How many of you have seen the movie "Rendition" so far? Robert Fisk seems to think that this movie shows events "almost identical" to what happened to Maher Arar. Though there are similarities, I think that may be overstating the case.
While it may be true that Maher Arar and the fictional Anwar El-Ibrahimi were both Engineers, picked up by the American government and sent away for torture, there are quite a few differences as well.
For one, Maher Arar is Syrian-born and the fictional Anwar El-Ibrahimi is Egyptian-born. For another, Maher Arar’s second child was born 7 months before he was detained. For another, there were no phone calls to Maher Arar’s house involving bomb plots. For another, Maher Arar is a pacifist. But, most importantly, Isabella is no Monia Mazigh! It takes a special woman to be persistent without freaking out - and they have Isabella freaking out in the trailer.
Did Isabella ever contact her Congress person or any Congressperson?
Maher Arar was picked up in September 2002 and sent away to be tortured. Maher Arar’s name was first mentioned in Question Period (Parliament) on October 21 2002. Tunisia is where Monia’s family is from:
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on September 26 Canadian citizen Maher Arar was detained and imprisoned in New York by the U.S. government while in transit from Tunisia to Canada.
With no legal counsel present, Mr. Arar was subjected to secret interrogations and then deported, not back to Canada, which he requested, but to Syria. According to the Syrian government he never arrived.
Where is Maher Arar?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we remain extremely concerned about the case of Mr. Arar. I have raised this issue with American authorities, with the ambassador and at the highest levels, to register our concern with the fact that Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen and should have been treated as a Canadian citizen.
Our concern at this time is to find Mr. Arar and allow his family to enter into contact with him. This government is sparing no efforts whatsoever, and in fact we are exercising all our efforts to ensure that we are able to do that.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not looking for concern, they are looking for answers. Maybe we need to issue a travel advisory telling people it is not safe to go to the U.S. these days.
What Mr. Arar’s family wants to know and what Canadians want to know is whether the minister demanded the Americans’ evidence that in fact they deported him to Syria. We want to know what route he took. We want to know what flight he was on. We want to know who accompanied him. We want to know if he arrived in Syria.
Did the foreign affairs minister get answers to those questions and, if not, why not?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have inquired of Syrian authorities and other authorities in that region to ascertain the presence of Mr. Arar. We have so far not been able to find an answer to our questions but that does not mean we are not making all efforts to do so. It is unreasonable for the hon. member to suggest that we are not making all efforts necessary to protect the life of a Canadian citizen who was abroad.
I saw this fiim, and loved it. I think it was just broadly based on Arar's story, besides the man in the film was a citizen of the US, which I don't want to spoil it for anyone (so if you haven't seen it, don't read any further).
But didn't you think it was strange that he was able to return to his home in Chicago after he was "set free"? Obviously that part was fictional because they never would have let him back in the country in real life.
So it is one of those times when real life is even more frightening and stranger than the fictional film.
Besides, this film certainly leaves no doubts about the torture of waterboarding, unless that was downplayed as well.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
meljomur, that is my point exactly, Anwar El-Ibrahimi's situation was completely different BECAUSE the fictional Anwar was an American making the issues different. In the case of the fictional Anwar, the focus would be solely on whether or not he was guilty and whether the risk of torturing an innocent man outweighs the risk of hundreds dying from a terrorist bomb. Those were not the central issues being debated in Canada.
There are three other high profile Canadians in Maher Arar's situation:
Abdullah Almalki - engineer who started an electronics component export business with his wife, born in Syria http://www.abdullahalmalki.ca/
Muayyed Nureddin - geologist and former school principal, born in Iraq
Ahmad El Maati - truck driver, born in Kuwait
While Maher Arar was tortured severely (and Abdullah Almalki even more severely), neither were subject to waterboarding.
Engineers from certain countries were targeted because being an Engineer gave one a certain skill-set that the US considered potentially dangerous. If one wanted to created a stereotypical rendition victim, making him an engineer would certainly fit the profile.
The similarities between Anwar El-Ibrahimi and Maher Arar is more because of the fact that there are things in common with all rendition victims, than anything specific to the Maher Arar case.
And Hollywood has to have its happy ending - so, all of a sudden Anwar gets his old life back and suffers no ill effects.
I am curious as to whether Anwar El-Ibrahimi met his wife at University - like Abdullah Almalki (Khuzaimah Kalifah) and Maher Arar (Monia Mazigh) did.
Canada does not have the CIA or the FBI - we have CSIS and the RCMP.
Maher Arar was detained at a New York stop over between Tunisia and Montreal on September 26, 2002.
On November 8, 2003 journalist Juliet O'Neill printed an article about Maher Arar in the Ottawa Citizen. O'Neill refuses to name her source. First her garbage was searched and her conversations monitored. On January 21 2004 O'Neill’s house is raided and her notes and computer are confiscated by the RCMP with the charge that she leaked state secrets. The leaked information that Juliet O'Neill presented in her article as fact turned out to be some of the things that Maher Arar falsely confessed to under torture.
