Debates of March 12th, 2009

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition's attempt to portray Omar Khadr as a cherubic innocent is both premature and misdirected. The opposition deliberately ignores the reality that around the world and indeed here in Canada, individuals defined as children are capable of horrendous acts that deserve prosecution in adult courts.

With regard to the decision by the President of the United States to appoint a high-level task force of officials to consider the case, in the 120 days designated for that ruling, the Government of Canada will await its decision.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a presumption of innocence under the laws of Canada. I must admit I am somewhat disturbed and alarmed that the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas would make reference to someone's cherubic innocence.

The intent of the statement is unclear, but it certainly would be very inappropriate for a minister of the Crown to make any statements that would indicate other than the principle within the laws of Canada of innocence until proven guilty.

It is extremely important for the minister to set the record straight now in this place to ensure that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is the position of the Government of Canada.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is. I was referring to the opposition's attempt to mischaracterize and portray the innocence or guilt of Mr. Khadr. Indeed he does deserve his day in court.

I would remind the hon. member that of the almost 300 prisoners still in detention at Guantanamo Bay, only six are charged with serious crimes, five of them in connection with terrorist activities on 9/11, and one of them, Omar Khadr, charged with the list of offences I presented here today, of 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.

The Government of Canada awaits the decision of the presidential task force on how or where the charges against Mr. Khadr should be addressed.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was very surprised at the comments by the minister of state, because very clearly the issue the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek put before the House and put to the minister is why will the government not allow this Canadian citizen to come back to Canada to go through the due process of a trial of defence and prosecution? That was the question.

I find it quite astounding that the minister would completely misrepresent what is being put forward here and suggest that the member was somehow jumping to conclusions. It seems to me that the government itself is jumping to conclusions

It really begs the question again, why will the government not go through due process and allow this Canadian citizen to return to Canada to stand the test of a trial here in Canada? What is wrong with that proposition? Why is it so intent on this course of denying justice, not doing anything and keeping this individual in a situation that is completely untenable?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada does indeed believe in due process. There are no charges against Mr. Khadr in Canada but there are in fact outstanding charges and his case is before a U.S. court. We will await the decision of the presidential task force on how to proceed.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to comments made that Mr. Khadr stands out as one of 300 detainees in Guantanamo because of the nature of the charges against him. In fact he stands out for another reason as well. He is the sole detainee among 300 who was a child when he was arrested.

I have two questions for the minister of state. Does he or does he not agree that Omar Khadr was a child when he was detained? Does the government subscribe to its international obligations that we as a country signed onto, as they pertain to child soldiers?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government's position on Mr. Khadr is the same as that of the two previous Liberal governments. It is the same policy as that of former prime ministers Chrétien and Martin. It is the same policy of former ministers Graham and Pettigrew. It is the same policy of the member for Mount Royal when he was minister of justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, back in May 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the regime providing for the detention and trial of Mr. Khadr at the time of the CSIS interview constituted a clear violation of fundamental human rights protected by international law. They also ruled that the participation by Canadian officials in the Guantanamo Bay process was “contrary to Canada's binding international obligations”.

Given that kind of opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada, did that opinion result in any change in direction by the Canadian government with regard to the ongoing detention of Mr. Khadr?

Did it result in any discipline of Canadian officials who participated in what the Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Canada have found to be a process that violates Canada's commitment to international human rights?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, this government, as with two previous Liberal governments, has sought and received assurances that Mr. Khadr was being treated humanely and has repeatedly inquired into his well-being when allegations arose that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had been mistreated or that his health was in any danger of being compromised.

Regular visits have been carried out, as I said, 15 or more at last count, and reports of these visits were made available to the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, and did result in some improvements in the conditions of Mr. Khadr's detention.

That said, I come back to the basic point that the Government of Canada is not interested in pre-empting the presidential task force directive to review Mr. Khadr's case and to decide, within the 120-day period designated, on the way that those charges will be addressed.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minister tell us if Canada is meeting its obligation under international law, specifically the convention we have signed on the rights of the child and specifically the issue related to the child soldier?

