Evidence of meeting #15 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was khadr.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Prof. Craig Forcese
He was there before 2002. The facts are opaque here. His location during the period 2001 through the summer of 2002 is not publicly available. He was certainly there, however, earlier than 2002.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
When did he leave Canada to go there? That's all I'm asking.
1:20 p.m.
Student, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know that we have that information.
I'm sorry; it was 1996.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
So he did not come back to Canada...? When did he last leave Canada to go to participate in this fight?
1:20 p.m.
Prof. Craig Forcese
We don't have that kind of information. That information might be in the possession of the passport authorities, from renewal of passports and that sort of data. What we have is that in 1996 through to 2001 the Khadr family is said to have travelled through Afghanistan and Pakistan, while making frequent trips to Osama bin Laden's compound.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
Prof. Craig Forcese
In terms of transits and the like, I don't believe we have the data. That data might be on the public record, but we don't have it in our report, nor is it fresh in our memory.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
His parents authorized him to participate in this fighting?
1:20 p.m.
Prof. Craig Forcese
These are factual questions that really you have to pose to the U.S. authorities, who apparently are in possession of all sorts of information that we don't have.
Our information is dependent entirely on the public record. That public record is relatively thin and comes from journalistic sources. These are questions you should really pose to departmental officials, who might be privy to information that we don't have as members of the public.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The public narrative from Mr. Khadr's defenders has been that his parents sent him into this fight when he was too young to make the decision for himself. I'm just curious as to why his mother would not have been prosecuted for having participated in the recruitment of a so-called child soldier if that narrative is in fact true.
1:20 p.m.
Prof. Craig Forcese
Again, that's not a question we can answer definitively. That's a question to ask the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Keep in mind that the Anti-terrorism Act came into force in December of 2001. Any act that would be prosecutable under that Anti-terrorism Act would have to take place after December of 2001. You would have a retroactivity problem for events that predate that time.
I mean, that might be one reason. The other reason may be that the facts available to the prosecuting authorities wouldn't be sufficient to actually secure a reasonable chance of a conviction.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
But we know that he was fighting on the side of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. What he did in those roles we're not quite sure, but we know that he was fighting on their side.
1:20 p.m.
Prof. Craig Forcese
We know that he was recruited. We suspect from certain video information that's been released that he was involved in the development of improvised explosive devices. There have been allegations made by the United States about the level of involvement. There's a charge sheet that's been made publicly available. There is an allegation, of course, in relation to the firefight that took place in 2002, about who tossed a grenade in what circumstance. We have reason to believe that some of the allegations are false--
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you very much. The fact is that we know that he participated on the side of al-Qaeda and he participated on the side of the Taliban. Our soldiers are now fighting those organizations. You've acknowledged that those might be reasons for prosecution of Mr. Khadr.
I am stuck on this contradiction that Mr. Sweet earlier pointed out in that for the purposes of the...of pointing out that he would not be subject to an exemption of the Anti-terrorist Act, you said that the Taliban would not be considered a state, but then, for the purposes of the application of other law, it would be considered a state.
It does seem to be that you've deliberately pieced together a case here that twists and turns in a deliberate effort to convince us that he could be prosecuted here. But I do note that there are contradictions in the way in which you've presented that case.
May 26th, 2008 / 1:20 p.m.
Prof. Craig Forcese
As I explained before, there is no contradiction. There is a definition of “state” in the Foreign Enlistment Act that's extremely broad. It covers off entities that purport to be the governing authority not of a country but of a particular region. It's an extremely broad definition. It's very different from the modern understanding of state that's found in the Criminal Code.
So we're dealing here with apples and oranges, not necessarily with contradictions between oranges.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Unfortunately, we're out of time.
The researcher, the clerk, and I have all been feverishly going through Michelle Shephard's book, looking for references, while the discussion has been going on. We have located a reference here, on page 79, to a trip to Canada that involved the children returning to Pakistan in the first part of 2001. That's the most recent reference we can find. But that is hardly authoritative; it's merely what we could find in this source.
Mr. Marston, you have the next question.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I would actually like to pose this to everybody.
When I listen to your submission, what I believe I'm hearing is the sense that you believe this person should be brought to Canada. You say that 34 societies see Guantanamo as functioning outside of the normal, accepted judicial process, and see it as an affront, in some sense.
I would like to ask each of you, do you think--yes or no--Omar Khadr should be brought back to Canada to face prosecution and justice here?
1:25 p.m.
Student, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think he should have been here when he was captured and brought to Guantanamo. So we have failed, and we have been silent ever since.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
What I was really trying to get from everybody was a yes or a no.
1:25 p.m.
Student, Common Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think it's pretty unanimous that we're all yes. That was the motivation of the report.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
In that case, I want to thank all of the witnesses. You were very generous with us in the timing issues we had, and very informative. We appreciate your presence here.
We have to ask you to leave the room immediately--that includes our friends in the media--because we're going in camera....
No, we've lost quorum.
The meeting is adjourned.