Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I call this meeting to order.

We are the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. This is meeting number 13. It is May 12.

We have one order of business for the first part of our meeting. That is, we have two witnesses at 1 p.m. After an hour, they will be dismissed and we will then move to the in camera consideration of committee business.

Without further ado, we should turn the floor over to our witnesses, who are Hilary Homes and Kathy Vandergrift. Respectively, they are campaigner for international justice, security, and human rights with Amnesty International, and chairperson of the board of directors of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children.

Before I begin, I'll just remind our members that we adopted a motion at the last meeting that rounds will be five minutes long—the first round will be five minutes long as well as the others. That may not be necessary today, depending on how many folks are here for this part of the meeting. Unless we change those rules, that's what they are.

Without further ado, please begin.

[Hilary Homes, Campaigner, International Justice, Security and Human Rights, Amnesty International]

Thank you.

This is a welcome opportunity to clarify and elaborate on our concerns about the case of Omar Khadr.

This is one of many cases of concern in Guantanamo Bay and other places of detention in the context of the so-called war on terror. Amnesty International is not alone in its position that the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay was created and continues to operate outside the rule of law, be that international human rights and humanitarian law or U.S. domestic law.

Many governments, including U.S. allies, have been critical of the conditions in Guantanamo Bay and have successfully sought the repatriation of their citizens years ago. Amnesty International has repeatedly called for the closure of the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay. Detainees should be released unless they are to be charged with recognizably criminal offences and provided with a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal such as a U.S. federal court. In cases where detainees face the risk of torture or other serious human rights abuses if returned to their home country, another solution should be found.

It is in this context that Amnesty International has raised the case of Omar Khadr with successive Canadian governments, through letters to ministers, media work, and public campaigning, since his capture at the age of 15, in the summer of 2002, and his initial detention and interrogation at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

Whatever assurances the current government and past Canadian governments have accepted from U.S. counterparts, they must surely ring hollow by now. The treatment in Guantanamo Bay has not been humane. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross broke from its customary silence to express concerns about conditions in Guantanamo, including the impact of indefinite detention on the health of the detainees. The international committee also explicitly stated that it does not consider Guantanamo an appropriate place to detain juveniles.

Recently in the House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, after reiterating the government's long-held position that seeking Omar Khadr's release was premature, given the legal proceedings and appeals under way, said “We are making sure that justice takes its course”. That's from Hansard on April 30, 2008. Respectfully, justice is simply not possible as long as Omar Khadr remains in Guantanamo Bay. Every step along the way the U.S.A.'s treatment of Omar Khadr has failed to comply with international law, including the special protections for children taken into custody and for children affected by armed conflict.

Guantanamo is a highly coercive regime, where detainees have been subjected to years of indefinite detention under harsh conditions. The right to be presumed innocent has been systematically undermined by a pattern of official commentary on their presumed guilt.

It is worth noting that the former chief prosecutor of the military commissions, Colonel Morris Davis, resigned on October 4, 2007, after concluding that full, fair, and open trials were not possible under the current system that had become deeply politicized.

Amnesty International is not saying that people currently detained in Guantanamo cannot be put on trial. We are saying that the military commission system does not represent a fair trial according to international human rights standards. The military commission system is part of a detention regime developed by the U.S. authorities to avoid independent judicial scrutiny of government conduct for its detainees, including by denying them the basic safeguard of a habeas corpus review.

It was a habeas challenge that was brought against the original military commission that led to that system being declared unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. government's legislated response to the Hamdan ruling, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, subsequently barred the U.S. federal courts from considering habeas corpus appeals from four nationals held as so-called enemy combatants.

The current military commissions fall short of international standards in many areas, including the following. I'll just list a few here.

The prerequisite for trial under the Military Commissions Act is that the individual is an alien unlawful enemy combatant, a status that is unrecognized in international law. Among those currently facing trial are civilians detained outside any zone of armed conflict. Using military tribunals to try such civilians runs counter to international standards.

The military commissions also lack independence from the executive branch. They may admit information obtained in cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The fact that the U.S. administration's definition of “torture” does not comply with international law, such as the convention against torture, could also mean that information extracted under torture could be admitted as evidence.

The right to trial within a reasonable time is not guaranteed.

