Evidence of meeting #23 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was abdelrazik.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Exactly, there would be no consequences.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Perhaps by the third round of questions, you will give us.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Perhaps you can persuade the minister to go and get Mr. Abdelrazik, so that he appears before you.
In my opinion, this decision is solely up to the minister and the Government of Canada, and not yourself. I am sorry to say so, but there is no way of forcing Mr. Abdelrazik to return and appear before this committee.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Is this in keeping with the spirit of Parliament, in your opinion, as someone who has an academic understanding of the issue?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Generally speaking, one hopes not. The government and the House of Commons have positive relations.
However, occasionally, I would presume that there are issues that push the government in one direction, and parliamentarians in another; differences emerge between the two.
I cannot explain everything that way, but in this particular case, according to the public comment made by Minister Cannon, it is obvious that he is determined not to assist Mr. Abdelrazik to return to Canada.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but according to the comments that I have heard, it is clear that the minister does not agree with helping Mr. Abdelrazik return to Canada, pursuant to section 10.1 of the order, for reasons of national security.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
I'm presuming I have to exercise a fair level of caution, being a parliamentary secretary, and perhaps the government members do too, because the matter is before the courts. Mr. Abdelrazik has filed legal action against the Government of Canada.
Given this, on page 3 you state that you were careful in not commenting on some aspects of this case. To what extent would this ongoing litigation limit what Mr. Abdelrazik could bring to us at a committee hearing, if he were to be available? Does that have any implications, the fact that he has filed?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The issue of Mr. Abdelrazik getting to Canada is one issue, and it is before the courts, as you say. Perhaps this committee has some other interests in talking to Mr. Abdelrazik--I'm not sure. If the only interest the committee has in Mr. Abdelrazik is his inability to get to Canada, then that issue is, as you say, before the courts, and one ought to allow the courts to consider the matter before the House makes a comment of a kind that prejudges the outcome of the action.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Now, you are counsel, but you are not Mr. Abdelrazik's counsel. I don't know if you can comment on this. If you were advising him, are there any aspects of the case that he has brought that you would advise him to stay away from in testimony before the committee?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
A witness who has a case in court shouldn't come before the committee and make essentially legal arguments. This committee is not a place to make legal arguments. So I would hope Mr. Abdelrazik's counsel would advise him that if he is before this committee, he is not to use the opportunity before the committee to essentially argue the case he has before the courts. Presumably he's before the committee for other reasons, to discuss or address other issues. I'm not sure. But here before the committee wouldn't be the place for him to argue his legal case.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Now it's interesting that you brought up the issue of why the committee is seized with this. Mr. Dewar is going to be following me, and I'm sure he'll be able to make any comments that might correct what I'm saying here. I think this is really an effort to create a pressure point on the government to overturn the position they have taken with respect to Mr. Abdelrazik in bringing him back to Canada.
That's it, quite simply. I don't know if some of my colleagues may have some questions for you.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Actually I don't have any particular questions here, other than to say that I appreciate your report and you giving us your opinion in a number of helpful areas.
I thought it was interesting that you pointed out here that the House does not have the requisite authority or legal power to compel the government to repatriate a Canadian citizen, whether through issuance of a passport or by providing transportation. Further, the embassy is a Canadian territory, but the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does not provide that the embassy be considered Canadian territory for all purposes, but rather only for diplomatic purposes under international law.
So I appreciate your drawing those distinctions, because we've had some discussion here as to what we can and cannot do based on some of those assumptions. We certainly appreciate your clarification. Is there anything further you would like to add about that in terms of the territory issue?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
While I think I'm correct in what I've said in my report to you regarding embassies as Canadian territory, it might be instructive or helpful to the committee to hear from persons in the Department of Foreign Affairs, who are obviously quite expert in the matter of embassies. Or, if you want to stay with the Department of Foreign Affairs, there might be professors of law who study international law and who can speak more thoroughly on that question. I have given you the basic principles here.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Well, I think we find that quite helpful, so I would just express my appreciation that you have raised those points for us.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Walsh, for helping this committee.
