Debates of March 12th, 2009

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for this debate today. Of course I have discussed this issue with him on many occasions when he has put forward a question on the late show. He is very well aware of the position of this government in reference to Mr. Omar Khadr. Basically our position has not changed.

Today he has been talking about many issues. He talked about Canada's reputation on the Security Council, where I will be going shortly to campaign as well.

I would like to remind my hon. colleague about something. A couple of years ago I was in Burundi, where I met with child soldiers. When I talked to those young people, the most important issue that came out as to why they were child soldiers was economic reasons. They were living in dire poverty and their economic conditions were the main reason they were recruited. They were promised a house and other things.

Through multilateral institutions such as the UN, and I must tell this to viewers who are listening, Canada is at the forefront regarding child soldiers who have been sucked into the war in Africa for reasons which are economic.

Mr. Speaker, you are rising, but I thought it was 10 minutes for questions and answers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 10 minutes for questions and comments, but there are several members who expressed an interest in asking a question. The parliamentary secretary has already used up two minutes. If I allow a two minute response, that is four minutes, so if he could wrap up in the next few seconds, we could have a response and some other members could participate in the questions and comments period.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, Canada is at the forefront of working for child soldiers around the world who have been sucked into wars for economic reasons. We are doing what we can and we stand at the forefront of it.

In this particular instance, a medic has died. These are serious charges, as I stated, and we should not be comparing that situation here.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his views. I agree with him that Canada has been a leader in certain situations, for example, landmines. As for child soldiers, in many files, we have shown leadership.

Our current behaviour is spoiling a large part of these efforts and our international reputation. There is a flagrant contradiction between the Canadian government's approach—I would even say the approach of the Quebec and Canadian public—and the case of Omar Khadr.

My colleague said earlier that he has met child soldiers and that the primary reason they become child soldiers was economics. He is repeating the Prime Minister's faulty interpretation. It is not our place to analyze why Omar Khadr became a child soldier. He is a child soldier. From the moment we say that he is a child soldier, he should be treated as one. The federal government should not consider the severity of his crimes or the context in which they were committed—it should simply recognize his status as a child soldier.

From that point on, he would receive fair treatment. However, he will only get fair treatment once the Conservative government recognizes Mr. Khadr's status as a child soldier and repatriates him. Thus, we can rebuild our international reputation concerning this particular aspect, since the Conservative government's stubbornness has damaged this reputation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his insight. He approaches the issue in a way which I think is reflective of the majority position of the committee. There was a dissenting report by the government members.

I do not know whether the member heard the final comment of the parliamentary secretary, but he made a fleeting reference that a medic has died and charges have been laid.

It raises yet again the concern about whether or not the government gets it, that under Canadian law and under the charter, we have the right to due process. The commentary from the minister of state earlier and now from the parliamentary secretary, and from the dissenting opinion in the subcommittee report, tends to indicate that the government's position as a starting position is that one is guilty until proven innocent.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether or not he has detected a bias here which is inconsistent either with the charter principles or with the protocol on the rights of children.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, we live in a country that is the product of English criminal law. We have the Civil Code in Quebec. One long-held basic principle is that when someone is arrested, they must be charged as soon as possible and they cannot be detained if authorities cannot demonstrate a reasonable motive for detaining them.

In this case, when the Guantanamo facility was initially created because of the emergency situation, people sat back and watched, but months and years have since passed. Several years went by without any charges. Then a process was put in place. That process has now been suspended. The Canadian government's responsibility in that regard is not to say whether the American approach was good or bad. However, the fact is a Canadian citizen was caught up in this process, a child soldier who could have had his rights restored if the government had asked that he be repatriated from the beginning, so he could have defended his rights and assumed his responsibilities. In that sense, the Conservative government definitely went against everything that we regard as common practice.

There is a parallel of sorts between this situation and the federal government's refusal to defend a man sentenced to death in the United States. The death penalty has been abolished here and the Conservative government says it depends whether the individual was sentenced in a democracy or in a country that is not considered democratic, where it is unacceptable. The same is true for this case. The law must apply to everyone exactly the same way. I think that is important.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc member in particular for raising a point about Canada's human rights record. I also want to thank the Bloc members for their participation at the committee. Recently there was a United Nations working group periodic review on Canada's human rights record, which spoke to the fact that Canada avoided its responsibility to sign on to the optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Like the hon. member from the Bloc, I am very concerned about Canada's reputation.

