Debates of March 12th, 2009

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member in the sense that in our country we are always innocent until proven to the contrary. The government could try to be accurate and get to the truth.

The government thinks that it knows the truth and seems to believe that courts of law are not there to do justice. In this case, we have a child, Mr. Khadr, who is imprisoned at Guantanamo and who has been abused. Such abuse violates international law, U.S. law and Canadian law.

The government wants to wait, but what is it waiting for? It is waiting for the United States to make the next move so that it can fall into line. We are a sovereign state, and Canada must fulfill its own obligations.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating, for at least a short while, a subcommittee report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

This is an issue that I think is going to have some consequential implications outside the immediate case of Omar Khadr. Right from the outset the government, with its dissenting opinion on this June 2008 report of the subcommittee, tips its hand to having determined that this Canadian citizen is guilty. There was a bias of guilt in the dissenting opinion.

There is a bias of guilt in what the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas) said earlier today, when he seemed to slough off some reference to cherubic innocence and how silly it is that it is a child soldier. It is not that he was a child combatant; it was cherubic innocence, that is no big deal.

There was a suggestion of bias with the parliamentary secretary and with the chair of that subcommittee in their commentary. Every time the parliamentary secretary spoke, he said that a medic died, so he should be there.

Suppose one were to take a black box and put a person in there, someone we did not know and someone we knew nothing about. If we then took the facts that a Canadian citizen who was 15 years of age at a time when the alleged incidents took place, who had been tortured while in custody in Guantanamo Bay, and who had been unable to see his lawyer--according to a news report in February, the Pentagon-appointed lawyer for Mr. Khadr had not been able to see his client--and started to lay out these facts in play, all of sudden we would see the presumption of guilt or the bias that is in the government. It is very clear. It is driven by references to a Muslim kid, relationships with al-Qaeda, his family connections and the fact that the former president decided to set up Guantanamo Bay to have all these prisoners there.

Did the government take into account that a number of the prisoners who were in Guantanamo Bay have already been repatriated to their countries of origin for prosecution? Other countries have done this. The government's position is that it does not support that. It will not defend Omar Khadr's rights. It will not protect him from the fact that he was subject to torture, a violation of international standards and law.

We have a Canadian citizen who was tortured while in custody. We have a Canadian citizen who has been denied the equivalent of the rights of due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada. When the foreign affairs minister met with his counterpart, according to this news report dated February 25, his position was, “We will wait until this process is completely completed”. That was said to his counterpart in the U.S, Hillary Clinton.

It is interesting that subsequent to the George W. Bush government, current President Barack Obama has taken some steps. He has taken some concrete steps. He is concerned about what has gone on. He is concerned about the consequences down the road. He is concerned about human rights. He is concerned about the rule of law being applied. He is concerned about dangerous precedents. He is concerned about continuing on for years and years with matters that can be dealt with outside the jurisdiction of the United States, because they have already done it.

One of his first acts was to make a promise that he would close down Guantanamo within a year. I believe the military commission and its proceedings have been suspended for a year. This is all winding down.

If we had taken anybody else and put them behind the curtain knowing nothing about the optics and nothing about matters that would not be relevant in a court, we would probably find that the members of the current governing party would support the repatriation of this Canadian citizen who was tortured and not given his charter rights of due process of law. Would anybody in this place actually argue against that? Would anybody in this place get up and say that they wanted to deny this Canadian citizen his charter rights? We have.

It is not a matter for waiting for a precedent. Many of the prisoners who were held in Guantanamo Bay have been repatriated, to be dealt with under the laws of the countries where they are citizens. Why is Canada not standing up for the rights of Mr. Khadr, not to defend or to speak about his guilt or innocence, which is for the courts to decide, but to speak up on behalf of the charter rights and the international obligations that we have with regard to the rights of the child? We are a part of those.

We have clear statements on the whole issue of torturing those who are in prison. The government members who have spoken--the Minister of State, the parliamentary secretary and the chair of the committee--said that if they had to do this all over again right now, they would not change their position one bit.

The first recommendation of the majority report said that the Government of Canada should demand the immediate termination of the military commission proceedings against Omar Khadr.

The chair of the committee rose in this place and said that they would not change their mind. They would disagree with this or have a dissenting opinion, and they would just let that process over there in the United States go until, as the foreign affairs minister said, it is “completely completed”. They do not want it. They want to let the Americans take care of it. They do not have to worry about a citizen of Canada. They do not have to worry about the fact that a citizen's rights have been violated. They do not have to worry about the fact that this person is not enjoying the due process of law that other persons from other countries enjoy.

