News from ICLMG

Bill C-41: Changes to anti-terror laws a step forward on humanitarian aid, but leave other forms of vital international assistance behind

On June 21, 2023, the federal government’s legislative solution to allow Canadian organizations to carry out their vital international assistance work in Afghanistan and other regions under de facto control of an entity deemed by the government to be a terrorist group, Bill C-41, received royal assent.

The version of the bill which passed into law was significantly different from the one introduced in March 2023 in the House of Commons. This includes key improvements based on recommendations from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) and other civil society organizations. Despite these changes, the ICLMG still maintains deep concerns about aspects of the bill that undermine the provision of important forms of international assistance.

The most significant improvement was an amendment to create, for the first time, an exemption in Canada’s laws on countering terrorist financing for the provision of humanitarian assistance. This change came thanks to concerted pressure from civil society groups, and gives greater certainty to humanitarian organizations in carrying out their work; however, the government must still provide clarification on how this exemption will play out in practice.

At the same time, this exemption does not apply to many Canadian international assistance organizations that carry out vital activities, but which are not exclusively humanitarian in nature, including in regards to provision of health services, defense of human rights, efforts towards peacebuilding and support towards earning a livelihood. These organizations are now required to proceed through an unclear, burdensome and invasive authorization process. 

Among other concerns, this new regime places the onus on these groups to prove they do not violate vaguely defined security assessment rules. These rules allow the Minister of Public Safety to deny an authorization based solely on whether any individual involved in a project, including international partners, has undefined “links” to terrorism or has ever been simply investigated on terrorism grounds.

The ICLMG has documented time and again how such vague rules result in harmful impacts, including: “guilt by association” based only on unsupported allegations; political interference or ministerial discretion based on political expediency; and the promulgation of both systemic and individual bias and racism.

For example, Canadian Muslim charities are disproportionately and unjustifiably investigated for links to terrorist financing, despite the lack of credible evidence and based largely on systemic Islamophobia. Any of the many people who have carried out valuable, selfless work with these charities who may wish to apply for an authorization could now face disqualification simply because of these baseless racial and religiously-motivated investigations.

There is nothing limiting the examination of “links” or “investigations” to within Canada either, meaning that designations or investigations by foreign governments and agencies, including those who more readily deem human rights defenders or political opponents as “terrorists,” could be considered in these assessments. Examples of this abound, including Israel’s designation of six well-respected Palestinian civil society organizations as “terrorist organizations” without any evidence, or the Indian and Egyptian governments’ jailing of human rights activists as “terrorists.”

Other concerns include: 

  • Minimal restrictions around the use of information shared between the Minister of Public Safety and nine other Canadian agencies involved in national security, including CSIS, the RCMP, the CRA and the CSE. The government can also add any other organization to the list of approved entities, including foreign security and intelligence agencies;
  • Overly-broad secrecy rules for any judicial review of a rejected application, denying applicants access to the information being used to deny their application.

The ICLMG is grateful to opposition critics who raised these concerns at committee, but disappointed that they were not corrected before the bill’s adoption. The coalition will continue its work to address these problems, and calls on the government to take action to address them through regulation. The ICLMG will also be closely monitoring the implementation of the regime in order to bring concerns to the mandated one-year review of Bill C-41.

Finally, the ICLMG reiterates its concern that an exemption regime does not address the central problem at the heart of this issue: that Canada’s overly-broad counter-terrorism laws allowed for this situation to occur in the first place. The ICLMG, among others, has long raised concerns that the inherent vagueness and political nature of the word “terrorism” will continue to have unintended consequences, including on Canada’s international human rights and humanitarian obligations, evidenced by the current restrictions on the provision of aid. While an exemption regime may provide a route forward, it avoids how counter-terrorism laws create areas and entities that are considered ‘no-go,’ and continue to primarily and unjustly impact majority-Muslim countries and regions. We renew our call for the government to fundamentally revisit its approach on counter-terrorism laws and their enforcement.

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, founded in 2002, is a non-partisan coalition of 44 Canadian civil society organizations from a broad range of sectors that works to defend civil liberties in the context of national security and the so-called “War on Terror.”

