Paul Szabo

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry even the questions are not relevant to the motion before us, which is a procedural motion to lay out the manner in which we will dispose of a bill that the government wants to produce.

With regard to Motion No. 8, paragraph 2, which lays out the committee process that is being suggested with regard to the disposition of a bill that will eventually be tabled in the House, this calls for some very extraordinary work to be done by, I assume, the finance committee. Giving it the time of 11 p.m. and having to report back by 3 a.m seems to be way out of hand.

Would the parliamentary secretary explain to the House why the motion simply did not call for the disposition of such amendments, et cetera, to be dealt with in committee of the whole if he were interested in having this disposed of expeditiously?

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Orders and our practices the debate has to be relevant to the matter. What we have here is an unfair opportunity to go back over history and smear hon. members in this place. I think we have to get back to the motion before the House.

[Petitions, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as we are getting closer to the Christmas break, it is important to continually remind the government with regard to its responsibilities related to pensioners and, in particular, Nortel pensioners and those under Nortel who have disability benefits being taking away from them.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect the rights of Canadian employees and to ensure that laid off employees who are receiving a pension or long-term disability benefits during bankruptcy proceedings obtain preferred creditor status over other unsecured creditors. They also ask that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to ensure that employee-related claims are paid from the proceeds of Canadian assets before funds are permitted to leave the country.

It is an important petition and I hope the government will heed the pleading of these petitioners.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the minister is going to start heckling me to try to indicate that maybe he does not like what he is hearing.

These are the facts. As a consequence of the committee's report and the excellent work it did, there was a directive issued. The fact that a directive had to be issued was virtually an admission that, in the system, it was not translating right down to our troops in the field.

The minister may not like the facts, but the facts are clear. The government seems to apply a double standard to the issue of torture. There was a dissenting opinion among certain members of the committee, even at the time. Their position was that the recommendation had already been fulfilled by the government. That was the response and the dissenting opinion of the Conservative members of the committee in the report. They dismissed it and said that everything was fine, but it is not fine. The minister had to issue another directive to remind them that torture should not be used. I think it is clear at its face.

Recommendation 5 was that a national security committee of parliamentarians be established. The response of the government was that it looked forward to getting reports from committee, et cetera. It was basically dismissing it again.

The response of the minister to this excellent report is clear. The government certainly does not consider this to be important information. That was exactly what the minister said when he started his speech. He said that this was delaying important work. The minister should know that this committee did important work.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as I had indicated, we are dealing with the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The report states:

Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has conducted a review of the findings and recommendations arising from the Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin (Iacobucci Inquiry) and the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar (O’Connor Inquiry) and has agreed to report the following:

The committee made five principal recommendations. I would also point out that at the end of the report, just before the chair's signature, it states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this Report.

The report was tabled in mid-June, just before the House adjourned for the summer break. Under Standing Order 109, the minister is permitted 120 days to respond to the report of the committee. The response to the report was tabled in the House on October 19, which effectively used the full 120 days. The response was referred to the committee for consideration and review. It has been some four weeks since then.

The committee is looking very carefully at this response, but it also has other activities going on as well. It is watching very carefully the special hearings going on with regard to Afghan detainees because of the subject matter of torture, which is part of this report.

I was a little taken back when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suggested that we were wasting the time of the House and that the committee had four months. If the committee asks for a government response to its report, no concurrence motion in that committee report can be moved until that response has been tabled in the House.

I understand the government's interest in moving on with other matters, but even the minister who just addressed the House started off by suggesting that this concurrence motion was delaying important business. When we are talking about the Government of Canada and all of its agencies and how they address serious issues such as the torture of people, I cannot imagine that being dismissed by the government as not being important business of the House.

It is part of our responsibilities to work in committees, to do the work that is necessary, to inquire into major developments, and to report findings based on hearing from expert witnesses with appropriate recommendations to the House for its consideration.

Now that we have had the government response, this concurrence motion is asking the House to look at the report of the committee based on the recommendations that it felt were appropriate, and to see whether or not the House accepts that the report deserves the attention and action of the Government of Canada. That is important.

I understand the government would like to do other things, but parliamentarians do have rights, and this motion has been moved in accordance with the rules of the House.

As I have indicated, there has been a response by the government and it was tabled in the House on October 19. It addresses each of the five recommendations.

I had an opportunity to review the government's response and how it reacted to some of the observations that came out of the committee's work in discussing matters with government agencies and other witnesses involved or related to the subject matter before them.

