Research Program

National Security and Human Rights

APPENDIX A
CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

This table is drawn from the body of my report and lists the specific recommendations for future research endeavours to be supported by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Reference is made to the section of the report from which these recommendations are drawn. Items are listed in order of their appearance in the report.

3. The CHRC should keep a watching brief on the Parliamentary Review of the Anti-Terrorism Act and should be ready to provide an assessment of the Parliamentary committees’ reports as soon as these are issued (by December 2006, unless an extension is granted by Parliament) [Section 2]

4. The CHRC should study the immigration security certificate process under three main headings: a) detention and bail conditions; b) the accused individual’s access to evidence against him; and c) safeguards in the conduct of removal orders. This study should seek to determine the extent to which human rights concerns have been properly recognized in the use of security certificates. [Section 3]

5. Knowledge of the functioning of the security and intelligence community is critical to understanding the landscape of both security policy and human rights protections. To this end, the CHRC should consider monitoring legislative changes in the mandate of national security agencies. [Section 4]

6. The CHRC should build a database of human rights concerns from the reports issued to date by review agencies responsible for security and intelligence. The purpose of this study would be to assess the extent to which such review agencies have paid systematic attention to human rights issues and in their reporting have revealed any cumulative trends of concern. The material to be studied would include available public domain reports from the CSIS IG, SIRC, the CSE Commissioner, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, and the Auditor General. This database could be an important element of the CHRC "human rights report card." [Section 5]

7. The CHRC should commission an evaluation, for internal use and guidance, of the Arar Commission (O’Connor) report upon its release. The evaluation should focus on such key issues as intelligence sharing, Canadian federal agency knowledge of the human rights environment at home and abroad, and the recommendations of the Arar Commission as to a review mechanism for the national security activities of the RCMP. [Section 6]

8. The CHRC should commission a study of the human rights dimensions of the Arar Commission (O’Connor) report, which could provide vital foundational material for its annual "human rights report card." [Section 7]

9. The CHRC should consider covering the issue of national security and human rights protection in its planned human rights report card. A possible indicator would be the number of national security cases involving Canadian citizens, residents and immigrants and refugees. [Section 8]

APPENDIX B
PROPOSAL FOR AN EXPERT ADVISORY COUNCIL TO ASSIST THE WORK OF THE CHRC

This report demonstrates the wide range of topics pertinent to national security and human rights in Canada that need further study. The report also suggests that the current conditions for the study of national security and rights issues in Canada are not satisfactory. While valuable attention is paid to such issues by many different public and private sector agencies, the overall effort can be categorized as highly specialized, autonomous, and unsystematic.

On the assumption that future developments in the field of national security policy in Canada will continue to have a major impact on human rights concerns, there is a powerful incentive for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to provide leadership in supporting cutting-edge research by Canadians on Canadian issues. Such research should be informed by the highest standards of scholarship, but it should also be aimed at providing the best possible body of information for the general public.

Given the diverse array of topics needing study and the onus on exceptional-quality work, this report recommends that the CHRC establish an advisory group to assist it in establishing a plan for research.

The advisory group should be kept small to ensure functionality, and its membership should serve for fixed terms, probably two years, with the possibility of renewal. It would be important to continually refresh the membership of the group in order to ensure the best possible advice to the Commission.

Determination of the broad principles of membership in such an advisory group would be crucial. The key considerations regarding the makeup of an advisory group would include the following:

1. Demonstrable expert credentials on the part of all members.
2. Interest in public policy and in the dissemination of public knowledge.
3. Interdisciplinarity. The group should consist of a representative array of experts including social scientists, legal scholars, and public policy experts. To be useful, it might consist of individuals with operational experience, including lawyers, former government officials, retired policy makers, and former politicians.
4. Multicultural makeup. Given the perceived impact of national security on the rights of "victimized" communities in Canada, it would be important to have expert representation from such communities included in the advisory group.
5. Gender. National security policy may impact on rights in ways that are gender-specific. It would be important for the work of any advisory group to have representation from knowledgeable people capable of reflecting on the gender dimensions of security and rights.

There are many different mechanisms possible for selecting the members of an advisory group. For the sake of simplicity, the best approach might be to place selection responsibility in the hands of the Commissioner.

The mandate of an advisory group would be as important to its success as its membership. The mandate should include: maintaining a priority list of topics for research; working with the Commissioner and research staff of the CHRC to establish research proposal designs; providing advice on a database of research expertise in Canada to be maintained by the CHRC; assisting in the selection process for research contracts; providing input where required with regard to ongoing research projects and final reports. Such a mandate would allow the staff of the CHRC to supplement its in-house resources and help ensure quality control in the CHRC’s research program.

If the CHRC is going to embrace a research program on national security and human rights in order to inform its work and pursue its mandate, then it will be important for the Commission’s staff to be able to identify not only those with appropriate credentials to serve on an advisory group but also the roster of expert researchers in Canada suitable for specified projects. The research staff of the CHRC can be usefully assisted in this task by the advisory group, if established. It would be valuable to maintain list of experts and to supplement it with a bibliography of published works relating to national security and human rights in Canada. This bibliography should be posted and kept updated on the CHRC website.

APPENDIX C
LIST OF ACADEMIC EXPERTS

Any list of academic experts in Canada on national security and human rights would need to be shaped by the particular questions under study at any given time. But the Canadian academic community with expertise in the field is relatively small. The following list is based on the author’s reading and exposure over a period of years. It is organized alphabetically by name, with university affiliation given, and with a brief indication of known research interests.

David Bercuson, University of Calgary, Centre for Strategic and Military Studies, Canadian military, national security

Jean-Paul Brodeur, Université de Montréal, Canadian security, Quebec policing, terrorism

Jutta Brunee, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, international law, conflict

Michael Byers, University of British Columbia, international law, Arctic security, Canadian foreign policy

Gavin Cameron, University of Calgary, nuclear terrorism, transportation security

David Charters, University of New Brunswick, terrorism and counter-terrorism, low intensity conflict

François Crépeau, Université de Montréal, international migration law

David de Witt, York University, international security, Asia-Pacific, Canadian defence

John English, University of Waterloo, Canadian national security policy, Parliament, Canadian foreign policy

Stuart Farson, Simon Fraser University, Canadian intelligence, policing, role of Parliament, security in urban environments

David Haglund, Queen’s University, defence policy, Canada-US relations; Canada-EU relations

Thomas Homer-Dixon, Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto, energy security, natural resources scarcity, terrorism

Brian Job, University of British Columbia, Asia-Pacific security, Canadian policy

Edna Keeble, St. Mary’s University, Halifax, national security policy, immigration, minority rights

Arne Kislenko, Ryerson University, Toronto, national security and immigration policy, border security

Andy Knight, University of Alberta, United Nations, international organizations

Audrey Macklin, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, border security, immigration and refugees

Louis Pauly, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, North American economic policy, Canada-US economic relations

Wesley Pue, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, anti-terrorism legislation

Kent Roach, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Canadian national security law

Stéphane Roussel, Université du Québec à Montréal, border security, North American security relationships

Martin Rudner, Carleton University, Canadian intelligence, critical infrastructure protection

Joel Sokolsky, Royal Military College, defence policy, North American security

Denis Stairs, Dalhousie University (retired), national security policy, foreign affairs

Janice Stein, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, foreign policy, Middle East

Peter Stoett, Concordia University, bio-terrorism

Wesley Wark, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, intelligence, national security policy, terrorism and counter-terrorism

Reg Whitaker, University of Victoria, Canadian intelligence, national security, immigration, air transport security