Public Safety Committee on April 30th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Thank you.

I'll turn now to Ms. Mathyssen with the NDP, for seven minutes.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you very much for being here and providing this perspective.

I have a couple of questions. We in this committee have heard from a number of presenters, and I wonder about your opinion in regard to Justice O'Connor's second report. He indicated in that report that there should be an increased role for parliamentarians in the review of national security measures. Do you see that as being a positive step? Would increasing the role of parliamentarians and reviewing activities of the departments and agencies actually facilitate a better protection of human rights?

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, I think that these are key considerations. I believe that elected representatives, who represent the public, have a role to play when it comes to reviewing the way security agencies are run. Indeed, we need to make sure these agencies' actions comply with the principles that we want to see implemented in this country. The oversight committee will need to be accountable to Parliament.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I have been looking at the recommendations in regard to Mr. Arar. Recommendation 17 directs the Government of Canada to develop specific policies and training to address situations of Canadians detained in countries where there is that risk of torture, where we know human rights are often violated. Would training for consular officials posted abroad in regard to recognizing signs of torture or learning questioning techniques be effective? Would you support that recommendation?

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, I would. In my opinion, you need to train consulate staff in this area, but as far as the case at hand is concerned, these countries' practices were very well documented by international advocacy organizations. I think that it's got to do more with a willingness to acknowledge these practices and steer clear of them than having trouble getting to know the facts.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Now I'd like to switch gears a little bit here. There's been a great deal of discussion about the fact that the current government and the previous government have to accept responsibility for what has happened to Canadian citizens abroad. And even now, if you look at the case of Mr. Khadr, it would seem there is this refusal to accept responsibility, inasmuch as the current government insists he not be repatriated. I'm wondering if this raises alarm bells with you, the fact that there is still this intransigent attitude in our government.

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, it does. It really boggles the mind that Mr. Khadr is still in Guantanamo when our legal obligation, as demonstrated by the court last week, is to repatriate Mr. Khadr, since his basic rights have been violated and Canadian officials have been complicit in this violation.

As far as we're concerned, we're calling for Omar Khadr's repatriation. We're very concerned about the government's position to date in relation to Mr. Khadr.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

The argument is in regard to his status as a child soldier, and I wonder if you could comment. I've been quite disturbed by the facts in regard to the Ivory Coast and the children who were abducted in Sierra Leone and in other places. The world seemed quite prepared to understand that these are children and victims, but not Canada when it comes to its own citizens. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, I do. The fact that when Mr. Khadr was captured he was a child, in other words a minor considered to be a child soldier, is one of the key points in this case. Those were the circumstances. And that determines the way we should look at him, as a victim to be rehabilitated and not as the guilty party.

In the past, moreover, Canada has played an active role in establishing international standards on child soldiers. So it's particularly disappointing to see what Canada's current position is with respect to Omar Khadr.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move on to Mr. McColeman, from the Conservative Party.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, sir, for coming here today and witnessing. This is a very important issue.

My first question would be this: do you believe there is a terrorism threat to Canada?

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes, I do. It is quite possible that a terrorist attack may be perpetrated against Canada. The possibility cannot be ruled out. We don't claim that terrorism does not exist, that it is not a threat, and that it is not a crime against humanity, on the contrary.

However, an increasing number of human rights advocacy organizations have taken a stand, whether it be the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Mr. Martin Scheinin, the International Commission of Jurists, or even Mr. Kofi Annan, when he was Secretary General. In their opinion, combating terrorism should not involve forsaking our democratic principles and freedoms. This fight must be waged within a system that is respectful of human rights.

By sidestepping the issue, we are not strengthening our security. On the contrary, we are merely compounding the climate of insecurity engendered by terrorism.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I don't think any of us would want to diminish anyone's human rights, but there is a balance here. This week, as you may or may not know, at a reception I attended on Parliament Hill, we had with us the victims of terrorism. As a new parliamentarian, I must say...the witness was one of the Air India victims who was speaking to parliamentarians, and parliamentarians of all political parties were in attendance.