The minister can read about what has happened in the past, but the question is very simple: yes or no, are we meeting our obligations under international law?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Yes.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for six years now Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, defined as a child under the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, has languished in Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, the Khadr case constitutes a case study of ongoing violations of international humanitarian law in general and the fundamental principles of the rule of law in particular, including arbitrary and illegal detention, denial of procedural due process in no presumption of innocence, denial of the right to counsel, denial of the right to trial within a reasonable period of time before a fair and impartial tribunal, coerced interrogation, and cruel and unusual punishment in detention. I could go on.

Moreover, as leaders of the bar associations in Canada, in the United Kingdom, in France and elsewhere pointed out a year ago, the United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, enacted after we were no longer in government and which the present government had to address and deal with, wrongly subjected individuals to trial by military commission on the sole basis of their status as aliens, criminalized conduct retroactively, permitted military commissions to consider coerced statements, denied defence counsel access to evidence that might be essential to a proper defence, et cetera.

In a shocking assault on the rule of law, and this again took place while the present government was in power, the United States authorities at the time even stated that they may continue to detain Omar Khadr even should he be acquitted under the standing violations already set.

Yet none of this moved the government to act--not the violations, not the military commissions, not this outrageous statement to which I just referred, not the fact that Omar Khadr remained the only citizen of a western state still detained in Guantanamo after all other countries had repatriated their nationals.

On a personal matter, I would like to make a statement for the record, because reference has been made to the member for Mount Royal's position. I first wrote six years ago, in the National Journal of Constitutional Law, a critique of “the prosecution by the U.S. of the war in Afghanistan and its unprecedented initiatives, including the proposal for extraordinary military tribunals and the legal limbo of security detainees”, stating that, “Canada has become implicated in this legal limbo respecting security detainees”.

At the time, I discussed the case with the minister of foreign affairs, Bill Graham, to whom reference has been made and who was responsible for the file. He said on behalf of the government that we were continuing to press the United States to ensure that Khadr's rights would be protected. That was the government's position while I was in cabinet.

However, that was a very different position then from everything that occurred thereafter. There was no Military Commissions Act yet at the time. There were no military commission tribunals. All other western countries had not yet repatriated their nationals. We did not know the full disclosure of all the violations that had taken place of international humanitarian law and the rule of law. All this became known and all this took place under the watch of the current government. The current government has to now wear it and bear the responsibility.

This is the most important point. An important and welcome development occurred when on just the second full day of his presidency, President Obama issued an executive order to ban torture and to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. This decision, demonstrating the commitment of the Obama government to the rule of law as an overriding priority for the incoming administration, had important implications for Canada-U.S. relations in addition to the important substantive and symbolic value with respect to the overall rule of law in the Khadr case.

Indeed, it should have altered the entire Canadian government's calculus with respect to the case of Omar Khadr, who remained the only western national imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately, the government did not appreciate this fact. Indeed, the government continued to cling to the incomprehensible incantation that pressing for Mr. Khadr's repatriation was “premature”. All these things I have referred to took place when we were no longer in government.

The Conservative government continued to say that it was “premature” even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that detainees like Mr. Khadr were denied their due process rights, even after the Canadian Supreme Court held that the Guantanamo process violated international law, even after evidence of coercive interrogation and brutality in detention emerged, and even after it became clear that the incoming American administration would shut down the facility. Even in the face of all these clear and compelling findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Conservative government still failed to act and has the gall to come before the House to try to lay it on the previous administration.

What a shame. The Conservatives should bear the responsibility, because all these things have taken place while you have been in government, and you have the responsibility to act for the Canadian people.

The Conservative government still continues to wait, while President Obama has preferred to act. During a recent question period, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon was asked how the Canadian government could--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

First, the hon. member for Mount Royal was directly addressing another colleague. He should go through the Chair. Second, we do not use proper names, but titles or ridings.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the recent question period, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked how the Canadian government could continue to stand by while everything it has always held to be true about this case, such as the fairness of the process and the support of the United States government, had utterly eroded. His response was steadfast, if not original. He repeated three times that the government's position remained unchanged. It was referenced again today. He said:

Mr. Khadr was and is still charged with very serious crimes...The American authorities will be reviewing his case. Clearly, the wisest course of action is to wait for those authorities to make their decision.

It is a position that has been repeated today. There is no room at this point for equivocation on this issue. Either the Conservative government must appreciate that rights have been denied through the Guantanamo system of detention and military commissions, which can never be restored and redeemed in that regard, as both the United States Supreme Court and our own Canadian Supreme Court have declared and affirmed, or it stands alone in the international community while abandoning its own citizen.

