Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Canada)

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (French: Ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile) is the Minister of the Crown in the Canadian Cabinet who is responsible for overseeing the federal government's domestic security department, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. The position was nominally created in 2003 and incorporated the responsibilities associated with the Solicitor General including responsibility for the federal Canadian prison system (Correctional Service of Canada), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the National Parole Board, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, although the incumbent was formally sworn in as Solicitor General of Canada. The position also assumed responsibility for the Canada Border Services Agency which was formerly known as Canada Customs and was administered by the Minister of National Revenue prior to 2003. In 2005 the creation of the position was formalized and that of Solicitor General abolished.

The current public safety minister is Peter Van Loan, who is styled simply as Minister of Public Safety.

To the top

Public Safety Canada

Public Safety Canada, formerly known as Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC), legally incorporated as the federal Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is the department of the government of Canada with responsibility for protecting Canadians and helping to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

Legislation for the agency began in February 2001 and the department was created in December 2003 during a reorganization of the federal government, and it became legally established when the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act came into force on April 4, 2005. The agency Emergency Preparedness Canada was created under the auspices of the Defence department before the establishment of the department by the Emergency Preparedness Act of 1988.

The department was created to have a single entity with responsibility for ensuring public safety in Canada and is a direct result of lessons learned from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The department is in many ways similar to the U. S. Department of Homeland Security, though it does not cover the protection of maritime sovereignty.

Most of the department comprises organizations that were previously placed under the Department of Solicitor General of Canada, however the reorganization of several federal departments and ministries added the Canada Border Services Agency to the portfolio, after the two streams of the former Canada Customs and Revenue Agency were split in 2003. In addition, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) from the Department of National Defence was also brought into the Department.

The first Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness minister was Anne McLellan, who also served as Deputy Prime Minister. On October 30, 2008, Peter Van Loan was appointed Minister of Public Safety by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In addition to the department there are five agencies and three review bodies within the Public Safety portfolio headed by the Minister of Public Safety.

In addition, reporting to the Deputy Minister and Minister of Public Safety is the Inspector General of CSIS, one of two review bodies for the agency.

To the top

Emergency management

Emergency management (or disaster management) is the discipline of dealing with and avoiding risks. It is a discipline that involves preparing for disaster before it occurs, disaster response (e.g. emergency evacuation, quarantine, mass decontamination, etc.), as well as supporting, and rebuilding society after natural or human-made disasters have occurred. In general, any Emergency management is the continuous process by which all individuals, groups, and communities manage hazards in an effort to avoid or ameliorate the impact of disasters resulting from the hazards. Actions taken depend in part on perceptions of risk of those exposed. Effective emergency management relies on thorough integration of emergency plans at all levels of government and non-government involvement. Activities at each level (individual, group, community) affect the other levels. It is common to place the responsibility for governmental emergency management with the institutions for civil defense or within the conventional structure of the emergency services. In the private sector, emergency management is sometimes referred to as business continuity planning.

Emergency Management is one of a number of terms which, since the end of the Cold War, have largely replaced Civil defense, whose original focus was protecting civilians from military attack. Modern thinking focuses on a more general intent to protect the civilian population in times of peace as well as in times of war. Another current term, Civil Protection is widely used within the European Union and refers to government-approved systems and resources whose task is to protect the civilian population, primarily in the event of natural and human-made disasters. Within EU countries the term Crisis Management emphasises the political and security dimension rather than measures to satisfy the immediate needs of the civilian population. An academic trend is towards using the term disaster risk reduction, particularly for emergency management in a development management context. This focuses on the mitigation and preparedness aspects of the emergency cycle (see below).

The nature of emergency management depends on local economic and social conditions. Some disaster relief experts such as Fred Cuny have noted that in a sense the only real disasters are economic. Experts, such as Cuny, have long noted that the cycle of emergency management must include long-term work on infrastructure, public awareness, and even human justice issues. This is particularly important in developing nations. The process of emergency management involves four phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery.

Mitigation efforts attempt to prevent hazards from developing into disasters altogether, or to reduce the effects of disasters when they occur. The mitigation phase differs from the other phases because it focuses on long-term measures for reducing or eliminating risk. The implementation of mitigation strategies can be considered a part of the recovery process if applied after a disaster occurs. Mitigative measures can be structural or non-structural. Structural measures use technological solutions, like flood levees. Non-structural measures include legislation, land-use planning (e.g. the designation of nonessential land like parks to be used as flood zones), and insurance. Mitigation is the most cost-efficient method for reducing the impact of hazards, however it is not always suitable. Some structural mitigation measures may have adverse effects on the ecosystem.

