Bill Siksay

[Campaign Advertising, March 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Sport.

Four shadowy third party groups bought ads endorsing the minister during the campaign. They had the same financial officer, linking them to each other. They had the same address at the office of a senior Conservative political activist, who is on the minister's riding executive, linking them to the minister. One group disclosed that it had obtained lawn signs from the minister's campaign manager, linking them to the minister's campaign. These links are too obvious to ignore.

Can the minister explain?

[Campaign Advertising, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we know from Elections Canada returns that the Minister of Sport's campaign was closing in on the local legal limit. We also know that these previously unheard of organizations with links to the minister and his political organization ran ad campaigns endorsing the minister, totalling over $12,000, a figure that, if spent by the minister's local campaign, would have put him over the legal limit.

Was this an attempt to do an end run around the spending limits, just like the in-and-out scheme of 2006?

[Campaign Advertising, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, suspicions have been raised about five previously unheard of third party organizations that bought advertising endorsing the Minister of Sport in the 2008 campaign.

Four of these groups shared a financial agent and an office address, an address at the office of the 2006 B.C. Conservative election co-chair, who is a current member of the minister's riding executive. One group bought signs from the co-campaign manager of the minister's 2008 campaign.

Can the minister explain why these organizations seem to have such direct ties to his campaign team?

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2009]

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?

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2009]

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2009]

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provide consular assistance to Khadr; or,

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

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

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

Ms. Davidson further notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2009]

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister. He will know that British Columbia has been seriously affected by the forestry crisis and also by the mountain pine beetle devastation that has affected many communities in British Columbia. My question is specifically about first nations communities in British Columbia.

There are 103 first nations communities within the pine beetle devastation area. These communities are very concerned about their ongoing safety. They are concerned about the forest fire danger to their communities. They have been waiting for federal government money to be transferred to the province of British Columbia to assist them in planning around the forest fire danger, setting up firebreaks around their communities, planning evacuations, and all those kinds of things.

Unfortunately, the province has not received the money from the federal government yet to do that. It has made pitches directly to the federal government for that funding, for $20 million to start that work immediately, and $5 million for ongoing work. These are communities that are concerned about their very existence should forest fires break out in this pine beetle devastation area.

My question is, what is the delay? Should people have any confidence in the ability of the government to deliver assistance to forestry communities when it is not being delivered on this very basic issue?

[Business of Supply, March 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am sure my colleague knows that British Columbia is also facing a crisis in the forestry industry. Over 30 sawmills in British Columbia have closed. Thousands of people have lost their jobs and many of our communities are really suffering.

One of the ironies of all of this is that at a time when people in the forestry industry in British Columbia are losing their jobs, there has been an increase in the export of raw logs, unfinished logs, out of the country. Instead of turning those logs into finished products of some kind, instead of manufacturing them into finished products in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada, we are sending these raw logs out of the country.

I wonder if, like me, the member believes that we should restrict or even ban the export of raw logs to ensure that Canadian workers get a chance for a job turning those raw logs into products here in Canada.