FAIT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, September 25, 2003

Á

1100

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson (Director General, Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

Á

1105

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. John McNee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Africa and Middle East, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

The Chair

Assistant Commissioner Richard Proulx (Criminal Intelligence Directorate, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of the Solicitor General)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1120

A/Commr Richard Proulx

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Mr. Stockwell Day

Á

1125

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Mr. John McNee

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. John McNee

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

A/Commr Richard Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Á

1130

The Chair

A/Commr Richard Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Á

1135

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

Mr. John McNee

Á

1140

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. John McNee

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Á

1145

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. John McNee

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC)

A/Commr Richard Proulx

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Á

1150

A/Commr Richard Proulx

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

A/Commr Richard Proulx

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. John McNee

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. John McNee

The Chair

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

Á

1155

The Chair

A/Commr Richard Proulx

Mr. John Harvard

A/Commr Richard Proulx

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

A/Commr Richard Proulx

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

A/Commr Richard Proulx

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Monia Mazigh (As Individual)

Â

1220

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

Â

1230

Â

1235

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

Â

1245

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. Stockwell Day

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. Stockwell Day

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. Stockwell Day

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Ms. Monia Mazigh

Mr. Stockwell Day

Patry, Bernard Chair Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Ms. Monia Mazigh

The Chair

Ms. Monia Mazigh

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Â

1255

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Ms. Monia Mazigh

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler

·

1305

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

·

1310

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 046

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, September 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1100)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Good morning. I'll call the meeting to order.

    The order of the day is consideration of cases involving the detention of Canadian citizens in certain foreign countries.

    We have the pleasure of having with us this morning, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. John McNee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Africa and Middle East, and Mr. Konrad Sigurdson, Director General, Consular Affairs Bureau,

[Translation]

    and from the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Richard Proulx, Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP Criminal Intelligence Directorate.

[English]

    Welcome to all of you.

    I understand from Mr. McNee that Mr. Sigurdson will make the opening statement, with both of you participating after that.

    Mr. Sigurdson, please, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson (Director General, Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much. Good morning.

    The purpose of my being here is to provide a broad overview of consular work. I've been on the job for less than three weeks, so I'm still learning, and if I have to, I will defer on some of your questions and follow up in writing.

[Translation]

    I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the work of the Consular Affairs Bureau as well the services we provide and the challenges we face, given the state of the world today, when we come to the aid of Canadians abroad.

[English]

    Canada has one of the best consular assistance programs in the world. In conjunction with our posts abroad and a network of honorary consuls, the Consular Affairs Bureau provides services at more than 270 locations in over 180 countries. Given the ever-increasing number of travelling Canadians in a world that is more dangerous than it once was, the network of offices is well used.

    We also offer telephone contact 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, through our operations centre in Ottawa.

    About 400 individuals are involved in the delivery of consular services to Canadians here and abroad.

    The provision of consular assistance to Canadians is a major undertaking. Last year the Canadian government's consular staff handled close to 170,000 formal cases, involving but not limited to arrest and detention cases, death abroad, medical assistance, repatriation, well-being and whereabouts investigations, assistance with loss or theft of property and passports, and the processing of citizenship applications.

    The cases that capture most of the public's attention are those that deal with arrest and detention, so I will focus on this aspect of our work. Last year the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade handled 1,840 arrest and detention cases. This represents about 1% of all the cases we deal with each year. Three-quarters of the arrests and detentions were in the United States, and most of them were on drug-related charges.

    The services we provide to Canadians arrested and detained abroad must of course be adjusted from case to case and from country to country. Usually, however, Canadian officers can provide services among which are the following: they can notify the prisoner's family or friends of the situation if they are authorized by the prisoner to do so; they can request immediate and regular access to the prisoner; they can provide lists of appropriately qualified lawyers; they can seek to ensure that the treatment of the prisoner by the local courts and the conditions of detention are no less favourable than the treatment that would be accorded to citizens of the host country; they can obtain information on the status of the case and can encourage the local authorities to process a case without undue delay; they make every effort to ensure that the prisoner receives adequate nutrition and medical and dental care; and they deliver mail and provide permitted reading material if normal postal services are unavailable.

    For reasons of law and of public policy, Canadian consular officials cannot provide the following services: they cannot pay legal expenses or fines from public funds; they cannot provide legal advice or interpret local laws; they cannot become involved in matters of substance between the prisoner and his or her lawyer; and they cannot circumvent prison rules, including the rules on what can be brought into or out of the prison.

    Although Canadian consular officials do their very best to assist Canadians who have been arrested or detained, they must always work with a number of basic constraints.

    First, as you will be aware, if a Canadian citizen breaks the law of another country, he or she is subject to the justice system of that country. Many countries deal with detentions and justice matters very differently from the way we do. Their courts are not necessarily as independent, as fair, or as efficient as our own. They may operate in secret and they may not provide translations and interpretations.

    Second, most countries have ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. However, the rights and obligations created by that treaty are set out in very general terms that leave a great deal of discretion to the host country. For example, although consular officials have the right to visit and converse with the prisoner, there is no right to privacy from monitoring by the host government authorities.

    And third, as a number of recent arrest and detention cases have demonstrated, dual nationality is another complicating factor that carries significant risk. Because many governments do not recognize dual nationality, it can be particularly difficult for our government to work on behalf of Canadians in the custody of other countries of which they are also citizens.

Á  (1105)  

    As I conclude, I would like to return briefly to a theme I mentioned earlier, and that is prevention, a point that the minister emphasizes in discussing consular cases. We are continuing and intensifying our work to inform Canadians of the risks inherent in travelling to and living in specific countries and we are providing them with guidance on how to minimize their exposure to risk if they choose to go to those countries.

    We have brought today information packages and some travel reports that explain in greater detail what we do and what advice we offer to travelling Canadians. I would like to ask the permission of the chair to have these distributed to the members of the committee. Thank you.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Thank you. We'll do it through the clerk.

    We'll pass to Mr. John McNee, please.

    Mr. John McNee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Africa and Middle East, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Clearly the protection of Canadians abroad and the representation of their interest is a vitally important task for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and one that my colleague has just addressed. That work must be situated within a specific context. In a very large number of cases that we have to face, we're operating in countries that are very different from our own, particularly as far as the legal framework is concerned. This is particularly true in the region for which I have responsibility.

[Translation]

    In view of the major differences between Canada and the many countries with which we have consular dealings, our success clearly rests on our ability to ensure that authorities in the host country recognize and understand their legal obligations in terms of the treatment of third party nationals and how it is in their best interest to seek a solution that is satisfactory to Canada and to Canadians. That's a given and in the majority of cases, the process works.

    However, in cases where these obligations are not clearly understood at the outset, we must work doggedly to convey this message to authorities in the host country.

[English]

    This brings me to a very important point. Canada has bilateral relations with countries that extend across a whole range of activities and interests. The degree to which we can use the bilateral relationship across that range of activities to exert pressure and to influence behaviour on particular cases will vary widely. It's important to recognize that actions that can garner international support will normally have a far greater impact on a country than bilateral actions. Countries tend to be more sensitive to how they are seen by the international community as a whole, and in particular by their more important economic partners, than they are by bilateral actions taken by only one country against another.

    If we are to make progress in obtaining our goals, we must put the emphasis on actions that will help build international consensus. For example, in the case of Ms. Kazemi, the ministers put the accent on Canada's intention to mobilize international opinion. The Canadian government does this on many issues, not just consular ones. Right now, for example, we're working closely with the United States, our European partners, and others to mobilize public opinion to ensure that Iran does not take the route of nuclear weapons.

    We also do this in the area of human rights, working closely with like-minded countries at the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human rights. In many countries where international norms regarding individual rights and freedoms are not respected, the fact that the international community expresses concern over human rights violations can be a much more effective means of ensuring positive developments, and we must take advantage of that fact.

    There are no quick or easy solutions. Issues like strengthening the rule of law and promoting and protecting human rights and democratic development are long-term projects. In particular cases, Canada must express its continuing concern and push for international action. It must also keep its channels open with the countries concerned through Canada's ambassadors abroad. Our message needs to be conveyed, and to the highest levels possible, if it is to lead to the changes in behaviour we seek.

    Merci, monsieur le président.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McNee.

    Go ahead, Mr. Proulx.

    Assistant Commissioner Richard Proulx (Criminal Intelligence Directorate, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of the Solicitor General): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Richard Proulx and I'm the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP Criminal Intelligence Directorate.

    The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is aware that a Canadian citizen, Mr. Maher Arar, was arrested by US authorities in the United States and subsequently deported to Syria. The RCMP is also aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Affairs is working with US and Syrian authorities regarding the circumstances surrounding this matter.

    I am aware that this committee will be discussing the Arar case. I am not prepared to discuss the operational details of this matter, but let me be clear that the RCMP was not involved in the decision made by US authorities to arrest and subsequently deport Mr. Arar and did not, at any time, suggest to US authorities that Mr. Arar should be deported.

    The RCMP does not, as a matter of practice or procedure, reveal details regarding operational police matters in order to protect the integrity of on-going investigations and to respect the privacy of individuals involved.

