Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 26th, 2009

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, but during the discussion we had before the meeting, I told you that Mr. Beaulac had agreed not to speak, but that he would be acting as an advisor. Mr. Beaulac should therefore be seated beside Ms. Durocher, as is the case of Ms. Mohamud and her lawyer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. If her adviser wants to sit beside her, he can take a seat.

Ms. Durocher, please continue.

[Johanne Durocher, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. My name is Johanne Durocher, Nathalie Morin's mother.

Thank you for the privilege you are granting me today of being here together with my counsel, Mr. Stéphane Beaulac, who is a professor of international law at the University of Montreal.

Since March 2005, Nathalie and her son, Samir Morin, have been detained in Saudi Arabia by Saeed Al-Shahrani, alias Al-Bishi. Since February 2008, they have been held captive in their apartment. Under coercion and violence, Nathalie has given birth to two other children on Saudi soil: Abdullah, who is three years old, and Sarah, who is nine months. There are now four Canadians being held in civil detention, as hostages in Saudi Arabia, again by Saeed Al-Shahrani, alias Al-Bishi. All four are being mistreated and are malnourished. They have no access to any medical monitoring. Three of them are minors. They are unable to challenge their living conditions or detention in a court of law. They are isolated and have no contact with their family. They have no access to neutral and impartial legal counsel. Having exhausted all available local resources, seeing no other solutions and considering that their fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being abused, I am asking the Canadian government, on behalf of my daughter Nathalie, to repatriate her with her three children.

To date, Foreign Affairs as cited the Hague Convention as the reason preventing their repatriation. However, Saudi Arabia is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and, under article 7—unless I am mistaken because I'm not sure—where there is mistreatment or violence, one may make an exception to the Hague Convention.

That's really what I am asking the Canadian government today for Nathalie.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Durocher.

We'll move into the first round.

Mr. McTeague, please, for seven minutes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Durocher.

We've spoken a number of times. Obviously, there are other cases that, like yours, trouble and concern us as members of Parliament. That feeling is also shared by individuals who have worked on these cases.

Madame Suaad Hagi Mohamud, thank you for your very, very intimate and distressing revelation of what happened to you while so many of us were trying to get answers. I can safely say that if it were ours to give, we would deeply regret and apologize. While the government may not do that, this is not a partisan issue; this is an issue of how we treat Canadians abroad. So on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues, I want to offer to you personally our sincere regrets on what has happened. Let your testimony here serve as a reminder to all of us that this will never happen again.

Madame Mohamud, I have a couple of questions for you on what you've put in your handout here regarding High Commission high-handed conduct, so that you can acknowledge these things.

You believe there was a failure to intervene quickly. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I should also draw attention to the fact that Ms. Mohamud does have interpretation. I won't deduct it from your time.

Continue.

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Do you believe you were presumed guilty, when in fact you protested that you were innocent?

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Do you believe the federal government took deliberate steps and failed to confirm your identity?

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

As far as instigating prosecution and imprisonment in Kenya is concerned, can you verify that in fact Canadian officials did render documents bringing into question your identity and submitted those to Kenyan officials for prosecution? Can you attest to that?

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

On the question of fingerprinting, it would appear that they were taken on July 9. Did officials explain to you that they had already destroyed the fingerprints on which to match them?

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Regarding the delay in contacting the employer--your employer vouched for you, as you've suggested here--how long did it take? If we look at the timelines here, we're talking about May 21 all the way to, if I'm not mistaken, July 9. Is that correct?

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

The question of ignoring—

[Julian Falconer]

Just as a correction for the record, Mr. McTeague, it actually took officials until July 13 to make inquiries.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you for your clarification.

In regard to ignoring identification evidence, you've suggested the evidence that you provided was completely and utterly ignored, notwithstanding the fact that you provided abundant pieces of information?

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Okay.

You were aware of the fact that they insisted on DNA. I can tell you, from in my time in charge of consular services--2003 to 2007--that I find this both a bizarre and unusual circumstance. They were very much insistent on taking DNA from you. Is that correct?

[Suaad Hagi Mohamud]

Yes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Then my question comes very simply to what happened in the timelines that you've proposed here in your statement.

You suggest here that ATS, Andromeier Transportation Services, on July 15 confirmed in writing with the second secretary at the High Commission, Mr. Huard, in Nairobi that you were employed with the company and that you were on approved vacation. In other words, Immigration had taken the steps of confirming, and in fact that was confirmed?