FAIT Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
| ¿ | 0905 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)) |
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs) |
| ¿ | 0910 |
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
Mr. John Harvard |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.) |
| ¿ | 0945 |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
|
Mr. Konrad Sigurdson (Director General, Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade) |
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Bill Graham |
| À | 1000 |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0905)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this morning we are considering cases involving the detention of Canadian citizens in certain foreign countries.
We have the pleasure to have with us this morning the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon. Bill Graham, and Mr. John McNee, who is the ADM responsible for Africa and the Middle East. Welcome to both of you.
I understand, Mr. Minister, that you have some opening remarks. Please proceed.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As you said, I'm accompanied today by John McNee, who is our ADM, Africa and Middle East, and Konrad Sigurdson, who is the director general for consular affairs. If there are issues involving specific cases, I'll turn to Mr. Sigurdson, who can perhaps answer detailed questions you might have.
I welcome very much this opportunity to brief the committee on our consular operations. I'd like to make two points about the larger context of these operations, which I think are worth making before we go into particulars. The first, colleagues, is that the demand for consular services is steadily increasing. Canadians are travelling abroad in growing numbers to a wider variety of destinations. More seniors and people with disabilities are travelling, creating new kinds of needs. Travellers are going to more remote and sometimes dangerous destinations, and many new Canadians from around the globe travel regularly to visit their countries of origin.
On the whole, our consular services have an excellent track record in serving Canadians. We protect our citizens outside our borders through embassies and consulates around the world, backed by a 24-hour, seven-day operation centre in Ottawa. Each year about 2.5 million citizens are served through 270 consular offices in more than 180 countries.
When Canadians abroad are arrested or detained, robbed or assaulted, in need of urgent medical care, or facing any other crisis, our 800 consular employees are there to assist them. A small proportion of those cases involve citizens accused of or convicted of violating the laws of another country. Of these cases, the majority involve judicial and penal systems that treat arrested foreigners with basic standards of due process, transparency, and respect for human rights. Among the nearly 3,000 Canadians presently incarcerated in 120 countries, almost three-quarters are in the United States of America, mostly on drug-related offences.
Matters become much more difficult when Canadians are detained in countries that do not share our standards. Countries with repressive regimes can be dangerous places for everyone within their borders, and that's why we issue travel advisories for our citizens. If our citizens are detained, we work to ensure that they're treated in accordance with international human rights standards.
In accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the authorities of another country must inform the Canadian embassy or consulate of the death, arrest, or detention of a Canadian citizen. If a person is being held, notification must be with his or her consent. Under the convention, our consular officials then have the right to visit the detained person, to monitor the conditions of detention, to ensure access to medical services and legal representation, and to urge a fair public trial. We press our demands through diplomatic communications, and when appropriate, we seek reinforcement of our message by friendly third countries or even international bodies, such as the United Nations. If a Canadian is convicted following trial, we have treaty transfer arrangements with more than 70 countries that allow the sentence to be served in a Canadian prison in accordance with our own laws and regulations.
Colleagues, we have to recognize that our consular officials work within some basic constraints. One of these is that dual nationality is a seriously complicating factor. In many countries there is no way of renouncing a former citizenship when you become a Canadian. When a Canadian is arrested or detained in his or her country of origin or other citizenship and that country does not recognize dual nationality, it poses very serious problems. The Vienna convention itself does not legally oblige that country to grant us consular access. In other words, the person has no international legal right to be treated as a Canadian citizen.
[Translation]
Moreover, if a Canadian breaks the law of another country, he or she is without question subject to that country's justice system. And many countries deal with these issues very differently than we do. Their courts may not be independent, fair or even effective. The proceedings may be held in secret, and translation and interpretation services may not be offered. In many countries, detention conditions are much worse than in Canada. Finally, foreigners are often refused bail or other kinds of conditional release before a trial or an appeal, which may mean that they spend years in prison waiting for their case to be heard.
Although most countries have signed the Vienna Convention on consular relations, the rights and obligations created by the Convention are expressed in very general terms, which leaves a great deal of room for interpretation. For example, although consular officials have the right to visit prisoners and speak to them, nothing forces the authorities in the host country to respect the confidential nature of those discussions. Things usually work well, with consular access being granted and communication permitted. However, a few recent cases that have been publicized have been complicated by the problem of dual nationality and by the refusal to grant unrestricted access in countries whose judicial processes are not transparent and which exercise tight control over communication. Management of those cases is transferred to the diplomatic level.