The subcommittee came up with recommendations which went to the foreign affairs and international trade committee not once but twice, and were brought back to the House. One hears the staunch defence of the government position day in and day out in the House, and as alluded to before, it comes to the point that the very serious charges almost imply there is guilt.

There are many people across Canada who have very serious charges filed against them and are ultimately proven innocent by our justice system. The system of military commissions in the United States has been ruled to be unconstitutional and as violating the rights of the prisoners. One would think a government that wanted a reputation of defending human rights would bring Omar Khadr home to a court system that does have the proper reputation.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of human rights, this case poses a serious challenge to Canada's reputation even though in several other files we have conducted ourselves appropriately.

I would nevertheless like to state that, at the end of the day, we are talking about a human being whose rights have been violated. In our society, we have in the past worked to equip ourselves with the tools, such as the charters and other mechanisms, to protect these rights. In this case—I should have added this to my response earlier—we are faced with a situation where there is a reversal of the onus of proof. It is as though we were saying that he is guilty even before he is convicted.

The Conservatives' approach must be corrected. I believe the House will give a very clear message reflecting the views of Quebec and Canadian citizens, namely that Omar Khadr should be brought back to Canada because his rights as a Canadian citizen must be respected.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the concurrence motion moved by the NDP and also to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which deals with the subject of Omar Khadr.

Let me be very clear from the very beginning. The government did not agree with the recommendation of the subcommittee's report when it was issued, and it does not agree with them today. Mr. Khadr faces serious charges and we believe the approach taken by the opposition downplays the alleged crimes committed by Mr. Khadr, besides the terrorism.

I will be splitting my time today, Madam Speaker, with the member for Calgary East, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The NDP brought forward the motion in regard to Mr. Khadr and in regard to terrorism. It is consistent with the NDP and with the Bloc. They have been asking for repeal and for Mr. Khadr to come home for a long time now. It is very consistent, I believe, with their approach to terrorism and to organized crime.

I believe the motion has been brought forward to prevent our government from coming forward with its anti-crime bill. The motion was brought forward on this day specifically, in spite of the fact that we are trying to bring forward justice bills to deal with the wave of crime we are seeing in British Columbia. They chose this day to bring forward a motion that could be debated any day in the House. To be very clear, there is consistency among the opposition parties.

As all members of the House are undoubtedly aware, in 2002 Omar Khadr was arrested by the United States 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.

Although there have been recent developments in the United States regarding Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Khadr continues to face charges pursuant to U.S. legislation. As such, it is up to the United States authorities to make determinations regarding the administration of justice in the United States as related to individuals within its jurisdiction. As Mr. Khadr was, and remains today, in U.S. control, it is up to the United States to make determinations regarding certain dispositions of this case.

There have been significant developments since the subcommittee on human rights brought forward its report. We have a new president in the United States. President Obama has also issued executive orders related to Guantanamo Bay detainees. Those orders are reflective of the fact that the new United States administration is actively engaged with examining issues related to Guantanamo Bay and the cases of those individuals who are being held in Guantanamo. Indeed, the issuance of the orders is indicative of the importance being given to exploring possible ways to move forward in addressing these related issues.

For that reason, it is imperative that this process be allowed to run its course and that Canada not speculate on hypothetical scenarios in this regard. Rather we are closely monitoring all developments in Mr. Khadr's case and stand ready to receive information from the United States when a review of his file has been completed. Until such time as that has been done, it is simply premature and speculative to address requests for Mr. Khadr's repatriation.

President Obama has ordered that the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay be closed as soon as practicable and no later than one year. A review of the status of each and every individual detained in Guantanamo has commenced and a review is being conducted to determine whether detainees should return to their own home, or be released, or transferred to a third country or prosecuted before a court established pursuant to article 3 of the United States Constitution.

It is important to be clear on the effect of the relevant executive order. It does not mean that Mr. Khadr is no longer subject to the United States criminal justice system. Although proceedings against Mr. Khadr before the military commission are presently halted, given the prosecution's request for an adjournment of 120 days was granted by the military judge on January 21, a review must now be undertaken. This will determine how the United States authorities will 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. It is a United States review.

