Evidence of meeting #30 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 consular.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Do you think that if we had...? Obviously we need to change things, don't we?
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
What I really want done is.... Someone can change as much as they thought. I changed my look, and they said I didn't look enough like my passport document. I gave them a lot of opportunities to take my fingerprints and to prove who I am, to call my uncle and my aunt and my son, which they didn't. I asked them to go to my workplace and speak to the workers where I work, which they didn't. What else could I do until there was the DNA? What else could I do?
People can change. I may not have answered all the questions they asked. I may not look like my photo. They said I didn't look like my passport photo. But if I was an impostor, I wouldn't have gone through all these things and asked them to check my fingerprints.
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I had everything in my wallet, everything, even Canadian Tire money.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Yes, the Canadian Tire money was something that should have sealed the deal.
But if you look at what can be done, I would like to see legislation, I would like to see an ombudsman, and I don't think you should have to go to court to have your rights recognized.
Finally, I would say that there was a motto in Foreign Affairs and consular services for the longest time--and Mr. Obhrai mentioned it--that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I'm sad to say that this has not been the case for you and it hasn't been the case for Ms. Durocher and her daughter. We need to change that. We are going to focus on how to change that so that we don't have another person sitting in your chair saying, “I hope this doesn't happen to another Canadian.”
I want to thank you very much for being so brave and coming here today, and that you have the trust of us and that you still have trust in your country. For that, I thank you very much.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Dewar.
We'll go to Monsieur Galipeau.
You have five minutes.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite distressed with the testimony we've heard today, and I should hope that collectively we've all learned some lessons.
However, Statistics Canada informs me that every year Canadians make more than 50 million visits outside Canada. It's also estimated that 2.5 million Canadians are currently living abroad. Every minute of every day, professionals in the Public Service of Canada receive three requests for help at one of our points of service. In 2008-2009, more than 1.35 million Canadians received assistance abroad. So sometimes there are incidents, and, because these are very serious human issues, these incidents hurt.
Mrs. Mohamud, I really want to thank you for sharing your story with me. It's a story of courage. It may not offer you much consolation, but the last time I looked at my passport photo, it didn't look like me either. Unfortunately, it didn't make me look more handsome. It was not flattering.
I have focused particularly on the issue concerning Ms. Durocher, that is to say her daughter's well-being. I inquired and observed that the professionals of the Public Service of Canada have put a lot of time and effort into this case. They say they have contacted her and her family approximately 300 times in the past 12 months. Is that correct?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I haven't counted the number of times, but they definitely haven't communicated often with me. However, I have communicated with them. Saeed has communicated with them and Nathalie has communicated with them through Saeed.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Being concerned with the situation involving your daughter and her children, the parliamentary secretary himself has travelled to Saudi Arabia to discuss their case with Saudi senior officials and the head of the Saudi human rights commission. The parliamentary secretary personally met with Ms. Morin, I believe.
I believe that, under the 1980 Convention, which was signed at the time by the Trudeau government, the consent of both parents is required in order to remove the children. Is that correct?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
I must tell you, Ms. Durocher—
and to you the same, Mrs. Mohamud, that you have our strongest feelings of sympathy. I still keep the sense that the members of the Canadian public service do their jobs in a professional way. Unfortunately, sometimes things do slip between stools. Particularly in the case of Mrs. Mohamud, I look forward to the reports that have been requested and I hope you will find those reports satisfactory.
As regards the other case, the practice of law in Saudi Arabia is obviously entirely different from Canadian practice. Is it true that Ms. Morin returned to that country after coming back to Canada?
5:30 p.m.
As an Individual
In fact, Nathalie came to Canada without her children, and she returned to get her children. We are really convinced that the children are as much in danger as Nathalie is and that they are being mistreated by the father.
As regards Mr. Deepak Obhrai's visit to my daughter, which took place on December 22, 2008, I believe that, on arrival, Mr. Obhrai told Nathalie that it was unnecessary to talk to him because he already knew her story. So he talked to Saeed and to other individuals there. In other words, he didn't hear Nathalie's account on site. In addition, he remained seated in Saeed's living room. He didn't visit the rest of the apartment to verify the situation, among other things.
As regards the numerous communications going through Foreign Affairs or the embassy, it seems to me they are still wondering whether or not Nathalie needs... They say she says she doesn't have a telephone, and they wonder how she was able to speak to her mother. I repeat to you today, and I will say it again often, that Nathalie spoke to me when Saeed gave her the telephone. So don't be surprised; she spoke to me, and I know I'm going to speak to her again.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank Ms. Durocher for her testimony.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be splitting my time with Mr. McTeague.
I guess what we've seen happen to Ms. Mohamud could probably happen to any Canadian, and that really distresses me. I've just witnessed something very remarkable in this meeting, that a Conservative member is equally distressed about what happens to a Canadian citizen abroad who is at the mercy of the government. I find that remarkable, and I share that distress, because I'm a member of Parliament who attempted to do something for Ms. Mohamud, and it took a lawyer to force the government, in a court of law, to eventually get her back here. I think that speaks to the obduracy of government when it comes to effecting the civil rights of its own citizens.
But I'm even more distressed—and I'm going to ask Ms. Mohamud to consult with her lawyer in answering this question—because I thought I just heard Mr. Goldring address an issue, and implicit in his issue of asking Ms. Mohamud whether she would waive her privacy rights are two very important things.
I hope I'll get your indication from this.
First of all, Mr. Goldring implied in his question that, with regard to Mr. Obhrai's offer to make public the results of the investigation, in your case it will not be made public and that he's stepping away from it; and secondly, there is a veiled attempt to indicate to this committee that there might be something in the initial investigations, of which there were at least two done on you, that might make you feel very uncomfortable, or that you did something wrong and illegal and it will come out in public.
Are you aware of anything that might be contained in those investigations that would suggest that you did something wrong?
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Order.
Mr. Volpe, first of all, when we start trying to understand what may have been an implication.... I think that was the word you used, that Mr. Goldring may have been implying, or there may have been an implication, that--
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
In no uncertain terms was there an intention; as I explained to the gentleman afterwards, it was merely pointing out the fact that what is specifically coming through on the report will be under the Privacy Act, and that any information that is released from that will have to have the consent of Ms. Mohamud. There is nothing being implied in that. That's just strictly a matter of fact and a matter of process.
5:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Mr. Chair--
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, I've dealt with this. We'll go back to Ms. Mohamud's answer to Mr. Volpe's question.
It's Ms. Mohamud's answer; you can advise her--
5:35 p.m.
Falconer Charney LLP, As an Individual
Ms. Mohamud was encouraged to consult with her counsel. She's indicated to me that she doesn't need to consult with her counsel. She just has nothing to hide--end of story.