The first intervention generally takes the form of a diplomatic note asking for all the details of the case, as well as direct access, which is essential for determining the condition of the person in detention. Confidential communication is also important in order to enable the prisoner to speak freely of his or her situation.
If access and private communication are not granted, the Canadian ambassador may be asked to intervene directly with the government in question. It is also possible that the country's ambassador in Ottawa may be invited to explain his or her government's actions.
Diplomatic intervention tends to produce results with time. If not, diplomatic intervention at a higher level may be justified. That usually takes the form of letters, telephone calls or the involvement of the Foreign Affairs minister, a special envoy or even, in appropriate cases, the Prime Minister himself.
¿ (0910)
[English]
Higher-level representations are made in cases that involve extraordinary circumstances. Such steps are clearly called for when abuse and torture of Canadian citizens by a foreign government is at issue. This form of treatment is completely unacceptable, and that is made clear by us on all occasions.
But the practical question we must ask is, what do we do about it when it happens? Our principal concern must be to see that our citizens are kept alive, treated fairly, and eventually released. Resorting to fiery rhetoric, the withdrawal of ambassadors, or the threat of economic sanctions rarely helps to achieve those results in these difficult circumstances. Indeed, they are often completely counterproductive. They could in certain circumstances even endanger the life of a Canadian by creating a highly politicized case and testing the resolve of a government that is already used to repressive measures. Furthermore, expelling and recalling ambassadors or severing diplomatic relations shuts down official communications just when we need them the most. In short, when the lives of detained Canadians are at stake, we have to continue the dialogue that might lead to their release, and we have to preserve our capacity to represent other Canadians and Canadian interests in that country.
I know there are critics of our policies, which are followed by almost all other countries in similar circumstances. Those critics often call them soft diplomacy. I put it to you that there's no such thing as soft diplomacy, or, for that matter, hard diplomacy. What's hard diplomacy? Making a lot of noise when you go in to meet the foreign minister? There's only diplomacy itself, which includes all of our efforts to promote the interests of Canada and Canadians in the world. In exercising that diplomacy, I suggest to you that Canada's greatest asset is the respect with which other countries regard us, a respect that has been earned by us from a long tradition of working together with those countries to resolve individual and global problems. There's only one kind of diplomacy for me, then, and that's what we practise in consular cases, the kind that works, getting our citizens treated fairly and home.
Colleagues, we all know that the heightened volume and complexity of our consular work reflects the fact that the world is becoming more interconnected. We need to find ways of dealing better with that reality.
I'm aware that this committee is currently dealing with other pressing aspects of globalization by examining Canada's relations with the Muslim world, and that will surely become a principal concern of ours in years to come. That's very important work, and I look forward to discussing that with you today as well, if you so wish.
Thank you very much.
¿ (0915)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
We're going to turn now to questions and answers. I ask my colleagues to be very brief. Instead of a 10-minute round, we'll have a six-minute round, because I already have 10 people on my list who want to ask questions.
There is a cabinet meeting at 10 o'clock, and the minister needs to be gone by 9:55.
Mr. Day, please.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Minister, for being here.
I want to say right from the start that the assistance we as a committee received from the embassy when we were holding our meetings in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt was commendable. The hard work of our officials over there was obvious to us, and we appreciated it.
I don't want to prolong the debate on so-called soft diplomacy versus tough diplomacy. In the view of many people, the record is clear. When you're dealing with tyrants and dictators, soft diplomacy does not work. It works fine when you're dealing with democratic states, such as Finland, Denmark, or New Zealand. Many of us believe the record is clear that when you raise the issues firmly and the offending jurisdiction knows that you may well go public and be very straightforward, then you get results. When we were in Iran, we talked with people on the human rights activist side, who said, “Please raise these issues publicly. Make lots of noise when you hear that our human rights and even our lives are being violated in these regimes”. Those are the people we need to listen to, along with Mr. Sampson and Mr. Balfour. My suggestion would be that when these incidents happen with Canadians, be direct and do it privately at the start, but those regimes need to know that if there is not very quick action, then there's going to very public action against them.
I want to ask the minister what his department has done following the recent developments in the Kazemi case. Canada has a great opportunity here to in fact be a catalyst in seeing the reformist movement go ahead in Iran, without imposing our own culture in terms of sovereignty issues. What has the minister done in light of the most recent information from the reformist MP heading up the report on the Kazemi case, Mr. Mohsen Armin, who we met with two weeks ago? His report has come out saying that the prosecutor may have tampered with the evidence, may have counselled witnesses to lie, and may even have been present at the beating and death of Ms. Kazemi. We understand that the gentleman responsible for that report was sentenced to six months in prison on the day the report was released. What has the office of the foreign affairs minister done to protest this particular development?