Why is the government abandoning a Canadian citizen? That is the question. Why is it that the Minister of State spent half his speech making a case that the current position of the Conservative government is precisely the position of the Liberal government prior to 2006? That cannot be the case, for the simple reason that subsequent to that there have been Supreme Court decisions in Canada and the U.S., as well as a change of presidency and actions taken by President Obama.

The then Minister of Justice came back before this place to defend against that and to say it is not quite right. The member is trying to deflect blame, or share the blame, so that the focus will not be that the current government has abandoned a Canadian citizen and ignored his rights, will not defend his rights and will not advocate for his rights.

The leader of the official opposition had a very brief opportunity to meet with President Obama when he visited Canada. He raised the issue of Omar Khadr with President Obama on the basis of protecting human rights, and President Obama acknowledged it and would deal with it.

Did the Prime Minister raise it? The answer is no. It shows very clearly that the position of the Conservatives is not on behalf of the rights of Canadians.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize to my colleague from the Liberal Party because I did not catch all of his speech, so this question may be one that he has addressed.

It seems to me intrinsic to us as a sovereign nation to play a role in upholding international law and the protection that a child soldier should be accorded. We have championed that role around the globe. It is also a matter of upholding human rights generally, and the responsibility we have to do that for our citizens, no matter where they are.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on whether he saw the case the same way. If we had played the role we are supposed to play as a sovereign nation, following our responsibility to protect our citizens, and if we had done that right from the beginning, would there have been a different outcome?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can only speculate about what might have happened under the former American administration had the Canadian government taken those kinds of positions. We know very clearly where George W. Bush stood as president on these matters. None of the prisoners there would have been repatriated at all, I am pretty sure, under his regime.

However, the member is quite right. It is alarming to me that a minister of state, a parliamentary secretary and a chair of a committee dealing with this matter all parrot the same line in saying that there are serious charges and they must go forward.

They never once mention human rights. They never once mention the issue of a child soldier, a 15-year-old. They never once mention the fact that this Canadian citizen was tortured and that we should defend that Canadian citizen's rights.

The whole premise, even in the most recent interview that the foreign affairs minister gave, is that he is abdicating his responsibilities to Canadians here and Canadians abroad.

It is not just Omar Khadr. It is all Canadian citizens who find themselves alleged to have committed a crime. They could be imprisoned. They could be tortured. They could be denied their rights. The precedent that has been set now is that the foreign affairs minister says we are going to duck. We are not going to defend Canadian citizens abroad.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member laid out some very important principles about the role and responsibility of the Canadian government and Canadian society. The questioning from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who again reiterated the importance of our responsibilities under international law and our responsibilities to protect Canadian citizens abroad, does raise serious questions, not only in terms of what the government's position has been, but also in terms of the previous government, because we know that this has been a question about Mr. Khadr from day one. It has been raised in this House from day one, at least certainly by us in the NDP.

I wonder if the member would respond to that as well, because this has now been an issue over two different governments, and we have basically seen the same response, although I agree with the member that it is the principles about human rights and Canada's role in the international community that need to be upheld.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the one point I want to make with regard to the member's question is that there have been very significant developments since the Conservative government took over in 2006. We have had Supreme Court decisions, both in Canada and the U.S. We have had a change of administration. We have had certain other developments on repatriation, and things have changed so dramatically that I do not think I would compare the situation of a previous government back in 2005 to the situation today.

The member is quite right. The important thing is that the government has demonstrated that its commitment to protect Canadians abroad is not there and that it has no respect for international law regarding the protection of children under the treaty we are part of. It is a concern to me, and it should be alarming to Canadians, that a government has suddenly taken a position that someone is guilty until proven innocent.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen and as such, the Government of Canada has an interest in his case and in his treatment in the hands of U.S. authorities.

Since his capture by U.S. forces, the Canadian government has sought to ensure that the treatment of Mr. Khadr is consistent with internationally recognized norms and standards for the treatment of juveniles, and that his age at the time the alleged events occurred is considered in all parts of the process.

Canada has requested that Mr. Khadr be provided with an education suitable to his needs and level and that he receive an independent medical and psychological assessment. Furthermore, Mr. Khadr's case has been raised on several occasions at the ministerial level with U.S. authorities.

