Public Safety Committee on April 30th, 2009

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

In my view, as a result of the recommendations not having been implemented, we have the following comments coming from Mr. Geoffrey O'Brian of CSIS, and I'd like your comments on them. When he was here, he said they could not say they would not use information obtained from torture, that they only use information obtained from torture if lives are at stake. And then he commented that “it happens rarely”.

My two-part question would be, are you aware of any other cases where torture has been used, and what do you think about the fact that, given the failure by the Conservative government to implement the recommendations, you have somebody saying they do use torture, although rarely?

[Dominique Peschard]

Clearly Mr. O'Brien's statement flies in the face of Mr. O'Connor's recommendations, but it also clearly violates Canada's obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which prohibits countries not only from torturing individuals, but also from collaborating in any manner whatsoever in the torture of such individuals.

It is very surprising that over two years after the release of the O'Connor report, a fairly senior official at CSIS would make such a statement. It is not at all reassuring.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

To follow that, given the leadership of the government on this issue, I'd like you to comment on the Abdelrazik case and the fact that, as you're aware, they are refusing to allow him to come home despite the fact that UN resolution 1267, which imposes the terrorist blackout list, actually has a specific exception to allow people to come home.

My concern--and I'd like to know whether you share it--is that there's far too much discretion when a minister, and the Conservative government in this case, refuses to allow a Canadian citizen to return home. I'd like you to comment on that.

[Dominique Peschard]

In our opinion, the Abousfian Abdelrazik case shows that the concerns raised by the O'Connor and Iacobucci inquiries have not been resolved. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding this case. At one point, the government said that if he had an airplane ticket, it would provide the documents. Then, when he had a ticket, the documents were not provided. There are always ad hoc reasons why Mr. Abousfian cannot return, despite the fact it is his fundamental right to return to this country.

Therefore, once again, it is as though there are second-class Canadian citizens who do not have the same rights as others and whose internationally-recognized and Charter rights are not respected.

We therefore ask the government to move quickly to put an end to this abuse of Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik's rights and to bring him home to Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Norlock, you have five minutes please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much for coming this morning. You raise some very good and very important issues.

I'd like to carry on with a little bit of background on some of the issues that were just raised.

Concerning the Arar incident and these other three gentlemen, did not all those cases commence on or prior to 2005?

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, the arrests—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

And which political party was in charge of the federal government at that time in Canada?

[Dominique Peschard]

Everyone obviously knows the answer. It was the Liberal Party that was in power.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Yes. So when it comes to a country's foreign policy, would it not be correct to say that government should, because it is their responsibility, have control of their foreign policy?

[Dominique Peschard]

First of all, in our opinion, the circumstances around this case combined with the fact that Mr. Abdelrazik is a non-resolved case, if I can put it that way, means that in our opinion this is a non-partisan issue. The issue of fundamental rights and respect of Canadian citizens' fundamental rights should be an issue—

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Excuse me, sir, you and I would have to agree, quite frankly, that human rights should be non-partisan, but some people like, for political purposes, to make insinuations about a Canadian political party.

I have said at this committee and other committees, and say so in public, that I do not believe that any current political party in Canada—and when I talk about political parties, I'm talking about those that have seats in this House of Commons—would purposefully and overtly injure someone's human rights or, in other words, go counter to generally accepted human rights. It's the very fine details that we may disagree on, from time to time, of the manner in which we get there.

I want it clearly understood that I don't like to make political points when it comes to human rights, but I think we need to understand some of the motivations that may be less than pure.

You mentioned the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I think you said something to the effect that it condemned Canada's handling of a certain situation. Succinctly, again, what did they condemn that Canada did, just so I understand?

[Dominique Peschard]

First of all, to be more precise, it's the Committee on Human Rights. Canada comes under examination, as do all other countries, with respect to its respective treaty, the international civil convention, and I can quote--

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, but I think it's important to know, when this committee made that decision or came to the decision whether it was a unanimous decision of the whole committee or it was a select group in the committee. I think it's important to understand that, because then I have a follow-up question.

Was the whole committee unanimous? Sometimes in the United Nations something will go through, but not every member of that committee votes in favour of it. Are you aware of that?

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, I am. That's why I'm saying it's not the UN Commission on Human Rights, which is made up of 47 countries; it is the Committee on Human Rights, which is a committee of independent experts who examine the countries.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Which experts from which countries are in it?

[Dominique Peschard]

I don't have the list with me.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

So the experts could come from one of the member countries.

[Dominique Peschard]

They definitely could.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I have one minute. If I said some of the member countries were Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, and Sri Lanka, those human rights experts could come from those countries?

[Dominique Peschard]

They could come from any country in the world belonging to the United Nations. They're not political representatives of countries as they are in the commission. There are legal experts.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Who decides which experts from which countries come before them to make these kinds of assertions?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

You have time for about a ten-second response.

[Dominique Peschard]

Who chooses the experts? I don't know.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

And now, for the final question, you have five minutes please, Mr. Ménard.