We have questions to do with Mr. Arar. Why was he picked up in the United States? Did Canada give information to the U.S. authorities? Why has there been no protest regarding his torture that he talks about? We have a lot of questions. Are we going to get answers to those questions, or are we going to have to vote on this committee, possibly here today, for a very expensive, drawn-out, and possibly multi-million dollar public inquiry? Will we get answers to those questions in good time regarding the Arar case?
Those are my two questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Minister, you have three minutes.
[English]
Hon. Bill Graham: First, thank you for your comments about the help you got from our embassy officials abroad. But also thank you to the committee for going to these countries. I think this is an important report. I think it's important to actually get there and see what's going on. I think this will bear excellent fruit.
Mr. Day, I know that you and I have had disagreements about exactly what to do in specific cases. Sometimes you would have preferred me to be more public or hard, and sometimes I would have said give me a chance to work on this in a different way. But from your comments, I think that both of us are coming at this in the same way. We recognize that there is an internal debate going on in Iran. By acting in the right way, Canada can move this in a way that is good for democracy in Iran and in the end, for the resolution of the Kazemi case as well. I've often made the point to you and others about the dynamic of Iran and Iranian politics as it touches on this and on the important nuclear issue. That is precisely what we're trying to do here.
I was very pleased when the Majlis came out with its report, because we've been talking about the possibility of just that, a recognition within Iran and Iranian society as to the nature of the Kazemi case. That's why we talked about this as a case involving a woman killed during the course of acting as a journalist within her journalistic functions.
What are we going to do? We're going to exercise our right to be present at that trial. We're going to watch the trial. Everyone is quite skeptical about where it's coming from at this particular time, but my view is that it will present an opportunity to get the light in there. Questions will be asked of witnesses. Then somebody is going to start pointing fingers at somebody else. We've made sure that we will be there, and both media and international NGOs will be there. That is a positive development.
We will make sure that we communicate at all times, as I have. I've always communicated openly. I've met with the Iranian foreign minister, and as you know, I've held press conferences after those meetings. You said we're not public on it. In my press conference in New York, I told everybody exactly what I told the Iranian minister in these respects. Our public message and our private message are the same. Sometimes it's a question of timing.
¿ (0920)
[Translation]
The Chair: Minister, please finish your comments quickly, please.
[English]
Hon. Bill Graham: I'm sure others will ask me questions about this, and we'll have an opportunity to discuss it further. On the matter of Mahar Arar, as you know, the Solicitor General has announced that there will be an inquiry by the Public Complaints Commission of the RCMP. This again will provide an opportunity, hopefully, to get all of these questions answered. I'm hoping that process will do it, but if it doesn't, then there are other processes we can turn to in Canadian law. I've met with some of Mr. Arar's very competent legal counsel, representatives of Amnesty International, and others, and I know they'll be pressing to make sure that the process we do have is full and open and gives them access to information.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Ms. Lalonde, please.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Minister, thank you for being here.
I think that we all share your burden. Let us take a few easy statistics: there has been the death of one woman and two men broken. I am talking about Mr. Sampson and Mr. Arar, whom we saw yesterday and who have obviously both been tortured and abused in various ways. Do you not feel the need to review procedures with your team, to check that everything possible was done and that it was done at the appropriate time? Given these terrible events, would it not be worthwhile giving this a hard look to see how things were done?
Second, there is the issue of international action. You yourself pointed out at the beginning that many more people were travelling and that some destinations could be dangerous. Would it not be helpful to act at the international level—and parliamentarians can also play a hand in this—to ensure that, in cases of dual nationality, the last country to be chosen by the citizen, that is, the one that issued the most recent passport, should have a stronger voice when that citizen is in difficulty? That would broaden the application of the Vienna Convention.
The International Centre for Legal Resources has provided you with an extremely well-prepared file on the Kazemi case and has suggested a series of international measures that I would ask you to implement. Of course, when we need to wait for the trial there to be over, we have no choice but to wait, but otherwise there are several types of international actions that can be launched. I would say that people in all countries are concerned with this.
Finally, I would like to ask a brief and concrete question about the Kazemi case, and I raised this question everywhere when we visited Iran. I found that people in Iran were very interested in this issue. Are you prepared to help the coalition by providing funding for an observer? We know that it is possible to have an observer from the Quebec and Canadian coalition. Some money has been raised and more will be, but it would be helpful if the department could contribute to help make this observer possible.
