Debates of March 12th, 2009

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The parliamentary secretary does raise a point but the first motion for concurrence was passed by unanimous consent, so there was not a second one moved in that sense. We had unanimous consent to allow the motion to go through.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It was still moved, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It was still moved but it was done with the unanimous consent of the House. This point has never been raised before, in my experience, as a reason for not allowing these other motions to proceed. The rule, as I understood it, was to prevent two motions for concurrence, so that one could not move one and then have a three hour debate, if I am not mistaken, and then move a second one. That is the hitch.

In that sense, I think the parliamentary secretary is correct but when one is done by unanimous consent and without debate, I am not sure the Standing Order was intended to deal with that situation.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while I respect your interpretation of the Standing Orders, the Standing Orders merely state that not more than one concurrence motion can be moved on any sitting day. It does not talk about unanimous consent nor does not talk about any other factors. It merely states, quite literally, that not more than one concurrence motion can be moved on any sitting day.

I would suggest, quite respectfully, that the concurrence motion of the hon. member who was just speaking is out of order with the intent of the Standing Orders by which we all must abide in this House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I can sympathize with the hon. member's argument but it is a new one. It has never been advanced before, to my knowledge, under this Standing Order. It would mean that if we had five concurrence motions in one day for consent, the Chair would need to refuse to allow them to be moved. That is the effect of the hon. member's argument.

I do not believe that is the case. I think if the House does something by unanimous consent, it does not count. When the House gives its unanimous consent, I think it means that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, we are doing this. For that reason, I think the motion before us is likely in order, despite the very able argument of the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this, obviously, is not to challenge any ruling of the Chair but I would point out, since there seems to be some ambiguity about the interpretation, that perhaps this matter would be best left to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs where we can study it.

I would point out that we follow the rules as written. I also would point out that the hon. member who raised the first concurrence motion did not say “notwithstanding” as per usual practice or Standing Orders as per usual practice.

Again, it seems to reinforce my argument that we follow the literal interpretation of the Standing Orders and only allow the one concurrence motion to be introduced this very day.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I deliberately moved that motion at the appropriate time during routine proceedings of motions. The issue of unanimous consent was simply an indication that I had not intended to debate it but that I did want it to be dealt with.

Having said that, any member has the opportunity to rise at any time during the proceedings of the House under a point of order to seek the unanimous consent for any item. I tend to concur with the parliamentary secretary with regard to the problem of having many reports not being able to be addressed under unanimous consent. There are options to deal with that.

I would suggest that we have had a motion for concurrence in the report and that we should move back to government orders.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. I think your interpretation is entirely correct. The parliamentary secretary is obviously trying to get away from dealing with this legitimate piece of business in terms of the motion before us.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice book is quite clear. On page 497, where it talks about what unanimous consent involves. It states:

Perhaps the most common application of unanimous consent is to escape the notice provisions of the Standing Orders.

It goes on from there. The parliamentary secretary can, if he wants, go back to the procedure and House affairs committee to have some further discussion, but what you, Mr. Speaker, have outlined today is perfectly in order and we should continue with debate on the motion.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I find this issue very interesting. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with respect to your concern, that, in the same way that we have developed a certain set of phrases within this House as common practice so that we respect the Standing Orders, the rules of the House and the previous rules of yourself and previous Speakers, we have certain phrases that we use. I would suggest, for your consideration, with respect to your concern, that we could probably come up with a five or six word sentence that would cover that issue that you raised so ably.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair's position is that these kinds of motions have been moved before. I am sure there are dozens of precedents where they were moved on days after the unanimous consent for a number of concurrence motions were put before.

Concurrence in reports of the procedure and House affairs committee are common on unanimous consent, particularly those that deal with membership in committees. If one of those motions passed and then a member stood up to move concurrence in another report that was the subject of debate, it was argued as being out of order because the previous motion had been dealt with, I think we would have been in some difficulty.

I cannot go through the number of times this has happened because I do not have it at my fingertips, but I am sure it is a frequent occurrence.

I would suggest that we proceed with the debate at this moment, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons should raise this matter with the procedure and House affairs committee. I love its reports. The hon. member knows of my interest in its work. I once was the chairman of that committee and had a wonderful time dealing with suggested rule changes in the House.