A precursor activity to the mitigation is the identification of risks. Physical risk assessment refers to the process of identifying and evaluating hazards. The hazard-specific risk (Rh) combines both the probability and the level of impact of a specific hazard. The equation below gives that the hazard times the populations’ vulnerability to that hazard produce a risk. Catastrophe modeling The higher the risk, the more urgent that the hazard specific vulnerabilities are targeted by mitigation and preparedness efforts. However, if there is no vulnerability there will be no risk, e.g. an earthquake occurring in a desert where nobody lives.

Another aspect of preparedness is casualty prediction, the study of how many deaths or injuries to expect for a given kind of event. This gives planners an idea of what resources need to be in place to respond to a particular kind of event.

The response phase includes the mobilization of the necessary emergency services and first responders in the disaster area. This is likely to include a first wave of core emergency services, such as firefighters, police and ambulance crews. They may be supported by a number of secondary emergency services, such as specialist rescue teams.

A well rehearsed emergency plan developed as part of the preparedness phase enables efficient coordination of rescue Where required, search and rescue efforts commence at an early stage. Depending on injuries sustained by the victim, outside temperature, and victim access to air and water, the vast majority of those affected by a disaster will die within 72 hours after impact.

The aim of the recovery phase is to restore the affected area to its previous state. It differs from the response phase in its focus; recovery efforts are concerned with issues and decisions that must be made after immediate needs are addressed. Recovery efforts are primarily concerned with actions that involve rebuilding destroyed property, re-employment, and the repair of other essential infrastructure. An important aspect of effective recovery efforts is taking advantage of a ‘window of opportunity’ for the implementation of mitigative measures that might otherwise be unpopular. Citizens of the affected area are more likely to accept more mitigative changes when a recent disaster is in fresh memory.

In the United States, the National Response Plan dictates how the resources provided by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 will be used in recovery efforts. It is the Federal government that often provides the most technical and financial assistance for recovery efforts in the United States.

Personal mitigation is mainly about knowing and avoiding unnecessary risks. This includes an assessment of possible risks to personal/family health and to personal property.

One example of mitigation would be to avoid buying property that is exposed to hazards, e.g. in a flood plain, in areas of subsidence or landslides. Homeowners may not be aware of a property being exposed to a hazard until it strikes. However, specialists can be hired to conduct risk identification and assessment surveys. Purchase of insurance covering the most prominent identified risks is a common measure.

Personal structural mitigation in earthquake prone areas includes installation of an Earthquake Valve to instantly shut off the natural gas supply to a property, seismic retrofits of property and the securing of items inside a building to enhance household seismic safety. The latter may include the mounting of furniture, refrigerators, water heaters and breakables to the walls, and the addition of cabinet latches. In flood prone areas houses can be built on poles, as in much of southern Asia. In areas prone to prolonged electricity black-outs installation of a generator would be an example of an optimal structural mitigation measure. The construction of storm cellars and fallout shelters are further examples of personal mitigative actions.

Mitigation involves Structural and Non-structural measures taken to limit the impact of disasters.

Unlike mitigation activities, which are aimed at preventing a disaster from occurring, personal preparedness focuses on preparing equipment and procedures for use when a disaster occurs, i.e. planning. Preparedness measures can take many forms including the construction of shelters, installation of warning devices, creation of back-up life-line services (e.g. power, water, sewage), and rehearsing evacuation plans. Two simple measures can help prepare the individual for sitting out the event or evacuating, as necessary. For evacuation, a disaster supplies kit may be prepared and for sheltering purposes a stockpile of supplies may be created. The preparation of a survival kit such as a "72-hour kit", is often advocated by authorities. These kits may include food, medicine, flashlights, candles and money.

The response phase of an emergency may commence with search and rescue but in all cases the focus will quickly turn to fulfilling the basic humanitarian needs of the affected population. This assistance may be provided by national or international agencies and organisations. Effective coordination of disaster assistance is often crucial, particularly when many organisations respond and local emergency management agency (LEMA) capacity has been exceeded by the demand or diminished by the disaster itself.

