Original author: unsigned editorial
Source: The Montreal Gazette
URL: [link] (subscribers only)
Date: August 27, 2005


In the highly charged atmosphere after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, countries cast around desperately for mechanisms that would allow them to contain the previously little-noticed threat of large-scale terrorism.

It's safe to say that none of the resurrected or newly created mechanisms has proven over the past four years to be proof against legal challenge. In Canada, the Supreme Court this week agreed to hear a challenge mounted by Montreal resident Adil Charkaoui against the national security-certificate law.

This law, which actually dates back to 1991, allows Canada to declare non-citizens a danger to national security. Such a person can then be jailed for an indefinite period while the government seeks to have him or her deported. A critical safeguard is included in the legislation: A judge must rule that there are reasonable grounds for thinking the person poses a risk to national security.

The government can ask that portions of evidence be kept secret, on the grounds that doing so protects either individuals or national security. It is the judge who is empowered to rule on whether secrecy is indeed required for the purposes the government says it is needed. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, in practice the law appears to have been used to keep people under indefinite detention. There seems to have been no sense of urgency on the government's part to prove that a detention is justified on security grounds.

For example, Charkaoui, a Moroccan-born permanent resident of Canada, was held by immigration officials for 21 months on the allegation that he was an agent of Al-Qa'ida. Another suspected Al-Qa'ida member, Hassan Almrei, has been imprisoned for 31/2 years. That is long enough for Canada's security apparatus to find out if he poses a threat. Canadians need to be able to rely on security officers to do their job. And they must do it in a timely fashion.

After a number of legal appeals, Charkaoui was freed under strict bail conditions in February. In his Supreme Court appeal, he argues that the security-certificate system violates his right to a fair hearing under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The appeal will deal with the issue of whether secret procedures are constitutionally acceptable.It will be a closely watched case. Canada needs to be able to detain people who appear to be imminent security threats. Bombing attacks in London show that such threats are not a figment of anyone's imagination.

At the same time, it is unconscionable to hold someone in such detention for years on end. Security certificates need to come with deadlines, perhaps six months with a three-month extension. Such a time frame can accommodate both the legitimate national need for self-defence and respect for individual rights - a very Canadian solution.

Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.