Foreign Affairs Committee on June 1st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

With respect, as a chair I'm being asked to write a letter on behalf of the committee, so I would like to know the primary reason we want to hear from him. Madame Lalonde says we have questions. Well, if we have questions, if Madame Lalonde's primary interest in this is to question him and to hear the answers to those questions....

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

We want to help him in his defence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

But if it's to simply get him to Canada, that's something a little different, you know.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But with respect, Chair, I--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I can't do it unless it's a point of order.

Mr. Goldring, then Mr. Lunney, and then Ms. Brown.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would agree with your statement that video conferencing certainly would give a venue to have certain questions answered. But really, even if he was to appear here, could you answer all the questions that seem to have risen on this? A lot of the questions go well back into his past, apparently. Did he come to Canada as a refugee? My understanding is that he possibly did, and if he did, he's been back in Sudan several times since.

I can respect your comments, Mr. Walsh, and thank you very much, but you commented that it's inappropriate to make comments on the submissions by this gentleman because it's before the courts right now, and that's an additional complication that we have here too. We can follow this back through too. We don't know what is in his background, and I don't think we would find that out by speaking to him directly. That will come out through the basis of what other court actions are under way, and maybe even then some of the allegations that have been made under the Anti-Terrorism Act, or whatever act they're under, or the no-fly, never will be able to come out.

So in order to be able to simply listen to him, if the action is to bring him back to Canada, I don't think this is the appropriate thing to be doing at this time. I think the appropriate thing to be doing at this time is deciding whether or not we would have a discussion with him by video conference. But I really don't see how we're going to be able to get to the bottom of all of the questions we might have, even on a video conference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that the members around the table are trying to be reasonable. I know everybody's concerned, particularly on this committee, about human rights and how Canadians are treated, both at home and abroad. But I think the members opposite know full well that at this time this particular matter is before the court. There is a limit as to what can be said in a public setting, which Mr. Walsh has correctly indicated.

I think the minister has clearly indicated.... It was a very clear exchange between Mr. Dewar and the minister at the last meeting, where the question couldn't have been posed more clearly, Mr. Dewar, and you have an answer. I doubt very much that a letter is going to change that at this time, and I think members need to respect that the matter is before the courts and let it rest there until it's resolved in that venue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question really needs to be directed to Mr. Walsh, if you wouldn't mind.

Mr. Walsh, you said that the matter is before the court and there are many things that can't be spoken about, and you indicated that even if Mr. Abdelrazik was before the committee, you would think that his counsel should advise him not to speak about issues. So my question is, other than talking about the weather, what issues could he speak with the committee about without implicating the court case?

[Rob Walsh]

Again, I'm not intimately familiar with Mr. Abdelrazik's history or his record, etc., but I would imagine he could well speak to the foreign relations committee about this UN regime of regulations and no-fly lists and what it did to him and how he disagrees with it, and he might urge the committee to examine that matter, as Canada is a member state of the United Nations.

In other words, what this indicates is that there may be broader issues that Mr. Abdelrazik or this committee might want to pursue that don't go directly to the issues that are before the court relative to his inability to get back to Canada. There could be other issues in which he has an interest, and the committee has an interest, and the committee may want to pursue with Mr. Abdelrazik and with others and for which reason the committee wants to speak to him. How you do that obviously is the committee's business. But it's the actual issues before the court.

I should add that I made the suggestion about how, if I was counsel to Mr. Abdelrazik, I would advise him he ought not to do that, because the courts don't like parties before them going elsewhere and making public arguments about the case, as if in that manner they're going to somehow influence the outcome of the court case. That shows a disrespect for the courts. Of course, what's said to a committee is not ever before the court, because it's parliamentary privilege. But all the same, if it gets into the public domain and it's out there being discussed, maybe the other counsel might object or make the argument that this is an inappropriate use of the parliamentary process to be arguing that case.

The more important consideration is the committee. What can the committee say in view of the sub judice rule. The sub judice rule, as you know, is a voluntary rule of the House where its members are asked to not comment in debates in the House or debates in committee on matters that are before the courts. It's with that rule in mind that I would think the committee might want to avoid going into those issues that for Mr. Abdelrazik are before the courts, but there may be broader issues.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

However, we would be doing a very careful dance.

[Rob Walsh]

That could be, depending on how broad the subject is that you're discussing.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Brown.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's helpful. But I think Mr. Walsh has also underlined that it's not a matter of whether or not we can; it's what would happen if Mr. Abdelrazik appeared and the conduct that would happen. I think there are many things this committee would like to know.