¿ (0925)
Hon. Bill Graham: Ms. Lalonde, thank you for your question. I believe that you have identified the human perspective very well. It is all well to talk of diplomacy, but if you are the person being detained... As you said, there has been one death and two lives broken by what has happened. There may be hundreds or even thousands of others in various countries. Of course, we need to find an international solution. You know very well that in today's world one country cannot resolve these things by working completely alone. The solution will be found through cooperation with other countries.
I will give you a concrete example. In the case of Ms. Kazemi, I believe that if our efforts have brought results to some extent at this point, it is partly because we have spoken directly to our European colleagues and have made them understand that this woman was exercising her duties and rights as a journalist and that she was killed in the exercise of her duties. I expressed it the same way when I spoke to Kofi Annan. So when we engage the international community, our voice is much stronger.
Second, there are other things to be done at the international level, and we are doing them. We took action in particular in Mr. Sampson's case. Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, but there is an additional protocol that allows for international observers to have access to people in the country. Canada absolutely must insist that other States sign the access protocol. We have begun efforts to that end. In international law, there are all kinds of international standards but they are not applied in practice because there is no means to enforce them. I'm sure that my colleague Irwin Cotler will agree with me. In the case of the Convention Against Torture, such a means exists, and we need to persuade other States to rally behind that agreement. I believe that it is only through international efforts that we will be able to correct this situation.
At the international level, it is much more complicated to change the right to citizenship. I remember the Russian case last year. Mr. Cotler is an expert on that subject as well. If a Canadian of Hungarian or Russian origin return to his country of origin, he was always told that he was not a Canadian and that it was impossible for him to drop his initial citizenship. The only case in which we have succeeded in this regard, I believe, is in Hong Kong. The Chinese have agreed that people from Hong Kong were to be considered Americans or Canadians if they had an American or Canadian passport. If I am not mistaken, that is one of the rare cases in which we have succeeded.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will now go to Ms. Marleau. You can give your answer afterwards, minister.
Ms. Marleau.
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): We all know about the Mahar Arar case, and we all know that very serious questions arise from that particular case.
I have a question that I think begs to be asked: how many other Canadians have been stopped at a U.S. airport since September 11 and shipped off to some country that, rumour has it, will use torture or whatever means at their disposal to get so-called confessions from them? How many of these Canadians does Foreign Affairs know about? How many of them would be in a similar situation as Mahar Arar but perhaps don't have a wife or a family that feels they can speak publicly about these cases? I'm extremely concerned because if there's one case, normally there's more than one.
¿ (0930)
[Translation]
The Chair: Minister.
[English]
Hon. Bill Graham: I understand your preoccupation, but our officials tell us that to our knowledge, no Canadian has been sent off contrary to their wishes to any other country, apart from the case of Mr. Arar. As you know, in the case of Mr. Arar, we did have consular access at the beginning, and it was his being sent off when we were preparing to help him with the immigration issue that was particularly perturbing to us. That has not happened in any other case. I do believe that the attention this case has had and the forceful representations we have made to our American colleagues have gone a long way in making sure they recognize that there's a diplomatic dimension to this. I believe strongly that this will not happen again, but one can never be certain.
The Chair: Mr. Harvard.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Let me just say off the top, Mr. Graham, that I certainly agree with you that consular work is very tough. It's not black and white. I think our officials abroad are very often unfairly maligned in the work they do. I think they do work under very difficult constraints. I also agree with you that withdrawing an ambassador is rarely productive.
My questions relate to the Arar case as well. It was my understanding--and you can correct me, Mr. Graham--that Mr. Arar in the first instance did not have consular service provided to him, which is in violation of international law. As I understand it--and Mr. Cotler has said this before--shipping Mr. Arar to Syria was in violation of American policy. Forget about international law, it was in violation of American domestic policy.
My question is this: are you satisfied, as our foreign affairs minister, that the Americans behaved responsibly at any time in the Arar case? If not, what are your concerns, and have you addressed your counterpart in the United States to that effect? Wondering out loud about responsible behaviour, are you satisfied, as our foreign affairs minister, that our security and police officials behaved responsibly? If not, have you talked to them? If you don't think they behaved responsibly, what is your concern in that regard? Those are my questions.
The Chair: Mr. Minister.
Hon. Bill Graham: I appreciate those questions. They're certainly concerns I've had as well, Mr. Harvard. I agree with you.