The right to be represented by a lawyer of the detainee's choice is restricted. The rules on hearsay and classified information may severely curtail a defendant's ability to challenge the government's case against him. The right of appeal is limited, essentially, to matters of law and not fact. Of course, the military commissions apply only to those who are not U.S. citizens and thus are discriminatory.

Finally, the detainees may be subjected to the death penalty after an unfair trial.

Further, the failure of the Military Commissions Act to expressly exempt children from the jurisdiction of military commissions contradicts principle 7 of the draft United Nations principles governing the administration of justice through military tribunals. Principle 7 states that, and I'll quote:

Strict respect for the guarantees provided in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) should govern the prosecution and punishment of minors, who fall within the category of vulnerable persons. In no case, therefore, should minors be placed under the jurisdiction of military courts.

A source for that quote is the report of the special rapporteur on the administration of justice through military tribunals, January 2006.

As the committee members no doubt know, no existing international tribunal has ever prosecuted a child for war crimes, reflecting the wide recognition that the recruitment and use of children in armed conflict is a serious abuse of human rights in itself. Both the United States and Canada have ratified the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Central to the optional protocol is the condemnation of the use of child combatants and the obligation of states to provide the immobilized children with all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.

The Paris principles and guidelines on children associated with armed forces or armed groups further state that, and again I will quote:

Children who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators. They must be treated in accordance with international law in a framework of restorative justice and social rehabilitation....

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, through its general comment 10 on children's rights and juvenile justice—and that is one of the documents that has been distributed to the committee—has emphasized that every person under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged offence must be treated under the rules of juvenile justice. This includes promoting his or her reintegration into society. Detention must be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Any deprivation of liberty must be tested before a legitimate court without delay.

After almost six years, Omar Khadr is still waiting for the opportunity to effectively challenge the legality of his detention. For the first few years of his detention, Omar Khadr did not have access to legal counsel. Rather than being afforded special protections by staff trained in the administration of juvenile justice, his young age was exploited in the context of coercive interrogations and incommunicado detention.

When the trial in another country meets international standards, non-intervention on behalf of a Canadian citizen might be understandable while the process is ongoing. But that is simply not the case here. Continuing to monitor and engage with the military commissions process, up to and including the appeal stage, serves only to endorse an unfair system and ultimately undermine international human rights standards, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

Canada has been a champion of these rights far too long to create an exception out of one of its own citizens. Given that the U.S. has no apparent interest in transferring the case to a civilian jurisdiction within the United States, the Canadian government should take all possible steps to protect its citizen by seeking Omar Khadr's repatriation and, if there is sufficient and admissible evidence, arranging for his trial in Canada. Any such trial must comply with international standards, including fully taking into account Omar Khadr's age at the time of any alleged offence and the role that adults played in his involvement as a child in the armed conflict in Afghanistan.

In keeping with the approach to other demobilized child combatants throughout the world, priority should be placed on his rehabilitation and reintegration into Canadian society.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Ms. Homes.

Ms. Vandergrift, please.

[Kathy Vandergrift, Chairperson, Board of Directors, Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children]

Thank you for this opportunity.

I'm speaking to you today as chair of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, but it's relevant for my testimony that I have been a board member of the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. I was also coordinator of the children and armed conflict working group at the time the optional protocol on children and armed conflict was adopted. I co-chaired the civil society group at the first international conference on war-affected children, held in Winnipeg in 2000, and at the UN special session on children in 2002.

As a co-founder of the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict, which is an international monitoring group, I was engaged in the process leading up to each of the six Security Council resolutions on children in armed conflict.

So this adds up to ten years of working on this issue and trying to improve protection for the rights of children caught in wars.

From this background, I would like to present three points for your consideration today. The first one relates to the best interests of the child.

The best interests of the child are to be the primary consideration in all actions concerning children. This central principle of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is repeated in the optional protocol on children and armed conflict, both of which were ratified by Canada. It is central for dealing with child soldiers. The term “child soldiers” applies to more than those who fight on the front lines. It applies to persons under the age of 18 who are associated with fighting forces, whether they worked as carriers, as spies, or as captains on the front line.

