Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 13th, 2011

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

Okay, but could somebody answer the question? Are we aware that any members of that former leadership are in there?

[Michael MacDonald]

To be honest, and with respect, I think that's a question that we here can't answer. I think that's something for an intelligence or law enforcement agency—

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

From our standpoint, Mr. MacDonald, we're not truly aware of the sources of your information or of how you reach your conclusions, so we're kind of grasping at things. It strikes me again that there is an inconsistency in the reason that group is still listed as a terrorist group. If some of the actual participants who were involved were still there, you could understand to some degree concerns about that. But if we can't answer that, we can't.

[Barbara Martin]

Perhaps it's important to understand that the actual leadership of the MeK is currently based in Paris. The people who were at Camp Ashraf are the people who happened to be there, but they do not represent the totality of the membership of the MeK. The MeK extends beyond the borders of Camp Ashraf. They were disarmed—they didn't voluntarily give up their arms—in 2003. We're looking at an organization that as a whole extends well beyond the actual circumference of Camp Ashraf alone.

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

Again, that was part of the reason I said maybe it was better that we don't talk about listing or delisting, but instead talk about the 3,400 people who are in the camp. If you're telling me the leadership is outside of the camp, it's almost like that particular group of people is being held responsible for things well beyond their control.

On the one hand, we have Mr. Maliki who has said very clearly it is his intent to destroy these people. On the other hand, you have the influence coming out of Iran that very clearly wants these people dead. We've had a lot of testimony here, from David Matas and others, that talked about protecting the people so they don't go back to Iran, but as long as there's an Iranian influence over the Iraqi government of Mr. Maliki, they're probably facing as much risk right where they are as they would face if they went to Iran. That's the whole purpose of trying to focus some attention on this particular issue.

[Barbara Martin]

This goes to the point that in resettling the individuals who are in Camp Ashraf, it's a case-by-case process, where interviews are conducted, histories are taken, and the UNHCR makes its assessments based on its professional role and its mandate.

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

I agree. Colonel Martin made the suggestion that the people could be moved to U.S. camps in the United States; then the process of where they would be dispersed to could be taken care of. But their immediate safety would be ensured that way.

I'm not so sure whether that's an area you would want to comment on at all, but that was his testimony before us.

[Barbara Martin]

That would be up to the U.S. government to determine whether it wished to do that.

Normally, under refugee situations, you prefer to do the selection on-site. The efforts right now are to get an extension from the Government of Iraq to allow the UNHCR to make those determinations, and then to find countries that are prepared to accept them.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

Normally, we would have a final six-minute round for the Conservatives. We're running out of time, but I will allow a one-off to Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you.

I just wanted to provide one more opportunity for you all to respond to the question I asked earlier.

If they are a terrorist organization, then why are we so concerned about them? Why are we making weekly visits? Why are we repatriating Canadian citizens who are terrorists? Why are we sending UNAMI and the Red Cross? Why are we seeking assurances for their protection if they're a terrorist organization?

[Michael MacDonald]

It's an excellent question, and I'll make an overall comment.

Under our system of listing, it is not a crime to be a listed terrorist entity. There's no punishment for that. Listing serves many purposes: dealing with the financing of terrorism, placing a prohibition on people dealing with an entity, and letting the public know who the government considers to be a terrorist entity as well as the consequences that flow should you support.... That follows the UN International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

So it's very important, and what you're saying...we make the statement that it's not a crime to be listed. It's not a crime to be “a terrorist”; it's the activities you undertake thereafter.

I'll turn to Foreign Affairs.

[Barbara Martin]

That's an excellent response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I might just pursue this a little bit.

There is an analogy that occurs to me with another set of hearings we have under way, and that's the situation in Sri Lanka. At the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka, tens of thousands of people were rounded up into an ever-decreasing area geographically, the Jaffna peninsula. The people who were fighting against the government there were the Tamil Tigers. The people who were trapped in there were just Tamils. Some of them, I'm sure, were Tigers—in fact, I know some of them were—but the majority were just people who were trapped.

This sounds a lot like this situation. These people have been here for a long time. Whatever their individual political alignment may be is an individual question, and we seem to be conflating the status of the organization with the individuality of these people. They're just people, and they're probably going to be dead people pretty soon; that's our worry.

That wasn't really meant to invite comment, but I'll allow any if you have it.

[Barbara Martin]

I think we understand fully that these are individuals, which is why we have acted from a point of principle. First of all, we've provided assistance and offers of assistance to all those in the camp who are Canadian citizens; there are 11 of them. Two decided to remain.

Our sense of obligation is to press the Government of Iraq to live up to its obligations to protect and ensure the safety of those individuals. UNHCR is approaching each of those individuals as an individual for resettlement. There is a big difference between the sense of obligation and duty for protection and the issue of the listing of the MeK as a terrorist organization. I thought Mr. MacDonald's explanation on that was extremely useful, and it helped to clarify the distinction.

But the humanitarian response and the consular response are offered to people in need on the basis of those individual needs, not on the basis of the listing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

We thank our witnesses today. We appreciate your testimony.

That concludes this part of the proceedings.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

This is to confirm that we adopted the motion—which I will not read into the record because doing so would take too long—dealing with Camp Ashraf. This motion dealing with Camp Ashraf was adopted unanimously at our in camera meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.