    The RCMP's Criminal Intelligence Program, of which I am in charge, is dedicated to effectively gathering and analyzing pertinent information in order to create essential intelligence to assist in the global fight against terrorism.

    Speaking in a general sense, the RCMP has an operational responsibility and is mandated to follow-up on all leads with regard to potential threats to national and international security.

    In the course of our day-to-day operations, we receive information from a number of sources including domestic and international law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies, the RCMP national security TIPS line and Canadian citizens.

    We have a duty and a responsibility to assess and analyze such information and conduct the appropriate investigation where required. As such, information is shared on an on-going basis internally, within the RCMP and with our key law enforcement and government agencies when deemed necessary.

    During the course of an investigation, the RCMP will, when appropriate and necessary, exchange important strategic and criminal intelligence, share tactical and operational knowledge and resources, work cooperatively and communicate effectively within its organization at all levels and with its domestic, US and international partners.

    At times, full scale joint international investigations may be necessary to combat the criminal threat of organized crime or terrorism. This is and has always been the nature of successful operational police work.

    There are guidelines which surround any information exchange. The receiving agency must have a need and a right to know and the sharing must be consistent with the law enforcement purpose for which it was collected. The sharing may be for the purpose of furthering our own investigations or to assist other law enforcement agencies in their investigations.

    The events of September 11 have proved more than ever before that a collaborative approach is the only way to detect, deter and destabilize global criminal or terrorist entities.

    Increasingly, situations that happen in one part of the world have a far-reaching impact in other areas.

    In the law enforcement community, globalization means that problems in one country could have roots in another. It reinforces the need for all of us to work together locally, nationally and internationally to properly address common issues with a unified approach.

    Since September 11, 2001, the RCMP has continued its commitment and vigilance to the national safety and security of Canadians. Criminal and terrorist activities have no borders. The same is true of our efforts.

    If we are to be successful, we must continue our close working relationship with our domestic, US and international government and law enforcement partners to prevent, deter and detect activities that may pose a threat to national or global safety and security.

    This concludes my remarks.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Proulx.

    We're going to go to questions and answers, and I want to remind my colleagues that the five-minute rule will apply. Try to have as short a preamble as possible. Go right away to a question if you want to have time for answers.

    Monsieur Day, s'il vous plaît.

    Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thanks to each of you for taking the time to be here.

    Obviously, there are larger matters than just the operational procedures of the various agencies to which you are attached, so we are somewhat truncated here in terms of the breadth of what we can pursue. There are some very serious matters that we'll be pursuing more at the political level, but I'd like to ask a couple of questions.

    Monsieur Proulx, you made it clear in your remarks—and certainly in your opening print statement here—that the RCMP was not involved in any way in the decision related to Mr. Arar. However, you prefaced that by saying that you're not prepared to discuss operational details. I understand that. I think we're all mature enough to know that we don't want the integrity of investigations, especially those related to terrorism, tainted in any way. It does seem that you're preparing us for the reality that there was information shared related to Mr. Arar, because you preface your statement by saying that “the RCMP was not involved in the decision”, but you're not prepared to discuss operational details, and you go on to talk about the information sharing that quite rightly goes on between agencies. We're glad to hear that. I'm sure it could always be improved, but we're glad to hear that.

    I'm not even asking what the information is, but can you answer the question, did the RCMP share some information with U.S. authorities? I understand they probably made the decision on their own, but did some information sharing take place regarding this case?

Á  (1120)  

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: As I mentioned, I'm not prepared to discuss any operational matters on any cases, including Mr. Arar's.

    What I said in my statement is that on day-to-day matters we do share or exchange information with partners at the national or international level, including with the U.S.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I appreciate the difficulty you're in.

    I'm obviously not satisfied with the answer, and I won't press it at this particular point, as my time is limited, but we will obviously be pursuing that because it's very key to what has happened to Mr. Arar.

    In the chronology of events related to Mr. Arar starting on December 20, 2001, could Mr. Sigurdson tell us...? According to your chronology, I believe that even as far as October 16, Minister Graham is saying he still doesn't even have any idea where Mr. Arar is being held. Is it normal that a Canadian citizen would—

    The Chair: I would point out to Mr. Day that it's not the department chronology you're talking about, but the question will stand.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Okay.

    The question still stands. I'm taking this document at face value. It may later prove to be inaccurate, but I'm taking it at face value.

    Is it normal that a Canadian citizen could be held in another country for such a period of time and the foreign affairs minister does not even know where he is?

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: No, it's not usual. Without giving us names or personal information, most countries inform us very quickly they're holding a national of our country. If that person agrees, then we go to talk to that person.

    The complication in Syria, or the complication in many countries, is dual nationality. He is a Syrian, according to Syrian authorities, and they took their time in letting us know, because we weren't primarily responsible for Mr. Arar.

    So it could happen.

    In this case, it didn't happen quite as starkly as that. He was deported from the U.S. on October 8 and we saw him in Syria two days after he arrived. That was October 23. So we knew he was there, and we were allowed access to see him.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm going to ask for an evaluative comment from you. It may be difficult, but it's a larger question we will be pursuing as the days unfold.

    I'm going to use another case as an example to reflect back on this case, the case involving Mr. Bruce Balfour, who was arrested, as you know, in Lebanon, a Syrian-backed or Syrian-controlled regime. In opposition to this, we and others took a different course in this diplomatic matter; we fully exposed it at the request of family members, who felt that full exposure, full pressure, on this type of regime would in fact ensure the safety and earlier release of Mr. Balfour, which proved to be the case. In retrospect, and in this case here, would you say that the so-called soft approach of keeping everything almost under the table, not raising it, not wanting to irritate some of the foreign regimes involved, has not in fact proved to be successful in getting results for Canadians who are detained overseas? We're talking about Arar today, but certainly in the cases of Madam Kazemi and Mr. Sampson, so-called soft diplomacy failed dismally, whereas big, broad pressure and public scrutiny seemed to be successful in Mr. Balfour's case. The reason I can tie that in is because it is a Syrian-backed regime, so they are the same people controlling the levers here.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: As I said earlier, in dealing with a consular case, it is different in every case in every country. What works in one place doesn't work in another.

    When I deal with consular matters, we deal in a more restrictive way. We have a treaty covering our actions and activities. Except for the complication I mentioned, we generally have good access and good relations. As far as how we deal beyond consular cases, I'm going to turn to my colleague, John McNee.

    Mr. John McNee: Mr. Chair, at the end of the day I think it's really a question of a judgment on what is most effective in any one case. To speak for the government's engagement in the case of Mr. Balfour, it was very vigorous and clear with the Lebanese authorities. The Minister of Immigration was there to raise the case himself, and he made our concerns very clear. The judicial process ensued, with the result that Mr. Balfour got out and home. I think you really have to look at it—

    Mr. Stockwell Day: It was following very public glare.

    Mr. John McNee: Case by case, but we're not in the shoes of the Lebanese authorities to know what moved them. I think the proof is in the pudding, that he got out and home, which is a very happy result.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Merci.

    Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First off, I'd like to remind colleagues, and perhaps Mr. Sigurdson can confirm this, that there are currently hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians who are being detained abroad and that the reason why we are discussing these particular cases today, aside from the fact that they tie in with our ongoing study of relations between Canada and the Arab-Muslim world, is because these cases have received extensive media coverage, and very rightly so. Now, we're right to wonder why the media is paying so much attention to these cases when so many other Canadians are languishing in foreign prisons. Their cases are equally dramatic and certainly warrant the attention of the Canadian media and the members of this committee.

    Having said this, let's turn our attention to the case at hand, since this is the focus of our discussions, as are, by extension, the cases of other Canadians being detained abroad. With respect to the case of Maher Arar, Mr. Day tried to extract some information from the Assistant Commissioner. By the way, I want to thank the witnesses for their respective presentations. Mr. Proulx, I appreciate that you are bound to exercise discretion in all matters involving so-called national security. However, surely you must also know that you have duty to respond to certain questions put to you by parliamentarians. I have no intention whatsoever of asking you to disclose confidential information that could jeopardize our national security. However, I would like to ask you one very direct question.

    You mentioned the exchange of security related intelligence between Canada and other countries, notably the United States, for obvious reasons. In Mr. Arar's case, was intelligence exchanged with US authorities prior to Mr. Arar's arrest by these same authorities?

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: Mr. Chairman, as I said, I am not at liberty to disclose the details of RCMP operations, whether in matters of national security or organized crime.

    As I indicated earlier to Mr. Day, as part of our operations, we exchange information on a regular basis with our international partners, including the United States. As I noted in my opening remarks, the receiving agency must have a need for and a right to that information.

    The Chair: You have one more minute, Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Let's be clear on this score, Mr. Proulx. I'm not asking you to disclose details that could jeopardize our national security. I'm simply asking you—and I don't see how this jeopardizes our national security in any way—to answer the following question: yes or no, was any information exchanged with US authorities concerning this Canadian national, in particular prior to his arrest?

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am not at liberty to discuss the details of operations carried out by the RCMP, whether in matters of national security or organized crime.

