Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2009

Committees of the House

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. In recommendation 3, in consideration of the danger these three men faced, the committee recommended that the government officially apologize to the three men who suffered harm. Does the Bloc member believe there might be an ideological reason behind why the Conservatives refuse to apologize to these people? It would not cost anything; it would merely be an apology. Is there any particular reason the Conservative government refuses to apologize?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, what my colleague says is very serious. Once the government admits that these people suffered unwarranted abuse, it has a duty to apologize. That is the first reason. The government must apologize first to clear their names, because it damaged their reputations. But because of the Conservative right-wing ideology, it does not want to admit anything or apologize because it does not want to let on that people made serious mistakes. That is the outcome. It means that the government does not want to let on to the people who do the interrogating and those who send questions to other countries to interrogate people that mistakes were made. It does not want things to change.

Recommendation 3 is followed by recommendation 4, which called on the government to issue a clear directive. The Conservatives opposed recommendations 3 and 4, simply because they do not want practices to change. That is the worst thing.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am also wondering if another reason the government is afraid of apologizing is that it would help the legal team that no doubt is representing the three gentlemen. I know that in Mr. Arar's case, he did get a settlement from the government, but I am not sure at what stage the civil legal actions are with respect to these three gentlemen and whether or not they even have a legal team. I am assuming they do and that lawyers are working behind the scenes.

Could the member update us on any information he might have about the status of their cases at the moment?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is convenient for the government to say that it does not want to pay. They can use that excuse to get out of the bind they are in. But the real story is that the Conservatives do not want things to change. If the government is forced to pay compensation, apologize, issue clear directives and clear people's names, that means that it made a mistake and must correct it. In my opinion, the government is using the excuse that it does not want to pay because compensation will be expensive to hide the fact that it does not want things to change.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise to speak to this motion, notwithstanding that other important business has been delayed by it. It is an important question.

I want to start by responding to some of the issues raised by the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering, because he did speak in a tone that I can only call high sanctimony. It was a tone that is highly inappropriate for a Liberal on this matter, because of course the events the Iacobucci commission looked into were all events that occurred under the watch of a Liberal government.

If we are to look for true accountability, it is not the Liberal Party that should be complaining. The Liberals should be looking into themselves to explain why they failed to provide appropriate oversight and adequately protect the rights of Canadian, rather than making a ridiculous assertion that the events that happened in 2001 and 2002 are somehow the responsibility of a Conservative government here in the year 2009.

That said, I want to address some of the specific issues. I will point out that the report before us from the parliamentary committee and, in fact, the Iacobucci commission itself would not even have existed if it were not for this Conservative government having inherited the problems that existed before and that needed to be addressed. I will read from Mr. Iacobucci's report. It says:

By Order in Council dated December 11, 2006, I was appointed under Part I of the Inquiries Act to conduct an internal inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin.

Therefore, this is actually a report that was initiated by the Conservative government. I heard words from the Liberals about the importance of these kinds of public inquiries and how they should be regarded. Let us remember that the Liberal government refused to hold such an inquiry. It is only because of the Conservative government initiating it that we are able to address these issues and respond to them as we have.

I also heard a complaint that one of the things we have not implemented from the O'Connor report and the Iacobucci report is a national oversight body for national security. As I have stated many times publicly, including in the House, we have not done that yet because we are awaiting the outcome of the major commission on the Air India terrorist event. That is a major commission of inquiry that, once again, was initiated only by this Conservative government. That was after the previous Liberal government refused for over a decade to undertake such a commission of inquiry.

The members say that we do not need to wait for that commission of inquiry. I can understand that he does not want to wait to hear what it says, because the Liberals of course spent a decade obstructing, delaying and preventing such a commission of inquiry from happening. Keep in mind that it is an inquiry into the worst-ever terrorist incident in Canadian history. The Liberals, who claim to care about these things, refused to establish a commission of inquiry into that.

We have done that in our government. Everyone I have spoken to who is associated with the commission of inquiry has urged me to await the outcome of that inquiry so that we can take into account what everyone agrees were serious failings in co-operation among intelligence agencies and how that investigation and prosecutions were handled. There is much value that will come of it.

As a responsible government, we will continue to await it. I would like it if the report came sooner. That being said, the information that will be gleaned from it will be very important for us, by all accounts, to be able to have effective national security oversight. Unlike the previous government, we are not interested in the appearance of doing things; we are interested in delivering real results and improving the way we manage our national security and oversight to ensure that the errors we have seen in the past are not repeated again in the future.