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work.panel-54141172-image-6fa93d06d6081076-320-320You can also make a one-time donation or donate monthly via Paypal by clicking on the button below. On the fence about giving? Check out our Achievements and Gains since we were created in 2002. Thank you for your generosity!
make-a-donation-button

Civil Society statement on Bill C-20

June 13, 2023

While Bill C-20 is a crucial measure to ensure greater accountability of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the undersigned organizations are deeply troubled by the federal government’s lack of consultation or engagement with key civil society stakeholders in the development of this important piece of legislation both before this bill was tabled, and as it has moved through the legislature.

Bill C-20: An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments is an overdue bill that attempts to respond to the longstanding call to create a dedicated independent review and complaints process for the activities of the CBSA and make changes to the RCMP review process – amalgamating both under a Public Complaints and Review Commission (PCRC).

The signatories of this statement are established and well-regarded groups. They are led by and represent individuals and communities most impacted by the CBSA and the RCMP, including Indigenous, Black and other racialized people. We have decades of expertise in the areas of immigration and refugee law, criminal law, human rights, international law, civil liberties, and national security, to name a few.

The collective expertise of our groups can help the federal government fulfill the mandate of this Bill, expressed by the Minister of Public Safety in November 2022, to strengthen independent accountability and combat systemic racism and discrimination. Despite its stated objective of fostering accountability, the government is instead dodging it by failing to properly consult the communities we represent and include them in the democratic process of lawmaking.

There are many shortcomings to the proposed Bill C-20. Aspects that should be addressed include:

  • the need to ensure the independence of the PCRC’s operations;
  • the PCRC’s independent access to information;
  • ensuring there is a mechanism for complaints on systemic issues;
  • third-party complaints; and
  • broadening the PCRC’s redress and recourse powers.

Attached to this statement is a summary of key recommendations from our briefs submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, indicating how Bill C-20 can be revised in order to meet its intended purpose and mandate.

Whether our briefs and the issues we raise are considered is outside of our hands. Though we are hopeful, it is clear from the sheer lack of engagement on this issue that the government risks creating the PCRC as a shell of accountability that replicates or even exacerbates existing problems with the CBSA and RCMP.

We urge the Standing Committee to consider the recommendations described in the various submissions our groups have made and to integrate the amendments we propose. We welcome the opportunity to speak to members of the Standing Committee and answer any questions.

Signed by:

Amnesty International Canada (english-speaking)
Amnistie internationale Canada (francophone)
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Canadian Council for Refugees
Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association
Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association
Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group

Key issues – Bill C-20

1. The Commission should be independent and adequately resourced

PRINCIPLE: The effectiveness of the Commission is undermined by the proposal for it to report to and be funded by the Minister responsible for both the RCMP and CBSA.

SUGGESTION: the Commission should be set up as an office of the Legislature, and its budget allocation should not be tied to any Ministry that directly or indirectly overseas the RCMP and/or CBSA.

2. Complainants should not be limited to impacted persons

PRINCIPLE: Ensure third parties can make complaints and representations in hearings, in light of the many barriers to making complaints faced by marginalized vulnerable people, especially people without status, including those who are being deported.

SUGGESTION: section 33(1) and 33(2) should be amended to specifically acknowledge the right of third parties to file a complaint: “Any individual or third party may …

SUGGESTION: remove section 38(1)(b) and 52(1)(b).

3. Complaints should not be limited to individual circumstances

PRINCIPLE: Provide for systemic and policy complaints, without affected named individuals, to address patterns of behavior or problematic policies and operations.

SUGGESTION: add section 33.1(1) and 33.1(2) to mirror the language of section 33(1) and 33(2) but specifically authorizing any individual or third party to file a systemic complaint.

SUGGESTION: remove reference to “trivial” in sections 38(1)(a) and 52(1)(a).

4. Lack of clarity on who is to assess the relevance and necessity of the information to be disclosed for an investigation, and lack of review mechanisms for disputes arising thereof.

PRINCIPLE: Ensure relevant information is recorded and stored, and can be independently accessed by the Commission, so that complaints can be meaningfully investigated.