    The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'll conclude on that note, Mr. Chairman.

    In my view, we need to hold a constitutional debate at some point to determine what takes precedence: parliamentary privilege which makes witnesses obligated to answer the questions put to them, or the confidentiality that witnesses are sworn to uphold. In this particular instance, my question does not, in my opinion, constitute any threat whatsoever to our so-called national security.

    I was expecting you to answer the question, especially since the Solicitor General seemed more forthcoming than you are being today when he revealed that perhaps this information had been communicated to US authorities by certain undisciplined elements within the RCMP. Therefore, the Solicitor General appears to acknowledge that information was in fact shared with US authorities prior to the arrest of this Canadian citizen.

    The Chair: That's a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He's already answered it, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Redman.

[English]

    Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I thank all of you for your interventions.

    I'd like to step back and ask Mr. Sigurdson, on a more systemic basis, can you talk to us a little bit about the complicated risk of dual nationality and the problem it presents, specifically in the case of Mr. Arar in Syria? What possible remedies are there for Canada, or in the international scene, to deal with the fact that that changes how they are dealt with?

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: I certainly can.

    Actually, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is silent on the issue, but the many countries that don't believe in dual nationality are not silent by any means.

    One can become a dual national in a variety of ways: through immigration, which is how so many do in this country; through work; through family; and through marriage. There are a number of ways. Dual nationality simply means that when you come here, you retain your citizenship of the country you left. So you are a national of two countries.

    We allowed dual nationality starting in 1978, I believe. We treat our people, Canadians, as Canadians when they're abroad in a country where there is dual nationality. However, some countries do not do this. I'll give you an example.

    The difficulty of having two nationalities or two citizenships arises in military service, which you've heard of. You may go on vacation to a country and wind up staying two years longer than you meant to because you had to undertake service in the military. This has happened in Italy, so we're not just talking about Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, or wherever.

    Moreover, we don't have taxation agreements with many countries. In many countries, as you move out to the ports of entry, you have to provide evidence that you have a clear and clean tax bill, but you may not be a citizen of that country so you have no paper. You can get into a little argument about that.

    Some countries do not accept dual nationality at all. If you were born there, you are a national of that country forever and ever and ever. You cannot enter the country except with a passport of that country. Iran is an example. There are some others. China is an example, but we have a bilateral agreement with China whereby they agree that if a Canadian of Chinese origin arrives at the port of entry, they can enter and work or study or live with the Canadian document. I have to tell you that it works well, but I also have to tell you a story, which you will read in your package. A Canadian national of Chinese origin travelled to China on his Chinese document instead of his Canadian passport. Despite repeated requests to visit him in jail, where he went because he got into trouble with the law, we were denied access for four years. We can be denied access without a bilateral agreement, but with one, it's white and black, and there are no grey areas. So I invite you to read the material we've given you.

    These are just some examples that we face difficulties with because of dual nationality.

Á  (1135)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Just for clarification, you referenced countries that refuse to revoke original citizenship when their citizens emigrate to another country. You gave some illustrations. That's not something Canada can do or remedy on its own, but it is something that's in the milieu of international law, correct?

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: That's right.

    The Chair:

    Thank you.

    We'll go to Ms. McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to go directly to the statement Mr. Sigurdson made that the government treats a Canadian citizen, whether they have dual citizenship or not, as a Canadian citizen when they get into difficulty abroad. Yet the Prime Minister wrote on June 13 of this year:

[We] cannot object to the Syrian authorities proceeding to try [Mr.] Arar, particularly as he is also a Syrian citizen. But I assure you that we will do our utmost to follow the case closely and to ensure that your husband is treated fairly.

    This was written to the wife, Monia Mazigh.

    I find there to be a fundamental contradiction between what you have said is the policy of this government with respect to treating a Canadian citizen as a Canadian citizen and the position the Prime Minister has taken in this regard.

    Second, it is well known that Syria could not possibly be counted upon to conduct a fair trial in the situation of Maher Arar. This is a man who didn't carry a Syrian passport. This is not a man who went to Syria. This is a man who was deported against his will, unfairly, improperly, yet it appears as though your assertion about his being treated as a Canadian citizen for purposes of protecting his interests is at complete variance with what the Prime Minister said.

    Further, you went to some trouble--sorry, I believe it was Mr. McNee--to engage in a bit of self-congratulation on Canada's part, indicating that in the case of Balfour in Lebanon we should be congratulating the government that Minister Coderre went there, was very high profile, went directly to the senior ministers involved, and secured his release. What would prevent Minister Bill Graham, the foreign affairs minister, from doing exactly the same thing, or the Solicitor General going to Syria to get the same kind of cooperation in returning this Canadian citizen to his own country, particularly in view of the cloud of suspicion created by the Solicitor General when he said he could not discount the possibility that rogue elements within the RCMP passed intelligence to American authorities that led to the arrest and deportation of Arar?

    Mr. John McNee: Mr. Chair, to take Ms. McDonough's points one after the other, I don't see any contradiction at all between the Prime Minister's letter and what Mr. Sigurdson has said. I think the thrust of the Prime Minister's letter is that the Canadian government does not treat differently those who have immigrated to this country from someplace else and become Canadian citizens. There's no second-class citizenship. From the government's point of view, they are treated the same way.

    But we recognize that the problem of dual nationality means that when they find themselves, for example, in their country of origin, if that country doesn't recognize the concept, the reality is they will be looked at as a Chinese citizen, a Syrian citizen, or whatever. So I don't think there's a contradiction there.

    On the second point, I didn't mean at all to be self-congratulatory. I just wanted to point out that in the case Mr. Day raised there was vigorous activity by the Canadian government, by our ambassador there, with the Lebanese authorities here, and in addition, by the Minister of Immigration when he was there and raised the case. I would treat that--your suggestion about visits--as representation.

    Of course, as you know, the Prime Minister asked Senator De Bané to go to Damascus and convey a message on his behalf some time ago.

    So in each case, the government tries to determine what the best and most effective instruments are and when best to deploy them.

Á  (1140)  

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: What kind of message does it send to Syria that we don't even have an ambassador there at the very moment Maher Arar faces a completely wrongful trial that can't possibly render justice, to have Syria recognize that an intervention was made around Balfour in Lebanon, to have Syria recognize that the Prime Minister has not picked up the phone and called to talk to them or gone directly to demand this Canadian citizen's rights be respected? What kind of message do we think that sends to Syria in contrast to the message sent to Lebanon in the case of Balfour?

    Mr. John McNee: I think, Mr. Chair, the government has been very consistent since the beginning of this case in impressing on the Syrian authorities the importance we attach to it, our great desire that Mr. Arar be allowed to come home.

    On the question of the temporary gap--as there is every year when we change ambassadors, when one comes to the end of his assignment--the new ambassador should be in Damascus October 2. That's the normal rotation. We have a senior person who's the chargé d'affairs who represents Canada and has been vigorous on this as well. So I don't think that is really material.

    We raised our interest in this case with the Syrian ambassador as recently as yesterday. I understand Mr. Graham is scheduled to meet with the Syrian foreign minister in New York today. So I don't think there's any lack of clarity on behalf of the Syrian authorities as to the Canadian government's position and its very keen interest in this case.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Now we'll go to Ms. Carroll.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Actually, Mr. Chair, I'm going to hand my spot to Ms. Catterall.

    The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    It's perhaps ironic that today is exactly one year since Monia Mazigh last saw her husband. I would like to get into what's happening to Mr. Arar right now, but I want to go back to the beginning of this.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bergeron surmised that potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of Canadians were being detained in various countries.

[English]

    How many of those Canadians jailed abroad are there because our closest neighbour deported them to countries where they could not possibly be treated up to our standards of democracy?

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: The difficulty in answering that is that I would have to go through the list and pick out the countries that I think are those that don't respect our form of democratic government.

    I can tell you we have 3,000 prisoners out there in the world. In the U.S., I've mentioned before, we have the most--2,244. But closely behind them we have China, the U.K., South Korea, Jamaica, Australia, and Spain--down to 25. This, by the way, is a number that exceeds the number of Americans jailed abroad. Why, I don't know.

    One thing we have with these countries is a Transfer of Offenders Treaty that allows us to bring Canadian prisoners back here or to have people go from here to their home where they go to prison.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Sigurdson, I don't want to interrupt you, but I do have limited time. The point of my question is that this case is rather unusual in that Mr. Arar is in prison in Syria because he was one hour away from his Canadian home when he was deported by the Americans. That's what I would like to focus on for a moment, if we could.

    What kinds of discussions have we had with the Americans about the fact that (a) they didn't inform us they had a Canadian citizen in custody; (b) they did not inform us before they deported him; and (c) they did not inform us after they deported him? In fact, they refused to inform us for over two weeks of what they had done with a Canadian citizen.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: Right.

    I'm not aware of the minute-by-minute details involved in a case. I do know that he was expected by his family on the 26th or 27th. He didn't show up. The family phoned the consulate. We went to the U.S. INS offices in New York and Washington. We learned that he was in the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York. On October 3 we had someone visit from the consulate in New York.