Of course, the Speaker is the servant of the House and abides by the rules meticulously. I would be delighted if my interpretation of these is incorrect in the eyes of the committee and it wants to clarify the matter for future debate in the chamber.

In the circumstances, we will proceed and hear the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek make his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your very wise ruling.

As I was saying when the interruption occurred, members will know that the foreign affairs and international development committee recently retabled the 2008 subcommittee report on the Omar Khadr case. In fact, we were previously debating concurrence in that particular report the very day the House was prorogued in the fall. It is the same conclusions and recommendations from that 2008 subcommittee report contained in this retabled report that I am seeking concurrence in today.

Prior to the subcommittee undertaking its look at the Omar Khadr case, there were few voices in Canada speaking out for justice for him. I am proud to say that of the few voices speaking out on this case, the most consistent were from the NDP. The members for Windsor—Tecumseh, Burnaby—Douglas and Ottawa Centre were there among those very few voices speaking out in this House, and good members of the Bloc also were raising concerns about the Omar Khadr case.

To be very clear, this was not a popular case because of the Khadr name. In the court of public opinion, Omar Khadr was not faring well. Canadians knew the Khadr name but in truth they had few facts and little idea of the boy's actual predicament. Once the facts started to become known, Canadians' sense of fairness started to show itself.

I began my first intervention at the subcommittee by stating the fact that Omar Khadr's government had not given him the help all Canadian citizens deserve and that this was absolutely deplorable. I truly expected that once informed of the facts of this case, Canadians would genuinely be moved by Omar's story. Once they heard that at the time of his capture, Omar Khadr was a boy, a child soldier of 15 years of age, and also when Canadians heard how he was shot twice in the back and nearly executed by American special forces, they would be moved. When television networks like the CBC decided to tell his story to Canadians and when they saw the wounds on television, they would be moved.

Once they learned the story, Canadians began to become very concerned about this case. As they learned the conditions he was held under as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, their concern increased. Finally, when Canadians saw those tapes last year clearly showing a boy of 16 anguished as he realized the people from Canada he had hoped would help him become free were there instead to interrogate him, as that boy cried out for help, that was when Canadians truly felt for Omar Khadr.

I believe the position repeatedly espoused by the Conservative government in this House is flawed. It is flawed because it hinges on one single point, that being the Conservative government will not accept that Omar Khadr was a child combatant at the time of his capture. If the Conservative government or the Liberal government before it ever accepted that premise, it would have been incumbent upon them to petition first the Bush, and now the Obama, administration to return him to Canada. Once returned to Canada, his case would proceed here under the Canadian judicial system.

That is why we heard over and over during question period in this House such a flat response from the government. I offer here today that the government's often repeated response was as passionless as its original view of Omar Khadr.

I will turn now to a few other facts in this case, some that came to light during the subcommittee's review.

While in custody, Omar Khadr had to cope with what the Americans called enhanced interrogation techniques. In addition, for over six years at Guantanamo Bay, Omar Khadr was held with adult detainees. Now he faces the very possibility of life in prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in the United States.

Witnesses before our committee offered compelling views of his case and its implications for Canada. One very passionate witness, Senator Roméo Dallaire, said that Canada is headed down a slippery slope by failing to obey the United Nations conventions on child soldiers to which it is a signatory.

Senator Dallaire said:

[T]he minute you start playing with human rights, with conventions, and with civil liberties in order to say you're doing it to protect yourself...you are no better than the guy who doesn't believe in them at all.

I agree. Case after case that we have heard of late offer evidence that Canada has indeed started down that slippery slope, even to the degree that Canada appears to have been complicit in torture by proxy.

This is certainly not how Canadians want their government to act.

Another witness before the human rights subcommittee, former United States special prosecutor for the UN war crimes trial in Sierra Leone, Mr. David Crane, testified that he believes Khadr should be treated as a child soldier. Mr. Crane gave testimony before the committee that, during the Sierra Leone war crimes trials, he refused to prosecute 8,000 child soldiers. Mr. Crane said he thought it was important to bring Khadr back and to have his case fairly and openly considered in Canada.

Mr. Crane went on to testify that no child has the requisite mental capability of this situation, regardless of whether they volunteer or not. I believe and many other better-informed professional Canadians agree with Mr. Crane's observations.