SUGGESTION: provide a mechanism to adjudicate disputes of information that is “relevant and necessary.”

5. The Commission should investigate complaints instead of the RCMP and CBSA

PRINCIPLE: Given the systemic racism that has been acknowledged to plague both the RCMP and CBSA, leaving them to investigate themselves leads to an apprehension of bias by design and may exasperate existing problems.

SUGGESTION: the Commission should have sole/exclusive jurisdiction to investigate complaints.

6. In the alternative, the need to ensure effective investigation of complaints in a timely manner

PRINCIPLE: Oversight by the Commission must not be rendered meaningless by lengthy delays in the initial investigation of complaints by the CBSA and RCMP.

SUGGESTION: to have strict timelines for the CBSA/RCMP to acknowledge, investigate, and report on complaints.

7. The need for coordination, recourses during an investigation, and redress upon success

PRINCIPLE: Ensure coordination between the Commission and other complaints and review bodies, particularly in the handling of concerns related to national security, so that complaints are effectively resolved and are not rejected because of the mere existence of another oversight mechanism/procedure, especially where the other body declines to investigate.

PRINCIPLE: The Commission should be armed with necessary powers to address interim needs during an investigation and redress upon a successful complaint.

SUGGESTION: The Commission should be granted the following powers:

      • To make binding recommendations on interim orders such as a stay of deportation;
      • To make binding recommendations to initiate or impose disciplinary measures or to lay charges for noncompliance with its enabling statute.

8. Curtailing access to the Federal Court

PRINCIPLE: The work of any administrative body should be subject to Judicial Review to ensure compliance with its enabling statute.

SUGGESTION: section 65 be amended to permit judicial review of final reports of the Commission.

Open letter: Over 130 members of Canadian legal community call on Trudeau government to deny French extradition request in case of Hassan Diab

In a new Open Letter calling for an end to fifteen years of manifest injustice in the case of Canadian citizen Hassan Diab, over 130 members of the Canadian legal community – including law professors, retired judges, practicing and retired lawyers, and legal researchers from across the country – have called on Prime Minister Trudeau to deny the French government’s second request that Dr. Diab be extradited to France.

The letter reminds the Prime Minister of his comments in 2018, after Hassan Diab returned to Canada following his earlier extradition. Dr. Diab had been held in a maximum-security prison in Paris for more than three years, almost entirely in solitary confinement and he was never officially charged or brought to trial. He was released and returned to Canada after the French investigative judge found solid evidence that he was in fact in Lebanon when the crime he was extradited for was committed. Prime Minister Trudeau stated that what had happened to him “never should have happened” and that steps would be taken to “make sure that it never happens again.”

In April 2023, Dr Diab was declared guilty by a French tribunal after a short and unjust trial. There is great political pressure in France for someone, apparently anyone, to be convicted for this terrible crime; it appears a conviction was inevitable, despite the lack of an actual case. In the view of the undersigned, this cannot stand.

Read the full media release here. The full letter is below.

TAKE ACTION


June 8, 2023

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Dear Prime Minister:

As you know, for years many Canadians have been alarmed by the ongoing nightmarish ordeal of Dr. Hassan Diab, who was unjustly accused and has now been wrongfully convicted for a terrorist bombing that took place in Paris in 1980. In 2014, Dr. Diab was extradited to France on the basis of handwriting evidence that even the Ontario Superior Court Justice who committed him found to be “convoluted, very confusing, [and] with conclusions that are suspect.”

Dr. Diab was then subjected to solitary confinement for over three years—before being released following nearly three years of extensive investigation by two of France’s most experienced juges d’instruction (Jean-Marc Herbaut and Richard Foltzer) who concluded unequivocally that there existed no evidence to support sending Dr. Diab to trial (“Attendu qu’il n’existe dès lors pas de charges suffisantes contre Hassan Naim DIAB […] Ordonnons en conséquence la mise en liberté immédiate de Hassan Naim DIAB” (Jean-Marc HERBAUT et Richard FOLTZER: Ordonnance de non-lieu, p. 72 (le 12 janvier 2018)).