The Canadian government has received unequivocal assurances from U.S. authorities that Mr. Khadr will not be subject to the death penalty. Canada has also sought to ensure that Mr. Khadr receives the benefits of due process, including access to Canadian counsel of his choice. Canadian government observers have been present at every one of his hearings before the military commission in Guantanamo Bay and the Court of Military Commission Review in Washington, D.C.

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. Canadian officials maintain a regular dialogue on all legal issues pertaining to Mr. Khadr's case, including with his defence team. In fact, Canadian officials met with Mr. Khadr's defence team only a few weeks ago.

Omar Khadr was arrested in 2002 by U.S. forces in the context of his alleged involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan following his alleged recruitment and use as a combatant by al-Qaeda. He has been detained by the U.S., has remained under U.S. jurisdiction continuously since then, and is now facing serious charges pursuant to U.S. legislation. As the report notes, these charges include murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder in violation of the law of war, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism, and spying. These are serious charges raising difficult issues of law and fact.

The administration of justice in the U.S. and in Guantanamo is a matter for U.S. authorities and the U.S. court system. The judicial process for a Canadian who is arrested outside Canada is governed by the laws and regulations of another country and not by Canadian law.

The Government of Canada can neither protect Canadians from the consequences of their actions nor override the decisions of local authorities. We cannot seek preferential treatment for Canadian citizens or try to exempt them from due process.

Just as Canadians would not accept a foreign government interfering with the Canadian judicial process, the Government of Canada cannot interfere in the judicial affairs of another country. That being said, Canada strongly believes that the fight against terrorism must be carried out in compliance with international law, including established standards of human rights and due process.

The government is obviously aware of the executive orders issued by the President of the United States in respect of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Pursuant to the first of these orders, proceedings against Mr. Khadr before the military commission are presently halted. The prosecution's request for an adjournment of 120 days was granted by the military judge on January 21. However, this does not mean that he is no longer subject to the U.S. criminal justice system.

A review will now be held which will determine how the United States authorities deal with the case of each and every Guantanamo detainee, including Mr. Khadr. We are not in a position to predict the outcome of this review.

Canadian officials have carried out regular welfare visits with Mr. Khadr. The goal of these visits has been to assess his condition and provide him with a measure of support and comfort items during his ongoing incarceration. Through these visits we have sought to have Mr. Khadr's detention conditions improved and made requests for medical treatment and educational support.

Interventions by Canadian officials have resulted, for example, in Mr. Khadr's move from a maximum security facility to a communal minimum security facility within Guantanamo Bay and improved medical treatment. The Canadian government has also facilitated access to him by Canadian defence counsel and made arrangements for telephone calls between Mr. Khadr and his family.

These efforts will continue for as long as Mr. Khadr remains in U.S. custody. Canadian officials also maintain a regular dialogue with the U.S. authorities concerning his case.

I will conclude by saying that the Government of Canada takes seriously its responsibility for the safety and security of its citizens abroad. When Canadian citizens find themselves in a difficult situation in a foreign country, it is the mandate of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada to ensure they are treated fairly and that they are afforded due process under the applicable local laws.

However, the judicial process for a Canadian who is arrested outside Canada is governed by the laws and regulations of the other country and not by Canadian law. In this regard, the choice of how to try detainees currently being held in Guantanamo Bay is a matter for the relevant U.S. authorities to decide.

Canada will continue to follow all developments closely, including those that may specifically affect the disposition of Mr. Khadr's case.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor even though I am all the way over in this corner of the House.

I appreciate the comments by my good friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

Rather than dealing specifically with the report which is before him, and having had a bit of experience with this particular file, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could give this House an idea as to whether or not Canadian negotiations have been undertaken with the U.S. authorities for the repatriation at some stage down the road of Mr. Khadr.

I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary has suggested that this is an ongoing process. We know the troubles, and trying to follow this over the past couple of years has been very interesting, but it is extremely important that the House hear now any information the parliamentary secretary can refer to us as it relates to the ongoing negotiations as to how Mr. Khadr would be treated once, at some stage down the road, he is returned to Canada.

We know that the military commissions under presidential order were rejected. They had to be redone under the U.S. law so that Congress would proceed with them. Notwithstanding the vexing nature of this case, which of course deals with a young person who is a child combatant which is a violation of U.S. law, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can be very specific and very focused.

What negotiations, what talks, what undertakings is Canada now prepared to make to look after the welfare of this young man when he does return to Canada, which I believe for most people is inevitable?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I have already indicated, it is under the responsibility of other departments rather than those that I represent. What I can say is that while he has been in the custody of the American authorities, we have been dealing with them with respect to his medical treatment, education, psychological processes, ensuring that he gets proper legal representation from the authorities that is appropriate from this side, and other things, such as access to the telephone to contact his family.