On a personal level the response can take the shape either of a shelter in place or an evacuation. In a shelter-in-place scenario, a family would be prepared to fend for themselves in their home for many days without any form of outside support. In an evacuation, a family leaves the area by automobile or other mode of transportation, taking with them the maximum amount of supplies they can carry, possibly including a tent for shelter. If mechanical transportation is not available, evacuation on foot would ideally include carrying at least three days of supplies and rain-tight bedding, a tarpaulin and a bedroll of blankets being the minimum.

The recovery phase starts after the immediate threat to human life has subsided. During reconstruction it is recommended to consider the location or construction material of the property.

The most extreme home confinement scenarios include war, famine and severe epidemics and may last a year or more. Then recovery will take place inside the home. Planners for these events usually buy bulk foods and appropriate storage and preparation equipment, and eat the food as part of normal life. A simple balanced diet can be constructed from vitamin pills, whole-meal wheat, beans, dried milk, corn, and cooking oil. One should add vegetables, fruits, spices and meats, both prepared and fresh-gardened, when possible.

Emergency managers are trained in a wide variety of disciplines that support them through out the emergency life-cycle. Professional emergency managers can focus on government and community preparedness (Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government Planning), or private business preparedness (Business Continuity Management Planning). Training is provided by local, state, federal and private organizations and ranges from public information and media relations to high-level incident command and tactical skills such as studying a terrorist bombing site or controlling an emergency scene.

In the past, the field of emergency management has been populated mostly by people with a military or first responder background. Currently, the population in the field has become more diverse, with many experts coming from a variety of backgrounds without military or first responder history. Educational opportunities are increasing for those seeking undergraduate and graduate degrees in emergency management or a related field. There are eight schools in the US with emergency management-related doctorate programs, but only one doctoral program specifically in emergency management.

Professional certifications such as Certified Emergency Manager (CEM) and Certified Business Continuity Professional (CBCP) are becoming more common as the need for high professional standards is recognized by the emergency management community, especially in the United States.

In recent years the continuity feature of emergency management has resulted in a new concept, Emergency Management Information Systems (EMIS). For continuity and interoperability between emergency management stakeholders, EMIS supports the emergency management process by providing an infrastructure that integrates emergency plans at all levels of government and non-government involvement and by utilizing the management of all related resources (including human and other resources) for all four phases of emergencies.

Practitioners emergency management (disaster preparedness) come from an increasing variety of backgrounds as the field matures. Professionals from memory institutions (e.g., museums, historical societies, libraries, and archives) are dedicated to preserving cultural heritage—objects and records contained in their collections. This has been a major component within these fields, but now there is a heightened awareness following the events on 9/11 and the hurricanes in 2005.

To increase the opportunity for a successful recovery of valuable records, a well-established and thoroughly tested plan must be developed. This task requires the cooperation of a well-organized committee led by an experienced chairperson. Professional associations schedule regular workshops and hold focus sessions at annual conferences to keep individuals up to date with tools and resources in practice.

The joint efforts of professional associations and cultural heritage institutions have resulted in the development of a variety of different tools to assist professionals in preparing disaster and recovery plans. In many cases, these tools are made available to external users. Also frequently available on websites are plan templates created by existing organizations, which may be helpful to any committee or group preparing a disaster plan or updating an existing plan. While each organization will need to formulate plans and tools which meet their own specific needs, there are some examples of such tools that might represent useful starting points in the planning process. These have been included in the External Links section.

The International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to promoting the goals of saving lives and protecting property during emergencies and disasters. The mission of IAEM is to serve its members by providing information, networking and professional opportunities, and to advance the emergency management profession.

National Red Cross/Red Crescent societies often have pivotal roles in responding to emergencies. Additionally, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC, or "The Federation") may deploy assessment teams to the affected country. They specialize in the recovery component of the emergency management framework.

Within the United Nations system responsibility for emergency response rests with the Resident Coordinator within the affected country. However, in practice international response will be coordinated, if requested by the affected country’s government, by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), by deploying a UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team.

Since 1980, the World Bank has approved more than 500 operations related to disaster management, amounting to more than US$40 billion. These include post-disaster reconstruction projects, as well as projects with components aimed at preventing and mitigating disaster impacts, in countries such as Argentina, Bangladesh, Colombia, Haiti, India, Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam to name only a few.