But in one respect, in a technical way, you're inaccurate. Let's look at the chronology. We understand that Mr. Arar was scheduled to come back from Tunisia on September 26. On September 29 Canadian officials were advised that he was missing. On October 1, after inquiries, the Americans confirmed that Mr. Arar was in their custody. On October 3 Canadian officials met with him. On October 5 he met with a lawyer. On October 7 he was advised that there would be an immigration hearing. On October 8 we lost contact with him, and we believe that he was deported that morning. On October 10 the United States officials confirmed the deportation to Syria. At that point Syrian officials denied having him in their possession, and we immediately raised this with the U.S. ambassador. It was for the first time on October 21 that Syria confirmed he was in Syria, at which point I raised it with the Syrian ambassador, and we continued the dialogue, as you know. That's the chronology.
It doesn't answer the question as to who made the decision, under what information, or how, or whether the decision was even legal, if that's an allegation. As for the legality of it in American law, I can't answer that. I've been informed that the United States domestic law allows them to deport somebody to any country. They don't have to deport the person to their country of origin. That's the information I received, but I can't speak to whether that is true or not. American lawyers would know about that.
Yesterday morning on the radio I heard an American commentator suggest that Canada must have refused him coming back. I have to reject that completely. Under international law, you can't refuse the entry of one of your own citizens into your country. I do not believe Canada would refuse the entry of a Canadian citizen into Canada. That's not something we could possibly do.
So there are unanswered questions.
¿ (0935)
Mr. John Harvard: He couldn't get a fair trial in Syria, yet that's where they sent him.
Hon. Bill Graham: That's an opinion we have to raise with the Americans. Did I raise this with the United States? Of course I did. I raised it with Secretary Powell on two occasions. You heard how the American ambassador officially responded here in Canada. What he said was that the decision to deport Mr. Arar was made by the American authorities themselves in their own sovereign right, but it was based upon information and discussions they had with Canadians. That's what he said. That's what they're on the record as saying. Every time I raise it with Mr. Powell, that is the answer I get.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Ms. McDonough.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very happy that the foreign affairs minister is now before the committee. I want to register my total frustration and dissatisfaction that it has taken so long, when this was the first request this committee made in its first meeting in early September.
Mr. Minister, I'm very happy that you referred at the outset to the high level of consular services because it gives all of us an opportunity to say we completely agree that overwhelmingly is the case. I think the same is true in terms of how very well served we are by the outstanding ambassadors we have throughout the world.
I want to move to the issue of whether there are different kinds of diplomacy. I think we all agree there are. Sometimes soft diplomacy is required, and sometimes tough diplomacy is required. I don't think tough diplomacy should be described as hysterical rhetoric.
What I'm really concerned about is why there was not at an earlier point a more effective heightening of the diplomacy to bring it to the political level. This is why I and all of those who have been following the case very closely believe so strongly that there needs to be a full independent public inquiry. We're talking about the passage of almost a full year before you as minister spoke to your foreign affairs counterpart in Syria at the UN, and people were very grateful you did, and to the secretary general of the Arab League when he came to Canada. Most people would say it was those two interventions that finally resulted in the release and return of Mahar Arar to his country. Given that there is such a broad consensus that in fact it was those two political interventions that finally produced results, what took so long?
As you know, there is before this committee today a proposal that we officially recommend a public inquiry to the government. I want to know whether you will support the call for that public inquiry in view of the fact that there have been an unconscionable number of rumours, many of which are known to be false; innuendo, and character assassinations coming out of government sources that have kept a cloud of suspicion over the head of this individual. It undermines people's confidence in what's going on with this government as it relates to the Arar case.
¿ (0940)
The Chair: Ms. McDonough, do you want to get an answer?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you.
Hon. Bill Graham: There are two issues here. One is the specifics of the case of Mahar Arar, and the other is how we go about dealing with these types of situations. It's unlikely that in every case of someone being arrested or detained in a foreign country the foreign minister gets on the phone the day after it happens and we talk to each other. We have to work through our channels, and you move it up the steps.
Your assumption that my meeting in New York with the foreign minister of Syria was the first time I had spoken to him about this is not accurate. In fact, I spoke to him in January. I phoned him, and we had a long conversation. At that time he assured me that he would look into the matter personally and that we would get some action. I understood him to be extremely concerned about Canada's reaction. I spoke to him on the telephone at least four times. And of course in the meantime, the Prime Minister wrote to the president. So there are a series of events there that, as you say, culminated in our meeting in New York. A security service person was at the same meeting. We pressed extremely hard for the return of Mr. Arar. At that point the Syrian position was still what I officially reported, that they were going to try him in Syria, but they would not try him in a military court. That was still their official position.
