FAIT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

Á

1150

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

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Â

1200

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

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Â

1210

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Â

1215

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

Â

1220

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stephen Knowles)

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. Keith Martin

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Clerk

Mr. Keith Martin

Â

1225

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Â

1230

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 055

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1150)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Welcome. On today's agenda is committee business.

[English]

    We're going to discuss future business later on in camera.

[Translation]

    We'll be discussing the trips made by members of the committee and the three sub-committees.

[English]

    First of all, I want to tell the members that we were supposed to discuss the report of the subcommittee on international trade. The report was not adopted by the subcommittee. That is why it's not in front of us this morning.

    We'll now turn to the motions.

[Translation]

    The motion from Ms. McDonough reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade call on the Government of Canada to initiate an independent public enquiry into the Maher Arar case, to examine the role that government departments and agencies played in his deportation by the US and his subsequent incarceration in Syria.

    You have the floor, Ms. McDonough.

[English]

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

    It seems to be a very timely occasion on which this motion should be dealt with by the committee. There have been many calls for a public inquiry into what happened to Maher Arar and the role of the Canadian government and agencies. This morning at 9 o'clock we heard some answers from the foreign affairs minister, but it was very clear that many answers are yet to be given. There are many unanswered questions. If that wasn't reason enough to support the call for an independent, comprehensive public inquiry, surely the testimony this morning from Maher Arar himself gave very compelling reasons.

    It seems to me that it is very important for us to speak, if at all possible, with one clear voice from this committee in urging the government to do the right thing, which is to appoint a full public inquiry. I know some will say give the RCMP public complaints commission a chance, and I say absolutely. But every bit of legal advice that has been received underscores the fact that it can indeed proceed while the government announces a public inquiry and the work begins on the terms of reference for that public inquiry. It is a lengthy process. There is no question about that. But it became clearer than ever this morning why it is so important, understandably, to Maher Arar and his family, and I think to the whole Canadian family, that we get to the bottom of what happened, so we can ensure that a similar fate won't befall other Canadians. So I urge all members to support this motion.

    It seems to me that the statement made by U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee shortly after 9/11 might be one we would want to consider as we look at this issue, which is, “In the attempt to defeat terrorism, let us not become the evil that we deplore”. I think we have seen an example of where that advice may not have been heeded and understood to the extent it needed to be.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I strongly endorse this motion, Mr. Chair, and I hope the committee will unanimously support it.

    This case is extremely important and we need to set an example. In light of the role played by the US, the information that surely was leaked--what other possible explanation could there be--the leaks we know of for certain and the fact that Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen of Syrian origin, what happened to him is completely inadmissible. He was taken from Jordan to Syria. Why was he not sent back? He was tortured. What exactly happened to him? Upon his return, information was leaked. Quebec and Canada have always opened their doors to immigrants. Immigrants holding a passport and citizenship should be treated just like any other Canadian citizen.

    For these reasons, I hope that members will unanimously endorse this motion. I would also add that this isn't to say the matter shouldn't be pursued further. It's just that for now, this seems to be the only recourse that would appear satisfactory, despite the inevitable shortcomings of the process.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

[English]

    Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Patry.

    We wholeheartedly support Ms. McDonough's motion. I think this is a very important motion not only for Mr. Arar's case, but for all Canadians, so that Canadians can get answers about some fundamental violations that have taken place regarding Mr. Arar's rights and by extension, the rights of all Canadians. It also brings up disturbing questions with regard to our relationship with the United States, the standing a Canadian citizen would have in the United States, and international law. We've asked a lot of questions of both the Solicitor General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we have not received a lot of answers. It's for that reason and the other reasons I mentioned that we support Ms. McDonough's motion, and we hope other members of the committee will do likewise.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Marleau.

    Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I listened to Mr. Arar's testimony this morning. Obviously, Canadian officials were involved in some way. The Americans had too much information. I would think they didn't gather that in Canada themselves. Copies of leases and such have to come through Canadian agencies somehow.