Common areas of focus for prevention and mitigation projects include forest fire prevention measures, such as early warning measures and education campaigns to discourage farmers from slash and burn agriculture that ignites forest fires; early-warning systems for hurricanes; flood prevention mechanisms, ranging from shore protection and terracing in rural areas to adaptation of production; and earthquake-prone construction.

In a joint venture with Columbia University under the umbrella of the ProVention Consortium the World Bank has established a Global Risk Analysis of Natural Disaster Hotspots.

In June 2006, the World Bank established the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), a longer term partnership with other aid donors to reduce disaster losses by mainstreaming disaster risk reduction in development, in support of the Hyogo Framework of Action. The facility helps developing countries fund development projects and programs that enhance local capacities for disaster prevention and emergency preparedness.

The key federal coordinating and advisory body for emergency management in Australia is Emergency Management Australia (EMA). Each state has its own State Emergency Service. The Emergency Call Service provides a national 000 emergency telephone number to contact state Police, Fire and Ambulance services. Arrangements are in place for state and federal cooperation.

Public Safety Canada (PSC) is Canada’s national emergency management agency. Each province is required to set up their Emergency Management Organizations.

PSC coordinates and supports the efforts of federal organizations ensuring national security and the safety of Canadians. They also work with other levels of government, first responders, community groups, the private sector (operators of critical infrastructure) and other nations.

PSC’s work is based on a wide range of policies and legislation through the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act which defines the powers, duties and functions of PSC are outlined. Other acts are specific to fields such as corrections, emergency management, law enforcement, and national security.

In India, the role of emergency management falls to National Disaster Management of India, a government agency subordinate to the Ministry of Home affairs. In recent years there has been a shift in emphasis, from response and recovery to strategic risk management and reduction, and from a government-centred approach to decentralized community participation. Survey of India, an agency within the Ministry of Science and Technology, is also playing a role in this field, through bringing the academic knowledge and research expertise of earth scientists to the emergency management process.

Recently the Government has formed the Emergency Management and Research Institute (EMRI). This group represents a public/private partnership, funded primarily by a large India-based computer company "Satyam Computer Services" , and aimed at improving the general response of communities to emergencies, in addition to those incidents which might be described as disasters. Some of the groups' early efforts involve the provision of emergency management training for first responders (a first in India), the creation of a single emergency telephone number, and the establishment of standards for EMS staff, equipment and training. It is hoped that this effort will provide a model for emulation by all of India, however, at the moment, it operates in the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Assam, using a single 3-digit toll-free number 1-0-8. .

In New Zealand, responsibility for emergency management moves from local to national depending on the nature of the emergency or risk reduction programme. A severe storm may be manageable within a particular area, whereas a national public education campaign will be directed by central government. Within each region, local governments are unified into 16 Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups (CDEMGs). Every CDEMG is responsible for ensuring that local emergency management is robust as possible. As local arrangements are overwhelmed by an emergency, pre-existing mutual-support arrangements are activated. As warranted, central government has the authority to coordinate the response through the National Crisis Management Centre (NCMC), operated by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM). These structures are defined by regulation, and best explained in The Guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan 2006, roughly equivalent to FEMA's National Response Framework.

New Zealand uses unique terminology for emergency management to the rest of the English-speaking world.

In Russia the Ministry of Emergency Situations (EMERCOM) is engaged in fire fighting, Civil Defense, Search and Rescue, including rescue services after natural and human-made disasters.

The United Kingdom adjusted its focus on emergency management following the 2000 UK fuel protests, severe UK flooding in the same year and the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth crisis. This resulted in the creation of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA) which legislated the responsibilities of all category one responders regarding an emergency response. The CCA is managed by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat through Regional Resilience Forums and at the local authority level.

Disaster Management training is generally conducted at the local level by the organisations involved in any response. This is consolidated through professional courses that can be undertaken at the Emergency Planning College. Furthemore diplomas and undergraduate qualifications can be gained throughout the country - the first course of this type was carried out by Coventry University in 1994. Institute of Emergency Management is a charity organisation, established in 1996, to provide consulting services for the government, media and commercial sectors.

The Professional Society for Emergency Planners is the Emergency Planning Society.

The UK’s largest ever emergency exercise was carried out on 20 May 2007 near Belfast, Northern Ireland, and involved the scenario of a plane crash landing at Belfast International Airport. Staff from five hospitals and three airports participated in the drill, and almost 150 international observers assessed its effectiveness.

