Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 1st, 2011

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

Sir, one of the things that has troubled me for a while is the branding of groups as terrorists or not terrorists.

In Syria, the people who are rising up against the tyranny that's happening there are being called freedom fighters by some. Back in the 1979 revolution, we probably would have labelled this particular group as freedom fighters, trying to fight for a better government than what they had. When we listened to testimony from a variety of people—particularly in the notes that you have with you, sir—the same message is coming out that these people want a better government in Iran.

Here we have a situation where a label is being put on them. It takes me back to my days as a school board trustee. When a child was labelled as having a learning disability, a certain systemic thing kicked in that oftentimes worked to the detriment of the child. In the use of the terms “terrorist” or “terrorist organization”, we're seeing that happen. In this case, it's almost like some people are hanging their hat on that designation as an excuse not to take action on something that clearly needs action. I don't know what your reaction would be to that.

One of the things that also comes to mind is this. Of the 3,400 at the camp, how many are actually women and children? Do you know, sir?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

I don't believe there are any children. It's mostly men, but there are a substantial number of women. Of those who have killed—there has been a total of 54 people killed from 2009 to 2011—eight were women.

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

Another thing that occurred to me from this conversation today is this: In light of the elevated rhetoric about the situation in Iran—nuclear weapons and the potential for them—do you think there's any concern that putting a force in there that close to the Iranian border to protect them might be perceived by the Iranians as a provocation?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

There's little doubt that the Iranians would proclaim it to be a provocation, whether it were or not. Understand that this is a force in the territory of another country. Considering that a provocation, or, given the numbers, a threat, is objectively absurd.

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

I pass now to Ève.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I would like to know the official position of the UN on the situation. Do they have resolutions concerning the situation? Do they have a plan about what's going on?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

It's my understanding that the UN has neither resolutions nor a plan.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

They said they want to close the camp. Do you know if a resolution will be put through the UN sometime near the end of...or not?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

I do not. My only contact at the UN was to meet with someone in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I must say that did not go particularly well. He pretty much threw up his hands and said that the Iraqis were insisting on this deadline. There is very little we can do. The High Commissioner for Refugees has been a lot better.

Again, they need to get in and interview those people before they can be considered refugees. They are designated now as people who are seeking refugee status, which is rather different.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'm sorry, but I'm not as fluent in English as in French. So I'm just going to try to translate what I have to say here.

The high commissioner says that the conditions existing in the camp do not offer the neutrality, confidentiality, or security context necessary to treat those demands. What is your opinion of that? What are those conditions? What measures are being taken by the Government of Iraq to facilitate those demands?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

It's hard to know what the commissioner.... You're talking about the Commissioner for Human Rights?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

No. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, not for human rights.

[Michael B. Mukasey]

Okay. I don't know precisely. I think part of what that means is that the Iraqis are insisting on conditions for conducting the interviews that are simply not workable.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Do I still have a little bit more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You do, yes.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Okay.

I was just wondering if the real reason is that it's an organization that's been labelled as a terrorist organization. I don't understand how there can be a reason not to intervene in a process like this? Is the only reason the United States is not intervening is that it is still labelled as a terrorist organization? Would that play into the United Nations' decision not to intervene or not to have any resolutions?

I'm just trying to understand the situation over here. It's labelled by the United States as a terrorist organization. It has been taken off the lists of England and Europe. What are the criteria for this labelling? Do you believe, listed or not, that this designation has anything whatsoever to do with whether the international community should intervene to assist those refugees or not?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

The answer to your last question is no, I don't think it has anything to do with that, given the fact there is no basis for listing them that way, as I said. The standard under U.S. law is that there must be evidence they have engaged in a terrorist act within the last two years, or that they currently have the inclination and ability to do so. There is no evidence that either of those is true.

As far as the question of intervention is concerned, the United States cites Iraq's sovereignty over that territory. That, in my view, should not defeat our own commitment, particularly given the fact that the Government of Iraq owes its existence to the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Before we go back to Mr. Sweet, who tells me he has one last question, I want to ask a further one relating to the definition you have provided from United States law on what qualifies as a terrorist organization.

Under Canada's Criminal Code, we use the term “terrorist entity” to take into account both organizations and less formally organized groups. I wanted to ask you--and I can guess what your answer will be, but I'd like it for the record--whether you think they fit this definition or not. To list a group as terrorist the government has to state that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:

(a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or

(b) the entity is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred in paragraph (a).

[Michael B. Mukasey]

Again, with the history that I recited, the answer to that is no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mr. Sweet.

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

I think this question is more for our analysts, Mr. Chair. The evidence here, and it's confirmed, is that the U.K. has delisted them as a terrorist organization.

How many countries currently hold this group on a terror list of some sort?

[Michael B. Mukasey]

It's the United States, and the only other country of which I'm aware is Australia. I think the only reason they do that is because the United States does it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I know Canada does as well, which is why I asked you that question, because this is something that relates to our law. Presumably for us to take domestic action, we're going to need to deal with that fact.

That was it, Mr. Sweet?

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

That's it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Hiebert, are you done too?

In that case we've come to the end of our questions, Mr. Mukasey. Did you have anything you wanted to say in conclusion?