I did want to outline these points at the outset because those who may have been following this debate might have had a very different impression if they heard the words of the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering. In no way did he ever reflect on the fact that the problems we are dealing with are very much the responsibility of his party when they were in government. They are things we are trying to address.

I do want to thank the members of the public safety committee for the work they did in examining the important issues that were raised by both the O'Connor and Iacobucci commissions of inquiry. National security and the protection of Canadians is obviously one of the most important priorities for any government and that, of course, applies to—

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you peruse Hansard, I think you will find that the member for Ajax—Pickering did in fact point out that this case did start under the Liberal government. I was here when he spoke and I distinctly heard him say that. We can check Hansard to determine if that is correct or not.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

In response to that point of order, Madam Speaker, I think you will find the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe did so. However, the member for Ajax—Pickering did not do so. I have no fault with that. My concerns were related to the comments made by the member for Ajax—Pickering, and the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe did accurately report, as my friend the member for Elmwood—Transcona--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

As we can see, I believe this is not a point of order but a point of debate that, in any event, Hansard can confirm or infirm. The hon. minister.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

If I could continue, Madam Speaker, the government's responsibility is to counter new threats and challenges within a national security framework that guarantees accountability and the protection of civil liberties.

That is why the Government of Canada is unwavering in its commitment to give law enforcement the tools they need to safeguard our national security. That is why we are bringing in changes, for example, by expanding the access of police through modern forms of technology so they can execute warrants in our intelligence services as well to deal with changing technology and how it might be used by those wishing to harm our national security. At the same time, we need to empower our national security review bodies with mandates that allow them to conduct thorough reviews of our law enforcement and security agencies and their actions.

As highlighted in the response to the standing committee's report, the government remains steadfast in its commitment to strengthen Canada's national security review framework. I want to take this opportunity to address some of the recommendations contained in the standing committee's report, because that is, of course, what is before us.

The report itself includes a number of recommendations that the government supports in principle. For instance, the committee's report recommends that the government immediately implement all of the recommendations arising from the O'Connor inquiry. The government has made its position very clear in this regard. Much of the work to address both the O'Connor and Iacobucci commissions of inquiry is already complete or very well under way.

As hon. members are aware, Justice O'Connor's part I report contained 23 recommendations concerning such matters as improving domestic and foreign information-sharing practices, creating clear policies around the provision of consular services, and improving training for all individuals involved in national security investigations.

This government took immediately action to accept and implement the recommendations put forward in Justice O'Connor's part I report. I am pleased to say that process is now largely complete, which is again something we might not have heard from the hon. members opposite, and 22 of the 23 recommendations have already been implemented.

I would also like to highlight that many of the issues raised by Justice Iacobucci were similar to those raised by Justice O'Connor, and as such, have already been addressed by this government's actions.

The government is also moving forward to address Justice O'Connor's part II report, which dealt with Canada's national security review framework more broadly. For instance, much work has been accomplished in developing proposals to strengthen the Royal Canadian Mounted Police review and complaints process, including a review of its national security activities. We expect to move forward with legislation on that soon.

Work is also well under way to enhance our national security review structures, including providing a mechanism to facilitate inter-agency review of national security activities. As I indicated, while that work is very well advanced, we do want to see what Justice Major has to offer as a result of the extensive work that has been done on the Air India inquiry, and I think any reasoned person would recognize the importance of looking at what Justice Major reports and his recommendations regarding national security oversight.

Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism. In fact, we know full well from a series of recent prosecutions that Canada faces terrorist threats, both abroad and at home, and that we are working effectively to address those threats, but we also have to be aware of the changing nature of terrorist threats and adapt accordingly. Today we know, for example, that because threats to our security are global, so too must our response be. We also know that co-operation and coordination are vital. Today, more and more departments and agencies are working together to address emerging challenges and threats.

We need to work closely together with international partners, and that need has never been greater than it is right now. In fact, in every particular terrorist incident we look at, there is almost never a unique situation related to one country. Even what we call homegrown terrorism here in Canada has often shown linkages to several other countries through communications, through financing, through support, through training, through moral support and instructions, so we know that those linkages are very, very real, and we have to respond in that fashion.

The Government of Canada is doing this and will continue to do so. The government is committed to modernizing and strengthening our national security review framework to reflect that, to respond to the shifting security and threat environment, and to respect the principles of independence and accountability. In doing this, the government will continue to consider the advice and recommendations of key stakeholders and advisers, as I said, including Justice Major.