Under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is lead agency for emergency management. The HAZUS software package developed by FEMA is central in the risk assessment process in the country. The United States and its territories are covered by one of ten regions for FEMA’s emergency management purposes. Tribal, state, county and local governments develop emergency management programs/departments and operate hierarchially within each region. Emergencies are managed at the most-local level possible, utilizing mutual aid agreements with adjacent jurisdictions. If the emergency is terrorist related or if declared an "Incident of National Significance", the Secretary of Homeland Security will initiate the National Response Framework (NRF). Under this plan the involvement of federal resources will be made possible, integrating in with the local, county, state, or tribal entities. Management will continue to be handled at the lowest possible level utilizing the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

The Citizen Corps is an organization of volunteer service programs, administered locally and coordinated nationally by DHS, which seek to mitigate disaster and prepare the population for emergency response through public education, training, and outreach. Community Emergency Response Teams are a Citizen Corps program focused on disaster preparedness and teaching basic disaster response skills. These volunteer teams are utilized to provide emergency support when disaster overwhelms the conventional emergency services.

To the top

Minister of National Revenue (Canada)

The Minister of National Revenue (French: Ministre du Revenu national) is the Minister of the Crown in the Canadian Cabinet who is responsible for the Canada Revenue Agency and the administration of taxation law and collection.

The Department of National Revenue was established in 1927 by expanding the former Department of Customs and Excise with a new facility for the collection of income tax which had formerly been the responsibility of the Department of Finance.

The Department became known as Revenue Canada in the 1970s. In the 1990s the department became the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. In 2003 the department was split into the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness taking responsibility for the latter agency.

The current Minister of National Revenue is Jean-Pierre Blackburn.

The office of Minister of Customs and Excise was abolished and the office of Minister of National Revenue created on March 31, 1927.

To the top

Yvon Charbonneau

Yvon Charbonneau, PC (born July 11, 1940 in Mont-Saint-Michel, Quebec) is a Canadian politician.

Charbonneau was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the Canadian House of Commons, representing the constituency of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies from 1997 to 2004. He is a former administrator, consultant, professor, and unionist. In Parliament, he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness with special emphasis on Emergency Preparedness, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

He did not run in the 2004 election.

Charbonneau was also a member of the National Assembly of Quebec as a Liberal in the riding of Bourassa from 1994 to 1997.

To the top

Security certificate

In Canada, a legal mechanism by which the Government of Canada can detain and deport foreign nationals and all other non-citizens living in Canada. The federal government may issue a certificate permanent resident or any other non-citizen who is suspected of violating human rights, of having membership within organized crime, or is perceived to be a threat to national security. in a certificate are inadmissible to Canada and are subject to a removal order. Where the government has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual named in the certificate is a danger to national security, to the safety of any person or is unlikely to participate in any court proceedings, the individual can be detained. The entire process is subject to a limited form of review by the Federal Court.

According to the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the overarching agency dealing with the law, the security certificate provision has existed in "one form or another for over 20 years." Its use has been documented at least as far back as 1979, the year after they were implemented. It is housed within the parameters of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (formerly the Immigration and Refugee Act, which replaced the Immigration Act in 1976). It was amended and took on its present structure in 1991, with an additional amendment in 2002.

The security certificate process (sections 33 and 77 to 85 of IRPA) was found to be in violation of sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in the landmark Charkaoui case on 23 February 2007. The Supreme Court suspended the effect of its ruling for one year. On 22 October 2007, the Conservative government introduced a bill to amend the security certificate process by introducing a "special advocate", lawyers who would be able to view the evidence against the accused. However, these lawyers would be selected by the Justice minister, would only have access to a "summary" of the evidence, and would not be allowed to share this information with the accused, for example in order to ask for clarifications or corrections. The amendments are modelled on a much-criticized process already in use in the United Kingdom, and are expected to pass as they are supported by the opposition Liberal party.

Certificates are governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The certificate is prepared by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and signed by the Solicitor General of Canada, currently the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when a non-citizen, either a permanent resident, refugee or foreign national located in Canada, is deemed to be inadmissible on the grounds that the subject is suspected to be a threat to national security, or has violated human rights abroad, or is involved with organized crime. The signed certificate is then referred to a Federal Court judge who reviews the evidence prepared by CSIS. Hearsay is admissible as evidence. All or part of the evidence may be heard in secret, in the absence of the subject of the certificate, if the judge deems that airing it publicly may hurt national security or put the safety of any individual at risk. There is no provision for such evidence or precise allegations to be revealed to the subject being detained or to his or her lawyer, though the judge may provide a summary of the evidence provided. Key terms, such as "national security", are not defined in the Act.