Five years have gone by and Dr. Diab’s situation has become even more shocking. Incredibly, in April of this year the French Special Assize Court (Cour d’assises spéciale) proceeded with a prosecution of Dr. Diab, in absentia, and he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. An arrest warrant was also issued (“CONDAMNE, à la majorité, Hassan DIAB à la peine de la réclusion criminelle à la perpétuité; DÉCERNE mandat d’arrêt à l’encontre de Hassan DIAB.” (Cour d’assises de Paris, Arrêt criminel, No 21/0073, du 21 avril 2023)). This was despite clear previous acknowledgment by French prosecutors and courts that the main evidence said to prove his guilt—a handwriting analysis—was methodologically flawed and amounted to worthless evidence. Yet this same evidence was admitted at the trial, along with unsourced “intelligence” the origin of which could not be traced by the prosecution.

Moreover, according to French media reports and personal communications from supporters of Dr. Diab who attended the trial, the court ignored all exonerating evidence, including evidence that he was in Lebanon when the bomber was in Paris for at least 12 consecutive days from Sept 22 to Oct. 3, 1980; and dismissed the findings of the juges d’instruction that there was no valid case for conviction. Journalists who were not witnesses to any of the relevant events were called to give their “expert” opinions of guilt at the trial. Incredibly, there is no written transcript or recording of the court proceedings.

To be clear, the only new evidence adduced at trial was evidence strongly showing innocence—forensic fingerprint evidence on both the hotel card and police statement of the bomber that excluded Dr Diab, and evidence that he was in Lebanon when the bomber was in Paris. Observers at the trial noted that the Presiding Judge was uninterested in the defence evidence.

The verdict was decided by a majority of the five judges, meaning that one or maybe two judges opposed the ‘guilty’ verdict. There is no jury system available in the French anti-terrorist court and, following an in absentia verdict, there is no right of appeal. [Code de procédure pénale, Article 698-6 (Modifié par LOI no. 2021-1729 du 22 décembre 2021, art.15(V)]

Unsurprisingly, and as noted, a conviction was entered, and an arrest warrant was issued. On April 27, 2023, Senator Marc Gold, the Representative of the Government in the Senate, stated publicly that France has requested Dr. Diab’s extradition. There is great political pressure in France for someone, apparently anyone, to be convicted for this terrible crime; it appears a conviction was inevitable, despite the lack of an actual case. In the view of the undersigned, this cannot stand.

Prime Minister, in its decision regarding Dr. Diab’s initial extradition (France v. Diab, 2014 ONCA 374), the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that extradition would be Charter-compliant for two important reasons: France was ready for trial, so Dr. Diab would not “languish in prison”; and there was no “real risk” that torture-derived evidence (via intelligence sources) would be used against him. Both of those have now come to pass. Dr. Diab did, indeed, languish in prison, before the case against him collapsed; and the intelligence evidence adduced at trial was admitted despite the prosecution’s acknowledgment that it was impossible to know its origin, raising the real concern, in fact the clear likelihood, that it was derived from torture.

We acknowledge that France is a longstanding treaty partner of Canada, but in this case, at nearly every turn, the French government’s actions have been in bad faith. The manifest unfairness of Dr. Diab’s trial raises the concern that France is in breach of its fair trial obligations under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada and France are both parties. It further raises the prospect that, were Canada to extradite Dr. Diab, it would similarly be in breach of the Covenant by extraditing an individual to face a manifestly unfair criminal justice process.

Prime Minister, when Dr. Diab returned from France in 2018, you said that what had happened to him “never should have happened,” and that efforts would be made to ensure it did not happen again. We respectfully ask your government to keep your promise. As Amnesty International stated in March 2023, “Justice does not…come by pursuing a man against whom both the Canadian and French justice systems have already found there to be a lack of credible evidence.”

Extradition is an important tool in combating transnational crime, but it should not and must not be used as an instrument of persecution and scapegoating. France’s request for Canada to extradite Dr. Diab must be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. Currie, K.C.
Professor of Law, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Alex Neve, O.C.
Barrister and Solicitor, Adjunct Professor of International Human Rights Law, Ottawa, Ontario

Continue reading