As the government proceeds with the implementation of these reforms, we are committed to keeping Canadians informed of policy initiatives that will affect their lives and the lives of fellow citizens.

In response to the committee's second recommendation, the government is pleased to note that a comprehensive progress report has been tabled that provides the committee and Canadians with a detailed account of our work to date in implementing Justice O'Connor's 23 part I recommendations.

I also want to emphasize that this government is presently developing proposals to address the gaps identified in Justice O'Connor's part II report with regard to the review of national security activities. Here the government has also pledged to keep members of Parliament and Canadians generally informed of the developments as they arise.

With respect to the committee's third recommendation, concerning Messrs. Almalki, Abou El Maati and Nureddin, it should be noted that the government acted decisively on the recommendation of Justice O'Connor to establish an independent and credible process to review the cases of these three individuals, again something that did not happen under the previous government. However, I would like to remind the committee that it would inappropriate for the government to address its third recommendation as it pertains to matters that are the subject of ongoing civil litigation.

The government supports the spirit of the committee's fourth recommendation, calling for clear direction against torture. Indeed, the government considers that this recommendation has already been fulfilled. In contrast to the views expressed in the committee's report and by some members here today, the Government of Canada's policy on torture and the use of information elicited through torture is clear.

As I indicated through my statement as Minister of Public Safety, issued on April 2, 2009, we clearly reiterated on behalf of this government that this country does not condone the use of torture in intelligence gathering. Moreover, the committee's recommendation also fails to take into account the ministerial directive issued by me as public safety minister to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which clearly states that the government is steadfast in its abhorrence of and opposition to the use of torture by any state or agency.

The committee's fifth and final recommendation calls for a greater role for parliamentarians in the review of national security activities. While neither Justice O'Connor nor Justice Iacobucci specifically addressed the involvement of parliamentarians in this area, the government strongly supports their continued participation, which they do of course through a number of forums, as we see in our ongoing parliamentary committees even today.

In closing, I would like to reiterate this government's appreciation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for its work in examining these very important issues. However, while the government supports some of these recommendations in principle, notably those that seek to implement the recommendations of Justice O'Connor's report and those calling for clear policies against torture and for the continued involvement of parliamentarians in the area of national security, the government cannot support the committee's report as a whole because it frankly fails to acknowledge the work that has already been accomplished in this area.

Canadians actually have a lot to be proud of. We have come a long way since 2001, 2002 and 2003 when these abuses occurred, since we had a government that refused to allow a public inquiry into the Air India terrorist incident. We have come a long way since that time and have implemented a lot of changes to adequately balance human rights and the need to protect the national security of Canadians.

We will continue to do that, because that is what Canadians expect of us and that is what we are delivering.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister will know that the Conservative members of the committee who issued this report declared that there was no factual basis or facts regarding either compensation or an apology being required. They also went on to say that it would be inappropriate to comment on those things.

I want to refer to O'Brien and Bosc, page 99, in chapter 3, in which it refers to the sub judice convention. If the member cares to reflect on this, it certainly is a matter with regard to the interests of justice and fair play, but since it is a voluntary restraint being put on and there is clear precedent in O'Brien and Bosc that there is no prohibition from allowing a committee to make comment, I suspect with regard to the government response that the minister may want that, but it would appear to me that recommendation three also does require some activity with regard to the processes that have led to this recommendation.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether there are requirements for the government to undertake a review of its processes as it relates to this matter.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to distinguish the sub judice convention, which of course relates to parliamentary process, that which governs the parliamentary committee's affairs. I in fact agree with the members of the government's side, the Conservative side, on that parliamentary committee, in their reading that it was not appropriate for the committee to undertake an investigation or an inquiry into matters that were before the courts. Certainly that is something that is well established.

However, that is a principle separate and apart from the reasons that the government itself would not comment and would not implement that recommendation at this time. Because it is a matter before the courts, a matter of civil litigation, that is not something that any government ever does by taking its direction from a parliamentary committee.

The government has an obligation, a fiduciary interest to the taxpayers, the people of Canada, and to the legal position of the taxpayers of Canada, and that is what the government does in those circumstances in carrying them out. That is why it is not appropriate to comment on this matter.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member that the Liberals were in power when we got into this mess in the first place. So I do accept that from him. I had just heard one of the Liberal members certainly take some responsibility. However, I agree with him that there was probably more than one member up there.