    My knowledge is hazy or blank after that. We learned there was going to be a hearing on the afternoon of the 8th by the U.S. INS. There was--

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, if I may, I am aware of all that; the committee has all that background information.

    My question is, what representation have we made to the Americans to object to this kind of treatment of a Canadian citizen less than an hour away from home? Why was he deported one-third of the way around the world, instead of returned home? If there's evidence against him, charges to be brought, they could have been brought in a democratic country where he would face a fair trial with proper legal representation.

    The point I'm leading to is this, frankly. The Syrians are treating Mr. Arar as a Syrian citizen. We are treating him as a Canadian citizen. But it seems to me that having created this situation, our American friends and neighbours have some duty to help us bring Mr. Arar home to his family.

    What representations are being made on that front?

    The Chair: Mr. McNee.

    Mr. John McNee: Mr. Chair, the government has made its real concern on this matter very clear to the American authorities. Ms. Carroll answered a question in the House yesterday in this vein and made it very clear indeed that our very strong preference would have been that a Canadian citizen, even with dual nationality, be returned to this country. I think there is no lack of clarity in the United States government on our views on that question, but it's clear that the Americans have taken another view, as we all know.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go to Mr. Casey.

    Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thanks very much.

    I'd like to go back to the questions of Mr. Day and Mr. Bergeron. I want to point out to the assistant commissioner that in his notes he said he was not involved in the decision made by the U.S. authorities. He told us he wasn't involved in that and said he didn't make any suggestion to the authorities in the U.S. that Mr. Arar should be deported.

    If he can tell us that, I think he can tell us that he didn't provide them with information prior to that, or any other kind of communication, as Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Day asked. He said he couldn't answer operational details, but he has already provided us, when it was comfortable for him, with operational details.

    We'd like to know whether he provided the Americans with any information that affected this case.

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: As I mentioned before, I cannot comment on operational details on cases.

    Mr. Bill Casey: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Let him finish, please, and then you can make your point of order.

Á  (1150)  

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: As I mentioned before, we cannot comment on operational details of our operations.

    Mr. Bill Casey: You already have, when it suited you. You have commented on what you didn't do. In the papers you've been accused of being involved in the decision; you've been accused of recommending that Mr. Arar be deported. You've refuted those in your remarks, and those are operational details. If you can refute those, you can answer our question. Can't you just say, “No, I didn't provide any information to the Americans about Mr. Arar's case”?

    The Chair: I must say, Mr. Casey, he's going to give you the same answer as before. You see, Mr. Proulx has some responsibility to the minister. I think this question--

    Mr. Bill Casey: He broke his own rules.

    The Chair: This should be asked to the minister in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Bill Casey: He broke his own rules. He said he couldn't get into operational details. Then he went into operational details when it was convenient. Now we're asking about a Canadian citizen who was deported. We want to know if the Canadian authorities had a hand in it. Did they provide information to the Americans that led to this deportation?

    You broke your own rule by getting into this and denying two other accusations. We're asking you this one, that's all. We want to know. Will you answer the question?

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: I'll answer the question by saying that I agree with Mr. Casey that there were some comments in the media that the RCMP was involved in the decision made by the Americans. I'm saying here today before you that I want to make it clear that the RCMP was not involved in the decision made by the U.S. authorities to arrest or to deport Mr. Arar.

    Mr. Bill Casey: That is an operational detail he has provided us. Now, when it's not convenient for him, he uses the operational detail defence.

    Okay, I'm going to go to another question.

    The Chair: Do you have another question? Go ahead.

    Mr. Bill Casey: I do. I'm not going to bother with him any more.

    Have we asked why Mr. Arar was taken to Jordan on his way to Syria? Why was he there for 12 days? Did the Jordanians hold him, did the Syrians hold him, or did the Americans hold him? Do we know that?

    Mr. John McNee: I'd have to refresh my memory on that one, as to the specifics.

    The Chair: Give him an answer, please.

    Mr. Bill Casey: Ordinarily, when somebody is deported they're sent back. In this case, he was sent to a completely different place. Why? We'd really like to know why he was sent there, and we'd like to know how he was sent there. Who took him? What plane actually took him there?

    Mr. John McNee: Can you give us a second, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: We made inquiries through our ambassador in Syria when he was aware that the deportation order had been carried out on the 8th and he was not yet in Syria. He was told that in fact he was in Jordan. We made inquiries of the Jordanian authorities as to whether he was in the country, and if so, why. We were told at the time that he was in Jordan, but only in transit to Syria.

    Mr. Bill Casey: He was in transit for 12 days.

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: Yes.

    Mr. Bill Casey: That's a long wait. Was Air Canada there?

    Seriously, why was he there for 12 days? Who held him? Did the Jordanians hold him, did the Syrians hold him, or did the Americans hold him? Who was holding him there in transit for 12 days?

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: I don't have that information.

    Mr. Bill Casey: I think we should find out.

    The Chair: In the case of your first question, Mr. McNee says he will give us a written answer. I think we'll be satisfied with that.

    Now we'll go to Mr. Harvard.

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Proulx, you look a little uncomfortable in your chair. If you feel that way, think for a moment about Mr. Arar stuck in some hell hole in Damascus.

    I have only one question, which I trust is significant. I'm not going to task you about operational details.

    As a police force--and you are speaking for the RCMP on this occasion--does the RCMP feel no obligation whatsoever to clear the name of Mr. Arar? Does the RCMP, as a police force, feel no obligation to release information about Mr. Arar, good or bad?

    I must remind you, Mr. Proulx, that this case is a year old. It's not a week old. It's not two weeks old, where you have to be given some time to sort things out and to understand what's going on. It's a year old.

    I want to remind you, Mr. Proulx, that when you take this “no comment” position, taking cover behind an operational barrier or a wall, some people will assume that you have information that's bad about him. It's prejudicial to Mr. Arar, who is a Canadian citizen, I'll remind you.

    Let me say this. I don't know, and I suspect no one around this desk knows, but it is possible that Mr. Arar has done something that he must account for to the Syrians. If he hasn't done anything to violate Canadian law, if he is, in the eyes of the RCMP, an innocent man, I go back to my first question: Do you, as a police force, feel no obligation to assist this man and to clear this man's name?

    This is a case that is one year old. The anniversary is today, Mr. Proulx.

    I haven't asked for one bit of operational detail. You are an organization full of human beings. We're dealing with a human being, a Canadian citizen. I would think that you have some responsibility, and that's what I want to hear from you.

Á  (1155)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvard.

    Mr. Proulx.

[English]

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First of all, I'm not feeling uncomfortable in my chair.

    Secondly, if I can help, or if the RCMP can help, Mr. Arar in this situation, I think there's an obligation for us to do so. We would do it through the proper channels. I believe right now the Department of Foreign Affairs is dealing with the case of Mr. Arar. We can always assist the Department of Foreign Affairs, if we can, in Mr. Arar's situation.

    Mr. John Harvard: You've had a year. How much longer does it take?

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: What I'm trying to say, Mr. Chair, is that we are not dealing with the Syrian authorities. This is really a case for the Department of Foreign Affairs to deal with. Actually, that's what both my colleagues, Mr. McNee and Mr. Sigurdson, said this morning.

    Mr. John Harvard: There is the Canadian side to this story.

    Mr. Proulx, I'm not an RCMP or a police expert, but his Canadian story, whatever it is, has not changed in 12 months. He hasn't been living in Canada for 12 months. I would have thought that by now you would have been able to assess all the information and all the facts. If you now feel obliged, as you said, to help him in some way, after one year, that assistance, whatever it might be, would now be forthcoming.

    The Chair: Is that a comment or do you have a question?

    Mr. John Harvard: No, that's the question I'm asking.

    The Chair: Okay, good.

    Monsieur Proulx, do you have an answer?

    Mr. John Harvard: I am wondering why, after a whole year, you're not able to provide any possible assistance.

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: Yes, but I fail to see where I could do something right now with the Syrian authorities. I am a police officer and I don't know the reason why Mr. Arar is detained in Syria. How can I help?

    The Chair: Okay. I'll have a final question from Madame Marleau, very short in time.

    Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I want to follow up on my colleague's question. It's on the same point.

    I have a chronology of events here. There's a statement here. It says that Mr. Arar's wife telephones the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. She is told that the minister has been unsuccessful in efforts to have all government agencies adopt one position to approach the Syrians. Canadian security officials are frustrating these efforts because they have even more concerns about Arar now than they did before. This is written here. I'm not sure whether this is the truth, but this is what we've been given in this chronology of events.

    If, as seems to be the case, you're prepared to help Mr. Arar, why aren't you doing it? Why don't you either come out and agree that there's no problem with Mr. Arar, or, if there is a problem, come out and say it and demand that they bring him to Canada for justice? Be clear. Help him out one way or the other. We have to get Mr. Arar back to this country. If he is guilty of something, charge him, put it out in the open, and get him back here. If he's not guilty, get out there and say so, so there is one voice coming out of this Canadian government. Can you do this?