Then, as you pointed out, we had the visit here of Amre Moussa, the secretary general of the League of Arab States. I agree with you. I believe that his seeing how important this was and my being able to say to him, “This is important for Canada. The way in which Canadians view Arab countries is being impacted by these types of cases. Our view of the justice system of the Middle East is being affected by this”.... I raised this case with Amre Moussa as well when I was in New York. But he also has to be educated. When he was in Canada and he faced the press gallery here, he said, “This is important”. When I meet him in New York and say, “You have to do something to intervene here”, it's not the same atmosphere. I think that if we had had him here earlier, we could have moved faster. This is true. But I have to assure you that we were moving on it on all fronts all the time with every conceivable intervention we could possibly use to advance the cause, whether it was in New York or in meetings abroad. I also am very regretful that it took so long. It's terrible to think of the conditions Mr. Arar had to suffer under while he was there in a prison. But please don't believe that we weren't making every conceivable effort we could as the case developed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
[English]
Now we're going to go to Ms. Carroll. She's going to share her time with Ms. Redman.
Ms. Carroll, please.
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Day mentioned Mohsen Armin. We had the opportunity to have a working lunch with him. He is a member of the reformers. In fact, he was chair of the Article 90 Commission. As has been mentioned, he has been sentenced to six months for allegedly insulting one of his hardline colleagues. That was confirmed last night at a dinner with the Iranian ambassador that three of us attended. I would just mention, Mr. Minister, that this man struck us all as a man of considerable courage. I think the report he headed indicates the kind of courage. He is a person who, as he told us, has debated on Ms. Kazemi's case longer than on any other matter in front of the Majlis, and in fact he has led the push for the opening up of judicial proceedings. It is my sense that prior to Ms. Kazemi's murder, the position of our government was to try to support and work with the reformers. I take advantage of this opportunity to ask whether or not some message can be sent from our government through our ambassador expressing our dismay that this man, working totally within the system, as hampered as it is, has now been given this kind of sentence for having the courage to do the job he has done.
Thank you.
¿ (0945)
[Translation]
The Chair: Minister.
[English]
Hon. Bill Graham: I think that's a very important point. I had the opportunity to go to Iran when I was chairman of the committee, and I met many of the members of the Majlis, many of whom were educated in North America. They're very articulate and a well-educated group of people. They're very frustrated in what they're trying to achieve. To see one of their own members arrested for doing an independent report must be extremely troubling for them. I will transmit to the foreign minister of Iran the fact that it was raised by this committee and say, “Our foreign affairs committee discussed this, and we are very troubled by this”. This is a way by which we hope to change people's comportment, by discussing it openly and expressing our views as politicians. I believe it affects Iran's image in the world, and Iranians should know what Canadians think about that.
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms. Redman.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for coming.
My question is similar to one Ms. Lalonde asked. As disturbing as the three cases we've taken the time to study individually are, I think that an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail by Michael Bell, one of our former excellent ambassadors, really highlights the disquiet Canadians feel, and that is that our passport doesn't protect us the way many Canadians assume it does. I have a two-pronged question. I know that you made reference to this in your answer to Ms. Lalonde. Are we working toward creating a situation so that people who have chosen Canada as their home will be treated in a way that will give Canadians some kind of assurance that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, as Mr. Bell says in his article?
I really do believe we're well served by the soft diplomacy, which you've outlined. I don't believe that these very sensitive cases necessarily need to hit the front page. But Mr. Bell does make the comment, which I agree with, that there is a specific function of the media, and it sometimes exacerbates very delicate situations. In the case of Mahar Arar, I think his wife's tireless efforts did bring his situation to everybody's attention. But there are hundreds of Canadians and people from other nations around the world who are languishing in foreign prisons. From our perspective, what's the most constructive role the media can play in these situations?
The Chair: Mr. Minister.
Hon. Bill Graham: I also read Mr. Bell's article. I thought it was very helpful because it was a review of what we can and can't do and what is and what isn't effective.