I know the government has to stay away from the litigation side of the equation, but there are some things the government should be doing. I just want to look in on recommendation three, where it talks about the official apology and whether or not that could be done and whether that would in any way prejudice the legal side of it. Certainly the committee did want to correct the record with respect to inaccurate, inflammatory and unjustified allegations and information shared with foreign agencies about these men. Has the government taken any steps to try to correct these records and at least solve that part of the problem?

There are a number of other issues that are pointed out here where the government should be taking steps proactively to lessen the trauma that these three individuals are suffering.

Would the member tell us why he has not issued or will not issue an apology; and secondly, whether he has, or if he has not, why he has not, dealt with clearing up the records with the other agencies in the other countries?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are several parts to that question.

The first part I think I have answered previously.

The second part is what steps have been taken to clarify the situation of the individuals in question and to get the facts out in clear public view.

We did that by commissioning the Iacobucci inquiry. We have a 455-page report from Justice Iacobucci that does exactly that, something that would not have happened if it were not for the actions of this government. So I believe we have certainly carried out our obligation to do that. That is something that we wanted to see done, that we did in good faith, and I think we are in a better position because of having done that as a country.

In terms of other agencies, we have outstanding requests into other agencies in other countries. I think that is also a matter of public record. We of course have limits in terms of what other countries will do with the information and the records they have. However, we made our position clear, and the Iacobucci inquiry, thanks to Justice Iacobucci, has laid out in expansive detail the facts as he determined them following his inquiry.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to deal with these no-fly lists, because as the member is aware, there is even a member of our caucus having trouble with the no-fly list here in Canada. Once people get on a no-fly list, good luck to them in trying to get themselves taken off it.

What steps has the government taken to help Mr. Arar get his name taken off the no-fly lists, and what efforts has it made to intervene with the United States? Evidently, regardless of what information the Canadian government wants to present to the United States, they say, “Our minds are made up. It doesn't matter what you tell us; we still think he's a bad guy”.

What, if anything, has the government done with regard to these three individuals in terms of the no-fly lists?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it goes back to the time of my predecessor as public safety minister, following the resolution of Arar affair, again something that did not happen under the previous government, an apology and compensation that only came under our government. Interventions were made by my predecessor with the Secretary of Homeland Security in the American government to make clear our view of Mr. Arar's situation, to request that he be removed from their no-fly list. We do not control the American no-fly list. We do not control the no-fly list of any other country. As a result, they have the benefit of our information, as has been discussed by me on subsequent occasions with the current homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano.

Each country, of course, has the ability to make its own determinations of national security threats. We have provided the benefit of our knowledge, but we cannot alter their list. We have provided that intervention, provided that information, but at the end of the day, the American government is the American government. I am sure my friend understands that if the Americans were to tell us how to run our own list, which I am sure they would love the opportunity to do, he would be upset if we simply did what they told us, in the same fashion as the Americans simply are not going to do what we tell them.

What we can do is provide the information on the best basis possible and then depend on sovereign governments to act on the basis of the information we provide.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is not directly related to most of the subject matter but it is peripheral to the security of the public.

The Witness Protection Program Act is open to those who would be crucial to testimony with respect to terrorist allegations. Has the government given any consideration to what would go beyond witness protection? There are those who would like the security to testify but do not necessarily want to go to another part of the country and be anonymous.

Has the government given any consideration to expanding the opportunities for witness protection, not within that particular act but other supports that may be given to those who would testify in very serious situations where they are acting on behalf of the Crown?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have a witness protection program run by the RCMP which is an important part of assisting us in combatting organized crime. Of course, terrorism is one of the most serious crimes. We certainly want to take the benefit of witness protection when necessary.

I am not entirely sure what the member is driving at. I believe he is referring to some of the past experiences with the Air India inquiry and the difficulties in obtaining successful prosecutions. On that basis, again we are awaiting the outcome of Justice Major's report. We expect that he will have something to say on that matter. We are waiting to have the benefit of his very important study.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a motion to concur in a report of a standing committee. The issue before us is the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security which states:

Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has conducted a review of the findings and recommendations arising from the Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian officials--

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As much as I appreciate my colleague's intervention, I believe that I was supposed to be next in the debate.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

We have had one rotation already. After the first rotation, it returns to how we would deal with government motions, so it would be the government and then the official opposition and then we go from there.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I had indicated, we are dealing with the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The report states:

Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has conducted a review of the findings and recommendations arising from the Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin (Iacobucci Inquiry) and the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar (O’Connor Inquiry) and has agreed to report the following:

The committee made five principal recommendations. I would also point out that at the end of the report, just before the chair's signature, it states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this Report.