It appears that the Khadr case is characterized by a growing set of facts and conclusions of law that the Conservative government would prefer to ignore. It had best be stated boldly at this point that whether or not Mr. Khadr is charged with a serious crime, he is still a Canadian citizen entitled to due process of law and entitled to that due process here in Canada. He is being denied it. Whether or not he was recruited into a recognized army, Mr. Khadr was still a child soldier when he was captured and is entitled to protection under international humanitarian law. Whether or not our government realizes it, and this is the important point, the era of acquiescing in arbitrary detention, prisoner mistreatment, human rights abuse and denial of the rule of law has come to a close.

All these facts are important. While repatriating Khadr was always the responsible thing to do, it is now also the political thing to do. Our government may prefer to abdicate responsibility and take its cues from its neighbour, but few cues would be more overt than the executive order authorizing the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the termination of these proceedings. The tarnish of Guantanamo makes justice in Canada the only reasonable option from all perspectives. Indeed, while our government continues to drag its feet on this issue, European governments have been discussing the possibility of accepting detainees who have absolutely no connection to their countries as a show of support and solidarity with America.

The Conservative government's vehemence on the Khadr case to this point has turned what is a fundamental issue of human rights and the rule of law into what it should never be, namely, a partisan and political issue. It has turned an issue of justice into an issue of politics, yet with President Obama's commitment to the rule of law, the Prime Minister can still think politically and do the right thing. It is time that he did.

Finally, I would make one particular reference. We in the House should respect the positions of Parliament. Apart from everything else I have referred to with regard to the findings of fact that became known while the present government has been in power and the conclusions of law in terms of the decisions of both the American Supreme Court and the Canadian Supreme Court, the untenable Military Commissions Act was passed in 2006, after we were no longer in power.

I make no apologies for our own position. The former prime minister has stated that perhaps we should have acted differently. However, we were then concerned with what was known at the time: the due process issues. All these other matters--an American Supreme Court decision, a Canadian Supreme Court decision, an untenable U.S. Military Commissions Act, and facts with regard to brutality in detention--became known after 2006.

However, I do not want to make this into a partisan thing. Our whole point here is that the government has tried to make it into a partisan thing. I am seeking to speak to it as a matter of fundamental justice. However, if one were to speak of it in political terms, then the government should do that which would dovetail with what the Obama administration has been doing, namely, a fundamental commitment to the rule of law.

When the president decided, as his first executive order, to close down Guantanamo Bay within a year, to ban the use of torture, to invert the whole process with regard to the relationship between security and rights and with regard to the struggle against terrorism and the like, that not only gave us the opportunity but gave us the responsibility at that point to do what is right in terms of repatriating Omar Khadr to Canada and having him face justice here.

This would comport with what this debate is about, which is the decision of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, in which I participated, which stated, in terms of its recommendations resulting from findings of fact and rule of law as we appreciate it, that the Government of Canada should demand the immediate termination of military commission proceedings against Omar Khadr.

We did not have to wait until the government did something, regrettably, because the Obama administration, realizing the untenability of the military commission, moved to suspend it.

We expressed our objection to the position stated by the United States, that it reserves the right to detain Omar Khadr as an “enemy combatant” notwithstanding an acquittal or the possible termination of proceedings. This was an astonishing position taken by the previous American administration, which should have been cause enough, at the time, without anything else, for the government of the day to demand his repatriation to Canada.

We recommended that the Government of Canada demand Omar Khadr's release from U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay into the custody of Canadian law enforcement officials as soon as practical.

Now, in light of everything that has happened, in light of the commendable action taken by the Obama administration, it is not not only practical, it is right. It is even the political thing to do. It would even help our relationships with the United States, as well as serve the rule of law.

The subcommittee recommendation also called on the director of public prosecution to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute Omar Khadr for offences under Canadian law.

As a Canadian citizen, as a child soldier, this is where he deserves to face justice, this is where justice can best be served and this is where the Government of Canada can serve the rule of law in all its configurations, respect an American supreme court decision, respect a Canadian Supreme Court decision, respect what the Obama administration has done, respect the rule of law, respect a parliamentary decision taken by the subcommittee which has brought the debate before this House, respect the will of the Canadian people ,and respect the ends of justice to which this entire debate seeks to serve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member that there is no room for equivocation in this debate.