The Canadian government was, however, very instrumental in ensuring that Mr. Khadr would not be subject to the death penalty and, indeed, the result are the charges brought forward against Mr. Khadr have been on a non-capital basis. Canada has also sought to ensure that Mr. Khadr receives the benefit of due process, including access to Canadian counsel of his choice. Further, Mr. Khadr's case has been raised on several occasions at the ministerial level with the U.S. authorities.

Canadian officials 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., as well as for all court appearances related to his habeas application in Washington. Departmental officials have also been in regular contact with both Mr. Khadr's defence counsel and prosecutors in this case. As indicated, we will continue to make ourselves available for any further discussions.

Regular ongoing welfare visits have been carried out by Canadian officials in Guantanamo Bay. Just because the military commission process has been halted, does not mean that welfare visits will be halted. It does not mean that no longer will he be given proper attention. Canadians officials have carried out regular 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. Through these visits, we have sought to have Mr. Khadr's detention conditions improved and have made requests for medical treatment and educational support.

Interventions by Canadian officials have resulted in Mr. Khadr's move from a maximum security facility at Guantanamo to a communal minimum security facility within Guantanamo Bay. It has also meant that Omar Khadr, because of Canadian intervention, has been given very much improved medical treatment.

The Canadian government has also facilitated access to him by Canadian defence counsel. We have made arrangements for telephone calls between Mr. Khadr and his family, indeed he has been in touch with his family. He has been able to communicate with his family. These efforts will continue. We will continue for as long as Mr. Khadr remains in U.S. security, advocating for his well-being and making certain that it is a priority.

We take very seriously our responsibility for the safety and security of Canadians. However, we do not control judicial processes outside our borders. Our government is acting responsibly. We are acting prudently in allowing the United States to make decisions regarding the way forward vis-a-vis Guantanamo Bay. Canada will address decisions that are made in that process once they have been taken.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to the member for Crowfoot who repudiates the report of the committee.

The recommendations are very clear. The committee recommends that the Government of Canada demand Omar Khadr's release from U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay to the custody of Canadian law enforcement officials as soon as practicable. It calls on the director of public prosecutions to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute Omar Khadr for offences under Canadian law. It calls on the Government of Canada take such measures as are necessary to ensure that possibility security concerns are appropriately and adequately addressed upon the repatriation of Omar Khadr.

The recommendations go on. These are responsible, forthright recommendations. No doubt Canadians believe they would reinforce Canadian values.

The member raises a number of red herrings that have nothing to do with the case. In this situation, the Canadian government has not intervened, yet a child soldier has now spent seven years in Guantanamo Bay.

The question that arises following his intervention, as with other interventions from the Conservative side, is this. Given that we have a responsible committee report, which obviously receives the support of the majority of members in the House of Commons, why has the government not acted? Why has the government refused any sort of responsible approach in this matter? Why has it allowed this child soldier, without due process, to languish for seven years—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I note that although the report was filed by the subcommittee on human rights, there was a dissenting report. It was not a unanimous report.

Let us all understand the dynamics of a minority government. The makeup of committees is similar. I note that in the dissenting opinion provided by the subcommittee on human rights, members very much believed that there was a disconnect when it came to many of the witnesses who were called. There were a lot of difficulties that came out of that study. However, the numbers in the subcommittee are reflective of the numbers in the House. The opposition was out numbered.

As a government, we did not accept that report. We do not accept it today. We believe there were many obvious holes in that report and our dissenting report tried to make that clear.

Let me quote from the dissenting report. It states, “Mr. Khadr could become a litmus test on Canada’s commitment to impeding global terrorism and the results of our actions today”.

We do not, in any way, prejudge Mr. Khadr's innocence or guilt. In fact, he is viewed as being innocent until proven guilty. Our frustration is that he is presently under the jurisdiction of the United States. President Obama has been clear that there will be an ongoing review of this case. We will honour that jurisdiction and we will wait for that review to be completed.

We will, in the meantime, continue to intervene on behalf of Mr. Khadr. We will continue to be certain that his health issues are addressed, that his ability to communicate with family is addressed, that every aspect is addressed. Indeed, it has already made a difference, which is evident by his transfer from maximum security to more minimal communal security in Guantanamo.