I want to start off by underlining the fact that I wasn't really involved in asserting that you needed to give us an opinion as to whether the committee can force the minister to provide documentation. I was more interested in the ability of the minister to provide a travel document to Abousfian Abdelrazik, under 1267. You've noted it, and we received a brief of some 28 pages along with an annex that in fact said the minister, under 1267, can provide a travel document to Mr. Abdelrazik.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I would think so. That's the Library of Parliament paper you're referring to. I read that, and I think that paper identifies that, in a legal action perhaps, the minister or the government is raising the argument that it's impossible to get from there to here without transgressing over someone else's territory, and therefore that's the impediment to coming home, as opposed to any impediment presented by the Canadian government. I just don't know whether actually or geographically that's the case, or if you have to get on a boat and row your way across the water to get to Canada to avoid.... I just don't know the geography of all that. But essentially, I agree with what the Library of Parliament brief tells you in that regard.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
In other words, to put a ribbon on it, the minister can provide the travel document to Mr. Abdelrazik.
I would just ask for the indulgence of the committee for a second. I have here letters, which I think are important, from both the RCMP and Jim Judd, who state the following:
This correspondence is in response to your letter dated October 24, 2007, requesting assessment of the RCMP information as it pertains to Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik. Your letter outlined the guidelines established by the UN Al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee for listing an entity/individual. As Mr. Abdelrazik is currently a listed individual, you further requested whether the RCMP had any current and substantive information to support the continued listing.
Please be advised that the RCMP conducted a review of its files and was unable to locate any current and substantive information that indicates Mr. Abdelrazik is involved in criminal activity.
Similarly, another letter to Mark Moher, the senior coordinator of International Crime and Terrorism, from Jim Judd, says:
This letter refers to your correspondence dated October 24, 2007 concerning the petition for the de-listing of a Canadian citizen, Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik, who is included in the United Nations Al Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee Consolidated List. Mr. Abdelrazik voluntarily
—and this is important—
departed Canada for the Sudan in March 2003. The Service has no current substantial
—I'm reading because it's photocopied and it's rather dark—
information regarding Mr. Abdelrazik.
I have a document here regarding Mr. Abdelrazik that I received through an ATI from the government. It basically says in the talking points--and I don't usually hear from the parliamentary secretary--that the response we have for Mr. Abdelrazik is that:
Canada remains ready to provide Mr. Abdelrazik with the necessary consular and financial assistance should be allowed to board a flight and return to Canada.
And finally, I do have a similar document from the minister, from DFAIT, and it says with regard to Abousfian Abdelrazik:
DFAIT's position has always been that a travel document can be issued to Mr. Abdelrazik.
I'm simply submitting, maybe not for your edification but perhaps for the record, that we have the Department of Foreign Affairs stating to the minister of the day--granted, it was a different minister--that DFAIT's position is that a travel document can be issued, and that we have the RCMP and CSIS declaring, after there was a request to provide information on Mr. Abdelrazik, that they have no evidence of any concerns in terms of criminal activity.
I note, under section 10.1, which you referenced, that the minister can refuse. I guess the question that's outstanding, which neither you nor I can answer right now, is, based on what evidence, since we have DFAIT, we have the RCMP, and we have CSIS all saying they don't have anything, and this gentleman left on his own for Sudan and has been stranded there since 2003?
So, Chair, I'm at the point where, unless there's any evidence, and I'd like to know.... Certainly from our research and from your statement in your letter, the minister can provide a travel document to a witness that we've asked—I'd just like to ask you, as the chair, to formally request from Mr. Cannon a travel document so that the witness can come before committee. That has not been done. As a member of this committee, I would request you do that, to facilitate a witness to be able to come before committee. We've scheduled that for June 15.
I thank you, Mr. Walsh, for your help on that, but I make a request to you, Chair, to have correspondence written to the minister to provide Mr. Abdelrazik with the necessary travel documents so that he may come before committee on June 15. It can be a motion, but I note, Chair, that we did have a motion that was passed by this committee, a unanimous motion, to have Mr. Abdelrazik appear. Because of abstentions, it was the unanimous consent of the committee.
I'm simply requesting that you write to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to provide Abousfian Abdelrazik with the necessary travel documents so that he might appear before committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think you're going to have to have a motion for that. I'm not likely to do that out of the desire that I would have to see Mr. Abdelrazik appear before our committee, but if there were a motion requesting me to do it—