I am sure there was nothing like that in Anwar's story. Hollywood stories tend not to have that comedy of errors as those who make the mistake try to cover up their asterixes even if it means tarnishing the reputation of innocents.
I wish I wasn't so allergic to air freshioner - last time I attempted to go to a movie I spent the next day coming off what seemed like a very bad trip. I always have to wait until movies come out on video and rent or buy them. Since I can't guarantee that I won't be sick when I finally get to watch a movie, I don't care if the plot is spoiled.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
The thing is, I can imagine there are many people in this country who have "disappeared", that we have no idea about.
I for one do NOT believe Jose Padilla is an isolated incident, but I bet there are many many more.
I have said it before, I think it would be horrible to be an arab living in the US right now.
I hope the Canadian government will put pressure on the US government to return these citizens, so they can be given a fair trial, which apparently is not allowed in this country.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
The thing is, I can imagine there are many people in this country who have "disappeared", that we have no idea about.
meljomur, that is the problem, the Canada government only had the ability to pressure the American government on behalf of Canadians (and Stephen Harper's Conservatives are not too willing to do so). You heard that Canada has recently reversed its policy concerning lobbying on behalf of Canadians on America's death row? The Opposition parties consider it the first step towards Canada adopting the Death Penalty.
Alexa would probably steer American inquiries to where they can get help, if she was contacted, though.
There was a story at the CBC about rendition in the US a few years back (you can write and see if the CBC can find it for you but, otherwise, I don't know how to find it in a search). Seems many of the families of those detained were afraid to speak out because they were afraid that what happened to their family member would happen to them. Remember that between Arar's detainment and release, the war in Iraq started. It was a bad time for Muslims (or Sikhs mistaken for Muslims) to speak out.
Note that both Arar and Almalki have web pages and that Arar says each time that he is speaking out so that what happened to him won't happened to others. The hope is that any one with missing family members will contact Arar's webpage and be directed to who might be able to help them.
Also note that Almalki was detained before Arar was and released after Arar was - in fact, until Arar made the statement as to what happened to him where he said that he bumped into Almalki, Almalki's family did not know where he was.
That must be hard for families not knowing if their loved ones are dead or alive, not knowing who to turn to and not knowing who they can trust.
Do I have your permission to post the Maher Arar story according to Hansard? Hansard is the official transcript of what goes on in the House of Commons during Question Period (it is where the Opposition asks questions of the Government).
I don't know if anything similar exists for Congress, but the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the President are not Congresspersons so they don't face questions in Congress.
Note that I did a search with the term "Arar" so will miss some instances where Arar was alluded to but not named specifically.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
I just got back from seeing the movie. From my perspective, it was easy to see that it was a Hollywood version of Reality. For one thing, the interrogators were actually too gentle with Anwar. What we saw was a couple body blows at the beginning, clautrophobic confinement, one short spell of waterboarding, and electroshocking to the body in general.
Back in Viet Nam, I saw some sadism-diguised-as-interrogations. I came to understand the "art" of physical persuasion. The idea is that the interrogator builds to a crescendo. The reason being that having delivered a particularly painful passage, anything less than that thereafter is anti-climatic. The idea is to get the subject to fear what comes next.
In the movie, Anwar protests his innocence at the beginning, but then he stubbornly clams up. Uh-uh. An innocent man talks freely at the beginning and then will start to babble at the least provocation. He knows he doesn't _deserve_ what's happening to him, and until he understands that the pain will continue to get worse until the interrogators hear what they want to hear, he will seriously protest his innocence. At a certain threshold of pain, the subject will conclude that what happens to him for confessing to something he didn't do will NOT be worse than what will happen to him next. That's when he will start to tell tales about his guilt.
Interrogators understand that sequence. When the subject gets to babbling incoherently, saying the first thing that comes to his mind, THAT is when Truth will appear; either that the man is truly innocent and knows no details about what he is accused of, or he does know details that fit the accusation.
Unfortunately, from the interrogator's perspective, he can NOT trust that what he hears at the beginning is true. A man telling the truth and a clever liar can sound identical. So it becomes necessary to break the subject's will to filter what comes out of his mouth. THAT condition won't appear until the subject has sustained so much pain, he literally can no longer think straight.
Thereafter, the government has to deal with the consequences of having subjected pointedly innocent people to the ordeal. The easiest solution for avoiding the negative fallout is to make sure that they only worked on guilty suspects -- even if they were NOT guilty. (You can do that when you're in a position to manufacture and plant "evidence".)
[Jeez. I know waaayyy too much about this s***. I sincerely hope the nightmares don't start up again. Took more than a decade to abate after Viet Nam.]