I would simply ask the hon. member whether he was aware, when he was a minister of the Crown, of Omar Khadr's age when he was arrested.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my writings on this are public. I would refer the hon. minister to those writings.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Answer the question.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I do not dodge any questions, Mr. Speaker. I answer them exactly.

In fact, I would refer to the article I wrote in 2002 for the National Journal of Constitutional Law where I stated that I was aware of these matters and that we, as a government, should not become implicated in what is going on in Guantanamo Bay.

Regrettably, I think our government, of which I was a member, did become implicated in what went on in Guantanamo Bay. The former prime minister has said that he regretted to whatever extent we became implicated.

However, the key thing here, which is what the government is ignoring, is that all the matters of which I spoke this morning, the American supreme court decision, the Canadian Supreme Court decision and all rules of law emerged on the current government's watch. We should not make this into a partisan thing. It is a matter of justice and the government should do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal will know that I am very quick to point at the Liberal Party from time to time when I see shortcomings. I am very heartened to hear in this place today the member for Mount Royal talking about the fact that under the circumstances of the time his government did err because it is very important for all of us to realize that from time to time, with new information, we need to change positions. I respect that.

However, the present government has seen the same evidence that we have all seen and it has not moved its position. In fact, today, when the minister of state spoke, he talked about Omar Khadr being part of al-Qaeda. Now I have been on this case for three years and I have not seen that particular allegation any place as yet.

Would the member for Mount Royal agree that the one flaw, the one problem, the one wedge in this case is the age of Omar Khadr and the fact that our government is refusing to abide by the United Nations protocol, to which we are a signatory, and that once it does that its house of cards will fall?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct with respect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Not only is Mr. Khadr a child soldier but he is presumed to have been recruited illegally, to have served involuntarily and, therefore, to now have to face justice with that understanding and appreciation in mind.

That is why, in all of this, his being a Canadian citizen is one that warrants his repatriation to Canada so he can face the Canadian justice system, which, as a Canadian citizen, he is entitled to, but after the particular illegalities that attended his six years in the American justice system, which President Obama finally repudiated.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate there was a reference to cherubic innocence. The minister of state tended to dismiss it as an irrelevant argument but the discussion of cherubic innocence is really about the essence of the points that have been raised about our international obligations in terms of the rights of the child and the fundamental principles.

It is startling that the minister of state made no reference whatsoever to our international obligations in his commentary. It always has been, outside the chamber as well as inside, that this person has been charged with very serious crimes and we should let it take its course. That is an abdication of responsibility. I believe it is an absolute abdication of Parliament's responsibility to have that position being taken on our behalf.

I believe it is incorrect and I wonder if the member would care to comment on the position of the minister of state to say that there are serious charges and we should leave it alone, which is absolutely an irresponsible position to take.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the irresponsibility goes back one step earlier, and that is that the government continued to maintain, for a long period of time, that to do anything with respect to Mr. Khadr under the previous American administration was “premature”. It was not premature for all the reasons I mentioned.

Certainly once President Obama took the actions he did, it was not only no longer premature but then became necessary from the point of view of justice and even politics for us to seek his repatriation. The government of the day should not now speculate whatsoever on the nature of Mr. Khadr's guilt or innocence because the one thing that is clear, leaving aside the issues of guilt or innocence, is the entire gamut of his rights as a child soldier standing accused were violated both in terms of international humanitarian law and domestic American law.

When President Obama moved to rectify the situation, generically speaking, by ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay by banning torture and the like, that gave the Conservative government the opportunity to go ahead and do that which was just and right. We trust it will now do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend across the aisle talk about what President Obama has done and the whole issue surrounding Mr. Khadr. It is interesting that he has talked about what President Obama has done but he has not said anything about what President Obama has not done. President Obama has not stopped the prosecution. He is reviewing things.

I do not know why, at this point, my colleague would want us to intervene in the legal process that is taking place in the United States. I am wondering why all of a sudden the attitude has changed with respect to that side, which now wants to interfere in the legal process.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to interfere with the legal process. We want to do what that legal process invites us to do and, indeed, requires us to do.