I have said before in this place that our democracy is a very fragile thing. I also believe that Canadians often fail to realize this point. Perhaps it is understandable because, to get our Constitution, all that Canadian governments had to do was write a nice letter to our Queen.

Canada's veterans of foreign wars will tell you very quickly the cost of protecting and sustaining our democracy. Today, Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are tasked with enhancing the conditions under which a democracy might flourish there. Is it not ironic that the very government that has Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan to protect the rights of the Afghani people will not protect the rights of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, rights guaranteed under United Nations covenants to which Canada is a signatory?

Internal reports released last year from Canadian officials who visited Khadr state that Omar Khadr is a “good kid” and that they believe he has not been radicalized. Also, according to the same reports, Mr. Khadr clearly understands that he is in Guantanamo because of his family. The government, along with accepting that Omar Khadr is a child soldier, would do well to also accept that he was in the area of combat solely due to his father leaving him with a group of fighters.

Our subcommittee, as well as supporters of Omar Khadr, whether it is community or legal representatives, took into account the concerns of Canadians as we moved forward with our report. We understood that evidence that Omar Khadr is not a threat was an opinion. Having recognized this, the subcommittee, beyond its own conclusions, decided on a series of recommendations to support Omar Khadr to address those important community concerns.

At this point, I would reiterate some of those conclusions.

They obviously recommended the termination of the military commissions, which has taken place under Mr. Obama. They object to the position stated by the United States that it reserves the right to detain Omar Khadr beyond the commissions. They recommend that the Government of Canada demand Omar's release from U.S. custody to the custody of Canadian law enforcement and that it call on the director of public prosecutions, and so on.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker.

In particular, the subcommittee calls on the relevant Canadian authorities to ensure the appropriate rehabilitation of Omar Khadr. I submit to the House today that Omar Khadr is salvageable. All he wants from his country and government is another chance. Witness after witness before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights said that Canada must petition the U.S. to repatriate Omar Khadr.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that Omar Khadr's rights have been violated. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that the rights of detainees in Guantanamo have been violated. As his first act, President Obama has moved to right the wrong that was Guantanamo and order the facility closed.

Canadian officials are saying that Omar Khadr is not a threat and instead is a victim of his upbringing. After six years and two successive governments failing Omar Khadr, it is time for the government to do the right thing.

I will close with the following question, asked so many times in various forms in this place. When will the Prime Minister listen—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The time has expired for the hon. member's speech. We will move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. He has been absolutely passionate about this issue. It is an issue that I think many Canadians are finding increasingly disturbing because we see ourselves as an international leader.

There are two dramatic issues that have to be addressed concerning Omar Khadr. One is the fact that he was a child soldier when he was apprehended by the U.S. authorities, and the complete lack of willingness of our government to speak out in the case of a child soldier. The other very disturbing fact is the obvious question of him being tortured and the Canadian government knowing about it, a child soldier being held in detention, and it making no efforts to set any kind of international standard in terms of denouncing torture and the use of child soldiers.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about the Prime Minister's recent comments that a child soldier has to be part of an army, when we know that there are armed gangs all over the world that are using children in deplorable situations, and how that would apply to the case of Mr. Khadr.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how a leader of a country like our Prime Minister, when looking at a case such as this, would want to split hairs, to try to divide it. In other words, I do not think it is appropriate for a government to start deciding guilt or innocence. A government's role is to protect the rights of its citizens, especially citizens who have been put in conditions like Omar Khadr has lived through during the last six years. In fact, we are into the seventh year now.

It is totally unacceptable to Canadians. I have heard from dozens of Canadians. We have had petitions in the House to say very clearly they do not accept the government's position.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on that same issue.

One of the international treaties to which Canada is a signatory is the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. I think Canada was one of the first countries, if not the first country, to sign on to that optional protocol, which defines child soldiers. It defines a child soldier in the sense that an armed group that is distinct from the armed forces of a state should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years. That clearly is the situation that Omar Khadr was in.

Canadians also believe that child soldiers are manipulated by adults into participation in these conflicts, and continue to be manipulated by adults in those circumstances.

I wonder if the member might comment further on the manipulation of a young Canadian in this conflict in particular.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, Canadians in their judgment early on decided that they were not pleased or happy with the Khadr family, and in particular, Omar Khadr's father.