Does it not trouble anyone on the government side that we've had a Canadian citizen stranded in a far-off country since 2003? Does it not concern the government? I guess I direct this through you, Chair, to Mr. Goldring. He was concerned that maybe there's information we don't have access to. Well, this is the part that is the most disconcerting. We have CSIS, the RCMP, and indeed the Government of Sudan who have all said they don't have any information on this gentleman. There are no charges against him. None. Zero. There is nothing against this gentleman. I think it's incumbent upon this committee that we deal with this Canadian citizen who is stranded in one of our embassies. To do that I would like to have him before committee, and I would simply like to follow process here.

My asking a question, and it didn't get the back and forth that I was able to follow through with, with respect, at committee, last time we had the minister here—I won't go through all that. I want due process, where, as chair, you write to the minister to ask for the requisite documents so he can appear. That's without prejudice. We have a witness, the witness needs travel documents, and we ask the minister. It's pretty straightforward. It's just like that.

I think when you consider what I've read into the record today and the fact of that one other item I received through access to information from the government, that indeed the reason—and this is new for a lot of people—he was put on the list was that the U.S. at the time requested it.... We have no idea, based on what information. We know in the past that the U.S. has been given certain information from our sources. And in the case of Arar, there is a similarity, because the information that was passed to them was not accurate and it cost him dearly, and it cost Canadians, actually, financially.

In the case of Mr. Abdelrazik, I don't know how much more probing one does beyond CSIS and the RCMP. I think it's important for us to understand what happened to him. And I think it's important for us to at least go through the process of asking the minister to provide the travel documents.

So I leave it there. The motion is there, and I appreciate the support of all my colleagues on this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Again, the question that's brought forward is, how did he get on the list? You'd like to ask these questions, yet we could do that by teleconferencing. The purpose, really, that I battle with is simply to leapfrog the UN no-fly list and get him home come hell or high water—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Can I make a clarification, Chair? You're not leapfrogging the UN process. I think Mr. Walsh has established that today. The excellent briefing notes—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is a provision, you're right.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

There are two provisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There is provision for the minister to provide the necessary documentation.

Maybe a question to Mr. Walsh is, and again maybe Mr. Dewar would know the answer, how often does this happen? How often does it happen where a name is put on that list and governments...? I know there are appeals, and in some cases there have been appeals where people have been removed from the list.

In this case he has had an appeal and it was declined. They, one would assume, would look at the evidence that's brought forward. They would say that this individual has appealed. They would know that the RCMP and CSIS have no evidence. The home country, the country that he's a citizen of, has no substantive information against him, yet they continue. And it's not just one government sitting at that table, it's a number of different representatives from different countries, yet they declined the appeal.

What's the fallout from...? Go ahead.

[Rob Walsh]

Mr. Chairman, I don't have specific information as to the frequency of persons getting themselves off the list through appeals or this sort of thing. You gave a scenario of perhaps the committee receiving evidence. I'm not so sure that it's an evidentiary-based process. I say that I'm not so sure. I'm not an expert in this area. Perhaps officials who are experts could advise you on this.

The UN, in my view, often works based on member states' wishes as opposed to evidentiary due process. I'm not so sure that it isn't the case that a member state could say, regarding Mr. X or Mr. Abdelrazik, “No, don't take him off.” And that word is enough and he doesn't get off, and no reasons are given. I'm not so sure that the UN calls upon its member states to justify their positions, but rather says, “What is your position? What do you invoke? It's national security? End of story, he's on the list.”

I don't know that for sure. I'm telling you that it is my suspicion that this is the way it works. I don't know that you ought to assume that it's an evidentiary process in which due consideration has been given to the fact that there's no evidence against the man. It may be that it's not a weighty consideration. It may be noted, but I'm not so sure that it's a decisive consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Walsh, you said in your letter to us, “In my view, as a matter of law, the House, and certainly not a Committee of the House, does not have the legal authority or power to direct the Government to effect the return of a Canadian citizen to Canada from a place outside Canada.” This motion basically is saying that we're going to try that anyway.

[Rob Walsh]

My letter was talking in terms of legal power to compel, and I'm saying that it has no legal power to compel the government to do this. The House, on the basis of a committee report, could speak in language suggesting compulsion and force and demand and so on, but the government would not be legally obliged to adhere to that demand. Having said that, whatever else the House might do by way of urging or letters or beseeching, all those avenues, of course, are available to either this committee or to the House or to individual members, as the case may be. The point in my letter was to say that there's no legal power to compel the government to act in that fashion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

There's no legal power to direct the government to bring a person before this committee.