    A/Commr Richard Proulx: Mr. Chair, as I mentioned before, I cannot comment on operational details, but we are dealing with the Department of Foreign Affairs. We have been dealing with the department for probably the last year or so. If I can do something more for the department, I'm ready to do it.

  (1200)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: I'll...

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Quickly please, as we've finished with our witnesses.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understand, but you have to recognize me on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Go ahead.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have here a copy of Montpetit and Marleau's House of Commons Procedure and Practice in which the following is noted on page 863: “... if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, he or she is obliged to reply.” Furthermore, and I quote, “a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House”. Such witnesses may be found to have breached parliamentary privilege.

    Obviously Mr. Proulx has no desire to end up in that position, especially, Mr. Chairman, since in my opinion, he is taking quite literally his duty to maintain confidentiality. Personally, I don't think that he would be putting Canada's so-called national security at risk by disclosing to the committee whether or not information was exchanged with the US government prior to Mr. Arar's arrest.

    One last time, Mr. Chairman, in light of the stipulations contained in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice manual, I'd like Mr. Proulx to answer my question. Yes or no, was any information exchanged with US authorities prior to Mr. Arar's arrest?

    The Chair: First, I must rule on your point of order, Mr. Bergeron.

    You stated quite clearly in your preamble that the witness had refused to answer the question. Mr. Proulx did not in fact refuse to answer your question. Most likely you and the committee weren't satisfied with the answer he gave, but surely he didn't say he refused to answer your questions.

[English]

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: If you don't mind, will you let me finish, Mr. Day?

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I thought you had finished, Mr. Chair, sorry.

    The Chair: No, I haven't finished.

[Translation]

    For that reason, I cannot allow your point of order. If you feel that your privilege as a parliamentarian has been breached, we can discuss that at a later time. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Proulx answered the question, perhaps not in a very satisfactory way, or at least not to your satisfaction, but he never said that he refused to give you an answer.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to table a motion at the conclusion of today's meeting for debate by committee members.

    The Chair: Fine then. Thank you.

[English]

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Yes, you have a point of order. Go ahead, Mr. Day.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chair, given the unfortunate situation Mr. Proulx finds himself in, given the importance of the witnesses here and the importance of this issue, and understanding that the committee is in charge of its own agenda, I would simply move that we continue to hear the witnesses now at the table for an indefinite period of time.

    The Chair: I don't think this is a point of order. Further, we may want to discuss it, but we have some other witnesses. Madame Allard is here this morning at the request of all the members of the committee. Our witnesses right now are for generally talking about cases in the world, and I want to be sure we can hear Madame Allard. She has been here for most of the morning. I think it would be better to suspend for five minutes to have our witnesses, Mr. Cotler and Ms. Mazigh, in front of us.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I appreciate, Mr. Chair, your ruling, and we do want to hear the witnesses, but I had a question for the department as to whether they knew if any information was exchanged from the RCMP to the U.S. activities.

    The Chair: If you have a question, you can give it to the clerk, and we'll provide it to the department, so they can send the answer.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chair, for clarification, are we going to return, after we hear from Monia Mazigh, to deal with the dissatisfaction of this committee as reflected in the points of order?

    The Chair: That was just what I said. Monsieur Bergeron said he wanted to discuss it at the end, so we'll see at the end.

    I suspend for five minutes.

  (1205)  

---

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: We now resume our study of cases of Canadian citizens who are being detained in certain foreign countries.

    We're pleased to welcome Ms. Monia Mazigh, who will be giving personal testimony, as well as Mr. Irwin Cotler, who is a member of this committee.

    You have the floor, Ms. Mazigh.

    Ms. Monia Mazigh (As Individual): First of all, I want to thank all committee members for the opportunity to be here today to share with them the nightmare that I have been enduring for the past year along with my two children.

[English]

    First of all, I would like to thank you and all the members of this committee for giving me this opportunity to come and talk about what I have been through with my two children and all the family since September 25 of last year.

    Today it's exactly one year since I saw my husband for the last time. I've never seen him, I never talk to him, and my 6-year-old daughter Baraa, who goes to grade 2 this year, has never been seen by him at school. My 19-month-old baby son hasn't see his father for one year; he was only 7 months when he saw his father for the last time. Now he's a baby of 19 months, he walks, he runs, he's even started talking, but he doesn't know his father.

    Let me tell you, it has been 12 months of sorrow, 12 months of disappointment. However, after this one year, I am more than ever determined to bring justice to my husband, Maher Arar. I believe in the Canadian values of justice. I will try to educate my children to believe in them, and I hope that one day they will be proud to see Canada doing all it can to bring their father back home. I feel that it is very important to do that. I am not a politician, I am a mother of two children. However, it's very important to me to do it. It's very important, not only for me or for my husband, but for my two children and for many other Canadian citizens who are watching this case and are very concerned about the future of our country. Many Canadians who are from Arab and Muslim backgrounds are very concerned about what happened to Maher Arar, about the meaning of their citizenship today.

    In two days, three days--I don't know, but I know it's coming very soon--my husband will be facing an unfair trial. He will be in front of one of the worst courts in the world. He will be in front of the Supreme State Security Court. This is not a civil court, this is not an open trial; this is almost a military court for someone who has been living in Canada for 15 years without going back to Syria, except by being deported there. The Syrian lawyer I hired very recently has been denied access to him. He has been denied access to the file, and he has not even been able to know what are the charges. This court was set up 40 years ago. There is a lot of documentation about it from the U.S. State Department. This court does not accept any appeal. The Canadian government must stop this trial.

  (1220)  

    My questions are the following for you. Why should he face such an unfair trial in Syria if he has spent the last 15 years of his life here in Canada? If he decided in 1991 to become a Canadian citizen, if he did all his studies in Canada, if he came to Ottawa, worked for high-tech companies, and participated in the economic growth of Canada, why should he be today held incommunicado in Syria, coming to trial in the coming days? Why should he face an unfair trial if he was forcibly deported to Syria? He was kidnapped, taken to Syria, and kept incommunicado for the past 12 months, reportedly being subjected to severe torture.

    Today I would like to help stop this injustice, to help stop this large threat to our human rights, to our Canadian values. I think, as members of an elected government, you can make a difference and you can be very proud to show it to all Canadian citizens. Maher Arar is a test for all Canadians, and I, as well as my two children, hope we are going to pass that test, we are going to see him back one day. I came with personal suggestions, and I think they will be helpful. I hope you will do more than welcome them in trying to help this Canadian citizen back to Canada.

    First, I would like to see the Prime Minister make it clear to the Syrian President that this trial is not acceptable, that Maher Arar must not face a trial in Syria. He doesn't belong there; he belongs to Canada, he belongs to his children, and he belongs to his parents, who have been suffering for one year. Mr. Jean Chrétien must make it clear to the Syrian President that he must be brought home. If the Syrian President and the Syrian authorities continue to ignore the Canadian government, which they have since day number one--they never replied to Mr. Jean Chrétien's letter, they never replied to all the diplomat's notes sent by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and they don't count on their replying--then Syria must know Canada will suspend its ongoing efforts to accelerate trade and investment in Syria. We have relations with Syria. They are willing to be part of the international community. They need Canada, as well as many other countries in this world. Why don't we use that leverage? Why have we been so reluctant? Why have we been so timid, so shy? Why? Doesn't he deserve more than this?

    Second, the Canadian government must ask the United States to take responsibility for what they have done. There has not been any contact with the Americans, except at the very early stage of this case, to ask them why they deported a Canadian citizen without an official notification to Canada, why they decided to deport him to Syria.

  (1225)  

    The U.S. Department of State acknowledged on their website that Syria is a state sponsoring terrorism. It is a state where human rights do not mean a lot. The United States must be asked to intervene on my husband's behalf.

    Third, it's very important that the Canadian government launch an inquiry. I think you are watching today what happened in the first part of this committee, how shaky and how contradictory was the answer of the RCMP involvement in that tragedy.

    If there is any role of the security agency, I have to know. My children have the right to know. In 10 to 15 years they will be adults. They will start asking questions. My daughter of 6 years is starting to ask questions. She would like to go to Syria. She said to me that she would like to live with her father in the jail cell.

    Canadians have a right to know if our own security agencies are choosing to use the courts in authoritarian regimes instead of our own justice system.

    If they didn't find anything on Maher Arar, they should say publicly today to the Syrians that Canada doesn't have any evidence to link Mr. Maher Arar to terrorist activities.

    I have asked them on many occasions. They didn't want to acknowledge it.

    They can keep on refusing, but I think today they have a moral obligation, if not a legal obligation, to say that Canada doesn't have any evidence and to participate in all our efforts to bring this citizen back to justice, because he has been refused justice.

    Today I have only a request. Our nightmare must come to an end. The Canadian government must use all its efforts--and I know their efforts are tremendous. They can make a difference and stop this injustice and bring this citizen back to his country as soon as possible.

    I think my children, my husband, and I deserve more than we have received for these past 12 months. We just deserve justice.

    Thank you.

    The Chair:

    Thank you very much, Ms. Mazigh.

    Monsieur Cotler, s'il vous plaît.

    Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to begin by saying that I'm delighted to be able to be here together with Monia Mazigh, on whose behalf I am serving as counsellor. She is a woman of uncommon courage and commitment, and, as I've come to learn, a woman with an exemplary legal mind, with an unusual insight into the legal aspects of the case.

    As a law professor, I must say, Monia, if you wish to be in that profession, you would be more than welcome, given, as I say, your exemplary legal talent.

    I'm pleased also to be here as part of a hearing that has been inspired by the case of William Sampson, whose welcome release should not obscure the fact that he was arrested, detained, and then tortured in Saudi Arabia on trumped-up charges to begin with.

    There is also the case of Montreal photojournalist Zahra Kazemi, whose violent death in Iranian custody and burial in Iran against the wishes of her family has outraged the Canadian community.

    And then there is the case of Bruce Balfour, who was also initially detained and subsequently, happily, returned to Canada.

    In particular, there is the case of Maher Arar, an Ottawa resident, a Canadian citizen who was detained by American authorities while changing flights in New York, who was interrogated and then deported to Syria, where he has been held virtually incommunicado for close to a year without charge.

    These cases give rise to a core concern, which is the concern that underpins our hearing and our deliberations. How should Canada affirm and protect the rights of its Canadian citizens who are unjustly imprisoned, if not tortured, under repressive regimes, while serving notice that these regimes will be held accountable not only for the violations of their international undertakings but also for the violations of their undertakings to us?

    What is necessary, Mr. Chairman, is that Canada develop, articulate, and implement basic canons or principles for Canadian diplomatic advocacy that are clear, comprehensive, strategically deployed, and communicated to the human rights violator whenever Canadian citizens are unjustly imprisoned abroad. I trust this committee can assist in that.

    I've written elsewhere of this framework for what I call a strategic diplomacy for Canada. For the record, I will summarize them here with specific reference as a case study to the case of Maher Arar.

    Number one, in cases like that of Maher Arar, where the initial detention is in a state like the United States, which is a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and in order to prevent deportation to a repressive regime, Canada should make it clear that we expect that Canadian detainees will be advised of their consular rights as Canadians and the Canadian government will be advised that one of our citizens is being detained, which did not occur in this case.

    Number two, in a country where demonstrable evidence exists that a citizen is unable to get a trial and more likely even to be tortured while in detention, such as the case of Syria, Canada should not acquiesce in the trial of that person. It should seek to have that person released and returned to Canada, as Monia Mazigh has herself articulated and stressed.

    Number three, notwithstanding our sustained and concerted efforts to have the detainee returned, which has not always been the case, if a trial in a repressive regime nonetheless takes place, Canada should ensure that Canadian embassy officials are present at the trial, that the accused has effective counsel of his or her choice, that the trial is public, and that it is open to the international media.

    Number four, Canada should state clearly that unjust imprisonment, detention, and torture will adversely affect our bilateral relations with that country. We should be prepared to use our economic and trade leverage to ensure fair treatment of the accused and their fair return to Canada.

    In that connection, Mr. Chairman, and with specific reference to Syria, I might add that a basic tenet of our foreign policy, as expressed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, is that, and I quote, it “...will make effective use of all of the influence that our economic, trading and development assistance relationships give us to promote respect for human rights.” Canada therefore must use its trade and economic leverage to bring Mr. Arar home. The rights of Canadian citizens demand no less.

  (1230)  

    I might add parenthetically here that in terms of that trade relationship, on June 20, 2003, the Syrian government authorized an agreement with the Royal Dutch/Shell and Petro-Canada oil companies to search for new oil wells and develop old ones. Petro-Canada, which has been involved in Syria for over 20 years, receives nearly one-fifth of Syria's oil production of 100,000 barrels per day. We have been increasing--and I'm happy about this--our economic relationship with Syria, which I hope will foster better ties, but that relationship is being called into question by this kind of unjust, incommunicado detention.

    Number five, in principle, repressive regimes should be put on clear notice that they will be held accountable not only bilaterally but internationally for the unjust imprisonment, the torture, and the human rights violations of our citizens and that we, Canada, will exercise our rights and responsibilities in this regard.

    Number six, Canada should insist that detainees be visited regularly by Canadian consular officials; that prolonged periods of time should not go by where the detainee is held in incommunicado detention; and that the International Committee of the Red Cross be able to investigate regularly and to examine the detainee in private for any ill-treatment or torture he or she may have suffered.

    Seven, Canada should mobilize its diplomatic leverage, including the United Nations system and the good offices of friendly countries such as France in the case of its particular relationship with Syria, with regard to using their good offices in that regard.

    Eight--and reference was made to it this morning--the fact that a Canadian is a dual national, as in the case of Maher Arar or in the case of Ms. Kazemi, should not inhibit advocacy on their behalf. It should not make Canada more prone to accept the dictates of the detaining country, especially if the accused is not able to get a fair trial in that country.

    In a world that is a globalizing universe in general and where Canada has an increasingly multicultural character in particular, dual citizenship is going to become more and more of a phenomenon in our country. Therefore, we cannot allow distinctions to be made on the basis of dual citizenship in prejudicing the rights of our Canadian citizens.

    Number nine--and I'm moving to a close--once an accused is sentenced, especially if that sentence was handed down in a trial that did not conform to recognized standards of due process and a fair trial, Canada must not relent in its diplomatic efforts to see its citizens returned.

    My final point on this is that Parliament needs to be more engaged in the defence and protection of our citizens unjustly detained abroad. That's why I welcomed this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest that you perhaps consider the establishment of a permanent subcommittee whose responsibility is to maintain a watching brief respecting Canadians who are unjustly detained in unjust regimes abroad.

    I'd like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, with specific reference to the Arar case and what Canada can and should do to secure his release and return home in two respects. The first is that although the recent focus on the Maher Arar case has been on Syria, it's important to remember that this disturbing narrative of human rights abuses and breaches of international law began in the United States and that the United States was the precipitating factor in the detention, interrogation, and deportation of a Canadian citizen to Syria. Mr. Maher Arar would not be in Syria today were it not for the initial detention and deportation by the United States of this Canadian citizen to Syria. This is a fact that cannot be sanitized or glossed over in our appreciation of this case.

    Second, we should therefore look to the United States as the precipitating factor in helping to secure the release and return of Maher Arar to Canada. There are close relations now developing between the United States and Syria in the sense that Syria wants to be seen as being cooperative with the United States--for other reasons I won't go into--in the anti-terrorist effort. The United States can use the nature of that relationship to help secure his release.

    In particular, so we can better understand the U.S. role here, the United States arguably breached not only its international obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations but its obligations to Canada as a government and to Maher Arar as an individual.

    I'm going to make specific reference, Mr. Chairman, to the manner in which those obligations were breached. The first is in not informing the Canadian consulate pursuant to American obligations under article 36.1 of the Vienna Convention, as the United States is obliged to do without delay under that treaty--without delay, Mr. Chairman. The second is in not informing Mr. Arar of his rights under article 36.1(b) of that treaty. Again, that's an obligation the U.S. has to undertake without delay, and I might add, in a case before the International Court of Justice, the LaGrande case, the International Court held that this obligation is owing as much to an individual, i.e. to Mr. Arar, as it is to a state, namely Canada. There was a dual breach here, of undertakings to us as a country and to Mr. Arar as a Canadian citizen. The third is in effectively preventing or precluding the Canadian consulate from communicating with Mr. Arar and in effectively preventing Mr. Arar from communicating with the Canadian consulate. Once again the U.S. breached its obligations as set forth in the Vienna Convention, obligations they are obliged to undertake without delay.

  (1235)  

    Moreover, and this is rather surprising, Mr. Chair, the United States breached its own domestic law and policy as well as its undertakings under international law in deporting Mr. Arar to Syria in the following three particulars. They deported Mr. Arar to a country the Americans have placed on their list of state sponsors of terrorism. Why deport a Canadian citizen to a country the United States acknowledges is a state supporter of terrorism? Second, the United States acknowledges that detainees in Syria cannot get a fair trial. Why deport a Canadian citizen to a country in which they acknowledge detainees cannot get a fair trial? And finally, the United States acknowledges that there are risks of detainees being tortured in Syria. Why, again, deport a Canadian citizen there?

    So I say, given the American connection to this case, they represent the first port of call we should turn to in securing his release.

    The second point I wanted to mention--and with this I close, Mr. Chairman--has to do with the matter of the right to a fair trial. Monia Mazigh has herself, from her own experience, an understanding, an involvement, and knows that...and the demonstrable evidence that comes out of not only the U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices,which I refer this committee to, but the reports of non-governmental organizations like Amnesty international, which has been principally involved in the Maher Arar case. Simply put, a detainee, Mr. Maher Arar or anyone else, cannot get a fair trial in Syria even if one wishes to argue--and I would like to be able to argue--that there have been changes and hopefully a person can get a fair trial in Syria.

    The fact is, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Maher Arar has been detained virtually incommunicado for close to a year without charge. That already prejudices the principle of the presumption of innocence, and that already prejudices his right to a fair trial, particularly when you add to it the reliable reports that he may have been tortured in detention.