Whether Omar Khadr was taken abroad with his father or whether he was a dutiful son following his father, he wound up in a part of the world that is a combat zone. He was left behind by his father. The dutiful son was left with fighters and eventually came in contact with American Navy SEALs. The end result, of course, was his wounding and his capture.

It is hard to go back and say that at the time he was not a child soldier in line with the covenants, because at that time the covenants very clearly said any child “under the age of 18 years”. It has since been lowered to under the age of 15. Either way, at that time, Omar Khadr was a 15-year-old child combatant.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, in light of the move by the U.S. government to repudiate torture that has happened at Guantanamo Bay, to shut down Guantanamo Bay, to speak out against torture, what he thinks about the failure of the government to set an international standard in protecting child soldiers who have been tortured by foreign regimes.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the idea of torture is repugnant to all Canadians and repugnant to myself.

To have our government accept complicity in torture in any fashion, or to be seen to be, is an embarrassment in front of the world, in front of the international community.

Mr. Obama has done the right thing. He is starting on the road back. He is closing Guantanamo. He is trying to recapture the human rights reputation of the United States, and we should do the same thing in Canada.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this concurrence debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on Omar Khadr.

I thank my colleague, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, for getting this the issue on both the agenda of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the agenda of the House today for a full debate. This debate is long overdue, and many Canadians will certainly agree with that.

Back in October 2002, Omar Khadr's situation was first raised in the House of Commons by my predecessor, Svend Robinson, in questions to the Liberal government of the day.

What exactly did the standing committee recommend? There were seven recommendations. However, in my reading there, there are three that are absolutely crucial to this situation.

The first is that the Government of Canada must demand Omar Khadr's release from U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay.

The second is that the director of public prosecutions in Canada should investigate and, if warranted, and I emphasize if warranted, prosecute Omar Khadr under Canadian law.

The third is that Canadian authorities must ensure that an appropriate rehabilitation and reintegration program is developed for Omar Khadr.

All three of those recommendations are very important and very wise.

The bottom line is that Omar Khadr must be brought home immediately. There is absolutely no excuse for his continued detention at the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison.

Omar Khadr, who is a Canadian, born in Ottawa, was 15 years old when he was first detained. That was almost seven years ago. He was held by U.S. authorities for three years before any charges were laid against him and still there has been no full hearing of the charges since he has been held. That is an outrageous record of justice denied to a young Canadian.

Omar Khadr remains the only citizen of a western country imprisoned at Guantanamo. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Russia, Spain, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom all had adult nationals detained there. Each one of those countries got their adult citizens out. Each took the initiative and acted on behalf of their adult citizens, but not Canada. Canada has not acted on behalf of Omar Khadr, a child at the time these alleged crimes took place. Omar Khadr was only a child when the alleged crimes took place and he was the only child detained at Guantanamo.

The standing committee noted that Canada has obligations, under international law, to children and to child soldiers.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says:

Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated...in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;

It also says:

No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

Furthermore, the optional protocol for the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement children who are in conflict commits countries to:

—cooperate...in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary to this Protocol, including through technical cooperation and financial assistance.

UNICEF, in its principles and guidelines on children associated with armed forces or armed groups, which was endorsed by Canada in 2007, states:

A child rights approach, meaning that all interventions are developed within a human rights framework, should underpin all interventions aimed at preventing recruitment or use, securing the release of, protecting, and reintegrating children who have been associated with an armed force or armed group. Funding should be made available for this programming, according to the rights and needs of the children, irrespective of formal or informal peace processes or the progress of formal adult DDR processes.

Others have pointed out that Omar Khadr's continuing imprisonment violates other international laws and treaties, including the Convention against Torture, the Hague regulations, the Geneva conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Canada have found that Omar Khadr has been subjected to conditions of confinement and interrogation that violate international prohibitions against torture and other forms of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, a fact pointed out by the leaders of the opposition parties in a letter to President Obama last month.

Canadian courts have also found that Canada was aware of these violations while they were occurring, and that is a damning indictment of the Canadian government.

Canada played a significant role in developing international agreements to protect children involved in armed conflicts. Yet, when it comes to a Canadian child, a Canadian child soldier or a Canadian child involved in an armed conflict, our government has completely abandoned him.