    I feel very strongly that there may be other cases such as this. We just don't know about them. I think many families are very frightened. If you come from a country such as Syria or any country where there is a repressive regime, you don't have a tendency to go to authorities when you're frightened. So I fear very much that there may be others in similar situations.

    I want to support this motion. I think we need to clear the air. Yes, there is a process in place. The security oversight commission--I forget the exact name--is actually going to look into it. I don't see why we can't support another study of our own. It could wait until after they come out with their report, or it could go on at the same time. I don't think one pre-empts the other. I think there are too many unanswered questions. I hope everyone on this side will support the motion of Ms. McDonough.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Redman.

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

    I would find it really difficult not to support this motion. I'm a firm supporter of the belief that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I'm a fan of taking a full look from every angle at issues as important to Canadians as the one we're dealing with, which is the treatment of Canadian citizens by foreign governments.

    I hear Ms. Lalonde expressing some true concerns. But it would seem to me to be an exercise in futility to demand that American authorities come and present to us or even expect that they would. So that piece of it may always remain a mystery to us.

    I would like clarification as to what is the way forward. What do we expect from this public inquiry? Is the government compelled to move forward with this if this committee makes a representation in the form of supporting this motion? How do we define what our expectations are? How is that done and where is that done, so that we're not hoping to achieve something that by definition may be impossible to achieve through a public inquiry?

    The Chair: I'll give you an answer at the end.

    I have on my list John Harvard and Irwin Cotler.

    John.

  (1200)  

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): It's too bad that I didn't follow Mr. Cotler so that I could learn from his scholarship and erudite mind. But I'll go first.

    Let me say off the top, Mr. Chairman, that I'm as concerned about what happened to Mr. Arar as anybody else. I was at the news conference that took place about an hour ago when he told his chilling story. I was very moved by his story. But I was also filled with anger over how fellow human beings could treat another human being like that. In the United States he was deprived of his freedom and fundamental liberties and was not allowed to speak to a lawyer and his family. Then he was sent off to Syria, where he faced torture and beatings and having to live in a hole for 10 months and 10 days where there were rats. I simply do not know how human beings can treat other human beings that way.

    Having said that, I'll now turn to the motion. I don't support it. I think it's a “gotcha” motion. It's the kind of motion one would expect from the opposition. If you don't support it, the spin will be that you don't care what the government did or didn't do. I can tell you, Alexa, that I do care.

    First of all, you don't set out any terms of reference. So one would assume that if you got what you wanted, it would be a wide open, open-ended inquiry, probably with 32 lawyers wanting to take you in 40 different directions and costing perhaps millions of dollars. It would become a spectacle.

    But at the end of the day, even if you got what you wanted, you're setting yourself up for a great disappointment. Why? As far as I know--and we can hear from Mr. Cotler on this--we can't subpoena government officials from the United States. Are we going to hear from the INS in the United States? I doubt it. Are we going to hear from the New York police department? I doubt it. Are we going to hear from somebody who was in charge of depriving him of his liberties in New York city and elsewhere in the United States? I doubt it. Are we going to hear from all those terrible people in the Syrian gulag? I doubt it. Without their testimony and the information from the Americans and the Syrians, are we going to be able to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to what happened? I doubt it.

    Yes, we can hear from Canadian officials, and we have been demanding that for some time. The head of the RCMP public complaints commission announced that commission is going to conduct an inquiry. How good is it? I don't know. We'll have to wait and see.

    Based on what Mr. Arar said, these foreign governments have behaved abominably, and they should be ashamed of themselves. But are we going to get them to account to the world and to us through a Canadian public inquiry? I doubt it.

    We're going to have to resort to good old-fashioned diplomacy. It will fall on the shoulders of our diplomats. If they really care--and I would hope that they care--they will ask the tough questions, and they will come to some conclusions that perhaps find some of the Americans and the Syrians terribly wanting in their behaviour. I don't know what other choice we have. Is that a good choice? Is that a good process? No, I don't think so. But that's how the world is made up. The United States is a sovereign power, as are the Syrians. We're a sovereign power. Can you imagine, Alexa, if we had George Bush's people coming into Ottawa and demanding that we be put on the stand for alleged bad behaviour? What would you be saying? What would I be saying? I don't think we would be very supportive.