To go back to your comment about soft diplomacy, I was trying to say that we want the instruments of diplomacy to be there, but it's how you use them. We need our instruments of diplomacy to be able to make a point, whether it's hard or soft. I agree with Mr. Day and others that there are cases that call for strong language about issues. I'd like to believe that the language we used was very strong when it came to both Syria and the case of Ms. Kazemi in Iran. When I met with the Iranian foreign minister, he accused me of totally poisoning relations with Iran by virtue of what we were doing. So it certainly got their attention. There's no question that we have to speak out forcefully on these issues.
But the more troubling problem is precisely the one you mentioned, dual citizenship, as more and more countries become countries of immigration. I've had conversations with officials and other international leaders. Changing the Vienna convention, which has, I think, 160 signatories, something like that, is a monumental task. We have to try to change the practice of states and get states to agree individually. The case of Hong Kong is an unusual one. China has recognized that there are so many Hong Kong citizens who have other nationalities, particularly American and Canadian, that there has to be a special case there. But I think we have to work on it on both fronts. What will help us in this respect, in my view, is the fact that this is becoming more normal for everybody. When I talk to my colleagues from the U.K., France, or Europe, I find that they're all having the same problem. I think every modern country is having this problem. Eventually, we'll be able to get that changed. We'll continue to work on that.
I would end by saying I totally agree that Mrs. Arar's efforts were extremely helpful in making sure that people were aware of the situation. The involvement of her MP, Ms. Catterall; Ms. McDonough; Irwin Cotler, who acted as legal advisor; and others shows that the way we move forward in these cases is by engaging politicians, NGOs, and the public. This is how we can be effective. It's complicated. I think we have to have a team effort, and I think there has been a team effort around this particular issue.
¿ (0950)
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Mr. Casey.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Thank you very much.
One thing that has confronted the team is that we have a hard time getting information. A minute ago you said that if the RCMP investigation fails to provide the answers, there are other avenues we can resort to. Could you list those other avenues?
Hon. Bill Graham: What I said was in my view this is what the RCMP said they're going to do, so let's take them at their word. This is an opportunity. Let's participate in that investigation. In the event that it doesn't provide satisfactory results, then Mr. Arar's lawyers and others can look at other means, such as an application before the Federal Court. I'm not an expert on what might be done. I would strongly argue that we do have an indication of a process that will provide an opportunity for the public to be engaged and for information to be brought out. Let's give this process a chance. That's my political take. Your political judgment might be that we should take some other route. I'm saying that my particular political judgment is let's give the RCMP process an opportunity to do that.
Mr. Bill Casey: You said that there are other avenues we can resort to. I wrote it down. If you can't list them, that's okay. We've had a hard time getting information. Do you have a list of the other avenues we can resort to?
Hon. Bill Graham: Part of the problem in getting information--and this may well be a problem that the police commission will also have--is that much of the information is in the hands of the American authorities. Understanding what American authorities did on a given day and for what reason may be difficult for us as Canadians to do because we don't have the ability to compel them to appear before a Canadian process.
Mr. Bill Casey: I have a couple of other questions, if I can get them in here. You said in your testimony that on October 7 Canada was informed that there would be an immigration hearing. Did we request to attend that hearing?
Hon. Bill Graham: We would have requested to attend the hearing. At that point he had a lawyer acting for him, and we were working with the lawyer.
Mr. Bill Casey: So we did request it.
Hon. Bill Graham: Yes, and we wanted to work with the lawyer.
Mr. Bill Casey: Did we attend the hearing?
Hon. Bill Graham: The hearing took place without our knowledge.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Sigurdson.
Mr. Konrad Sigurdson (Director General, Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): We asked to be included in the hearing, which was scheduled for the ninth, I believe. We had talked to the lawyer and to Mr. Arar, and all the arrangements were made. Then we were informed by the Americans that in fact the hearing had taken place at about 3 in the morning or earlier, and we were not informed. When we arrived the next day, we were told that the hearing had taken place and that Mr. Arar was no longer in the Metropolitan Detention Center.
Mr. Bill Casey: I have one last question. When this story first broke, the leaks that came out insinuated that Mr. Arar was guilty. Since he has been returned, there have been some awful leaks from Syria about information he may or may not have provided. I believe that puts him at risk. His problems aren't over. Is Canada doing anything right now to protect his rights and his safety?
Hon. Bill Graham: The other day I spoke out against these leaks and insinuations. I totally agree with you. They risk putting his life at stake. There is no way to verify their accuracy or anything to do with them. It's the typical type of problem when it's an unattributed, unascertainable statement about something. It's completely unacceptable in these circumstances. The suggestion that they're coming from sources inside government is particularly troubling. I assure you that I've asked in my department, and I'm informed that nobody in my department has made any such statements. I do not believe that any of my colleagues in the House of Commons or the cabinet members would make any such statements. We are doing our best to find out where such statements are coming from, because they are totally unacceptable in circumstances such as this.
