nationale - sans jamais leur divulguer l'ensemble de la preuve retenue contre eux. "Pour respecter la Charte, il faut soit communiquer les renseignements nécessaires à la personne visée, soit trouver une autre façon de l'informer pour l'essentiel", a écrit la juge en chef Beverley McLachlin au nom de ses collègues. Elle a toutefois laissé au gouvernement le soin d'en déterminer le moyen. Dans son projet de loi C-3, déposé hier après-midi à la Chambre des communes, le gouvernement Harper a choisi la seconde voie. Il s'est ainsi inspiré du système mis en oeuvre dans certains pays, comme la Grande-Bretagne, où il est à l'essai, bien que fortement contesté. A cela s'ajoute la possibilité pour un accusé de demander une révision des motifs de sa détention et du caractère raisonnable du certificat à intervalles plus rapprochés. "La Cour suprême a donné l'appui pour le principe du processus des certificats de sécurité. Mais elle a demandé deux changements", a souligné le ministre de la Sécurité publique, Stockwell Day. Le premier, "c'est que nous aurons en place un avocat spécial pour défendre et protéger les intérêts des gens qui sont accusés, a-t-il poursuivi. Le deuxième, c'est qu'il y aura un processus d'appel tous les six mois pour les gens qui sont accusés." Ces changements devront suivre le processus législatif normal et être adoptés par la Chambre des communes et le Sénat, a fait remarquer le ministre Day. Le projet de loi mentionne également que les anciennes règles resteront en vigueur jusqu'au 23 février prochain. Par ailleurs, il ne fera pas l'objet d'un vote de confiance. Certaines réserves Cinq personnes font présentement l'objet d'un certificat de sécurité au Canada. Une seule est toujours détenue, Hassan Almrei, dans une prison de Kingston, en Ontario. La contestation à la Cour suprême a été menée par M. Almrei, en compagnie du Montréalais Adil Charkaoui et de Mohamed Harkat. Ces deux derniers sont en liberté surveillée. Hier, la Coalition Justice pour Adil Charkaoui a critiqué la décision du gouvernement dans un communiqué de presse. "Dans le cadre des nouveaux certificats de sécurité, est-ce que des non-citoyens bénéficieront de procès justes et équitables, comportant les même garanties que celles accordées au reste de la population? Et si ce n'est pas le cas, comment est-ce que le gouvernement justifie cette discrimination?" a demandé Mary Foster, porte-parole du groupe. Wade Deisman, professeur de criminologie à l'Université d' Ottawa, a lui aussi émis certaines réserves. "Qui seront les avocats spéciaux? Et seront-ils assez fiables pour examiner et contester la preuve de manière suffisamment rigoureuse?" a-t-il demandé. Les libéraux, qui ont parrainé la première loi adoptée, se sont dits plutôt satisfaits des changements annoncés, à quelques modifications près. Les néo-démocrates, qui sont contre la notion même de certificats de sécurité, ont appelé à l'abandon du système, pour s'en remettre exclusivement au Code criminel. ============================= The Globe And Mail BILL CURRY Ottawa unveils terror trial `advocates' Tuesday 23 October 2007 The Conservative government yesterday introduced new immigration security certificate legislation creating ``special advocates'' for terror suspects that would allow Ottawa to continue detaining them. The Supreme Court earlier this year struck down the 30-year-old certificate law for denying terror suspects access to the case against them. The special advocates would be lawyers who could challenge government evidence in the closed-door hearings, according to the legislation introduced yesterday by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. Under strict conditions, a Federal Court judge could share some of the secret evidence with the accused. The proposed law would also provide a new avenue for individuals to appeal deportation orders. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has long fought to keep its intelligence secret from its targets in court processes for fear of compromising its investigations. Mr. Day rejected any concern that foreign intelligence agencies may be less likely to share information with Canada now that some material could be shared with terror suspects. ``Many other jurisdictions have similar types of processes in place so we don't see a problem,'' Mr. Day said. The opposition Liberals were quick to back the proposed bill, ensuring it will have enough support to pass through the minority Parliament. The New Democratic Party criticized the legislation, saying it does not appear to provide a fair hearing to the accused. The introduction of security advocates mirrors the process currently in place in Britain, which a committee of British MPs described as ``critically flawed'' in a 2005 report. The special advocates themselves were the strongest critics, saying they were often unable to ask suspects about the evidence against them. Debate in Canada over the bill will likely focus on whether the advocates will be allowed greater interaction with the accused than their British counterparts. Critics of the security certificate process slammed the bill yesterday, saying it changes little and will likely be back before the Supreme Court before long. Matthew Behrens, co-ordinator of the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada, said the legislation would continue to leave the accused in the dark. He said it also allows evidence to be heard that would be considered inadmissible in a court case against a full Canadian citizen. ``It's fancy window dressing,'' said Mr. Behrens, ``but it doesn't in any way advance the interests of the person accused.'' In February, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the security certificate law, arguing it is unfair to the accused because they are denied access to the case against them. However, the court gave Ottawa one year to improve the law's provisions. There are currently five Muslim men who are subject to security certificates in Canada. Only one man, Hassan Almrei, remains in a Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, nicknamed