If the judge determines that the certificate is not "reasonable" (the order of proof used in security certificate cases), the certificate is quashed. If, however, the judge decides that it is "reasonable", then the certificate becomes a removal order. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that the Federal Court's decision can be appealed "only if the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question".

In the case of refugees and refugee applicants, the named person is automatically detained, without the opportunity to apply for release on bail until 120 days after the certificate is upheld by a Federal Court judge. In the case of Permanent Residents, where the government has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual named in the certificate is a danger to national security, to the safety of any person or is unlikely to participate in any court proceedings, the individual can be detained, with the opportunity to apply for release on bail every six months from the beginning of their detention.

An individual may be held for several years, without any criminal charges being laid, before the review is completed.

In practice, the fact that there is often a risk of torture on the one hand, and a limited legal opportunity to challenge detention, on the other, has meant that named individuals are neither released from prison nor deported after the certificate is upheld.

A recent trend has been towards releasing detainees under strict conditions or transferring them to house arrest.

People named under certificates are exempted from legal provisions designed to prevent deportations to risk of torture or other human rights abuse. The government's position, following its interpretation of the Supreme Court Suresh ruling, is that a named individual can be deported even if it is found that they risk torture or death.

In addition to the eight people who currently have cases pending, twenty others have been charged under Security Certificate legislation since 1991.

The families of the detainees, supported by thousands of individuals across Canada, have campaigned against the security certificate, arguing that they violate the guarantees of equality and fundamental justice enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, creating a two-tiered justice system and allowing individuals to be detained indefinitely, on the basis of secret suspicions, under threat of deportation to torture.

Criticism related to violations of civil liberties and due process include the fact that allegations are vague and general, key terms are not defined, precise allegations do not exist or are not disclosed, the low order of proof effectively reverses the burden of proof so that the named person has to prove his innocence, the lack of disclosure of information in the file, the fact that information provided to the court can include hearsay and is known to have included information produced under torture, the fact that evidence has been tainted by destruction of evidence by CSIS, and the lack of appeal.

Alexandre Trudeau, son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau has been vocal in his criticisms of the certificates and has appeared in court to testify in favour of Almrei's and Charkaoui's release, offering to act as a surety on their behalf. Other well-known figures who have joined the campaign against security certificates include Warren Allmand, former Solicitor-General of Canada; Flora MacDonald, former Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada; Denys Arcand; Bruce Cockburn, Naomi Klein, and Maude Barlow.

The Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International Canada, Human Rights Watch, and the Canadian Council for Refugees are among the organisations who have taken a position against security certificates.

Members of Parliament from all major political parties in Canada have criticised the measure and called for its abolition. Several have offered to become a surety to some of the detainees. The New Democratic Party has called for the abolition of the measure.

Three United Nations committees - the UN Committee against Torture, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the UN Human Rights Committee - have condemned the security certificate process and called on Canada to reform its legislation. They called on Canada to use criminal law instead of immigration law to deal with its security concerns.

In the wake of the Charkaoui decision, a new campaign is developing to call on the government to refrain from introducing new legislation. A pan-Canadian "day of action" against the introduction of new security certificate legislation was organized on 20 October 2007. It is supported by over sixty organizations and networks, including national unions, migrant justice groups, student organizations, feminist groups, human rights organizations, development associations, community groups, political parties and faith-based organizations.

On June 13-14, 2006, the Supreme Court heard three different appeals from Adil Charkaoui, Hassan Almrei and Mohamed Harkat regarding the constitutionality of the security certificate process. Most of the appellants have argued that the refusal to disclose the evidentiary basis of the certificate violates Section 7 of the Charter. Counsel for Charkaoui also argued that the security certificate process violates judicial independence, the rule of law, and sections 9, 10, 12, and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On February 23, 2007, the Supreme Court released their decision of Charkaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)‎. They voted unanimously that the process of certificate review that prohibited the accused from seeing evidence against them violated the Charter.

The case of Jaballah v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2006) challenged the constitutionality of detention under the certificate. The Federal Court upheld the detention. It is currently on appeal.

To the top