Gail Davidson of Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada and Lawyers Against the War said:

The Canadian government has, with knowledge of the facts and law, failed or refused to:

provide consular assistance to Khadr; or,

exercise diplomatic means to secure his release and repatriation; or,

attempt to prevent violations of his internationally protected rights;... or,

accurately disclose Canadian involvement in Khadr’s detention and treatment.

Ms. Davidson further notes:

If Omar Khadr were afforded the full protection of established international rights to which everyone is entitled, the law would prevent both further prosecution and continued detention. Further prosecutions before a properly constituted court, in the U.S. or in Canada, would end in a stay of proceedings or a dismissal of charges because of the irremediable harm caused to Khadr by prolonged violation of his internationally protected rights.

The reputed actions of U.S. officials to falsify...and withhold...evidence would also...prevent further prosecution and detention. While there is now no credible evidence of wrongdoing by Khadr, proof of wrongdoing against him continues to increase.

This situation should never have been about the unpopularity of Omar Khadr's family or its political opinions. It is time to get Omar Khadr home and to help him regain his life. It is also time to seek action against those who did not come to his aid and perpetrated violations against him.

There is no doubt in my mind that a full public inquiry into Omar Khadr's case is required to hold the Canadian government accountable for its actions.

There are Canadians ready to help Omar Khadr on his return. There is a plan in place to care for him and help him readjust to Canadian society, with an oversight committee of medical, legal and religious leaders willing to take the legal responsibility for this program. The plan includes special home schooling, psychiatric and physical therapy.

The Muslim community has committed to much of the cost of this program. As one of Omar Khadr's lawyers, Dennis Edney has pointed out, “Canadians are saying to our government that we are ready to assist Omar Khadr”.

Omar Khadr's detention at Guantanamo Bay detention centre has been an outrage. The inaction by the Canadian government to help a Canadian citizen and a child soldier has been inexcusable.

Omar Khadr's repatriation is long overdue. The bottom line is we must bring Omar Khadr home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned for some time that the Conservative government, and perhaps even the Liberal government that preceded it, had already decided that Omar Khadr was guilty.

Canadians will be quick to tell us they do not see that as the prerogative of a government. They see the guilt or innocence of anyone accused of a crime as being resolved in a court.

At our committee we heard Romeo Dallaire speak of that slippery slope that Canada appeared to be starting down. He was actually referring to any country that started down this type of a path.

Would member comment on the military commissions and the fact that the U.S. had ruled them unconstitutional?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to say that the legal process undertaken by the United States was less than appropriate would be an understatement. That whole process has been deeply flawed from the beginning. It was an attempt to do an end run around appropriate due process, around the basic values of the U.S. justice system. The course of that process is a clear example of this.

Omar Khadr was in detention for three years before charges were laid. Since then, those charges have been up and down, in and out, thrown in and thrown out. Courts have been reconstituted and re-established. The laws have been challenged in Canadian courts and American courts.

One great tribute is to the American military lawyers who have defended him and have been critical of the process, even though they were part of that military justice system. We owe Mr. Kuebler, who is one of his main lawyers, credit for his strong stand on justice and justice for Omar Khadr in that very difficult and inappropriate system.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue, which has preoccupied Parliament for some time now.

The report being discussed today references breaches of international human rights laws and standards. Could my colleague address the Omar Khadr situation from the point of view of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the ways in which Canada's involvement, or lack thereof, on this case are a breach of our own rights and freedoms and the charter, which is our guideline, our road map in terms of dealing with individuals in similar situations?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that Canada has let down a fellow Canadian citizen from the get-go on this issue. It has ignored any rights that he may have as a Canadian citizen, any rights he may have for assistance from Canada. We all know that when a Canadian gets in trouble overseas, there is consular assistance available to them, and this has been denied Omar Khadr.

My colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek talked about the disgust that many Canadians felt when they saw the film of Omar Khadr and the visit from Canadian officials. He realized that they were not there as consular officials to help him. They were there instead to interrogate him.

That was not the proudest moment of Canada. In fact, it was a disgusting moment for Canada.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that Omar Khadr was captured on July 27, 2002 by U.S. special forces in Afghanistan in hostilities in which he allegedly threw a grenade, killing a U.S. soldier. He is also alleged to have been active as an al-Qaeda fighter, including by laying anti-personnel mines on roads known to be used by U.S. forces. On October 28, 2002 he was arrested by U.S. forces and transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

As a result of his alleged activities in Afghanistan, Omar Khadr was charged before a U.S. military commission with murder in violation of the law of war, with attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying.