    We may lose this motion. I know that Mr. Cotler may well vote the other way.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: He'll speak for himself.

    Mr. John Harvard: I just want to finish, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we are setting ourselves up for a great disappointment. Given the fact that these are foreign powers, we cannot get to the root of this. We will have to leave it. We're going to have to trust our government to find out what happened and leave it to the government to make repairs, because the relationship with the United States, in my opinion, has been terribly abused. So I can't support the motion.

    The Chair: Mr. Cotler.

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

    I understand John Harvard's concerns, particularly in the matter of our capacity to subpoena representatives of foreign governments. I just might add that without having to subpoena them, some representatives of foreign governments appeared voluntarily before this committee, such as the President of Pakistan and the secretary general of the Arab League. But I understand the concerns.

    I also believe there are other avenues that can and should be pursued, such as the oversight role of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the Inspector General's role in the Solicitor General's office, the public complaints commission of the RCMP, and the Subcommittee on National Security of the justice and human rights committee. There are other avenues, and I think they should be pursued. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

    My support for a public inquiry was reinforced by what I would call the scope of the unanswered questions that remain, by the compellability of Maher Arar's testimony this morning, and by what I would call the blowback leaks that were coming out and further complicating the issue.

    There are, in my view, five questions that need to be answered. The other avenues may answer parts of those questions or even some of those questions, but they won't be able to answer all of those questions. The first is the precipitating role of the U.S. in all of this. It's true that officials of the U.S. may not appear before us. But they may. You never know. They may want to clarify their position. In any case, our independent inquiry may in fact encourage them to have an inquiry regarding things we can't answer. That's the first thing.

    The second thing has to do with the role of our security and intelligence agencies. I think some of the other avenues can touch those things, but maybe not in the global sense in which such an independent inquiry can look at it.

    The third thing has to do with the character of his detention in Syria and the Jordanian interregnum.

    The final and most important thing is the cloud that still hangs over his head, the question mark regarding his innocence. I think that only an independent inquiry can dispel that concern, as well as for others who believe they may be similarly situated by being members of visible minorities.

    I support the motion, but I would amend it slightly. Instead of saying “to examine the role”, I would say “including the examination of the role”. That would allow for things outside the two referenced aspects in Alexa's motion to be included if they arise in the course of such an independent investigation. It just allows it to be more inclusive.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chairman, I accept that as a friendly amendment without any hesitation.

    The Chair: We'll deal with amendments afterwards, if there are any.

    I'm now going to go to Ms. Carroll.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): I've been listening carefully to everyone's views. I do feel--and this is a rare thing for me to say--that Mr. Cotler is somewhat naive if he does think the American authorities will come forward.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to have to interrupt my colleague, but strictly from a procedural standpoint, since an amendment has been...

    The Chair: There is no amendment on the table. Mr. Irwin Cotler didn't say he was moving an amendment, but merely that he was intending to do so.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see. I apologize then.

    The Chair: So, we'll hear first from Ms. Carroll and then we'll move on to Mr. Cotler's amendment.

    Ms. Carroll.

[English]

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: I find that very difficult to envisage. I don't believe Mr. Celucci has accepted the invitation of this committee to come and speak.

  (1210)  

    Mr. John Harvard: Nor should he.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: But he is an American authority whom this committee invited. I only make mention of that.

    Ms. Marleau's contention is that the process that has already been triggered--that is, the judicial review within the Solicitor General's department to look into the matter of Mr. Arar--does not pre-empt the other. I would beg to differ. I think that the two inquiries--a public inquiry as has been proposed by Ms. McDonough and the process we are about to start, if it has not already commenced--would indeed get in the way of one another. While one doesn't pre-empt the other, one could very well muddy the waters of the other one.