The report was tabled in mid-June, just before the House adjourned for the summer break. Under Standing Order 109, the minister is permitted 120 days to respond to the report of the committee. The response to the report was tabled in the House on October 19, which effectively used the full 120 days. The response was referred to the committee for consideration and review. It has been some four weeks since then.

The committee is looking very carefully at this response, but it also has other activities going on as well. It is watching very carefully the special hearings going on with regard to Afghan detainees because of the subject matter of torture, which is part of this report.

I was a little taken back when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suggested that we were wasting the time of the House and that the committee had four months. If the committee asks for a government response to its report, no concurrence motion in that committee report can be moved until that response has been tabled in the House.

I understand the government's interest in moving on with other matters, but even the minister who just addressed the House started off by suggesting that this concurrence motion was delaying important business. When we are talking about the Government of Canada and all of its agencies and how they address serious issues such as the torture of people, I cannot imagine that being dismissed by the government as not being important business of the House.

It is part of our responsibilities to work in committees, to do the work that is necessary, to inquire into major developments, and to report findings based on hearing from expert witnesses with appropriate recommendations to the House for its consideration.

Now that we have had the government response, this concurrence motion is asking the House to look at the report of the committee based on the recommendations that it felt were appropriate, and to see whether or not the House accepts that the report deserves the attention and action of the Government of Canada. That is important.

I understand the government would like to do other things, but parliamentarians do have rights, and this motion has been moved in accordance with the rules of the House.

As I have indicated, there has been a response by the government and it was tabled in the House on October 19. It addresses each of the five recommendations.

I had an opportunity to review the government's response and how it reacted to some of the observations that came out of the committee's work in discussing matters with government agencies and other witnesses involved or related to the subject matter before them.

This has to do with the findings and the numerous recommendations arising from the Iacobucci and O'Connor inquiries. All of the recommendations that the committee itself wanted to make indeed have roots in the work of those two inquiries.

I do not want to read the report into the record, but I want to succinctly deal with each recommendation and the substantive response of the government so that members will understand and will be able to make their own judgment as to whether or not the government is taking this report seriously and the work of the committee seriously. It will be self-evident.

The first recommendation basically asks the government to immediately implement all of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to the Maher Arar case, being the O'Connor inquiry. I will simply extract a couple of points that the government makes. It says in response:

[T]he Government recognizes the need to continually assess existing policy and practice against ever-changing environment in which we operate.

It is a roundabout way of saying we have to do more to deal with some of the circumstances which existed and allowed Canadian citizens to be subjected to torture, incarceration, or other things, and wrongfully as it turns out. It goes on to say:

The Government is committed to modernizing and strengthening Canada’s national security review framework. In achieving this objective, the Government will continue to take into consideration the advice and recommendations of key stakeholders and advisors, including Justice Major’s forthcoming report in the context of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 (Air India Inquiry).

Again, there is an acknowledgement by the government that there are flaws and inadequate processes in place to address matters. I think the government effectively agrees with the committee recommendation, but it remains to be seen whether the government has acted on the recommendation.

The second recommendation has to do with regular public reports on the progress made in implementing the findings of the recommendations from the O'Connor inquiry and the inquiry into the actions of officials in relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin, which is the Iacobucci inquiry. The government response says that the Iacobucci inquiry identified a number of issues which have particular emphasis on sharing and handling of information provided to and received from foreign agencies as well as the provision of consular service and that it should be noted that Justice Iacobucci was not given a mandate to make those recommendations.

I wonder whether or not that is just sidestepping the important issue. It is really to abandon one's responsibility as a government and I ask the question, why? I do not think it really matters whether Iacobucci recommended these things; a standing committee of Parliament is recommending them. We just cannot have public inquiries to determine what the government should consider is important in terms of streamlining and modernizing its processes for protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens.

The government response says that the government continues to develop its proposal for modernizing and strengthening the current RCMP review and complaints body and to further these efforts the government has and will continue to consult with key stakeholders, in particular those jurisdictions that contract the RCMP to provide policing services in their jurisdictions.

Finally, the government commented that it is confident that it will be ready to move forward to address the gaps identified by Justice O'Connor with regard to the review of national security activities and will continue to keep members of Parliament and Canadians apprised of new developments.

The bottom line is, yes, the government will do it, but has the government done it? Do we have any evidence that it is happening? Have members of Parliament been apprised of the changes? The answer is no and the question is why not?