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
Where you held captive in Vietnam? I guess I didn't realize this, it certainly makes me feel very silly indeed for even attempting to discuss these issues, when I have never, ever known anything close to war, and imprisonment, and torture.
It must be very difficult to watch a film like that if you have seen it in real life.
Wow, you must just laugh (well maybe not exactly) at these members here who say that torture is exceptable, when of course they have no idea (which I guess is the same for me, except that I think it is totally sick).
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
No. I was on a field op that involved a sweep through an area that had been under the control of a NVA regiment. It was a joint US/ARVN operation, with the US troops as spearhead with three ARVN battalions in support. As we cleared areas, any villagers gathered up were turned over to the ARVN for "interrogation". From the ARVN's perspective, by not having fought to the death with their bare hands when the NVA moved into area, the villagers were effectively traitors. The interrogations turned out to be execution-by-torture. I happened to be present at one of the villages that was cleared by us when the ARVN Intelligence officer turned the villagers over to the HQ company that had the squad of interrogators. As a "guest" of our _ally_, I was not allowed to excuse myself as the ARVN Intel major (who outranked me) invited me to see "what the ARVN does to traitorous enemy sympathizers".
I can definitively say that those were the most horrific three hours out of a life that spans a half-century. I wouldn't have cared if every single one of those people had been VC bomb-wielding terrorists; they didn't deserve what happened to them. As it is, they were actually nothing more than farmers that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had they known what their own "democratically elected government" had in store for them, I'm sure they _would_ have fought the NVA with their bare hands and died in the process. It would have definitely been a cleaner and quicker death than what the ARVN subjected them to.
As a footnote, I'd like to add that I had never foreseen the day when the US started to move us down a path that leads to what I saw that day. Resurrecting these memories is the price I'm willing to pay to do what I can to push us away from that path. I consider it a minimal penance for having done _nothing_ to stop the atrocity that day. Even then, "I was just following orders" did NOTHING to help absolve my sense of guilt.
--------------------------------- "Life isn't worth living until you know what's worth dying for."
"Choose wisely."
Posts: 937 | Location: San Rafael, CA, USA | Registered: 17 July 2007
meljomur, I will take that as a yes. Just that it takes up space. If you aren't interested, just jump over it - they will be the posts with colour.
quote:
I consider it a minimal penance for having done _nothing_ to stop the atrocity that day. Even then, "I was just following orders" did NOTHING to help absolve my sense of guilt.
What could you have done? You were a young kid. You did not know how to stop it from happening (which is why you did not act). You were in a war zone and if you tried to save the villagers you would have had no safe place to go - all three sides would figure you for an enemy - and you did not know how to get home. You were totally dependent on these people.
If you told them to stop and tried to protect the person being interrogated, you would have been restrained, put in the stockade and they would have continued doing what they did any way. Do you have any idea why that jerk wanted you to see this? To see what would have happened even if you were not there to witness it - even if you were somewhere else building a well?
That said, I wonder if being a racist protects some people from developing PTSD.
quote:
For one thing, the interrogators were actually too gentle with Anwar.
They did not want to traumatize the viewers, but, by downplaying the Anwar's suffering, are they not, in fact, turning it into pornography?
You also notice the blond wife - whose tears and heartbreak the audience can identify with.
quote:
Uh-uh. An innocent man talks freely at the beginning and then will start to babble at the least provocation. He knows he doesn't _deserve_ what's happening to him, and until he understands that the pain will continue to get worse until the interrogators hear what they want to hear, ...
Sounds like Maher Arar's statement to me what you just said. From your own account, none of the people you saw tortured to death during those three hours had information to give - what they were trying to guess was what the torturer wanted to hear so that they could hand it over to the person. The truth wasn't working so they were willing to try anything.
I guess if lies don't work, they might try the truth (theoretically), but you only witness those for whom the truth did not work.
quote:
As a footnote, I'd like to add that I had never foreseen the day when the US started to move us down a path that leads to what I saw that day.
After what happened to David Orlikow's wife, my trust of the CIA has never been that high. All she had was a mild bit of post partum depression, and Ewen Cameron was considered to be the best in his field at the time. When the Orlikows decided to fight the CIA, David Orlikow's party stood behind him and it was a topic of Question Period. Seems that all the scandals involving the US come to light because of Canada - or a good portion of them.
The first time I had ever heard about George W Bush was when he was still Governor of Texas and Joyce Milgaard came down to Texas. Bush was really rude to her - and that showed me what kind of man he was:
Joyce Milgaard's son David spent 23 years in jail for a rape and murder he did not commit.
Do you think I was a jerk of I told you about A Few Bad Apples? This one soldier saw his buddy blown to bits. He was told that it was known that this prisoner was in deep with the bad guys and that if he could not make this prisoner talk that it would be on his head if more of his buddies got blown to bits:
Of course not! One has to have a fairly gentle view of torture if one figures that posting ultra sound images of fetuses on line will turn anyone over the age of 30 into a Pro Liver.