    I've listened carefully to the five questions Mr. Cotler has put forward, some of which he expects will be answered and some of which will not. I don't see a reason at this time for not allowing the process the government has put in place to run its course and to determine what questions it is able to answer, leaving this committee and other sources to determine what questions weren't able to be answered and the committee to conclude, as it might, that it wishes to proceed with a larger inquiry. I do not see any reason to put a stop to what has been offered by the Solicitor General and to pull the carpet out from under that, which in effect this resolution will do. I think that should be part of our deliberations this morning.

    The Chair: Everyone has had a chance to talk about this.

    Before dealing with Mr. Cotler's amendment, I want to respond to Ms. Redman. The way it's written right now, the motion is not going anywhere. It's just an opinion of the committee. If we want it to go somewhere, we need to request that this motion be adopted as a report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and to ask the chair to report it to the House of Commons. At that point it goes to the House of Commons and it's official. That's the way it should be done if you want this to go further.

    I'll ask Mr. Cotler to repeat his amendment.

    Mr. Irwin Cotler: I would replace “to examine the role” with “including the examination of the role”.

    The Chair: I also want to point out to Ms. Redman that even if it's adopted and goes to the House of Commons, it doesn't mean that the House will go ahead with this.

    You all heard the amendment proposed by Mr. Cotler.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: How will this be worded in French?

    The Chair: You received the translated version. In English, it says “including the examination of”, whereas in French, it reads “y compris l'examen du”.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Specifically, it says in French “[...] pour déterminer le rôle joué par les ministères [...]

    The Chair: Correct.

[English]

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: Ms. McDonough has a final point.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I'd like to respond to a couple of concerns, as the person who has proposed the motion. Mr. Harvard has expressed concern that the detailed terms of reference for such an inquiry are not attached. I think it would have been utterly impossible, in fact irresponsible, to try to spell out the detailed terms of reference for such a proposed inquiry before we finally got to hear this morning the testimony of the foreign affairs minister on this matter and before hearing the testimony of Maher Arar himself.

    I have a lot more confidence in this committee. I'm surprised that Mr. Harvard is expressing non-confidence, saying that this is a “gotcha” motion. I think there has been an impressive collaborative effort across all party lines to bring us to this point. To back away from it when it's so clear that what is needed is a full independent public inquiry would be disappointing in the extreme. So I really would ask Mr. Harvard to reconsider that.

    The job of setting out the terms of reference for such a public inquiry is the responsibility of government, upon the receipt of input from other sources. If it is genuinely the belief of Mr. Harvard and others on the committee that we should do some further work in making a submission as to what those terms of reference might be, then that's all very well. But to suggest that the motion should go down because the terms of reference are not attached is not realistic.

    The final thing I want to say--and perhaps I could have the benefit of the advice of the chair or the clerk in this matter--is that it would be my intention to put an additional motion that the report go back to the House as a recommendation from the foreign affairs committee. If it is the wish of the committee that this motion be amended to include that, then I could so move. But perhaps the chairman or the clerk could advise on that point. It seemed to me that it was better to deal with it as two separate matters.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: It needs to be within the same resolution, and as the mover, you need to do it.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Then let me add that upon adoption of such motion, this be reported to the House.

    The Chair: That means you're amending the motion to say that this should be a report of the main committee and should be reported to the House of Commons.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, just so we're all clear on the procedure, is Ms. McDonough recommending that the process that has been initiated by the Solicitor General's department be stopped and that this public inquiry replace that?

    The Chair: No.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think it's important to hear from her.

    The Chair: I'm the chair, not Ms. McDonough.

    I said in the beginning that what we're doing is committee work. The committee could adopt a motion. If it's agreed that the motion be presented to the House of Commons as a report, that will be done. The House will do with it whatever it wants. It could be flushed. It could be accepted. It's not up to us.