You've stated in your remarks today that you feel the O'Connor report is the final word on a structure or a mechanism and that the forthcoming Air India report by Judge Major will add little or nothing to what Judge O'Connor has suggested. I would just make this comment and look for your reaction to it. Twenty-four years ago, the worst terrorism attack in this country happened to those individuals. Over the course of those 24 years, they have never received, in their terms, acceptable outcomes of their advocacy.

In my mind, it seems to me that not to wait for such an important report--if it were only to corroborate as a second opinion what Judge O'Connor has said--would be a strategic mistake. So I'm wondering how you can be so firm in your comment that the O'Connor report is the mechanism and there's little to be added by the Air India report that's forthcoming.

[Dominique Peschard]

To begin with, it was not at all my intention to minimize the Air India tragedy, quite the contrary. In my opinion light must be shed on this tragedy as well as on the operational shortcomings of our security system which, at the end of the day, allowed this tragedy to occur.

But the fact is that we are currently looking into situations in which Canadian citizens' rights were violated because of improper action on the part of the security services. Mr. O'Connor tackled this issue head on, in so far as it was possible to do so. Moreover, his report was made public two years ago. And yet, right when it was published, the government promised to quickly implement its recommendations. So under the circumstances, I don't see why the Air India inquiry would now call into question these promises.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I'm wondering, further to that, then, how do you suggest or see the rights of victims?

[Dominique Peschard]

The victims have to be compensated. We're talking here about two kinds of victims: the victims of terrorist attacks as in the case of Air India, and the victims of actions taken by security agencies, as in the case of Mr. Arar, Mr. Almalki, Mr. Nureddin, Mr. Abou-Elmaati, and Mr. Abousfian.

All of this incidents constitute fundamental breaches of human rights and all of these individuals must be compensated for being wronged, and this wrongdoing must be addressed to the greatest extent possible. Obviously, nothing more can be done for the deceased, but at least something can be done in their memory and for the survivors and their families.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Along those lines again, I would like to know your views on what the correct balance would be with respect to our national security, which is what we are charged with looking at, and the respect for civil rights. What is the balance?

[Dominique Peschard]

We don't believe in the thesis that you strike a balance by heightening security and diminishing freedom, or vice versa. The best way of defending or protecting ourselves is to uphold the integrity of our legal and justice systems.

Experience has shown that negligent practices such as those engaged in in the case of the Arar and Iacobucci reports in no way make Canadians safer. On the contrary, they undermine police and intelligence services' credibility.

At the end of the day, it even does a disservice to our security services when such practices are permitted. And that's why we are insisting that something be done and why we are suggesting mechanisms to ensure that such practices are no longer engaged in.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Holland]

Thanks so much.

We'll start our second round.

Mr. Kania, you have five minutes.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you for coming today.

Are you in a position to comment on whether the 23 recommendations have or have not been implemented?

[Dominique Peschard]

Absolutely not. The only thing we can say is that while a statement has been made to the effect that 22 of the 24 recommendations have been implemented, there are no tangible outcomes attesting to this.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Have you seen any evidence on the ground, so to speak, in terms of the way that behaviour has changed, to convince you that these recommendations have been complied with?

[Dominique Peschard]

No, I have not.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Are you aware of any individuals whose rights have been violated since these reports, because these recommendations have very likely not been implemented?

[Dominique Peschard]

Not with respect to Mr. Arar, Mr. Almalki, Mr. Nureddin and Mr. Abou-Elmaati, no, but Mr. Abousfian Abdelrazik's case has recently come to light.

For individuals in this situation, it is very difficult for them to publicly argue their rights. Mr. Almalki, Mr. Nureddin and Mr. Abou-Elmaati waited some time before doing so. So it's not at all impossible that someone will go public with other skeletons in other closets at some particular point, but I can't predict this.