This has to do with the findings and the numerous recommendations arising from the Iacobucci and O'Connor inquiries. All of the recommendations that the committee itself wanted to make indeed have roots in the work of those two inquiries.

I do not want to read the report into the record, but I want to succinctly deal with each recommendation and the substantive response of the government so that members will understand and will be able to make their own judgment as to whether or not the government is taking this report seriously and the work of the committee seriously. It will be self-evident.

The first recommendation basically asks the government to immediately implement all of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to the Maher Arar case, being the O'Connor inquiry. I will simply extract a couple of points that the government makes. It says in response:

[T]he Government recognizes the need to continually assess existing policy and practice against ever-changing environment in which we operate.

It is a roundabout way of saying we have to do more to deal with some of the circumstances which existed and allowed Canadian citizens to be subjected to torture, incarceration, or other things, and wrongfully as it turns out. It goes on to say:

The Government is committed to modernizing and strengthening Canada’s national security review framework. In achieving this objective, the Government will continue to take into consideration the advice and recommendations of key stakeholders and advisors, including Justice Major’s forthcoming report in the context of the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 (Air India Inquiry).

Again, there is an acknowledgement by the government that there are flaws and inadequate processes in place to address matters. I think the government effectively agrees with the committee recommendation, but it remains to be seen whether the government has acted on the recommendation.

The second recommendation has to do with regular public reports on the progress made in implementing the findings of the recommendations from the O'Connor inquiry and the inquiry into the actions of officials in relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin, which is the Iacobucci inquiry. The government response says that the Iacobucci inquiry identified a number of issues which have particular emphasis on sharing and handling of information provided to and received from foreign agencies as well as the provision of consular service and that it should be noted that Justice Iacobucci was not given a mandate to make those recommendations.

I wonder whether or not that is just sidestepping the important issue. It is really to abandon one's responsibility as a government and I ask the question, why? I do not think it really matters whether Iacobucci recommended these things; a standing committee of Parliament is recommending them. We just cannot have public inquiries to determine what the government should consider is important in terms of streamlining and modernizing its processes for protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens.

The government response says that the government continues to develop its proposal for modernizing and strengthening the current RCMP review and complaints body and to further these efforts the government has and will continue to consult with key stakeholders, in particular those jurisdictions that contract the RCMP to provide policing services in their jurisdictions.

Finally, the government commented that it is confident that it will be ready to move forward to address the gaps identified by Justice O'Connor with regard to the review of national security activities and will continue to keep members of Parliament and Canadians apprised of new developments.

The bottom line is, yes, the government will do it, but has the government done it? Do we have any evidence that it is happening? Have members of Parliament been apprised of the changes? The answer is no and the question is why not?

Recommendation 3 is in reference to the harm done to Messrs. El Maati, Adullah Almalki, and Mr. Nureddin. The committee has recommended an apology to these Canadian citizens, compensation to be paid to them for the suffering they endured and the difficulties they encountered and, finally, to correct misinformation that may exist in records administered by national security agencies in Canada or abroad with respect to these persons.

The only comment the government had with regard to this whole recommendation was that it would be inappropriate to address the committee's third recommendation as it pertained to ongoing civil litigation. Again, that is dismissive.

I did not even comment on correcting the information. I was absolutely astounded that a clear recommendation did not have a clear response. I would suggest for the committee that it should go back to the minister and ask him why he did not give it an indication that he was committed.

We understand, as I indicated earlier, from the issue of the sub judice convention, where the official opposition in a dissenting report made the same point, the committee should not have made this recommendation with regard to compensation or an apology because there was ongoing civil litigation. However, the sub judice convention is a self-imposed, voluntary convention and it does not prohibit a committee from making those recommendations.

Members may want to look at chapter 3, page 99, of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, O'Brien and Bosc, 2009. There is a further reference, breaking down between the civil and criminal, around page 600, for the members' reference.

The Government of Canada may invoke voluntarily the sub judice convention with regard to this matter, but it is not incumbent on the committee to invoke it. In fact, it is important the committee raise the issue that an apology and compensation, notwithstanding there may be ongoing civil litigation. It is something, based on the evidence and the persons involved here, that their rights and the protection of those rights and the protection of the persons was not in place. It is clear that there will be an apology and compensation. It will be up to the courts to determine what that compensation might be.

However, the evidence is clear in this regard, and the committee was most appropriate in making recommendation 3, the first two parts. The third part, with regard to the information, the government simply just did not respond, and do not know why.

Recommendation 4 from the committee had to do with clarifying the ministerial direction against torture and the use of information from torture for all departments and agencies responsible for national security. It said that the ministerial direction must clearly state that the exchange of information with countries was prohibited when there was a credible risk that it could lead or contribute to the use of torture.

