Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'll ask you if you could answer very briefly, because we're actually at the end of the time for this question, but please go ahead.

[LCdr William Kuebler]

There has been some discussion of closing down the Guantánamo Bay facility and moving the detainees to Fort Leavenworth, or some place like that, for trial by military commission. To my knowledge, that has not moved beyond the discussion stage at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In Canada these days, we're seeing some of our own military personnel coming back from Afghanistan, some of them with combat stress. When I consider that this boy of 15 was in a firefight with American special forces and was wounded and nearly executed, I can't imagine what it must have been like for this boy—and I repeat, boy, quite emphatically—to be taken to Guantánamo to enhanced interrogation, and that's a euphemism today for pretty heavy-duty torture, from most people's points of view. I believe the Canadian government has to recognize Omar Khadr as a child combatant and it has to do everything it can to have him repatriated to Canada.

But the process of repatriation, how would you define that? Is it something that's fairly easy; is it something very complex? And how important is it for Canada to show leadership in this case?

[LCdr William Kuebler]

As I said at the outset, Canada has been a leader in the protection of children in armed conflict, and of child soldiers in particular, which makes its inaction in Omar's case anomalous, to say the least.

What would the process of repatriation look like? We would expect it to look like it has looked in other countries. Canada makes a demand and negotiates terms of the release, and Omar is brought home to Canada to face whatever proceedings are appropriate, as determined by the Canadian government under Canadian law, and that is what we believe should happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Was that your only question, Mr. Marston?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

In that case, I did suggest that if there are any questions of a general nature that Lieutenant-Commander Kuebler thought had arisen out of the proceedings, we would give him an opportunity to respond to those. Are there any, Lieutenant-Commander?

[LCdr William Kuebler]

I just have a couple of remarks in closing, if this is the appropriate time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

It would be the appropriate time.

Do you mind if I ask a question arising out of Mr. Marston's question?

[LCdr William Kuebler]

Certainly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

He asked how the United States, or presumably the relevant personnel in the military, could be prevailed upon to begin the process of moving Mr. Khadr to Canada. This raises the question of what kind of conditions they would expect. The intention has been to prosecute him for serious crimes and to lock him away for a very long time, so I assume they would have a bottom line that's pretty tough. Am I wrong in that regard?

[LCdr William Kuebler]

A number of assumptions have been made about the nature of the allegations against Omar, the strength of the evidence in the murder charge, and so forth, that have informed the U.S. government's position thus far. In light of the evidence that's come out in the last several months, one would hope that they would be more amenable to a resolution of the case.

Each one of these transfers that have been negotiated from Guantánamo Bay has been a little bit different, depending upon the political circumstances and the relationship with the country in question. With the British detainees, for example, the promise was to investigate--to afford due process, basically. If there was a basis for charges, then the British government would pursue charges. With respect to the British citizens who were returned to the United Kingdom, my understanding is that the process resulted in almost immediate release, because when they looked at the evidence that was available, there was no basis on which to prosecute.

So I don't know that the U.S. government could demand that the Canadian government do anything more than simply follow its law and afford Omar appropriate process under that law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Obviously we are constrained at any point by what our law permits. That goes without saying.

I thank you, and I invite you to go ahead with your concluding statement.

[LCdr William Kuebler]

I'll just briefly summarize, and again, I touched on this a few times.

Five years ago, there were assumptions made about who Omar Khadr was, what he did, and the strength of the evidence against him. It was clear that he was responsible for throwing a hand grenade in a firefight in Afghanistan, because there was one hand grenade and there was one combatant who could have thrown it, namely Omar Khadr. Now we know, based on information that has come to light largely as a result of the investigation that was conducted after the decision to charge Omar was made, that not only were there other hand grenades being thrown by both sides in that compound in close proximity, but there were multiple combatants alive and fighting, and that there is no real evidence that Omar Khadr was responsible for the death of the U.S. soldier. Indeed, we will never know with complete certainty what happened in the course of that firefight, for the same reason as we cannot expect to know what happened in the course of a battle on a foreign battlefield five or six or more years ago.

But with all of that said, I want to impress upon the members of the subcommittee that it's not a question of whether Omar is guilty or innocent. This subcommittee is no more the place to try Omar Khadr than the military commission in Guantánamo Bay. Even if he did everything that the U.S. government said he did, what he is guilty of, at worst, is throwing a hand grenade as a soldier in a firefight against people who were trying to kill him. If that happened and it had the unfortunate consequences that it did, then that's a tragedy. However, it is important to recognize that Omar Khadr has spent almost six years in some of the most rigorous conditions of confinement imaginable and has paid whatever penalty, if any is appropriate from that conduct, for that crime.

So as this committee does its work and sits down to evaluate whether or not the U.S. has complied with its obligations under the Optional Protocol—and we believe it has not—please do not get tied down in the question of whether Omar Khadr is innocent or guilty. The answer for Canada today is the same in any event, and that is to bring this young man home to face due process in a legitimate system under Canadian law.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you to both of our witnesses.

Before I gavel the meeting shut, I want to remind our witnesses that the conclusion of today's proceedings does not terminate their ability to submit any additional documents that may be appropriate.

Mr. Kenney, please.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, do you have the revised Zimbabwe motion ready for consideration?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I should ask the clerk that question, but I should advise our witnesses that they're dismissed. We've just moved on to a different piece of business.

The clerk advises me that he doesn't actually have a copy of it.

Thank you. We are adjourned.