Canada Faces Protests Against Anti-terrorism Legislation and Detention Methods

By:  Lindsey Brady
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada - Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Canada's Green Party are calling on Parliament to amend specific provisions of Bill C-3, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  The central issue these organizations have with the new bill is that the amendments would violate the due process of many, which is insured by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law .  The program appears to function much like the UK's version of a certificate and special advocate system.  Under this system a special advocate is supposed to be to "protect the interests of a person named in a security certificate" who is detained and possibly removed from Canada. (HRW)  In a letter to Parliament, HRW's Terrorism and Counter-terrorism Program Director, Joanne Manner narrowed the complaints to four areas of violations.  HRW is asking that these four areas be deleted from the bill or that the bill not pass at all.

HRW and the Green Party recognize provisions in the bill will; use secret evidence against those subject to a security certificate that is not available to the person being removed or his legal counsel; lack narrowly drawn disclosure obligations for the Canadian government, rights for special advocates to disclose the confidential evidence they have access to; not expressly prohibit the use of any evidence obtained through torture; will allow for the possibility of indefinite detentions without charges being brought or trial for the person facing removal.  Under Bill C-3, according HRW, the special advocates are cleared to access confidential evidence and can cross-examine witnesses but they are not a party to the proceedings and the relationship between the SA and the suspected person is not a legal relationship.  The SA is not allowed to speak to the suspected person once they view the confidential evidence so many times the charges against the person subjected to possible removal are not disclosed to him.  The United Kingdom used a similar model and many of the SAs resigned because they viewed the system as unfair for many of the reasons the Canadian government system is objected to.  According to HRW, Ian MacDonald QC was quoted as saying "his role was untenable because it was 'to provide a fig leaf of respectability and false legitimacy to indefinite detention without knowledge of the accusations being made and without any kind of criminal charge or trial.'"

These new provisions, also seem to contradict the February 2007, Canadian Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act's warning that special advocate systems should allow for the SA to consult with the person subject to removal after reviewing the evidence.  The newly proposed C-3 Bill fails to allow this and so the affected person is not aware of the accusations against them.  Leaders of the Green Party have been outspoken in saying that the Conservatives in Parliament are not living up to the suggestions of this Special Senate Committee and previous commitments to maintaining the human rights of those detained.  Green Party Justice critic, Jared Giesbrecht, was quoted on the Green Party homepage as saying "Prime Minister Harper, had an opportunity to demonstrate Canada's commitment to international human rights through our counter-terrorism and security laws, instead he chose to sacrifice human rights in the name of security and is actually opening the door for greater injustice and insecurities.  The Green Party believes detention should be a last resort and the provisions should allow for the affected to raise defenses to the accusations they face.

For more information, please see:

Human Rights Watch - Canada:  Parliament Should Amend Bill on Special Advocates - 19 November 2007

Green Party (Canada) - Green Party Blasts Conservative Immigration Bill - 23 November 2007

Public Safety Canada - Frequently Asked Questions - Security Certificates - 2007