It should not be a surprise to the member. We do not accept the subcommittee's report on the repatriation of Omar Khadr.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, once again, I am rising on this topic to which I have spoken on many occasions. The minister of state has quite clearly pointed out our position and my colleague for Crowfoot has quite eloquently said exactly what this government has done and will continue doing for Mr. Omar Khadr. This government is doing what it is expected to do. It is providing counsellor services and ensuring Mr. Khadr's rights are protected, and we will continue to do that.

I heard the former minister of justice say that he was concerned about this issue. I heard former Liberal government members, including the former foreign minister and the former leader of the Liberal Party, say that they would have done something different. i want to remind Canadians that these are very serious statements being made by leading members of the former government. They are now saying that they actually made a mistake. I thought that, as members of the government, they were acting responsibly with all the information they had. For them to stand today and say that they think they were wrong at that given time, Canadians should be worried as to what that government was doing when it was in power, especially when they are now changing their decisions and saying that they made a mistake.

I will now go back to Mr. Omar Khadr. At that given time, when Mr. Omar Khadr was captured, he faced serious charges and was taken to Guantanamo Bay. The former minister of justice knew about it and had all the information on his table. He now says that he is sorry and that he had apprehension. If he had apprehension then, he should have taken action. He should not have come here today telling the Conservative government that it is responsible for it. They should take responsibility. They should stand up for what they now say is their mistake on Mr. Omar Khadr. Nothing has changed on the point they are raising today. Mr. Omar Khadr's age at the time of his capture has not changed. What he was captured for and the serious charges he was given are the same. Everything remains the same.

However, let us move forward and come now to this point, which surprises me. The subcommittee report recommendations put forward by the former coalition members concern a time when there was a different administration in the U.S.A. Today, there is a different administration. Things have moved forward. President Obama has said that he will review the case. They stand and say that they like what Mr. Obama is doing, what is happening at Guantanamo Bay and the fact that it is closed and under review. Well, then, what is the problem? He said that within six months he would be reviewing all the cases, including Mr. Omar Khadr's case. What is the problem?

I would venture to say that the report of the subcommittee that has been put forward in this Parliament is actually obsolete because the review of all cases, including Omar Khadr's case, have moved forward. I would suggest that the opposition, which has been raising all these questions, wait to see what comes out of this review. We must not forget about the victims. We always seem to forget about the victims. A medic who had a family was killed. We need to put all these things into context. Why do the members on the other side not talk about the victim who died in this unfortunate incident?

As I have said, the opposition members have been raising issues here about child soldiers and Canada's human rights record. As I stated in my intervention with the Bloc, I was in Burundi where I met child soldiers and looked into their eyes. I can tell members that the reason those guys were child soldiers was economic. It was not a war on terrorism. What we are facing out here was not based on ideology.

I know we keep saying that Mr. Omar Khadr faces serious charges but the fact is that they are serious charges. We now have a process where everything will be under review, so what is the problem? We should let them review.

Sitting next to me is the former minister of foreign affairs who was also very active on the files dealing with child soldiers and also very active in ensuring Canada's human rights records were respected. We have respect around the world.

I just want to say that just because Mr. Omar Khadr is facing serious charges and the process is going on, that does not punish the reputation of Canada. Canada stands very strong in the belief of the rule of law. In this case, again we are following the rule of law. This was a citizen of the United States of America who died. I want to remind everyone here that it was not a Canadian citizen who died. It was an American citizen who dies , which is why Mr. Khadr was caught by the American forces. The process is going on and we should allow that process to continue. Within six months, we will know if the Americans want to go ahead with this process. If they do not want to go ahead with this process, at that given time the Government of Canada will look at all the facts and make the decision.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member referred to me personally saying that I knew of the brutality in detention at the time of Mr. Khadr. I said specifically in my remarks that the brutality in detention became known afterwards. I said that I knew the nature of Guantanamo Bay at the time and, with respect to Guantanamo Bay, I said that was reason enough for us to look at the situation in a manner that perhaps at the time would have warranted a different approach.

This needs to be clarified as well. I said that the former prime minister of the government in which I served said that in retrospect maybe we erred because all the things that have emerged since we were no longer the government, which the government of the day refuses to acknowledge, even in this statement now. We have two supreme court decisions, one in the United States and the other in Canada, all the evidence with regard to brutality in detention; the Military Commissions Act; the military commissions tribunal, and I can go on. All this occurred under the present government's watch.