    In conclusion, I say that Canada must, first, exhaust all remedies to bring Mr. Maher Arar home, beginning with involving the good offices of the United States; second, make it clear to Syrian leaders that the just and appropriate remedy in this case is, in the interests of the two countries, to return Maher Arar to Canada; third, use our good offices internationally to help facilitate that outcome; and finally, use whatever bilateral leverage we may have with regard to our relations with Syria, which I would like to see improved and which, we have to acknowledge and assert to them, are being prejudiced by this continuing unjust detention and imprisonment in Syria.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Cotler.

    We have 15 minutes left and everyone wants to ask a question. We'll start with Mr. Day.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Mazigh, thank you so much for being here. We know this is not easy for you and for your children. I want to assure you that the hearts and the prayers of Canadians are with you. This is a very difficult time for you.

    I'd like to encourage you, too, in knowing that because you're willing to be here, you've not only increased the chances of your husband's human rights being respected, but in fact you've increased the chances that the human rights of all Canadians and other people apprehended by these regimes are going to be enhanced. You're doing a painful but a wonderful thing here, for all people.

    I'd like to say that I share your questions. The very questions you've put to us are questions we want to pursue as a committee. I don't know why our government has been so timid in this case, and frankly in other cases. History shows that it doesn't work.

    I want to ask you a question to do with the Syrian regime. When I say the Syrian regime, I'm not talking about the Syrian people. As we know from the history of dictatorships and tyrannies, the people want peace, the people want to raise their children, the people want to work, the people want freedom. I am talking about the regime itself. I believe Syrian people have the same dreams that you and I and others have.

    The question is this. Just three days ago our Minister of Foreign Affairs showed some confidence that he had received assurances from the Syrian regime that your husband's human rights would be protected. You don't share those same assurances. You don't seem as confident as the Minister of Foreign Affairs that everything is just going to be fine with your husband. What have you seen, or what do you know about the regime that makes you not as assured of these claims that the minister has given?

  (1245)  

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, there is no record of the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying he feels totally assured that everything is fine. I would ask you, Mr. Day—

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Would you like me to read verbatim?

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes, could I have that quote for the record, that “everything is fine”?

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm quoting him from September 23 saying he is assured, if the Syrian authorities are going to proceed their way: “I have been given assurances by them that it will be in a civil process...and that this will be open.”

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: That is not the same, Mr. Chair. That is an incredible deviation from what you allege he said at the outset.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Ms. Mazigh reflected on the fact that she does not think this is going to be a civil process.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm reflecting on your remarks, Mr. Day, not on Ms. Mazigh's.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm asking Ms. Mazigh.... Please.

    The Chair:

    You can ask the witness, Ms. Mazigh, to answer the question, please, but just to remind you, if you're giving the full story about the Syrian government and the history, we're going to be here for more than 10 minutes.

    Ms. Monia Mazigh: Let me tell you something. The lawyer I am hiring in Syria said to me.... I talked to his assistant today. I talked to him two days ago. He said that so far he has been refused any contact. They even refused my lawyer permission to visit in Seydnaya prison where he's being held, to take the power of attorney in order to represent my husband.

    However, something that must be clarified here for all Canadians is that the trial he is probably going through very soon is going to be under the Supreme State Security Court, and this is in contradiction with what has been circulated or insinuated in the media by some Foreign Affairs officials. It is not an open trial. There is no possibility of a fair trial. It is not a civil court; this is called the Supreme State Security Court. So I don't know how we can take this as an assurance. For me it's a big threat for my husband.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: That answers the question. Thank you. I appreciate it.

    Patry, Bernard Chair Chair:

    Thank you very much. We'll go to Monsieur Bergeron.

    I think your answer is very clear. Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I too would like to thank the witness and our colleague Mr. Cotler for their presentations. This morning, we heard a technocratic presentation on incidents that have transpired. We also listened to an account of the situation by law enforcement representatives and just now, we received some insight into the human and legal aspects of these cases. Thank you both for completing the picture for us.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but fundamentally, you appear to be saying that under the circumstances, it would not be advisable to adopt simplistic solutions like the one advocated by my colleague Mr. Day, to wit, the expulsion of the Saudi ambassador.

    I have no wish to debate here and now a motion that isn't even on the committee's agenda yet. On the contrary, we need to emphasize the relations between the two countries and ensure that Canada used the channels available to it on the international front to compel these nations to adopt practices respectful of human rights and to establish decent justice systems. Now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions such as demanding the expulsion of the ambassador or the severing of diplomatic ties.

    In my opinion, we should be working to strengthen our relations and putting pressure on this country. Expelling the ambassador will not resolve the situation. By definition, the ambassador's job is to defend his government's actions. If we expel him and his country merely appoints a new ambassador, the new appointee will continue doing exactly the same thing, that is defending his government. Therefore, this is not the most timely solution.

    As our colleague Mr. Cotler suggested, we should use the leverage we already have. For instance, Saudi Arabia has aspirations of joining the World Trade Organization and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Canada has a say in whether or not Saudi Arabia is admitted to these international fora, which demand of their members compliance with a number of international criteria, namely respect for human rights and certain international conventions.

    It's easy after the fact to try and make political hay out of an incident or to gain a higher media profile. Such actions are even more deplorable in light of the William Sampson case. In fact, when Mr. Sampson's father turned to his MP, a Canadian Alliance member, for help, she wouldn't give him the time of day. Why was the cause of William Sampson championed by a Bloc Québécois MP from Quebec? Because Canadian Alliance MPs refused to help Mr. Sampson's family.

    It's simply ludicrous that the Canadian Alliance is now criticizing the government for its handling of the William Sampson case. In truth, the Canadian Alliance could also be taken to task for not wanting to be associated with an individual who may have committed a crime.

    CA members take a hard line where criminals are concerned. How could they possibly allow themselves to be linked in the press with an individual who may have committed a crime?

  (1250)  

    The Chair: For your information, Mr. Bergeron, you have 30 seconds left in which to ask a question

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, now that William Sampson has been released, it's too easy to do what the Canadian Alliance is doing, that is blame the government for what it did or didn't do.

    In your opinion, instead of making superficial suggestions, wouldn't Canada be better off using the leverage it enjoys on the international stage to compel these countries to respect human rights and create a decent justice system?

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

    Do you agree with his comment and question?

    Ms. Monia Mazigh: Yes. In fact...

    The Chair: Perhaps not with the last comment. The other was fairly political in nature. You're not making any political statements, Ms. Mazigh.

    Ms. Monia Mazigh: I totally agree that Canada wields considerable influence over Syria and that Syria needs Canada much more than other countries do. If we cannot act alone, we can ask other countries to help the Canadian government demand and work toward the return to Canada of my husband Maher Arar.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll now hear from Ms. Carroll.

[English]

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you.

    I simply wanted to ask, as a housekeeping matter, did this document I have, “The deportation and imprisonment of Maher Arar”, come from the table? No?

    The Chair:

    No, that comes from Mrs. Arar, because she is our witness.

  (1255)  

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: No. Did it not come through on my e-mail this morning, Ms. McDonough?

    The Chair: It could be the same one. I don't know.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think it's important that there is no source. I think it's very important that documents be given a source.

    The Chair: That's fine. You make your point. It's coming from the witness, not from the clerk.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: From the witness and not from Ms. McDonough.

    The Chair: No, from the witness.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: That is confusing.

    I would ask two questions, if I may.

    Ms. Mazigh, why do you think your husband was stopped by the American authorities? I think it's important that we hear what you think.

    Second, both to you and to Mr. Cotler, you have both made mention of your husband reportedly being “subjected to severe torture”. That contradicts somewhat what your husband told the consular officials who visited him, who said that he had not been tortured, and secondly, that his situation was improved by the intervention of Canadian consular officials. Could you reconcile that for me?

    Ms. Monia Mazigh: Yes, thank you. I will answer your first question. I think it's more appropriate to put this question to the U.S. officials, because I share your ignorance about the reason why my husband has been arrested by the U.S. authorities. I am asking that question. So we are asking the same question.

    To maybe give you more explanation, my husband was handed a piece of paper, and Mrs. Maureen Girvan, our Canadian consul in New York, was the only Canadian official who was able to read that paper. In that paper the Americans evoked four reasons why they think they arrested him. These are not charges; these are simply allegations. In one of them--it's the more serious one--they said he is a member of al-Qaeda. My question here is, again, if they think he's a member of al-Qaeda, why didn't they ship him to Guantanamo Bay, or why didn't they simply keep him forever in the U.S.? The jails in the U.S. have plenty of people who are kept without charges, and this is not something bothering the U.S. authorities.

    However, the second question is about the allegation of torture. Let me tell you that this is not coming from me. This is coming from the Syrian Human Rights Committee. It's a committee that is known by the U.S. State Department. It is publicized on their website, so they trust this committee. This committee is based in London and it is very trusted by Amnesty International, who know very well what's going on in the Syrian prison. It says my husband has been going through severe torture, and let me tell you, I will believe that report until the day I see the Syrians giving private access to my husband.