by critics as ``Guantanamo North.'' Mohamed Harkat, Mohammad Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah have all been released from prison but are under strict house arrest provisions, as is Adil Charkaoui, who successfully challenged the previous law as unconstitutional. At a news conference yesterday, Mr. Charkaoui was critical of the new legislation, saying he won't get a fair trial. ``How can we tolerate two systems of justice? One for citizens and one for others,'' he said. The immigration security certificate procedure allows suspected terrorists - as well as refugees and landed immigrants accused of human-rights violations or serious criminality - to be detained and deported from Canada. However, many deportations have been delayed over claims that the lives of the individuals would be endangered should they be returned to their country of origin. Meanwhile, the government survived a key test yesterday as a Liberal amendment critical of the Throne Speech was defeated by the three other parties by a vote of 203 to 89. Had it passed, the vote could have triggered a federal election. Tomorrow, MPs vote on the Throne Speech as a whole, another confidence vote the Conservatives are expected to survive. ============= Richard Foot and Juliet O'Neill, with files from Norma Greenaway, The Ottawa Citizen and Irwin Block, The Montreal Gazette The Ottawa Citizen Tories revise anti-terrorism law; Revamped security certificate regime includes 'special advocates' Tuesday 23 October 2007 The Ottawa Citizen Eight months after the Supreme Court declared one of Canada's main anti-terrorism laws unconstitutional, the Conservative government has reintroduced the provisions with changes it says would protect the rights of accused terrorists. Legislation unveiled yesterday would preserve the controversial security certificate regime, but create room for "special advocates" -- lawyers, acting on behalf of the accused, with access to the secret information the government uses to detain and deport suspects. Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day hailed security certificates as "an important tool to protect Canadians from terrorist threats," but acknowledged that "the process should protect rights and freedoms in Canada." Liberal justice critic Ujjal Dosanjh said his party would support the legislation, Bill C-3, in Parliament, thereby avoiding another challenge to the minority government and risking a federal election. Mr. Dosanjh also said the Liberals would approach the government's planned reintroduction of preventive arrests and investigative hearings, two other anti-terrorism measures his party rejected earlier this year, "with no preconceived notions or bias." The government's failed attempt to extend the measures for three years divided the Liberals and sparked weeks of debate in the Commons. Preventive arrest allows an arrest without warrant and three days of detention in a terrorism case. Investigative hearings allow judges to compel people to testify in terrorism investigations. The two provisions expired under a sunset clause in March, and all three opposition parties defeated the government's bid to extend them. Critics said the move hobbled RCMP plans for investigative hearings related to the Air India disaster. Government House leader Peter Van Loan said Sunday that the government would reintroduce the two measures through the Senate, even though most legislation starts in the Commons. Yesterday, officials declined to explain the unusual tactic or to say when it might happen. For now, the government is moving ahead with changes to the security certificates regime. This refers to an extraordinary legal measure in the federal immigration system that allows the government to arrest, imprison and deport foreign nationals or permanent residents who are suspected of having links to organized crime, or who may pose a security risk to Canada. Introduced in the Immigration Act in 1988, the provision was strengthened after the 9/11 attacks to give authorities a fast and efficient way to remove terrorist suspects from Canada, without having to lay charges in the criminal justice system. Last year, the certificate regime was challenged in the Supreme Court by three Muslim men who were accused of terrorist links and awaited deportation. In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the court said the certificates violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in two ways. However, the court also acknowledged the necessity of such measures, noting that "one of the most fundamental responsibilities of a government is to ensure the security of its citizens." The court suspended its ruling for a year, specifically telling Parliament to fix the law and bring it in line with the Charter before February 2008. Bill C-3, as tabled yesterday, would give foreign nationals the same 48-hour detention limit as permanent residents, before a closed judicial review kicks in. More important, the legislation would also create the position of "special advocates," who would be appointed from a pre-approved list of security-cleared lawyers. These special advocates would have access to the government's evidence, but would not be allowed to disclose it to the accused. Special advocates would also be able to argue before federal judges that certain evidence should not be kept secret, and they could cross-examine government witnesses. NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said his party would not support the bill. "Right now, it does not appear to meet the basic requirements we would want," he said. "I think they're simply responding with the absolute least amount that they feel they can get away with to fulfil the Supreme Court of Canada decision." It's not clear how the legislation would affect the five men currently under security certificate orders in Canada. A Montreal-based coalition of activists for one of the men, Adil Charkaoui, said it is dismayed that the government is pushing forward with the regime, calling