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

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

Thank you.

Having listened to testimony on this issue from a number of different sources over the last months, I have to admit that I'm a little confused. Let me just give you my confusions, and then maybe you can sort them out.

On the one hand, officials like you are telling us about all the things you're doing to monitor, to protect, to provide security, and to take some assurance that the Iraqi government will protect them. Yet on the other hand, we hear testimony that's completely inconsistent with that, in this sense: why should we take the Iraqi government's word for it, when we know from previous testimony that the Iraqi ambassador to the United States said in February of this year that his government would protect Camp Ashraf and its residents, and then in April they were attacked and 36 people were killed?

Why is it that whenever the justification is given for Camp Ashraf and its residents to be listed it starts with how they're a Marxist group founded in 1965, how 40 people attacked the Iranian embassy here in Canada in 1992 with sticks, yet it was only 13 years later that they were listed as a terrorist organization, after that attack, or it was 30 years later that they were listed, or 40 years later, after they were founded...? The sense of incongruity just baffles me. If they were so bad because they were a Marxist group in 1965 and they attacked in 1992, why did it take until 2005 to list them?

We had the colonel here last week responding to all of these allegations.

Mr. MacDonald, you said that you read his statement. Did you read his testimony as well?

[Michael MacDonald]

Yes, I did.

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

Okay. So you would have heard him explain how the Marxist group split, how they de-armed in 2003, and how they had no weapons to defend themselves when they were attacked, clearly indicating that they have no munitions. All of these justifications that we've been given for them to be listed as a terrorist organization seem to be addressed by multiple high U.S. officials. I just don't understand why they're still listed.

I guess the big concern I have is that I'm under the impression that as long as they're listed, there are limitations on Canada's ability to bring them into the country as refugees. Maybe somebody can answer that question.

So there are two questions there.

[Michael MacDonald]

Thank you.

I'll clearly take the first question, and on the second part, I'm certainly not an expert on immigration issues or admissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but I can make some statements.

In terms of the listing, it's important to note that the Criminal Code list was created only in 2002. It came out of Bill C-36, the Anti-Terrorism Act, which followed the events of September 11. So we didn't have the Criminal Code list back in the time when this group was active and was doing things, as other groups were active and doing things. I think that's a key point.

Listing is a process. The process is laid out in the Criminal Code. It's a very rigorous process. When the Criminal Code list was created in 2002, the government of the day had many entities about which it could consider listing. Clearly an administrative process was designed to support those decisions.

Because the process was so robust, with independent counsel review, with Governor in Council review, with the Minister of Public Safety having to come to grounds, and with consultations and so on, the listing that you see today of 44 entities could not be done all at once in 2002 or 2003. You have an administrative process that takes a bit of time.

On the comments you typically hear about the group's activities, those in fact are reflected on what is public in the unclassified version of each listed entity on the Public Safety website. So we often talk about activities, or you'll hear officials talk about activities, of the group; those are only activities that are unclassified and can be released. Any other activities that are classified clearly are a cabinet confidence, which are discussed perhaps when the group is being considered by the Governor in Council. That's why you see testimony from, for example, the retired colonel, who is at more liberty to talk about activities, as opposed to what you see here in Canada, clearly because of Governor in Council and cabinet confidence.

In terms of admissibility, what you're talking about is section 34 admissibility under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is clearly in the area of Citizenship and Immigration and CBSA to determine who is admissible to Canada or not. Once an entity is listed, if an individual is applying to come to Canada as a refugee, for example, that is one of the factors that is taken into consideration when determining whether or not they present a security risk to Canada. That is very different when it comes to Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Again, this is not my area, but you're correct in saying that it is a consideration factor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You have one minute left, Mr. Hiebert.

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

Maybe Ms. Martin could comment on the assertions she is getting and what she is hearing from the ambassador.

What we're hearing is that Mr. Maliki has stated both to European officials and to an Arabic language magazine—I guess that's the media of choice for the ruling party—that he intends to close the camp unequivocally and that he has certain plans for these individuals. He doesn't come out and say they intend to kill them, but we know from the previous attacks that that would be consistent with their activity.

What assurances are you getting? Also, what degree of confidence can we place in those assurances when they've demonstrated, by their actions, that their assurances don't mean much? As I pointed out in my other question, they promised to protect them in February, but two months later they were being attacked.

[Barbara Martin]

There is a whole series of issues in your commentary.

First of all, there are extensive ongoing discussions between the UN, the Iraqi officials, and the camp officials to find a solution: an extension, and possible relocation inside Iraq.

To leap to an assertion that the Iraqi government would deal with them in some way, the presumption being that they would be killed, is a leap too far—and one that has not, frankly, been demonstrated.

I concur that what happened on April 8 was appalling, but investigations need to be undertaken to determine exactly what happened, who precipitated the action, and whether or not this was government policy. The Government of Iraq asserts the residents were throwing stones at them as they were making a simple redeployment of the troops. We actually don't know.

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

Throwing stones is not much of a defence.

Let me just be clear that the assertions are not being made by me. They come from the former Attorney General of the United States, as well as this colonel who actually has on-the-ground experience. They are telling us that their lives are at risk.

[Barbara Martin]

We are all concerned about the safety and security of the residents of Camp Ashraf.