These are serious charges under any legal system and they are before a U.S. court. We cannot prejudge the outcome of these charges. Nor can we prejudge the outcome of the review of Mr. Khadr's case in the context of the review of all Guantanamo Bay detainee cases. That was required by U.S. President Obama in his executive order of January 22, 2009.

These reviews will determine, among other things, whether detainees should be released or transferred from Guantanamo, or whether they should face prosecution and under which court system. These are matters for the U.S. administration to determine, in whose custody and under whose control Mr. Khadr currently finds himself.

That said, this government has always maintained that all proceedings against persons suspected of terrorist activities must be carried out in accordance with established standards of human rights and due process. The Department of Foreign Affairs has sent observers to all proceedings against Mr. Khadr in Guantanamo Bay and at the Court of Military Commission Review in Washington. We facilitated the appointment of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers as foreign attorney consultants in these proceedings and have consistently pressed for their access to their client.

Officials maintain a regular dialogue on all legal issues pertaining to Mr. Khadr's case, including with his defence team, with the prosecution and with U.S. authorities. Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs are currently following up on claims that Mr. Khadr's lead defence counsel has been prevented from meeting with his client.

Finally, Mr. Khadr's case has been discussed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence with their respective counterparts.

The government, as did previous governments, has sought and received assurances that Mr. Khadr was being treated humanely and has repeatedly inquired into his well-being when allegations surfaced that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had been mistreated or that his health was in any danger of being compromised.

Officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs have carried out regular welfare visits with Mr. Khadr, 15 or more at last count, and they will continue to do so. Reports from these visits were made available by Mr. Khadr's lawyers to the Subcommittee on International Human Rights after he waived his right to privacy on them. Members will be familiar with their contents.

The interventions of government officials have resulted, for example, in Mr. Khadr's move from a maximum security facility to a communal minimum security facility within Guantanamo Bay, in improved medical treatment, as well as in phone calls with his family. He is being provided regularly with reading material, as well as with items for his personal care and comfort. There is no doubt that the visits have been of assistance to him. Those visits will continue.

The government did not agree with the recommendations of the subcommittee's report when it was issued and it does not agree with them now. As the government members of the committee stated in their dissenting opinion to the report, our government believes that the opposition is approaching the case of Mr. Khadr in a way that downplays Mr. Khadr's alleged crimes and ties to terrorism, while framing the fact that the government has not repatriated him as a violation of Canadian laws.

As was also mentioned in the dissenting opinion, the government has serious concerns which were left unaddressed by the committee, especially with regard to the one-dimensional approach to the study and the limited scope of testimonies that upheld an interpretation of Mr. Khadr as victim.

We continue to believe that the allegations against Mr. Khadr are serious and should be treated as such. Undeniably, however, is the fact that the situation has changed considerably since the report of the committee was issued. As mentioned, there is now a review process in place pursuant to President Obama's stated intention to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. This process will determine whether or not the serious charges against Mr. Khadr will proceed before the military commission or another court, or how his case may be disposed of.

The trial of Mr. Khadr on those charges is at present stayed for 120 days, until May 20, 2009. The charges have not been dropped by the U.S. government. Mr. Khadr's case remains under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Government officials will follow the review process closely, and as is and has been the practice in cases involving Canadians detained abroad, will be in contact with U.S. authorities on the matter as necessary or as requested by them. However, this government will not second-guess, let alone dictate, the outcome of this case.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the rights of the Guantanamo prisoners as a whole were violated, including Omar Khadr's. The Court of Military Commission has been put into disrepute by that ruling.

How does the government rationalize the fact that Omar Khadr was indeed a child soldier of 15 years of age under the terms of the protocol Canada has signed onto at the United Nations?

We are not asking the government in any fashion to conclude on the guilt or innocence of Omar Khadr. Every other western nation has stood up for its citizens and asked for its particular prisoners to be repatriated to its country. Beyond that, none of the prisoners were child soldiers like Omar Khadr. One even has the mitigating circumstance of his age. Why will Canada not ask for him to be brought home and put before a Canadian court where we know there is a reputable system to decide this case?