I could not imagine a more appropriate recommendation, particularly in light of the current proceedings going on before the special committee on Afghan detainees and the refusal of the government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the members of the committee have the information they need in order to ask important, relevant and exceptional questions to the witnesses coming before them.

When Mr. Colvin was before us, that was one thing, but then the three generals came before us. All had access to the unredacted correspondence that came into question, but the committee members did not. Just yesterday they received it. If members saw the news stories, they would see that a vast majority of those pages were totally blacked out and the information blacked out on all other pages was such that we could not possibly impute what the information was. How can we address this question about whether there was any reference to torture and whether there was reasonable cause to believe there were incidents of torture?

The recommendation was a very good one, but the response of the government was that it did not condone the use of torture in intelligence gathering, and it referred to the clear directive.

The government said that its unequivocal position was supported by the recent ministerial direction issued to CSIS by the Minister of Public Safety, which clearly stated that the government was steadfast in its abhorrence and opposition to the use of torture by any state or agency for any purpose whatsoever, including the collection of intelligence.

Why was this not in place already? Why does the government have to issue a directive now? This report came out. This is the response of the Minister of Public Safety and national security. Now he is saying that the government has this report. I have a copy of this directive here. The fact it had to issue the directive to remind it of our long-standing policy with—

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we are debating a motion to concur in a report of a standing committee. The issue before us is the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security which states:

Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the Committee has conducted a review of the findings and recommendations arising from the Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian officials--

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the minister will know that the Conservative members of the committee who issued this report declared that there was no factual basis or facts regarding either compensation or an apology being required. They also went on to say that it would be inappropriate to comment on those things.

I want to refer to O'Brien and Bosc, page 99, in chapter 3, in which it refers to the sub judice convention. If the member cares to reflect on this, it certainly is a matter with regard to the interests of justice and fair play, but since it is a voluntary restraint being put on and there is clear precedent in O'Brien and Bosc that there is no prohibition from allowing a committee to make comment, I suspect with regard to the government response that the minister may want that, but it would appear to me that recommendation three also does require some activity with regard to the processes that have led to this recommendation.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether there are requirements for the government to undertake a review of its processes as it relates to this matter.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, as usual, the member has provided wise input.

The government responded to the committee's report. I believe the response was tabled on October 19.

One of the areas that is very relevant to the Afghan detainee situation which is being worked on in committee right now has to do with the torture issue. The government response seems to indicate that changes, clarifications or reaffirmation are necessary. That is almost an admission that there is a culture in which there is less certainty as to the commitment of the government with regard to torture issues.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on the results of the request for documents from the government with regard to matters of torture. The information provided to parliamentarians at committee has been redacted. Basically committee members have been denied access to full information to help them discharge their responsibilities.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would reflect on his comments I think he would find that he is basically suggesting that the member who moved the concurrence motion does not somehow have the right to do so. It is in fact under our Standing Orders. It is part of the process that we have.

The member would also know that within a couple of hours we will be moving on, as we would normally do after routine proceedings, to government business in which the government will move its motion. This is not going to interfere with the ability of the government to propose its agenda. This is actually about respecting the rights of members and showing respect for committees and their work.

This is an important issue, regardless of how long it has taken to get before the House. This motion seeks a vote on whether the full House concurs in and supports a report of one of our standing committees.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly agree with the report and the study in the Senate.

There is another class of citizen that falls similarly into this category. I refer in this case specifically to Hussein Celil. In 2006 he was picked up in Uzbekistan, and given the terms of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization between Uzbekistan, China and Kyrgyzstan, he was extradited to China. He had absolutely no consular access and was summarily tried and sentenced to jail for some 15 years.

Incidentally, he is a Canadian citizen. He is a Uighur, a Muslim. He is an imam who lived in Burlington, Ontario with his family and has a mosque in Hamilton, Ontario.

I remember going to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the day to ask him about the case. He said that it dealt with consular affairs, which were on another floor, as if Foreign Affairs had nothing to do with consular affairs. That is exactly how this happens. They delayed and denied there were problems. It was not until this really broke and everything was over that the Prime Minister ran into the President of China in a corridor at an APEC summit and raised it casually and said I was doing the job.

The issue is that many Canadian citizens have not had the support and the representations of their government, and it appears that this is a matter of failure to appreciate the international conventions, the Geneva conventions and, in fact, our commitment to protecting and defending human rights.

I would like the member's comments.