it unfair to non-Canadians. "Under the new security certificate, will non-citizens be given a fair and open (hearing), with the same procedural guarantees as everyone else in this country? If not, how does the government justify that discrimination?" Mary Foster asked. As the Conservatives tabled the revamped security certificate legislation in Ottawa yesterday, a Brampton judge denied bail to one of the 14 men accused in connection with Canada's largest terrorist sweep. Steven Chand, 26, appeared visibly upset after Justice Fletcher Dawson denied him bail. Police allege the 14 men, mostly in their 20s, were conspiring to storm Parliament Hill and take politicians hostage as well as use bombs made of fertilizer to blow up offices of CSIS and the RCMP. Police also allege that the group was plotting to behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Mr. Chand is the first of the group to have a second bail hearing after the Crown filed a direct indictment on Sept. 24 to move the matter directly to trial. The tactic put an end to nearly four months of preliminary hearings, which defence lawyers had hoped to use to test the strength of the Crown's case against their clients. The accused were rearrested, recharged and are in the process of receiving new bail hearings before going to trial. And in Montreal, the deportation of an outspoken imam originally granted refugee status was to go ahead yesterday, despite appeals from Amnesty International and Muslim supporters, who feared his treatment in Tunisia. For security reasons, the Canada Border Services Agency refused to reveal any details of the scheduled departure of Said Jaziri, 36. The agency will only disclose details once he has arrived in the capital, Tunis, said spokesman Eric Paradis. Imam Jaziri lost his refugee status because he had concealed the fact he was convicted and served jail time in France in connection with an assault on an individual whose actions had led to the closing of a prayer room. ==================== The Globe And Mail BILL CURRY Ottawa unveils terror trial `advocates' Tuesday 23 October 2007 The Conservative government yesterday introduced new immigration security certificate legislation creating ``special advocates'' for terror suspects that would allow Ottawa to continue detaining them. The Supreme Court earlier this year struck down the 30-year-old certificate law for denying terror suspects access to the case against them. The special advocates would be lawyers who could challenge government evidence in the closed-door hearings, according to the legislation introduced yesterday by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. Under strict conditions, a Federal Court judge could share some of the secret evidence with the accused. The proposed law would also provide a new avenue for individuals to appeal deportation orders. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has long fought to keep its intelligence secret from its targets in court processes for fear of compromising its investigations. Mr. Day rejected any concern that foreign intelligence agencies may be less likely to share information with Canada now that some material could be shared with terror suspects. ``Many other jurisdictions have similar types of processes in place so we don't see a problem,'' Mr. Day said. The opposition Liberals were quick back the proposed bill, ensuring it will have enough support to pass through the minority Parliament. The New Democratic Party criticized the legislation, saying it does not appear to provide a fair hearing to the accused. The introduction of security advocates mirrors the process currently in place in Britain, which a committee of British MPs described as ``critically flawed'' in a 2005 report. The special advocates themselves were the strongest critics, saying they were often unable to ask suspects about the evidence against them. Debate in Canada over the bill will likely focus on whether the advocates will be allowed greater interaction with the accused than their British counterparts. Critics of the security certificate process slammed the bill yesterday, saying it changes little and will likely be back before the Supreme Court before long. Matthew Behrens, co-ordinator of the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada, said the legislation would continue to leave the accused in the dark. He said it also allows evidence to be heard that would be considered inadmissible in a court case against a full Canadian citizen. ``It's fancy window dressing,'' said Mr. Behrens, ``but it doesn't in any way advance the interests of the person accused.'' In February, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the security certificate law, arguing it is unfair to the accused because they are denied access to the case against them. However, the court gave Ottawa one year to improve the law's provisions. There are currently five Muslim men who are subject to security certificates in Canada. Only one man, Hassan Almrei, remains in a Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, nicknamed by critics as ``Guantanamo North.'' Mohamed Harkat, Mohammad Mahjoub and Mahmoud Jaballah have all been released from prison but are under strict house arrest provisions, as is Adil Charkaoui, who successfully challenged the previous law as unconstitutional. The immigration security certificate procedure allows suspected terrorists - as well as refugees and landed immigrants accused of human-rights violations or serious criminality - to be detained and deported from Canada. However, many deportations have been delayed over claims that the lives of the individuals would be endangered should they be returned to their country of origin. Though debate over security certificates has generated much attention in recent years, they have actually been in place for almost 30 years. More than two dozen foreign nationals were deported under the process prior to 2001. Meanwhile, the government survived a key test yesterday as a Liberal amendment critical of the Throne Speech