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

Madam Speaker, what is very regrettable is that the Canadian government is hiding behind a very thin fig leaf of credibility in terms of how it has lived up to its obligations in setting a standard, and this is what we are talking about, setting an international standard.

We are dealing with someone who was, first of all, picked up as a child combatant, and second, exposed to torture and inhumane conditions. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, Canada has an obligation.

We have the rulings of the U.S. courts. We have the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada which has said that he has been held in abusive conditions. We have seen that our own consular officials failed in their fundamental duty which was to ensure that he was being protected. In fact from all the evidence we are seeing, they actually have been more participants in his interrogation. That is a complete failure of leadership. It puts Canada unfortunately in a grim, small group of countries that has turned a blind eye to the use of torture and abusive techniques.

I have not seen anything from the government today which would say that it even recognizes what happened at Guantanamo. The U.S. courts were ruled to be a kangaroo system. The Canadian government failed in its fundamental obligations, regardless of the innocence or the guilt of Mr. Khadr, and the consular officials failed in ensuring that he was protected from abusive conditions when it was known that he was a child soldier when he was taken captive.

I would like to hear a very clear denunciation from the government that it would not accept any regime, allied or enemy, that is involved in torture and abuse of prisoners.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat typical of my friend to call the American system a kangaroo court. I think most Canadians would be offended by that suggestion. We have taken a great deal of effort to make certain that Mr. Khadr does receive due process of law.

He is in a foreign country. He is not in Canada. I think that we have done yeoman's duty to ensure those things since we took power only three years ago. Mr. Khadr has been in American custody since 2002, as has been mentioned several times.

With all due respect to my hon. colleague, he needs to respect the justice system in other countries, particularly that of our neighbours to the south.

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

Madam Speaker, we were obviously looking for a much clearer statement from the government about its international obligations. We are not talking just about working to establish appropriate standards around the world, but honouring current international human rights declarations.

The arguments on our side have strictly been around such reputable standards as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights of Freedoms. Both documents clearly require governments to adhere to a certain set of standards with respect to children in the kind of situation in which Omar Khadr found himself.

What exactly is the position of the government in terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Does it respect and honour that convention, yes or no?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I have already indicated, the matter is being dealt with by the proper authorities. At this point it is the U.S. government. He is in that country's custody.

There are a multitude of issues that others in particular on the other side have raised. Courts have looked at those issues, including the American courts. They continue to look at them.

I believe the American system of justice is purely that. It is a system of justice. It is appropriate. At this point it is the system that Mr. Khadr faces.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it very disturbing that we have not heard a very clear answer from the member as to whether or not he believes his government should support the international protocols on torture. He is trying to portray Guantanamo Bay as a legitimate legal system when it has been proven time and time again that it has not met any of the basic legal requirements set out by any international standards. It has been rejected by the U.S. courts and the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

Does the member think that his government can act outside the protocols of the international standards for torture? Does he think that the government can act outside the protocols of the Supreme Court? What is the government's position on Canadian citizens who are being tortured for information abroad? Where does it stand?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, we respect the international law with respect to torture. We also respect the law of foreign countries such as the United States where Mr. Khadr man is.

Those issues the member has raised will be dealt with by the court authorities in that foreign jurisdiction.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be more focused in my question for the hon. parliamentary secretary, my good friend from Oxford.

Understanding how a number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay have returned to their countries of origin as a result of undertakings and agreements with respect to prosecution in their own countries, could the hon. parliamentary secretary be very specific as to what negotiations are taking place currently and have taken place with the new Obama administration in order to ensure a timely and successful repatriation of Mr. Khadr? Can he elaborate on that? We are not talking about the past; I want to talk about what the government is doing presently as a means of achieving Mr. Khadr's return in the not too distant future.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I think I have already indicated that it is not within the area of the ministry that I represent. I do not know what has gone on with respect to those discussions. I simply cannot answer the member's question.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, recognizing the time, I will be drawing this debate to a close over the next 10 minutes. I want to cover some very specific points and perhaps summarize some of the positions on both sides of the House.

The first position that the Canadian government, both the current one and the previous one, should have taken is a fundamental one, that we have, as an absolute first responsibility, the responsibility to protect our citizens. That is the social contract under which all democracies function. It is the absolute fundamental principle on which we operate. We have no right being here if we do not believe that and do not follow through on that in all the opportunities we are given.