Omar Khadr clearly fits in this group. The primary principle for your examination of this issue should be the best interests of the child, since he was under 18 at the time he was associated with fighting forces.

I have not seen an explanation of how Canada's current policy implements this principle. In November the government response to a Senate report on the rights of children stated that all policies relating to children are assessed for compliance with Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This committee may wish to ask for a copy of the assessment that was done to show that the position on Omar Khadr complies with the principle of the best interests of the child, to which Canada subscribes.

May I suggest to you that any assessment based on the best interests of the child, the optional protocol, and the relevant Security Council resolutions would point toward a plan for rehabilitation and reintegration.

Article 6 of the optional protocol states--and I'm quoting--“States parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons within their jurisdiction recruited or used in hostilities contrary to the present protocol are demobilized or otherwise released from service.” This is the important line: “States parties shall, when necessary, accord to such persons all appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery and their social reintegration.”

This approach would be in the best interests of Omar Khadr, who was a Canadian child recruited into a fighting force. He remains a Canadian citizen.

But let's consider for a moment what has been stated as the primary consideration of the government--diplomatic relations with the United States. That is also important. The United States adopted the optional protocol on child soldiers even though it has never ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think that's significant, because it means this decision was a very deliberate policy choice by the United States.

Article 7 of the optional protocol commits states to helping other states fulfill their commitments. If Canada repatriates Omar Khadr with a reintegration plan, we would in fact be helping the United States live up to the commitments it has made as well as keeping Canadian commitments.

The second point I would like to ask you to consider is the best interests of Canada, including the interests of the Canadian military. Canadian soldiers do not like to meet child soldiers when they're deployed.

The Department of National Defence was not a strong proponent of the law against child soldiers when we were discussing it and it was adopted, but many, especially those who have seen child soldiers in action from Afghanistan to the Congo, now want to see it upheld. Undermining it is not in their best interests.

From the perspective of Canadian communities, the standard for good practice is a plan for rehabilitation and reintegration that addresses the specific situation of the child and the context. Such plans combine short-term intensive treatment and then longer-term community-based support.

Research has documented that returning child soldiers with a plan is better than without a plan. There is an emerging standard of good practice although this is still a new field. For an easy-to-read resource, I would suggest Child Soldiers, by Dr. Mike Wessells, a child psychologist who has developed and implemented programs that combine social-psychological treatment, education, and livelihood training through working for the Christian Children's Fund. He has experience also with programs in Afghanistan.

This issue does not need to be a partisan issue in Canada. All parties with strong public support supported Canada being the first country to adopt the optional protocol. In 2007, under the current government, Canada and 40 countries adopted something called the Paris principles and guidelines on children associated with armed forces or armed groups. Article 7 of that document spells out specifically that children captured by an opposing armed force retain their human rights as children, and specifically should not be subjected to torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment. It also states that all measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration must be taken.

Article 3 spells out, as Hilary said, that children accused of crimes should be considered primarily to be victims, and those who recruit children should be prosecuted as criminals. Article 3.7 states that wherever possible alternatives to judicial proceedings must be sought. This approach would be in line with the standards of good practice for juvenile justice in Canada as well, as Hilary has mentioned.

The third point I'd like you to consider is the global best interests for peace and security. I would now draw your attention to six Security Council resolutions that state that protecting the rights of children caught in armed conflicts is a matter of international peace and security. They are resolutions 1261, 1314, 1379, 1460, 1593, and 1612, adopted in a timeframe from 1999 to 2005.

Canada worked for and supported each of these resolutions, each one stronger than the last. All of them call for the reintegration of former child soldiers and the prosecution of those who recruit and abuse children. That is the course laid out in Security Council resolutions. The last one, resolution 1612, puts in place very specific implementation mechanisms, because the Security Council was very concerned about continuing violations and strongly committed to achieving compliance in order to end the most egregious violations, including the use of child soldiers.

So we are asking Canada to do only what other countries are asked to do. If Canada does not follow Security Council resolutions, why should other countries? Other countries have been asked to take back and reintegrate young people who have committed offences as child soldiers, and they have done so. There are also cases in which this was not done, and young people joined other fighting forces, creating instability elsewhere. This is a security issue.