This is something that we should have done under the previous American administration but we kept saying that it was premature. Even though during that previous American administration we had both an American supreme court decision and a Canadian Supreme Court decision that warranted his repatriation, we did not move.

I am saying that what President Obama has done has opened the door for us to now do it. In terms of where the proceeding should take place, there should be no doubt. All these violations, regrettably, occurred under the American system, under which he languished for six years.

We should finally repatriate him as a Canadian citizen, as a child soldier under international humanitarian law so that he faces justice here. In doing so, we would be taking another person off the hands of the decision makers in the American administration.

Why have European governments lined up to take detainees at Guantanamo Bay to their countries, even though they have no connection to these detainees? It makes it easier for President Obama to address that issue. We have a Canadian citizen who has languished there for six years and we cannot bring ourselves to repatriate our own citizen who is the only western national still in that prison system.

At this point I cannot understand on what basis the government continues to act in this way. It would seem that justice and politics would require them to alter its position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this motion. I congratulate the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek on raising this matter for debate, as I believe it is very important to get the government moving on it.

The first two interventions—that of the member moving the motion and that of the member for Mount Royal—touched on a fundamental point in this file, which we will articulate. The government must recognize that mistakes can be made from time to time in life and correct them.

The position taken in the matter of Omar Khadr dates from a period in which the ties between the Bush administration and the administration of the present Prime Minister were exceedingly close. Major changes have, however, taken place in the meantime and are being promoted by both the new American president and international experts in the matter of Omar Khadr. The government should note that. I hope the debate in this House today will lead the government to change its position.

We will remember that Omar Khadr is a young man, a Canadian citizen, born in September 1986. He was taken to Afghanistan by his parents and was captured by American forces in July 2002. He was 15 at the time and was therefore a child soldier.

He was taken prisoner following a battle between American and insurgent forces. In the course of the battle, one soldier died, Sergeant Christopher J. Speer, as did two Pashto translators. The facts are not in dispute. It is not a matter of defending someone, of saying they committed no crime. That point is unknown, as he was never sentenced in court. He was imprisoned at Guantanamo, and, over a number of years, waited for legal proceedings pursuant to his arrest. In the end, the court proceedings were suspended by President Obama.

Let us come back to the situation. In its report, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development states that the Subcommittee on International Human Rights did not receive evidence on the precise circumstances of how Mr. Khadr came to be involved in the battle at which he was captured, or of how he came to be associated with al-Qaeda. There are no facts to confirm the connection with al-Qaeda and there never have been any.

In fact, there is no precise information on the context in which Mr. Khadr was taken prisoner. In the battle, Mr. Khadr was wounded and was subsequently treated at the military hospital. From there, he was transferred to prison in Guantanamo, Cuba, and detained at Delta camp.

Omar Khadr has been detained at Guantanamo since 2002. He waited five years for charges to be laid against him. He was arrested at age 15 and spent five years in prison, but there was no trial during that whole time.

If we had a young person in that situation here in Canada, someone who had been arrested and sat in prison for five years without a trial and was still in prison, I do not think that anyone in Canadian society would tolerate it. The Conservative government is alone in its stand and we cannot comprehend its stubborn refusal to change it.

In November 2005, Mr. Khadr was accused of war crimes by a military commission. In June 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States ended this commission because it had no legislative authority. In September 2006, Congress gave the commission the legislative tools it needed to address war crimes. Then the commissions were suspended once Mr. Obama was elected.

Omar Khadr was charged with the following: murder in violation of the law of war, attempted murder and conspiracy—all under circumstances where he was a child soldier. The convention on child soldiers clearly states that it is in order to manage this type of situation that the international convention was passed in the first place.

But the Prime Minister himself does not seem to know this international convention very well because he declared that Mr. Khadr could not be considered protected by the convention because he was not part of a regular army.

However, the convention is in place to ensure that any rebel military group perpetrating acts of violence cannot use child soldiers and that, if it does, these children will be given the maximum opportunity to be reintegrated into society once removed from these groups.

The Prime Minister has displayed crass ignorance with respect to this convention. If his personal knowledge was lacking, he should have sought information because he has shown by his ignorance that he was not up to his responsibilities in this context.