We have failed so far with regard to Omar Khadr. We have not carried out our responsibility, both this administration and the previous one.

The international law is clear, our domestic law is clear, and so is the domestic law of the United States of America. Guantanamo Bay breaches all three of those legal regimes. That has been found by the Supreme Court in the United States and by the Supreme Court in Canada. This is not something that is debatable anymore.

That is the point that is being missed by the current administration. They seem to think they can ignore those findings of fact and that determination of law that the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States have made.

Those principles of law have been recognized by every western democracy in the world. Every western democracy in the world that had their citizens at Guantanamo Bay got them out a long time ago.

We are the only western democracy that had a child soldier at Guantanamo. We are the only western democracy that has done absolutely nothing to get its citizen out of what was a centre for torture and a gross misapplication of legal principles that have guided both the U.S. system and the Canadian system for centuries.

We could have used habeas corpus. That goes back hundreds and hundreds of years in our legal system, but they have breached that repeatedly. It is well recognized, yet we sit here today debating and hearing from the government side that somehow that system is a just system.

We just heard it a minute ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, who stood in the House, as has been done so often, hundreds of times by this point, and said that is a just system. When every court that the government is supposed to pay attention to has found just the opposite, it continues to maintain that position.

As I stood to speak, I could not help but think that I spoke on this same concurrence motion in the last Parliament, which was thwarted by a technical manoeuvre by the government at that time to come to a vote. I invited the Conservatives at that time to get some courage and challenge the Bush administration and say to them, “We are going to protect our citizens and you have to repatriate him. We will deal with him. There are criminal proceedings that have to be taken against him. We will deal with him here in Canada.”

They know they can do that. They have any number of opinions that tell them they can do it. What did they do? They ducked the issue by avoiding the vote that particular day.

The situation remains the same today. They still have one more opportunity to do what they are supposed to do, protect a Canadian citizen.

There is a whole other dimension around this issue beyond this individual case of Mr. Khadr. At any given time, when citizens of Canada are in custody in other countries, Canada has historically said to those other countries: These are the circumstances; they should be repatriated; Canada will take them back. Canada has done that in a number of different ways over its more than one century of history.

Because of the type of conduct we have seen with regard to the Khadr case and in several other ways under this administration, the credibility that Canada has built and maintained up to this point with other countries, that it will go to the nth degree to protect its citizens, has been eroded.

I cannot think of how many times I have had international delegations inside or outside Canada ask me what our government is doing. They say Canada was a leading advocate for the international protocols and treaties around child soldiers, but when we are faced with it in regard to one of our own citizens, we abandon him; we abdicate our responsibility to advocate the policies contained in those international protocols.

So Canada's credibility is being eroded internationally. It will take some rebuilding. This motion today is one of the steps to do that. It is the opportunity for a majority of the House of Commons to say both to the government and to the U.S. administration that Omar Khadr should be repatriated. Canada will deal with him here, in cooperation, probably, with U.S. authorities, but he should be repatriated.

If Omar Khadr is repatriated and Canada is going to deal with him in the criminal justice system, it will apply the international protocol with regard to child soldiers.

Canada will recognize the evidence that has been gathered by the U.S. Was it gathered under torture? All the evidence seems to say yes. Some of the people who worked at Guantanamo are coming forward now publicly. They knew Mr. Khadr while they were there with him and are saying yes, he was mistreated to the point of torture.

Canada will take that into account. We will apply the values and standards built under both the British and the French systems that are incorporated into Canada's legal system now. That is what we should be doing, not standing in the House day after day repeating this mantra that nobody else in the world believes.

The world does not believe that Guantanamo and the military commissions set up there are a just system. Nobody in the world believes that, except perhaps the Conservative Party, the government of the day.

When Australia had an individual who was charged with a serious crime, it arranged to have him repatriated.

I want to take issue with a colleague from the Liberals. When I asked the hon. member about this, he said that with the former Bush administration Canada could not have done this. I do not except that.

Britain, France, Germany, and Australia got their people out. Did Canada? No, because it did not make any attempt to get Omar Khadr out. So he still sits there, languishing.

We do not know what the outcome is going to be. However, the outcome of this motion today is at least a message that a majority of parliamentarians in Canada are saying to both the government of the day and the administration in the U.S. that in fact we want Omar Khadr repatriated. Canada commits to the U.S., as is in the report, that it will deal with him and prosecute him if that is appropriate. Canada will prosecute him according to international and Canadian law.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.