Finally, if Canada wants to have a principled, consistent, integrated foreign policy, then the policy on Omar Khadr needs review and revision. Canada is supporting programs in Colombia and northern Uganda to help in the reintegration of young people who are also involved with groups listed as terrorist organizations. Community acceptance is a challenge there too, as much as it is in Canada. But all those efforts are undermined if Canada does not do the same thing when the child involved happens to be a Canadian child.

We have letters from the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter MacKay; the current minister, Maxime Bernier; the former Minister of International Development, Josée Verner; and the current Minister of International Cooperation, Bev Oda. All say that implementation of Security Council resolutions and other policies on children and armed conflict remain a high priority for Canada. So implementing at home those policies we promote elsewhere is essential.

The Omar Khadr case is not isolated or exceptional. It's a bellwether case. How it is handled will have serious implications for the future of the international laws that so many Canadians worked so hard to put in place. It is drawing increasing international attention and has the potential to undermine all the good work done by Canada and Canadians to protect the rights of children. Within a few weeks, a new global report on child soldiers will be released. Some progress is being made. The Omar Khadr case will be cited as potentially undermining these achievements. A change in Canadian policy before the release of that report would show Canadian leadership and encourage other countries to protect the rights of children caught in conflicts.

Finally, I will remind this committee that implementation of the Security Council resolutions on protection of children is widely seen as a step toward implementation of the responsibility to protect, a policy direction endorsed by all parties and the Canadian public. So the issue before you is a very important one. Canada has a choice: it can either undermine progress made toward protection of children, or it can show leadership in the best interests of the child, the military, youth justice in Canada, and global peace and security. Developing a reintegration plan and asking the United States to repatriate Omar Khadr with such a plan is the best way for both countries to respect commitments they made to children, and to contribute to global peace and security.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you to both of our witnesses.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses. They are from well-respected organizations. I'm more familiar with Amnesty International, as I'm a member. I support Amnesty International, and I appreciate all the wonderful work they're doing on behalf of human rights all over the world.

We've heard that Canada has signed and ratified several major international treaties on the rights of the child. I think we have to realize that Canada has a positive obligation to make sure that we are fulfilling the commitments that we have signed and ratified. The U.S. has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I think it's the only country besides Somalia that has not ratified it. But the U.S. still has obligations, because it has also signed the convention.

Most of us would agree that the situation in Guantanamo is outside the scope of international law. This is the case of a child soldier who is the only one in the western world still there. It seems to me that we ought to hold to the commitments we've made on international treaties. The Paris principles talk about child soldiers more as victims, and I think that's the way we have to see this.

How do we get the government to follow with their positive obligations? This is something they have to do as a matter of law if we are to adhere to our international commitments. Maybe you can elaborate on this.

[Hilary Homes]

From our perspective, one of the things that has to happen is the recognition of the inadequacy of the military commissions. As long as that process is being treated as if it were a legitimate court, it's very problematic. Around that, of course, are all the obligations that say putting a child soldier on trial should be the last resort. In fact, it's something the States has never resorted to before. That's one of the key things at issue right now that does need to change.

I don't know if Kathy wants to add something specific on child rights.

[Kathy Vandergrift]

Thank you.

Certainly we have submitted letters and we are trying to dialogue with the government about it. I think more dialogue would be helpful. We find there's a hesitancy to talk about this; I recognize there's a security dimension.

What talking about it can also do--and I think it would be important--is to say there is an alternative. Other countries have used alternatives. We have worked with other countries to integrate child soldiers. I've had the privilege of working with some of those young people. You may have met Ishmael Beah, a former child soldier who came to Canada from Sierra Leone and leads initiatives globally.

There is an alternative path. That's helpful for the public debate. The more our members of Parliament debate the alternatives, the more helpful it will be. It's not just to see it so very narrowly, but to talk about it.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I think both of you have spoken pretty much to the issues that are of concern, so maybe I'll turn it over to the next person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Okay.

You have the floor, Ms. Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, ladies, for your presentations which have helped shed a little more light on these matters of concern to me.

As you know, I have been very interested in the Omar Khadr case. He is a child soldier. As Mr. Kuebler mentioned during his testimony, children are never soldiers. They are merely children who have been illegally exploited by persons who lead them into danger.