In our conversations with the Government of Iraq, they are giving us certain assurances that they will be respecting rights that should accrue to the residents of the camp and the responsibilities they have. Since the incident in April, we have seen a step down in the level of violence.

We've also seen a considerable amount of effort on the part of the UNHCR, UNAMI, and the office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights to engage within the camp and to be monitoring. We are not getting reports of violence coming out of the camp at this time.

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

Are they using loudspeakers, as the colonel testified, to provide psychological torture, forcing them to maintain sleeplessness and to listen to messages of their impending doom? Are they still being denied access to logistics and medical supplies, after being attacked in April?

[Barbara Martin]

I read the testimony as well, and I actually asked our officials in Amman; I was there two days ago and I spoke to them. These are the officials who go into the camp. They can't verify that that is true. It doesn't mean it's not taking place, but they could not verify that they had witnessed or seen that when they visited the camp.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Just to be clear, Ms. Martin, are you saying they can't verify whether it's true or untrue? They simply don't have information one way or the other.

[Barbara Martin]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Okay, thank you.

We'll now go to Professor Cotler, please.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for your testimony, Ms. Martin. I'm going to deal only with the issue of protection, not the issue of delisting. That is the imminent issue before us.

In November, the Iraqi embassy in Brussels notified the European Parliament of the vision of the Iraqi government on the issue of Camp Ashraf in a 10-point official document. The European Parliament's response, through its president, was that the document was disingenuous and illegal in its entirety, it amounted to a virtual declaration of war on the UN and the international community, and it was a death warrant for the residents of Ashraf. I'm not going to go into the 10-point official document, only the two points that relate to your testimony.

The first point in your testimony is where you say:

The Iraqi government has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with EU states, the United States, Iraq's neighbours, and Iran in order to resettle Ashrafi residents outside Iraq.

The response by the European Parliament on this point is that the Iraqi government has deliberately ignored the extensive efforts of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN assistance missions in Iraq, the European Union, and the United States, who have bent over backwards to reach a peaceful solution to the Ashraf issues involving the resettlement of its residents but have been blocked at every turn by the Iraqi government. The document is a blatant effort to set the stage for the massacre of Ashraf residents.

The second point that you mentioned, and with this I'll close, was that the Government of Iraq has also allowed international organizations, such as the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAMI, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to visit the camp on a very regular basis to monitor living conditions, to facilitate communications with family members, and to provide supplies for the residents.

This is the response by the president of the European Parliament:

It appears as if the massacre of 47 residents, wounding of more than 1,000 others, the barbaric three-year siege of Ashraf, and the denial of medical facilities causing the painful death of sick and wounded patients, is according to the Iraqi Government an integral part of the principles of human rights enshrined in international law.

They made some reference to that in their document as well.

There appears to be a variance between the European Parliament's assessment of the Iraqi position and your assessment of it in the two references that I mentioned today. Can you comment on that?

[Barbara Martin]

I confess that I'm not familiar with the European Parliament's views on this. However, I have read the most recent report of the UN Secretary-General on the situation in the camp. The UN has officials who are working with the camp extensively, as I have said before. They visit the camp weekly, monitoring and talking to the residents who are present in the camp. At no point in the UN Secretary-General's report does he allude to the kinds of things that you are alluding to in that EU report.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

May I suggest that as part of the overall assessment of witness testimony and documentary evidence, the position of the European Parliament, as expressed through it's president, on the Iraqi position and the dangers thereof to the residents of Camp Ashraf be included in your assessment, along with all other assessments that are being made. I think given the fact that we are faced—from the witness testimony we heard—with an imminent threat to the lives of the residents of Camp Ashraf, we owe it to ourselves to assess evidence from all quarters in order to make the comprehensive evaluation that is needed in this regard.

The one thing that came through in the witness testimony that we heard, and in all the documentary evidence that I have read, is the imminence of the threat and the absence of any credibility to be owed to the Iraqi position.

Indeed, shortly after meetings with senior American officials, such as the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, that was when Camp Ashraf was attacked. This warns us that given Prime Minister al-Maliki's visit with President Obama, which is happening as we meet, there may be the imminence of an attack. If precedence be a guide, it would take place after the meeting with senior American officials, giving the appearance that the Americans sanctioned the attack.

I think these are things that we must bear in mind. We don't want to, I think, find ourselves in a position where we are sorry later for what could have been prevented earlier.

Thank you.

[Barbara Martin]

I take note of your comment, Mr. Cotler, and I appreciate what you say.

As I said, I did read the commentary of Colonel Martin in that respect. In terms of his speculation as to how the Iraqi government might choose to use the visit in the United States to characterize some future action that we don't know whether they will or will not take, I find that speculative at this stage.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Are you all done...?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Grewal and then to Mr. Marston.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to our witnesses for your time and your presentations.

I have a number of questions here. Let me start with my first one.

The People's Mujahedin e-Khalq Organization of Iran is a listed entity under our Criminal Code. Are you aware of any terrorist activities by the members of this group in Iraq?

[Barbara Martin]

I'm not in a position to answer that question. I don't know if my colleague from Public Safety is.

[Michael MacDonald]

I'm sorry. I'm not in a position either to talk about the on-ground activities that go on in Camp Ashraf or by the group. I'm just simply not the expert on that type of foreign activity.