was defeated by the three other parties by a vote of 203 to 89. Had it passed, the vote could have triggered a federal election. Tomorrow, MPs vote on the Throne Speech as a whole, another confidence vote the Conservatives are expected to survive. ================= Canadian Council for Refugees and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group Media Release For Immediate Release 23 October 2007 Rights organizations oppose Bill C-3 on unfair security certificates The Canadian Council for Refugees (CCR) and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) called today on Parliament to reject Bill C-3, which provides for continued use of security certificates, relying on secret evidence. This bill is the government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada's Charkaoui decision, which ruled that, because of the use of secret evidence, those subject to security certificates are denied a fair hearing. The bill proposes to maintain the use of secret evidence, but introduces a "special advocate" who would be able to hear the secret evidence. "Special advocates are not the solution," said Elizabeth McWeeny, CCR President. "Even with a special advocate, the hearing will not be fair, as the Supreme Court made clear, because the person will not know and have the opportunity to respond to the case against them. This is not good enough, especially since we know from the Arar Commission that security agencies can make mistakes." "The introduction of a special advocate model in response to the Charkaoui ruling would dangerously erode the right to due process at the core of the Canadian justice system," said Roch Tassé, coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. "We need to be clear that such a model has no place in Canada - not for security certificates, nor for other procedures." Contrary to statements made by some, it is not clear that a special advocate system would withstand legal challenge. University of Toronto Law Professor Audrey Macklin explained: "The Supreme Court of Canada did not declare that the introduction of the UK Special Advocate model would render the security certificate regime constitutional. Rather, it surveyed a number of alternatives, including the Special Advocate model, in order to demonstrate that less draconian options existed, without endorsing any one of them as constitutionally adequate." Maintaining the security certificate procedure is not necessary to protect security: criminal investigations and prosecution should be used rather than immigration processes. "Criminal prosecution is a much better approach, because it allows more effective protection not only of individual rights, but also of security," said McWeeny. Canada has been criticized by United Nations human rights bodies for using immigration processes rather than criminal prosecutions in security cases, as well as for the use of secret evidence. A CCR submission on the choices before Parliament in responding to the Charkaoui decision is available at [link] . The key points can be found below. Contacts: Janet Dench, CCR Executive Director, tel. (514) 277-7223 (office), tel. 514-835-2046 (cell) Roch Tassé, ICLMG Coordinator, tel. (613) 241-5298 Audrey Macklin, Professor, University of Toronto, tel. (416) 946-7493 =============== Security certificates: Next steps Key points Introduction Following the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on security certificates (Charkaoui), Parliament must decide how to respond to the Court's ruling that the non-disclosure of information (or "secret evidence") violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada should pursue a strategy of criminal prosecutions, rather than using immigration procedures, such as the security certificate. · Immigration procedures do not guarantee those affected the same procedural protections as the criminal justice system. · Immigration procedures are discriminatory because they can only be used against non-citizens. · Immigration procedures are not an effective way of combating security threats, because they inhibit the normal work of police investigation, which would lead to prosecution, and because those removed may go on to commit acts of violence elsewhere. Canada has international obligations to prosecute acts of terrorism. · Immigration procedures can lead to long-term indefinite detention and to removal to torture. · Immigration procedures have resulted in protracted legal challenges · Security certificates have proven extremely costly. Canada should reject the use of secret evidence. Special advocates are not a solution: hearings using secret evidence would still be unfair. · The use of secret evidence denies individuals the right to know and meet the case against them. · The use of secret evidence undermines public confidence in the justice system. Canadians cannot see that justice is being done. · A special advocate will not make the hearing fair, only slightly less unfair. The introduction of special advocates is likely to lead to further litigation and fierce criticism, as has occurred in the UK where they are used. · The findings of the Arar Commission demonstrate that mistakes can and have been made by Canadian security agencies. Evidence needs to be rigorously tested, especially in security cases, where information is often based on vague assessments, and potentially unreliable informers and foreign intelligence sources. · Given widespread prejudices and misinformation about Arabs and Muslims, there must be open and transparent testing of the evidence to avoid the danger of racial and religious stereotyping, and the danger of the perception that this is occurring. Canada should adopt unambiguous legal prohibitions against the use of evidence that may reasonably be suspected of having been obtained under torture. Canada should implement as soon as possible the recommendations of the Arar Commission for effective oversight of security agencies, including for immigration-related activities. The full text of the CCR's submission is available at [link]