The government should take responsibility rather than try to defer it to somebody else.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I believe the hon. member has clarified his position but I do not believe it is a point of order. I think it is the subject of this debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's statement.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, i will repeat what the former justice minister just said. He said that he thought his government erred in its position, which is the cause for concern we have in retrospect. It causes us concern because when the member's government had all the information, it still erred.

On this side of the House we are saying that we are taking full responsibility, which is very simple. We are waiting for President Obama's commission to come forward and make the decision and then the Government of Canada will act accordingly.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question with regard to our overall relations with the United States.

As vice-chair of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association and living on the border, I can tell the House that I have a lot of American friends and colleagues, whether they be elected officials or just ordinary citizens who are perplexed by Canada's decision in this case, as well raising concerns, not only with regard to civil liberties, but also to the fact that we seem to be doing something completely different, and we are doing something different, than other countries and western democracies. It is important to note that it is eroding Canada's reputation as acting responsibly.

Those questions are becoming louder and louder from Americans. They are wondering where Canada is with regard to this issue. The parliamentary secretary should be aware of the discourse that is happening. As well, the policies of the Prime Minister have been hurting our regular relations with U.S. citizens and other elected officials who have really disagreed with Canada's position.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, this government will do what is best for Canadians and what we feel is right. It will not be based on what other governments do. We have stated quite clearly that we believe in the rule of law.

As to the member's statement about the Americans being worried about this, the member should wait until the new president's commission has said what it will do. We have a change in the United States, so we should wait and in six month's time we will see what the commission will do. That should be the prudent approach. As far as what other countries are doing, we will do what is in the best interests of our country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is ceding our sovereignty to the United States with regard to leadership on this issue. President Obama has moved forward with his own strategy to deal with the situation, which really should require Canada to act sooner rather than later. To simply put this into another era of speculation is not acceptable.

Other countries have shown leadership in dealing with the situation. We know Guantanamo Bay's reputation. I can tell the House that living on the border where 40% of our trade goes to the United States daily and also having access to American discourse in their media and the general public on a regular basis, they understand how bad the situation is at that facility from its reputation and just find the situation unacceptable, which is what compelled the president to move in that direction. What is not acceptable is Canada continuing to be part of a process that is absent of leadership, and that is hurting our relationship with the United States. It is in the best interests of Canada to show leadership on this issue.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member again for coming back with the same question but nothing has changed. My answer remains the same. I would remind him that only last week, in the court cases taking place in the U.S.A., the four people who were responsible for 9/11, stood and proudly said that they were responsible for killing over 3,000 innocent people on September 11 and that they would continue to do so. I would remind the member that those are the people who are at Guantanamo Bay. We should be very careful when we start saying that the terrorists at Guantanamo should be given rights. Terrorists, as they said, are terrorists, and we will continue to fight them.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

I would like to start by outlining a few facts. Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen born in September 1986, was captured by U.S. forces near Khost, Afghanistan, in July 2002, following a battle between U.S. forces and insurgents which resulted in the deaths of U.S. Army Sergeant Christopher Speer and two Pashto interpreters. Omar Khadr was seriously injured in the battle and was transferred to the military base at Bagram in Afghanistan, where he was detained until October 2002. He was then transferred to Camp Delta, a U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has since been detained.

In April 2007, charges were laid against Mr. Khadr and forwarded to the U.S. military commission. These charges are very serious: murder in violation of the law of war; attempted murder in violation of the law of war through the conversion of land mines into improvised explosive devices and planting these explosive devices in the ground in order to kill U.S. or coalition soldiers; conspiracy, through wilfully joining al-Qaeda; providing material support for terrorism, through training.

But Omar Khadr was 15 when the acts of which he is accused were committed, and he was captured and imprisoned. Since his capture, he has been held in facilities for adults, first at the Bagram air base, then in Guantanamo. He was not sent to Camp Iguana, a detention facility for adolescents, when he was transferred to Guantanamo.

The subcommittee heard several witnesses express concern about whether Mr. Khadr's detention, the case against him, and his trial before a military commission complied with accepted international human rights standards, particularly the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, the optional protocol signed and ratified by both Canada and the United States.