After listening to various experts, I am even more concerned about the Canadian government's inaction. To date, it has not asked that Omar Khadr be repatriated. Furthermore, I would point out that Canada was the first country to ratify, in 2000, the Optional Protocol to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. I also have to wonder why Canada is currently the only Western country that has not insisted that a national being held in Guantanamo be returned for trial to Canada. I think Omar Khadr can be assured of a fair trial under Canadian law.

Furthermore, according to a report submitted in 2007 to the United Nations under the Protocol, the United States is committed to using effective reintegration measures to address the problem of child combatants and espouses the principle that family reunification and community reintegration are both goals and processes of recovery for former child combatants. This commitment by the United States is contained in a report presented in 2007 to the United Nations.

I have to wonder what is stopping the US government from taking steps to improve the treatment of this child. In my mind, he is still a child. He has been held since the age of 15 at Guantanamo Bay. Just how long has he been held there? I think it's been several years now, and he needs some support. It is difficult for us to know how he has been treated. Why are things not progressing? Is it because the government wants to make an example of Khadr and show in the process how the sins of humanity can be purged? I really don't know. I've leave it up to you to form your own opinion.

[Hilary Homes]

I'll start.

On the question of whether or not he could be tried in Canadian courts, I would recommend that the committee hear from Craig Forcese, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who did an extensive study on the Canadian legal system and what sort of trial and which laws might apply. It's about a 150-page report.

This question of the U.S. commitments--under the optional protocol--to reintegration of children and consistency, in terms of child soldiers.... Even when we look at what's happened in Guantanamo, we see the inconsistencies and we see how this case and some others are being treated as exceptions. They did detain upwards of 18 to 20 people in Guantanamo who were under the age of 18 when they were captured, and seemed to have created a dividing line at age 15 at the time of transfer. It is interesting, because of course Omar wasn't transferred until he was 16.

There was a group of youths who were held in what was called Camp Iguana and treated in a very different way from Omar Khadr and a number of other people, including another young offender in that context, who was also facing trial by military commission. I mean, they were certainly interrogated; they were treated as intelligence sources, but much more of their treatment reflected some of the principles of reintegration.

I would still not hold that Guantanamo was any example around how to deal with minors, but you could see that there was that divide and there was that inconsistency. It is important to mention this because it shows that the U.S. recognized that some of those obligations under international law exist, that there is a different way you are supposed to treat children captured in a context of armed conflict. Yet Omar and some others were treated very differently.

As to why that is happening, there are many different theories out there. It does certainly seem strange to compare this trial and the particular circumstances to some of the other individuals. In the level of responsibility they are alleged to have had in terms of events following September 11, 2001, there is quite a contrast there, shall we say.

What this really gets down to is seeing someone like Omar Khadr as an individual and not seeing him as a proxy for members of his family or members of the organization he was connected with. In the end, he has to be seen as an individual child caught up in armed conflict and treated according to the law that governs that, and that is simply not what we're seeing. While it may be understandable on one level, it is simply not acceptable, and that has to change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Sorry, Ms. Vandergrift, this is not your fault, but the question was very long. We're now at almost at seven minutes. You can certainly speak to it, but I'll ask you to be concise.

[Kathy Vandergrift]

Okay, I will just add another bit of detail.

I was part of the group that helped to take some of those young children from Guantanamo to other countries, and the model was we did need to find a way they could move back to their location. That is a bit of a challenge, and dealing with these is not an easy matter. I don't want to underestimate it, but certainly we have the resources in Canada to do it, and we should do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston, please.

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

I want to thank both of you for being here and also for bringing a bit of a different perspective.

One of the things that has not been given a lot of consideration--at least by our government--is what to do with this young man once he's home. That is crucially important. When you think of Canada's history, going all the way back to the Nuremberg trials, and how since that time society as a whole has tried to wrestle with the aspect of child soldiers and the military, as you pointed out.... I had one person in Hamilton talking to me a couple of weeks ago, and he suggested that in the heat of the battle when you're faced with a child, you'll hesitate, and that's something they can't do in the heat of battle.