    My husband has never had any private access to the Canadian officials. He has never been able to be examined by a doctor all this period of time, and when he said he was grateful to the Canadian government, he said that in front of four Syrian officials, with Mr. Leo Martel, the Canadian counsellor in Damascus, the only representative of the Canadian government. And do you know who was at that important visit on the 15th of August? The head of military intelligence, Mr. Hassan Khalil. He was present at that meeting.

    Let me tell you something. When you are in front of your jailers, I wonder how you can dare to say you are not well treated when you are not well treated. So he refuted that allegation, of course, but I will accept this refutation if he can make it once he is back in Canada.

    The Chair: I shall ask Madame McDonough, Mr. Casey, and Mrs. Catterall to put one question right now, and we'll have the answer right away after.

    Mrs. McDonough, please.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Let me say how much I appreciate the powerful testimony from Monia Mazigh, one of the most courageous, articulate women I know. It was very helpful to hear from an acknowledged international human rights expert specific and concise recommendations for the kind of strategic framework in which our diplomatic advocacy should be lodged.

    I have a specific concern that I want to zero right in on. It's well known that both the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister have on numerous occasions indicated that there's not much Canada can do to intervene in the instance of Maher Arar being tried in Syria because he is after all a Syrian citizen, and that we, Canada, will do our utmost to ensure that he gets a fair trial and follow the case closely.

    We heard I think from both of our witnesses that the possibility that really a fair trial could take place in Syria under these conditions we know prevail is an impossibility and an oxymoron. My question very specifically to Irwin Cotler is, what then are the actions, the specific actions, that you feel must be taken on an urgent basis, given the possibility that such a trial could proceed almost any day? I wonder if you could outline those for the committee.

    Secondly, with respect to the RCMP leaving a cloud hanging over Maher Arar's head with respect to any possible information that either the RCMP or CSIS may have given to the American government, what would be your recommendation for how we proceed to deal with that situation that was so unsatisfactorily addressed this morning by Mr. Proulx?

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Casey, do you have a question?

    Mr. Bill Casey: First of all, I want to thank the witness for her presentation and all the information she's provided. I really, truly hope this committee can help you resolve this issue and get justice for your husband.

    I want to say that I totally agree that if the United States authorities actually thought he was, and it says here “a member of the al-Qaeda”, they would do anything to keep him. They would not send him back to Syria. So I don't think that is valid. But I also want to mention Ms. McDonough's comment about the cloud left by the RCMP assistant commissioner. I believe it's more than a cloud he's left. I think it's pretty clear from what he said and what he didn't say that there was involvement by the authorities in Canada. He denied two out of three accusations, but he wouldn't deny the other, and he hid behind the charge of operational details. I think the problem is pretty clear .

    Do you know what the charges are against your husband?

    The Chair: Now we'll go to Mrs. Catterall.

    Do you have a question, Mrs. Catterall?

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I really don't want to get into any political wrangling here, Mr. Chair, but I do want to set the record straight. I don't think the Prime Minister said to Monia that there's nothing he can do in this case. He said very clearly “to press the Syrian government for his release and return to Canada as soon as possible”. That has been our objective from the moment we were aware that he had been deported by the Americans--

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Was that in the June 13 letter?

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, Alexa, that's in the June 13 letter. And I appreciate Mr. Day's interest in this, because frankly the first question from the Alliance on this case in the House of Commons shortly after his disappearance suggested that we should not be helping people suspected of terrorist activities--

    A voice: That's not true.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: In any case, I know your committee is over time, and I want to thank Monia for her courage through this. I cannot tell you how impressed I have been with the courage and the capacity of this woman, from the first time I spoke to her in Tunisia.

    I would love to ask Mr. Cotler some questions about how we could proceed with the United States in terms of their contravention of a number of principles we all hold dear, but perhaps we can have that conversation privately, or the committee may decide to have Mr. Cotler back.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cotler, you have a question to answer from Mrs. McDonough and Mr. Casey.

    Mr. Irwin Cotler: I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.

    In terms of what Canada must do, I sought to set it out. My main principle is that it should exhaust all remedies to bring Maher Arar home without a trial. In particular, it should begin involving the good offices of the United States to make it clear to Syria in our bilateral representations to them that the just and appropriate remedy is to return him to Canada; that the trial option in this instance is neither just nor appropriate; and that it's in the interest of our bilateral relationships, which we seek to improve, that he be returned to Canada. It's a win-win situation for both countries for Syria to return him to Canada, and it's a lose-lose situation for both countries for him to be held incommunicado in Syria. Canada should use its good offices internationally, which it has not fully exhausted, through the United Nations and with other allies, such as France, with regard to making representations to Syria. Canada should use its bilateral trade and economic leverage, and it should ensure regular consular access and access to a lawyer and to the Red Cross.

    Marlene asked a question about the United States. I want to make one point. Nothing I said about the breaches by the United States of its international law undertakings or its domestic law undertakings in the Maher Arar case should detract from the fact that I consider the United States to be a great democracy committed to human rights and the rule of law. It's precisely because I consider the United States a democracy committed to human rights and the rule of law that I feel we should make representations to them that in this case their conduct has prejudiced the rights of a Canadian citizen and has breached their own undertakings, as I indicated.

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote the specific reference that the United States made as to why you can't get a fair trial in Syria, apart from the aspects of torture that Monia Mazigh has mentioned, which you can find in the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, in particular with regard to the Supreme State Security Court. It says (1) the charges against defendants in these courts were vague, and defendants were charged and convicted for exercising normal political rights; (2) defendants are not present during the preliminary or investigative phase of the trial where the prosecutor presents evidence; (3) trials are closed to the public; (4) lawyers are not ensured access to their clients and are often excluded during the course of the interrogation; (5) lawyers are not permitted oral presentations; (6) the state's case is based on confessions, and defendants have not been allowed to argue in court that their confessions were coerced; and (7) there's no known instance where the court ordered a medical examination for a defendant who claimed that he was tortured.

    I could go on, Mr. Chairman. What I'm saying is that by the United States' own representations, they should regard themselves as having a responsibility to facilitate his return to Canada in comport with their own fidelity to human rights and the rule of law.

·  (1305)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Are there any other questions?

    Thank you very much, Mr. Cotler.

[Translation]

    Thank you very much for coming here this morning, Ms. Mazigh.

    Do you wish to say something, Mr. Bergeron?

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, further to Mr. Proulx's testimony, I would like to table the following motion for my colleagues' consideration: “That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs...”

[English]

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. We had an agreement that we would deal with this at the end, and we're watching the committee's quorum go out the door. In a spirit of cooperation across party lines, in order to make a difference in the fate of this Canadian citizen, I would appeal to the government members not to break quorum but to return to participate in the final stage of this meeting, which was agreed to earlier on.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. As Ms. McDonough knows very well, a number of us have responsibilities for question period. The committee was scheduled to meet at 1 o'clock. I don't think the point of order raised by Mr. Bergeron is crucial to the immediate solution of Mr. Arar's case. I think the committee needs to hear from the Solicitor General. I think that kind of cheap political shot is not worthy of Ms. McDonough.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I'm going to accept Mr. Bergeron's...because I told him at the beginning....

[Translation]

    Your motion has merit, but there are other ways... It makes no difference whether we have a quorum or not. It's important to understand that even if the motion were not debated or approved, it would be of no consequence. As of 2 p.m. today, the committee will no longer exists. The motion cannot be tabled to Parliament either this afternoon or Monday for technical reasons. Next Tuesday, we'll be re-electing the chair, the vice-chair and all of the committee members. At least, I'm hoping that will be the case. However, I did give Mr. Bergeron my word that we would hear his motion.

    Go ahead then, Mr. Bergeron.

·  (1310)  

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to give notice of the following motion, because I'll revisit the issue later:

That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade report to the House of Commons on its lack of satisfaction with the responses given by Mr. Richard Proulx. Assistant Commissioner, RCMP Intelligence Directorate, when he testified before the committee on Thursday, September 25, 2003 and that accordingly, the House of Commons order the witness to appear again before the committee at the earliest opportunity.

    The Chair: The Chair accepts your notice of motion, Mr. Bergeron. I discussed the matter earlier with Mr. Proulx and he said he was willing to appear again before the committee.

    Therefore, I accept your notice of motion and we will discuss the matter again at a later date.

[English]

    Madame McDonough, on the same point of order.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: It was acknowledged when we discussed today's meeting that there might indeed be a need to have the Solicitor General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs come before the committee.

    In view of the urgency and the dire necessity for doing so, I urge that we move immediately to schedule a special meeting to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General come before this committee so we can begin to deal with this in an appropriate manner.

    The Chair: The motion we already passed dealt with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General. I fully agree with you. This week the foreign affairs minister is in New York, and that's why we didn't have him here today. We said we were going to go through—but it's still up in the air. We'll try to get them, if it's possible.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: And if necessary, a special meeting next week to do--

    The Chair: I just want to let you know that we have a special meeting tomorrow morning with Mr. Musharraf, and there are not many members who are available for that.

    I would like you to find a replacement for yourself for tomorrow morning also, Mrs. McDonough.

    Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.