Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Johanne Durocher]

From the very beginning, Mr. Al Shahrani has wanted to come to Canada. For him, the excuse was that he wanted to be able to visit his children. So, when I asked him point-blank if I could go and see Nathalie, he proudly answered, saying that, in Saudi Arabia, family rights are recognized, that there was no problem at all, that his country would welcome me, that I would be given a visa and that I could go and see Nathalie and the children. It is quite clear that that message was intended to make him look good. Of course, I only stayed for a week. That was enough, because I was living under the same roof as him.

I went over there with my son. Only once were we able to get him out of the house with my son so that I could be alone with Nathalie. We were able to film in the living room. When we would hear a noise in the corridor, I would stop the camera and then start it up again. During the night, Nathalie wrote the affidavit that you now have. We would stay up all night, Nathalie and I—during the daytime, Saeed was always there—so that I could give her information and question her. A week is very short.

The person who signed the affidavit, as a witness to each of the pages, was Ms. Huda Alsunnari, the representative of the Saudi Arabian Human Rights Commission. So, she is well aware of the fact that Nathalie wrote this for Canada, even though she was unable to read it, because she does not understand French. She acted as a witness.

Ms. Alsunnari was also the person who came to see me at the airport and gave me copies—folded in her hand, so that Saeed would not see them—of all the complaints filed by Nathalie in Saudi Arabia. She gave them to me secretly, asking me not to let anyone know that she was the one who had given them to me.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Durocher.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We'll go to Mr. Marston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome you here.

It's a very trying story. For me, it's almost personal, because I spent six months in Saudi Arabia in 1979. Upon my arrival, within the first five days there was a beheading of a so-called criminal. There were amputations. The culture shock was absolutely amazing.

The position we find ourselves in here is actually a clash of cultures, to a great extent. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, and within that particular country the male's rights supersede the woman's rights. Certainly we don't agree with this, but taking into account what's happening.... If you compare some things to Canada, in a family dispute if a spouse wants to remove a child from a province, he or she has to get permission.

As I listen to the evidence, the paper trail in Saudi Arabia sounds very convoluted. There have been mistakes made on someone's part, whether deliberate or by accident.

My experience over there was that the king holds a day on which any Saudi can sit down and petition the king. It strikes me that the only avenue that may well be open here is a direct petition to the king.

Ms. Adam, I think you mentioned that there were ongoing negotiations. Were you suggesting that the Canadian government is somehow negotiating with the Saudi government? Are you aware of who would be involved?

[Marie-Ève Adam]

In fact, there were discussions. We don't know exactly what was said. However, a tripartite committee was set up in Saudi Arabia. It included Saudi officials from the Department of the Family, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Foreign Affairs, I believe. They were in contact with the embassy.

What I know is that this tripartite committee tried to determine what Nathalie's living conditions were. At one point, we received a medical certificate regarding the child, Samir, who is the eldest. You have a copy of that. It stated that his health, both psychological and physical, was worrisome. We sounded the alarm at that point, and there were meetings. However, they still have not sent--

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

If I can interject here for a second, when you say negotiations, it implies negotiations for release rather than--

[Marie-Ève Adam]

I understand.

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

I'm not really wanting to dig too far into the evidence we've already had. We have the affidavits and all of that. My concern was whether you had any direct information of direct negotiations between our government and the Saudi government for the release of these folks.

Dr. Beaulac, are you aware of any precedents with any country dealing with Saudi Arabia of a person being able to leave the country with the children? My understanding of what it is like over there is that it is highly unlikely for that to ever happen, as long as the paper supports the fact of the parent being the father in that country.

[Stéphane Beaulac]

To my knowledge, there isn't any judicial precedent. These are not the types of cases that appear before an international tribunal. What you are referring to in terms of negotiation is done more often than not at the interstate level. What is very unusual in this case is the lack of real representation by a national country, by a sovereign state, in order to repatriate--

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

It was for that reason that I asked the earlier question on whether there were direct negotiations.

[Stéphane Beaulac]

Exactly. It is very unusual for a sovereign state not to do everything possible in order to help out a national who is stuck or in need of assistance abroad.

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

Okay.

Going back to my own experience in that country, I was there with Bell Canada working for Saudi Tel. If a Canadian were to accidentally run over a Saudi national, you'd pay 30,000 riyals to the family for forgiveness, which was about $10,000.

The system that was in place was one that... Some of the testimony sounded as if there was some pressure for bribery going on. You might well be into negotiations that involve a cash deal.

[Stéphane Beaulac]

There's nothing that prevents that at international law, and there's nothing nationally, either, that would prevent the federal government from involvment in that type of negotiation. It's really the end result that matters.

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

Is it your position that the federal government has not been interceding on her behalf?

[Stéphane Beaulac]

With the evidence that we have gathered, it is my opinion that not everything has been done to reach the result.

I repeat; in my opinion, the obligation relates to results, rather than means.

The result has been waiting for over four years now.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll relinquish the rest of my time to the government side because of the seriousness of what's being said here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

I understand it's going to be Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for allowing me to take part in this committee today.

I want to mention that I'm interested in your case because I've spent most of my life fighting for victims' and children's rights. I have been party to many investigations involving missing children, and in particular in international cases. I have been a witness at a number of child custody cases as well.

I take issue with some of the things that have been said here today. First and foremost, I must take issue with what Mr. Beaulac has said. Sir, have you taken part in many custody cases, here in Canada or elsewhere?

[Stéphane Beaulac]

I'm a professor of international law at the University of Montreal.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

So the answer is no?

[Stéphane Beaulac]

Well, your question is whether or not I consult on cases involving family law, and the answer is no.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Okay. I'm taking that to heart, sir, because some of the things you've said are just incorrect. We do need to correct the record here.

Canada has a wonderful record in doing everything it can when it has the opportunity to do so. I note that we are prevented as a country from directing other countries in a number of areas, including the area we're talking about today.

We have done many things to try to help the situation. I make note that Ms. Morin has been repatriated on two occasions, and we are still to date ready to repatriate her. In fact, Madame Durocher has commented that Natalie has returned to Canada on two occasions.

[Christelle Bogosta]

It's only one time. Your information is wrong.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

That is why I'm trying to get to the inconsistencies.

I'll point to another inconsistency. It's unfortunate that we don't have more time, because I would like to hear more and I would like to discuss more.

This is the affidavit that you distributed that you refer to that Nathalie did. In your statement, Ms. Adam, you made mention that when Parliamentary Secretary Obhrai visited, Nathalie had a conversation with him, and you clearly said that Mr. Obhrai indicated that he would do what he could to help her, correct? Yet this affidavit, on page 3, says the absolute contrary.

Once again, I've been in this business for a long time. Quite often there are two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle, given all of the facts and considerations, is the truth. I would like to get to the truth here today, because I think a number of things are inconsistent. I don't have much time to get to others, but I do want to mention a couple of things that have been said that are, again, inconsistent.

We talked about the status of the apartment and how it was in squalor, and yet this video that Mr. Dorion referred to from Enquête in Quebec clearly shows that although it is a modest apartment, it is by no means in squalor. In fact, I've seen places—

[Christelle Bogosta]

That's the man's side of the apartment that Nathalie doesn't have access to. That's clearly described in the 22-minute video that was sent to all members of this committee.