In May 2008, Omar Khadr's Canadian lawyers said their client needed medical attention and psychological support as a result of his detention. As I said, at the request of President Barack Obama, the military commission responsible for ruling on Omar Khadr's case has suspended its hearings for 120 days.

At the same time, the American president also declared that he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year. The Canadian government says it wants to establish a good relationship with the U.S. administration. It could have started by telling the American president that it was willing to repatriate Mr. Khadr, bring him back to Canada, and determine whether he should be put through the judicial process, in other words, charged, tried and convicted, if necessary. The United States would therefore have had one less prisoner at the Guantanamo facility, a Canadian citizen who has been detained there without charge for several years. Had the federal government done this, it would have been an excellent diplomatic gesture. It refused and has drawn criticism from the vast majority of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Three years ago, a survey showed that 47% of people were against the repatriation of Mr. Khadr. In 2009, more than 60% of people are in favour of his repatriation. With time, people have come to realize how inappropriate a place Guantanamo was and that something must be done. Mr. Obama's election clearly demonstrated that. Of all the choices the American people have made, their decision to return to the rule of law and to act as quickly as possible when prosecuting someone was certainly an important one. Past centuries have seen huge battles for habeas corpus, so that individuals would be brought before the court as soon as possible after their arrest, thereby preventing unjustified arrests.

In this case, in the 21st century, it is truly an aberration for an individual to be jailed for five years without any formal charges being brought against him. When there was a formal charge, the commission tasked with the investigation was suspended and there is still no possibility of Mr. Khadr going to trial in the short term. The opposition parties are not the only ones to ask the government to take action. Amnesty International and the Canadian Bar have also taken a stand: they are concerned about human rights, respect for the law and for the rule of law. The Conservative government continues to take a position opposed to that of the entire population, which wants the case to be heard as quickly as possible.

It is very difficult to understand why the Conservative government did not seize the opportunity provided. It could have decided to bring Omar Khadr back to Canada and to conduct a trial if necessary. He has been through quite the judicial process. There is nothing but stubbornness behind the Conservative position.

Does this also reflect the Conservative government's view on how to deal with young offenders? I have always believed that the international policies adopted by a country reflect its domestic policies. Canada has never managed to give 0.7% of its GDP to international aid and, similarly, has never been able to adequately reform employment insurance.

In this case, it is a matter of someone who can be accused of having been a young offender. Such a person would deserve to go before the court and be judged. We will see what the outcome is. Rehabilitation might prove necessary. A highly productive approach has been submitted by Mr. Khadr's counsels in conjunction with people from the surrounding community and family members in Ontario. Mr. Khadr himself has agreed to not necessarily being returned to his family but being instead taken in by other people and taking advantage of activities to reintegrate him with society. This young man has not had an easy time of it. If he came back to Canada tomorrow morning, if the federal government decided to repatriate him, he likely would not be able to re-enter society just like that, from one day to the next. Counsel for Mr. Khadr has foreseen this and they have informed Foreign Affairs authorities accordingly. They even wanted to meet with the Minister of Foreign Affairs but a meeting like that has been very hard to organize. Even today, however, we know that a hand has been outstretched and that, if the Canadian government did decide to repatriate Mr. Khadr, a reintegration plan is in place and he would be required to face charges if appropriate.

No one has ever wanted him to be absolved of his mistakes or for the situation to be treated as if it never happened. Everyone agrees on his return to Canada, with the exception of the Conservative government, and on his facing the appropriate legal procedures set out in our legislation. That is what we are calling for.

There is a basic legal principle that consists of allowing a person be tried as soon as possible. That principle has not been respected in this case. As I said, the majority of Canadians are now in favour of the repatriation of Omar Khadr. In an Ipsos Reid poll held in January 2009, 64% of respondents were in favour of his repatriation, while in an Angus Reid poll in June 2007, some 47% of Canadians were against it. The response to that might be that we cannot govern by polls alone, but if we talk to those who analyze case law, the Canadian Bar for instance, we realize that the Conservative government really has no reason to maintain its position.

The Conservatives' position is weak, because they do not recognize that Mr. Khadr is a child soldier. He was a child of 15 when he was captured by American troops. The Conservative government has always refused to recognize Omar Khadr as a child soldier. In January, the Prime Minister denied that he was. Canada has signed a number of international conventions on the rights of children and child soldiers. A child is defined as every human being under the age of 18. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires 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.