Recommendation 3 is in reference to the harm done to Messrs. El Maati, Adullah Almalki, and Mr. Nureddin. The committee has recommended an apology to these Canadian citizens, compensation to be paid to them for the suffering they endured and the difficulties they encountered and, finally, to correct misinformation that may exist in records administered by national security agencies in Canada or abroad with respect to these persons.

The only comment the government had with regard to this whole recommendation was that it would be inappropriate to address the committee's third recommendation as it pertained to ongoing civil litigation. Again, that is dismissive.

I did not even comment on correcting the information. I was absolutely astounded that a clear recommendation did not have a clear response. I would suggest for the committee that it should go back to the minister and ask him why he did not give it an indication that he was committed.

We understand, as I indicated earlier, from the issue of the sub judice convention, where the official opposition in a dissenting report made the same point, the committee should not have made this recommendation with regard to compensation or an apology because there was ongoing civil litigation. However, the sub judice convention is a self-imposed, voluntary convention and it does not prohibit a committee from making those recommendations.

Members may want to look at chapter 3, page 99, of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, O'Brien and Bosc, 2009. There is a further reference, breaking down between the civil and criminal, around page 600, for the members' reference.

The Government of Canada may invoke voluntarily the sub judice convention with regard to this matter, but it is not incumbent on the committee to invoke it. In fact, it is important the committee raise the issue that an apology and compensation, notwithstanding there may be ongoing civil litigation. It is something, based on the evidence and the persons involved here, that their rights and the protection of those rights and the protection of the persons was not in place. It is clear that there will be an apology and compensation. It will be up to the courts to determine what that compensation might be.

However, the evidence is clear in this regard, and the committee was most appropriate in making recommendation 3, the first two parts. The third part, with regard to the information, the government simply just did not respond, and do not know why.

Recommendation 4 from the committee had to do with clarifying the ministerial direction against torture and the use of information from torture for all departments and agencies responsible for national security. It said that the ministerial direction must clearly state that the exchange of information with countries was prohibited when there was a credible risk that it could lead or contribute to the use of torture.

I could not imagine a more appropriate recommendation, particularly in light of the current proceedings going on before the special committee on Afghan detainees and the refusal of the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the members of the committee have the information they need in order to ask important, relevant and exceptional questions to the witnesses coming before them.

When Mr. Colvin was before us, that was one thing, but then the three generals came before us. All had access to the unredacted correspondence that came into question, but the committee members did not. Just yesterday they received it. If members saw the news stories, they would see that a vast majority of those pages were totally blacked out and the information blacked out on all other pages was such that we could not possibly impute what the information was. How can we address this question about whether there was any reference to torture and whether there was reasonable cause to believe there were incidents of torture?

The recommendation was a very good one, but the response of the government was that it did not condone the use of torture in intelligence gathering, and it referred to the clear directive.

The government said that its unequivocal position was supported by the recent ministerial direction issued to CSIS by the Minister of Public Safety, which clearly stated that the government was steadfast in its abhorrence and opposition to the use of torture by any state or agency for any purpose whatsoever, including the collection of intelligence.

Why was this not in place already? Why does the government have to issue a directive now? This report came out. This is the response of the Minister of Public Safety and national security. Now he is saying that the government has this report. I have a copy of this directive here. The fact it had to issue the directive to remind it of our long-standing policy with—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

We didn't think it was necessary to ask you.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister is going to start heckling me to try to indicate that maybe he does not like what he is hearing.

These are the facts. As a consequence of the committee's report and the excellent work it did, there was a directive issued. The fact that a directive had to be issued was virtually an admission that, in the system, it was not translating right down to our troops in the field.

The minister may not like the facts, but the facts are clear. The government seems to apply a double standard to the issue of torture. There was a dissenting opinion among certain members of the committee, even at the time. Their position was that the recommendation had already been fulfilled by the government. That was the response and the dissenting opinion of the Conservative members of the committee in the report. They dismissed it and said that everything was fine, but it is not fine. The minister had to issue another directive to remind them that torture should not be used. I think it is clear at its face.

Recommendation 5 was that a national security committee of parliamentarians be established. The response of the government was that it looked forward to getting reports from committee, et cetera. It was basically dismissing it again.

The response of the minister to this excellent report is clear. The government certainly does not consider this to be important information. That was exactly what the minister said when he started his speech. He said that this was delaying important work. The minister should know that this committee did important work.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the business before the House. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.