    What the Solicitor General is doing is another item. It has nothing to do with this motion of the committee.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chairman, as the person to whom that question has been posed, I want to restate what I said on that very subject this morning and previously. It would not in any way be the intention of such a motion that the work be halted or interfered with. I and others have sought legal advice. It has clearly indicated that the two are not mutually exclusive and that one does not in any way need to preclude the other. This is not some kind of casual lay interpretation. This is the advice from a whole range of lawyers who have experience in these matters.

    I would cite the Westray inquiry as an example. Criminal proceedings were taking place in the courts at the time the government announced there would be a full independent public inquiry, and it was very important. It's ironic that on this day we're celebrating the fact that such a public inquiry, which was lengthy, has produced some very important changes to the Criminal Code. I would hope that in the same spirit we would recognize why the two are not mutually exclusive.

    The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to this motion, even though I recognize Ms. McDonough's exceptional reasons for moving it.

    Those who know a little about this case tend to react quickly and prepare to fight back. The fact remains that the government has already begun investigating this incident. I think we can wait a little and not react too hastily to the events that transpired.

    Once the various departments have reported back, we'll be in a better position to decide whether or not a public enquiry is warranted. Under the circumstances, I think we need to put some trust in our government structures. As my colleagues said, a public enquiry won't necessarily uncover all of the facts. It's possible that we may be surprised once our departments have completed their investigations. However, for now, even though we're dealing with a serious matter, I don't see any urgent need to assign all of our resources to a public enquiry.

    I'm not saying that I see no point in spending money on an enquiry into this affair, but I do think we need to show some restraint before taking out the heavy artillery. Moreover, I think we need to give our departments time to report back, if only in deference to the government and the agencies already working on this case.

    So, for now, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with this motion. I see it as an attempt to fan the flames and I think we need to hold off a while.

  (1220)  

[English]

    The Chair: I think everyone has had a chance to express their opinion about this.

    We will proceed with the vote on the motion as amended. If it's adopted, I'm going to get a second motion that it be presented in the House of Commons as a report of this committee.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I would like a recorded vote.

    (Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

    The Chair: Do you want to present the other motion, Ms. McDonough?

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I move that the motion we have just adopted be reported to the House by yourself, Mr. Chair, on behalf of the foreign affairs committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: It seems to me there was a lot of interest in having a recorded vote on an amendment that was of no great import.

    The Chair: It was not an amendment.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: There was no recorded vote--

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: We asked for a recorded vote.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's okay. They're gone and that's fine. I just want to make sure it was not passed as unanimous.

    The Chair: The main motion was passed seven to three, and it was a recorded vote.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: It was not a recorded vote.

    The Chair: There was a recorded vote on the first motion. You were called one by one. We called your name.

    An hon. member: There wasn't a vote on the amendment.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Oh, you didn't vote.

    Mr. The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Stephen Knowles): It was not a friendly amendment. It was moved and adopted.

    The Chair: The amendment of Mr. Cotler.

    The Clerk: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Keith Martin: I received advice on this from my colleague Professor Cotler, who has worked on this for a long time. Some events are taking place in Zimbabwe that are very important to the ultimate cessation of the massive human rights abuses that are taking place right now. So I don't think it would be appropriate to introduce the motion at this point in time.

    The Chair: That's fine.

    I don't have any other motions by members.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: I believe I submitted one motion within the prescribed time frame. Correct?

[English]

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Keith, are you going to bring this forward at another time?

    Mr. Keith Martin: Yes. I'm not removing it.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Good, because I really think there should be a good discussion--

    The Chair: We're withdrawing it for the moment.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: There are too many people talking to me, including the chair.

    The Clerk: The motion was not moved.

    Mr. Keith Martin: Professor Cotler informed me of some very important events that are taking place right now in Zimbabwe. This might complicate things, and the last thing we want to do is to pour oil on the fire.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: I'm aware of some of them. That's great. I just want you to hear me saying that I look forward to a discussion on this.

    Mr. Keith Martin: We're not going to throw it away. We'll see how things progress.