A moment ago you alluded to the fact that it appears that this boy was 13 or 14 when he left here and followed his father-- and I made the case repeatedly here--as a dutiful son, but to some extent it appears that both the U.S. and perhaps Canada are punishing him for the sins of the father. The damage that is doing to Canada's worldwide reputation.... We have an opportunity here to salvage some of that, because since 9/11 there have been a lot of questions--both in the U.S. and in Canada--about the rights that were sacrificed because of 9/11 and the intensity of the time. Now that we have moved a bit away from that, we tend to look at it a little more clearly.

The question would be how do you see this particular case, and Canada's handling of it, and how will that set a precedent perhaps worldwide, a negative precedent?

[Kathy Vandergrift]

Thank you for that question.

That was one of my points, and I would really urge the committee to think about that very hard.

This is not an exceptional case. It is being cited internationally as undermining the progress that's being made. I would just repeat the point I made: If Canada is not going to follow UN Security Council resolutions and the optional protocol, how can we ask other countries to do so? It is setting a precedent. It will be cited in the child soldiers global report. It was already cited in the last report of the special representative of the Secretary General for children and armed conflict. It will be again. It will be re-cited at the United Nations Human Rights Council in terms of Canada's record.

There is a global impact. We can set a precedent.

I would also appreciate this committee focusing on the positive precedent we could set, even at this late stage. If we decide to do something now, we could change that precedent and show some leadership and, as I argued, also help the U.S. fulfill commitments it has made under the optional protocol. It is not too late to turn what could be a bad precedent into a good one.

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

I would just add that the cost of revenge is very high here, because to my mind, that is all I see. I can't see any rationale anywhere for treating a child combatant, who was 15, in the manner in which he is being treated. We have the opportunity, by simply following the covenants we have signed and the protocols we are signatories to, to change the whole perspective of this. I am very troubled—I'm kind of repeating myself—by the tone we are setting for the rest of the world. Canada has been a leader for so many years on the human rights front. All our protestations elsewhere will ring very hollow at the end of this day.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Kathy Vandergrift]

I would agree. There is time to do something about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mr. Sweet, you have the floor.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your comments thus far and for the good work you do.

I will maybe just confirm that we all agree with your statement that this issue before us is an important one.

Omar Khadr stands accused of killing medic Christopher James Speer and of blinding Sergeant First Class Layne Morris. Isn't it true that if repatriated, Omar Khadr would not be tried for the death of Christopher James Speer?

[Hilary Homes]

That is a question you really need to put to someone like Professor Craig Forcese in the context of the study he did. I cannot say either way. Part of it has to do with whether the evidence is admissible and so on. The evidence was collected under questionable circumstances, and that is one thing that has to be tested.

I can't give you an absolute answer to that today.

[Kathy Vandergrift]

What I would like to draw your attention to is that if that is going to happen, then according to all the conventions we have signed, it would happen in the context of the youth justice system that Canada has in place. There has to be that legal assessment.

I would also ask you to consider that other child soldiers are accused of equally horrendous things--some of them, in northern Uganda, of killing members of their own families. Yet we ask those countries to bring those young people home and reintegrate them, often without trials. I've seen it, and I've worked with them.

We're not being asked to do something we don't ask other countries to do. There are various ways of having legal accountability, and in some of those countries it has to do with traditional approaches to justice. That is not to say that young people are not held accountable, but they're held accountable in ways that are restorative and that reintegrate them into their societies. That's what we are holding up as a norm when they are children. That is the norm that's held up in all the agreements Canada has signed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Before going back to Mr. Sweet, I think Ms. Homes had something to add.

[Hilary Homes]

I have just a small point.

As I mentioned at the beginning of our remarks, Amnesty International has been campaigning on this case since his initial capture in 2002. One of the things we raised in the context of this case and in the cases of other people who were before the initial military commission was the question of whether it was appropriate for them to be before a military tribunal, regardless of who they were and what they were charged with, given that a number of them were either child combatants or civilians. The alternative, which doesn't seem to be in play here, has to do with jurisdiction within the U.S., including the U.S. federal courts, which I mentioned before.

The reason we're asking for repatriation now is because the U.S. shows no interest in transferring this case or any other case to the jurisdiction that does in fact meet international standards for fair trials and that can accommodate some of the juvenile justice issues. If that were in play, we would be having a different conversation. But it simply does not appear to be in play at all.