In respect of children engaged in armed conflict, the subcommittee emphasized the fact that the UN international Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada signed and ratified and the United States signed but did not ratify, states that “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years”. It also states that:

Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity [...] 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

The international Convention on the Rights of the Child also provides that:

States Parties shall ensure that:

(a) 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;

In the preamble to the optional protocol, state parties say the following:

Convinced that an optional protocol to the Convention that raises the age of possible recruitment of persons into armed forces and their participation in hostilities will contribute effectively to the implementation of the principle that the best interests of the child are to be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children—

Although it does not strictly prohibit participation in hostilities by soldiers between 15 and 18 years of age who have been voluntarily recruited into national armed forces, the optional protocol does provide that:

Armed groups that are 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.

The optional protocol does not prohibit trying children for crimes they allegedly committed while involved in armed conflicts. However, it does provide that:

States Parties shall cooperate in the implementation of the present Protocol, including in the prevention of any activity contrary thereto and in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons who are victims of acts contrary thereto, including through technical cooperation and financial assistance.

In addition, in the UNICEF guidelines on children associated with armed forces or armed groups, which Canada agreed to in 2007, we read that:

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 [disarmament, demobilization et reinsertion] processes.

In light of the fact that Canada has always played an international leadership role in protecting children involved in armed conflicts, a role that has included negotiating the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, and in light of the specific commitments made by Canada and the United States in ratifying the optional protocol, the information available on Omar Khadr's recruitment by a group linked to al-Qaeda and the fact that he was 15 when he allegedly engaged in combat and was captured and originally detained, the subcommittee is of the opinion that Mr. Khadr should be considered “a child involved in armed conflict” and therefore should enjoy the protection set out in the optional protocol.

In addition, the subcommittee notes that Mr. Khadr is the only citizen of a western country still in detention in Guantanamo Bay and that all nationals of other western countries have been repatriated. Many of these were subsequently detained and/or tried in their home countries in accordance with applicable domestic laws. In some cases, former detainees were subjected to national security measures, including being placed under surveillance or being refused travel documents.

Finally, the subcommittee notes that under Canadian law, Canadian courts can exercise jurisdiction in relation to certain crimes committed abroad, including offences created under the anti-terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code and under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.

I will finish with a statement from my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who said:

By allowing the Americans to decide whether or not to repatriate Mr. Khadr, the Prime Minister has shown an appalling failure to live up to his responsibilities towards citizens holding a Canadian passport.

The government was wrong to continue, inexplicably, to say that it was “premature” to talk about repatriating Mr. Khadr, even after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that detainees like him had been denied their right to a full and fair trial, even after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the practices at Guantanamo were in contravention of international law, even after proof of “enhanced interrogation” and violence in detention surfaced, and even after we knew with certainty that the new American government would close Guantanamo.

That is why the subcommittee's recommendations from June 2008 still hold today.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, in connection with this extremely important debate about repatriating Omar Khadr, I remembered a poem written by Alexandre Belliard and included in his collection entitled You run after pigeons. The poem, which I will read, is entitled The stranger was still hungry.with death
hatred is passed on
through mothers' milk
children are churned out
with bombs in their chests
the calling is strong
it destroys all that they are to exist
they have long been passing away
it is starting to show

I have a very simple question for the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. Does he not think it is our duty as parliamentarians to make sure that children can be children and that we have the same concern for children everywhere?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague, particularly for reading his wonderful poem.

I agree with my colleague's position for the simple reason that a child is a child. He was a 15-year-old child living in a country like Pakistan.

In Pakistan, there is a hierarchy that gives parents the right to determine whether their children live or die. We do things differently in Canada, North America and Europe.

In many cases, children may commit terrible acts simply because they are obeying their parents. That is why we have the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that is why Canada supports the protocol and why the government should too.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a short comment to correct the record. Earlier, the hon. member for Crowfoot said that the NDP moved this motion to somehow delay other debates. In fact, we are not opposing debate in the House, we are generating debate. We delayed moving concurrence in this report while the House was addressing Bill C-10. We were very responsible. However, this is a particularly important issue.

I listened to the hon. member for Calgary East go on about terrorists. The type of discussion that is happening here leads one to wonder how many members of the government have decided that Omar Khadr is in fact guilty.

I want to thank the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for his intervention. The critical importance of this debate is the fact that we are shining light on a turn the government has made, which seemingly puts the government in the position of making decisions around guilt or innocence.

We have heard from Bloc members and others talk about the case in Colorado of Mr. Smith, who was sentenced to death, and the government chose not to intervene. There is something very wrong happening in our country.