[Translation]

    The Chair: We have a motion from Ms. Lalonde that reads as follows:

That the Committee recommends to the government the Action Plan submitted by Stephan Hachemi and a coalition of 19 human rights defence organizations in order to ensure that justice be rendered in the case of the assassination of Mrs. Zhara Kazemi, Montreal photo-journalist and Canadian citizen.

    I merely wish to advise Ms. Lalonde that we do not have a quorum at this time, but that we will nonetheless debate the motion.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'd like the secretary to pay attention. This is a matter that I have brought to your attention.

    The International Centre for Legal Resources has compiled a large case file with a view to backing a series of measures recommended to the government. This motion calls on the committee to recommend to the government the proposed action plan. The committee has in fact spoken out in favour of the plan to the government.

    The government will benefit from the fact that the research has already been done. I know the committee was pleased with the reception it received upon meeting with Mr. Graham. However, it's clear that in the case of some of the proposed measures, we'll have to await the end of the trial in Iran and, whether at the national or international level, as well as wait for the government to follow up on these recommendations.

    The Chair: Ms. Lalonde has outlined her position on this issue.

[English]

    I want to tell the members that we don't have a quorum. Without a quorum, we cannot discuss her motion. We can just allow her to put it before the committee. You could come back to it at another time, as we've done with Ms. McDonough and Mr. Martin.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Can I recommend that committee members read this report, as it is extremely important, very serious and very well written?

[English]

    The Chair: That's fine. That's why I asked you to make your point. I just wanted to point out that we cannot discuss it.

    There are no other motions.

    Do you want to discuss our trip in camera, or do you want to postpone it?

    Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, concerning the future business of the committee, I have a suggestion for this coming Thursday. Mr. Bill Sampson will be in Canada on Thursday and Friday and I've asked that we invite him to appear before the committee.

    I wish to state my request again in the presence of my colleagues. I think it would be quite interesting to hear what he has to say, just as we heard about Mr. Maher Arar, through Monia Mazigh.

    This is Bill Sampson's first opportunity to come to Canada and I think it could be useful for the committee, as well as for Canadians and Quebeckers, to hear about his experiences in Saudi Arabia.

    The Chair: We did in fact receive a brief note this morning from Mr. David Matas, on behalf of Bruce Balfour, his attorney in Canada. I'd just like to note that the committee is scheduled to sit tomorrow afternoon and that also, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., we'll be hearing from a very important witness. Also on Thursday, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., we'll be hearing from the author of the book. I'll review this with the clerk to see if we can make some arrangements. I personally have no objections to having Mr. Sampson give testimony to the committee.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: However, you're saying that we already have something scheduled for between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.

    The Chair: That's correct.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could we possibly do as we did this morning and convene a meeting...?

  (1230)  

    The Chair: We'll have to check our meeting schedule. This morning, I contacted the clerk, because everyone wanted to meet with the minister. This was the only time he was available this week, since we don't know whether the House will be sitting next week, or whether it will be adjourning. Therefore, I'll see if it's possible to fit in one hour with Mr. Sampson.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: You'll find some time, because given the...

    The Chair: Honestly, I'll try to accommodate your request. I'll see if it's possible Thursday afternoon.

    Yes, Ms. McDonough.

[English]

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I want to speak strongly in support of Mr. Bergeron's proposal. It's a unique opportunity with William Sampson being in Canada. It's not as if it's a witness who lives down the street or even within the country. He is here for a specified period. I think there's much we need to learn about this case, and we need to be prepared to act on it. So I'd like to speak very strongly in support of a special meeting, particularly if there's a possibility that the House will prorogue by the end of the week. It's irresponsible not to avail ourselves of this opportunity.

    The Chair: I'll try to arrange a meeting from 11 to 1:30. I'll discuss it with our clerk.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Or early in the morning.

    The Chair: Yes. I'm going to try to find a slot for Mr. Sampson.

    Ms. Carroll.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: In addition to the matters discussed, what is the game plan for this Muslim study?

    The Chair: We'll discuss that and other future business in camera.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]