Yet Omar Khadr has been held from the start in an adult prison.

The same convention also provides that states parties shall ensure that “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Mr. Khadr has alleged that he has been tortured, and Canadian courts have also recognized that.

We have a situation where there is a child soldier, but the federal government denies his status as a child soldier. We want today's motion for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and this debate in the House to prompt the government to change its position. There is still time to get the outcome the committee proposed.

There is no legislative provision that allows the special commission responsible for trying Mr. Khadr to distinguish between a normal soldier and a child soldier. President Obama will either suspend this military commission permanently or allow it to continue, but from what we know about this commission, the judges cannot make such a distinction, and that will have a significant impact on this young man's life.

Canada's position on Omar Khadr must comply with international law. We believe that the appeal made by the three opposition party leaders in a letter to the Prime Minister, the debate today, the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, and the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights all show that there is a consensus in Quebec in this regard. All that is missing is the government itself. The government should take a hard look at this. The Conservatives have already decided to make major changes to their way of doing things. They used to be totally ideological non-interventionists, but then they realized in view of the economic realities that they had to invest more and run deficits. The Conservative government changed direction on the economy, and we hope it will go much further and much faster.

When it comes to human rights, though, there has been no change. The message from all sides is clear, however, and change is what everyone wants.

Canada aspires to a seat on the UN Security Council. When the candidacies of the various countries are assessed, the quality of our democratic life in Canada will obviously be considered, as well as our actions on the international stage.

The way we are treating a child soldier will surely be a black mark on Canada’s record. The government has refused to repatriate him, obstinately hiding behind the pretext that he has been accused of serious crimes. Young people can be accused of serious crimes in Canada, but we have a method of dealing with them under young offenders legislation. The same applies internationally through the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines what a child soldier is. The Canadian government should have taken all this into account.

I will conclude with some comments on the position of the hon. member for Mount Royal. A little while ago, a Conservative member asked him whether he knew, when he was in government, that young Khadr was 15 years old. This was basically a trap to get him to say that his position was the same as theirs when he was in government. I quite liked the answer of the hon. member, who said he had expressed some reservations from the very beginning but, most of all, there are times in life when we have to be able to change our opinion. The Liberal Party has changed its opinion now and the NDP and the Bloc Québécois continue their defence of this case.

We are Quebec sovereignists. We are in the Canadian federal Parliament and we want to see the positive tradition of Canada's heritage respected, particularly where the defence of human rights and international presence are concerned. When Quebec becomes a sovereign country, we will be able to continue that tradition. While we remain here, we are defending the interests of Quebec, and defence of the interests of Quebec goes beyond what is happening in the rest of Canada. It is also linked to ensuring the quality of our reputation abroad and the way Canada's legislation and international commitments are respected. That respect is not evident in the present context.

Unfortunately, it is not simply a matter of economic issues or principles. This is about the quality of life of a person who has spent several years in prison without formal legal proceedings. When proceedings were held, they were not concluded. We are now faced with a situation in which a young person, whether found guilty or innocent, will need to be reintegrated into society in either case. A plan has been put forward by his lawyers. It involves a collaborative approach. The only collaboration missing is that of the Conservative government, and that is what we hope to see fall into place once all the representations have been made.

We will also probably see from the vote that will conclude this debate in the House that the majority of members of the House want to see Mr. Khadr repatriated as soon as possible. That way, a blot will be removed from Canada's international record. The Conservative government must come to realize that it needs to keep its word internationally and handle this case as the majority of Quebeckers and Canadians want to see it handled: repatriation of Mr. Khadr as promptly as possible. This will also help to gradually reduce the number of detainees in Guantanamo with a view to its total closure, the final chapter in this tragic story we have been witnessing in recent years. Terrorism increased and there was a reaction to it, but we have always said that the best reaction to terrorism is through the rule of law. As far as this situation is concerned, the Conservative government is doing nothing to defend that concept.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the debate triggered by the report. We wish to see it concurred in so everyone can quickly grasp the necessity for the Conservative government to make a move and adopt a far more dynamic and progressive position. They need to accept, as the Liberals did, that their opinion and position need to change and that Mr. Khadr needs to be repatriated as soon as possible.