¿ (0955)
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
[English]
I'm going to ask my colleagues to put one question each to the minister without any preamble. I have on my list Ms. Catterall, Mr. Cotler, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Bergeron.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean): I wish I had more time. How do we get to the bottom of this, not only within the minister's department but throughout government, when we hear about leaks that potentially endanger the lives of a young family, including two young children, if not through a public inquiry? What actions will the government take to get to the bottom of this so that Mr. Arar and his family can get on with their lives?
The Chair: Mr. Cotler.
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): You addressed the unresolved issues in the Mahar Arar case, including the precipitating role of the United States, the role of our security agencies, the character of his detention in Syria, the interregnum in Jordan, and in particular concern about his innocence because of the cloud overhanging him due to the leaks and alike. What remedies are there to resolve and bring closure to this case apart from an RCMP complaints commission hearing or the oversight role of SIRC? What would you foresee in terms of remedies that may be appropriate in this case, such as a public inquiry, which my colleague has mentioned?
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Minister Graham, what information did we give to the United States that compelled them to extradite Mr. Arar to a country that is known to torture and engage in summary executions? Why did the U.S. violate their own laws in extraditing Mr. Arar to a country such as Syria?
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, you have talked to us about the role of consular officials abroad, but how can Canada tell its citizens that they have to comply with the legal system in the country in which they have been arrested, when it is obvious that justice is denied and torture is used, when there is no legitimate trial because the accused do not even participate and are not even represented by a lawyer? How can we say then that people have to comply with the existing legal system?
The Chair: Minister.
[English]
Hon. Bill Graham: With regard to remedies, Mr. Cotler as usual, with his shrewd legal mind, has picked up another element. There is Derek Lee's committee here in the House of Commons. As I said, it is a political judgment of people as to whether not that committee should be engaged. I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Lee the other day on a plane, and I asked him what his committee could do. There may well be an opportunity there if the process that has been put in place is not satisfactory.
We're all making an assumption that the process that has been put in place won't get any of the answers people want. Why don't we give that process a chance? That's what my political judgment is. We have an undertaking by somebody to do something. We know how it works. We have seen it work before. We know that it's defective and that it has problems. Like every single legal process known to man, it has its deficiencies. But let's give this one a chance to work. If we're unsatisfied at the end of it, then we can go somewhere else.
If you think that this process is going to be able to climb into the minds of the authorities in the United States who made certain decisions and find out on what basis.... I would suspect that no matter what process we put in place in Canada, including the Supreme Court of Canada itself, it wouldn't have a writ that could compel a foreign country to produce their bureaucrats before us to tell us what decisions they made. They're a sovereign country. They will make those judgments. As you know, Colin Powell has told me, as has the ambassador, that they made those judgments on the basis of information they had, and they were entitled to make them.
That takes me to your question, Mr. Martin. I can't answer on what basis. I don't know what they knew. I don't know what made them make the decision they did. I do know--and I have told the American ambassador this and Secretary Powell on the occasions I have discussed it with him--that we have carried out a thorough inquiry into our department and have been told that there was no such conversation. I've also been told that the Solicitor General made similar inquiries. There are, however, unanswered questions. That is why I think that the Public Complaints Commission should be given an opportunity at least to hear what the RCMP has to say about these issues.
À (1000)
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron, your question is a bit broader than what we are discussing here this morning, is it not? It is a very legitimate question, since we travel and our prosperity depends on an open world. People have to travel and work abroad. But it is very complex. When I was a lawyer in private practice years ago, I had a client who had been imprisoned for two years in Switzerland without trial on the order of a magistrate. So it is not only in developing countries where legal systems are different from what we have. The European system is very different from ours. Common law is not the system that everyone uses.
So we have to recognize the complexity of the world in which we work, but we also have to try to establish international standards so that we set a standard of justice that applies to all countries. That is our duty as politicians. Politicians work in international organizations like the Inter-parliamentary union, and they always have to reassert the need for a sense of justice.
That is a very broad question and the problem is enormous, but we need to continue our work. Thank you for asking that question.
The Chair: Minister, thank you for your visit this morning. If you have additional answers to the questions that have been asked, the committee will always be pleased to receive them. I would like to say, as Mr. Day did, that we are very pleased with the exceptional work that our embassies did when we visited various countries.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.