Rendition and time lines:
Maher Arar was detained at a New York stop over between Tunisia and Montreal on September 26, 2002.
The war in Iraq started on March 20, 2003.
Maher Arar was released on October 5, 2003.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this bill, the half-brother of the twins, Bill C-42 and Bill C-55, for a few hours now.
A few years ago, a Quebec performer that you surely know, Richard Séguin, had his own version of this excellent Bob Dylan song called Times they are a changin'. Indeed, times are changing. And since September 11, 2001, many are saying that nothing is the same any more, that our world is changing. The case of Maher Arar, this Canadian citizen of Syrian descent who was deported from the U.S. to Syria without any justification, is proof that things are no longer the same since September 11.
We could also mention the fact that the people targeted by our American neighbours because of their country of origin can no longer travel without worry. There is no doubt that, while the world is changing, most of the time for the better, in this case it is for the worse.
Not long ago, we had the opportunity to speak to a certain bill on public safety. That was Bill C-42. The criticism was harsh, for a good reason. The government proposed a makeshift solution to a new problem in a changing context. Had it passed this Bill C-42, Parliament would have accepted that the most fundamental of civil rights and liberties be sacrificed on the altar of the constant fight, as we were told, against terrorism. But the cost was much too high and, in the end, reason prevailed and Bill C-42 was returned to where it came from, probably some computer's random access memory. We were naive enough to believe that the government had understood the essence of our criticism. But no.
Instead of showing some understanding of our views, the government used a ploy, but we did not fall for it. The new Bill C-55 was the twin brother of Bill C-42, even though it was born a few weeks later. Absolutely. For the second time, we would debate a bill on public safety. Unfortunately, the minister's imagination quickly revealed its limits. We were not fooled. This is why, for the second time, we opposed the idea of interfering with the rights and freedoms that form the basis of any democratic society that acts in accordance with its principles. Fortunately, when Parliament was prorogued, Bill C-55 died on the Order Paper.
But the more things change, the more they stay the same, and today we are debating Bill C-17, the half-brother of the other two. How times change. This bill is the offspring of a blended family or, in this case, a family which, actually, is divided into two clans.
Before mentioning the common features of Bill C-42, Bill C-55 and their half-brother, Bill C-17, I want to congratulate all the hon. members who strongly condemned the infamous controlled access military zones included in the previous two bills. Thanks to the work of citizens, civil society groups and people who care about fundamental rights, we managed to convince the government to listen to reason. The government had no choice but to see the obvious. It could no longer defend the indefensible. Logic should also help the government party, if only on certain occasions. This is why we should acknowledge this gesture of openness in the face of criticism. This shows that there is a constructive opposition in this chamber, an opposition that listens to the people.
Should we stop being vigilant now that controlled access military zones are not included in the new Bill C-17? Absolutely not. We must see that the decisions being made today respect the balance between the three branches in our society, namely the executive, legislative and judiciary branches.
In its current form, Bill C-17 poses a threat to the balance between the executive and the legislative branches, since it includes specific provisions allowing ministers and officials to make interim orders.
While there are some differences in the monitoring of interim orders as compared with the provisions of the old Bill C-42, the absence of a preliminary check to ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the enabling legislation poses a problem.
We can see clearly, when we read Bill C-17, that interim orders are exempt from the application of section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act. As you know, an order is considered to be a statutory instrument; therefore, it should undergo a preliminary check by the Clerk of the Privy Council. His role is precisely to ensure that the proposed regulations do not, and I quote:
“--trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.”
So we should ask ourselves the following question: if the purpose is not to trespass unduly on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why are we exempting the interim orders from the proper examination that would prove they are in compliance with the charter? By chance, would the government have the secret intention of transgressing the most basic rules of our free and democratic society by infringing on the fundamental rights of those individuals who form that society?
We do not question the importance of preventing all possible terrorist acts, and we do not question the necessity of equipping ourselves all the tools we need to expose those who would threaten the security of the citizens.
We even tabled, in the fall of 2001, a motion requesting that the government implement all the necessary measures for us to reach our goal of giving 0.7% of our GDP for international aid. The reason was simple and still is: in order to fight against terrorism, we must fight against its main cause, and that is the extreme poverty of hundreds of millions of people.
If we all agree that it is important to eliminate the conditions that breed terrorism, we also agree that we must fight against those who would come to our borders with the intent of committing terrorist acts. Once again, however, this cannot be done at any cost.
One price we must refuse to pay is waiving the right to privacy. In the past, we made choices. We made the choice to live in a constitutional state instead of a police state. We must be careful not to open the door to this style of governance where police are everywhere, always checking what everyone is doing. Would any of us blindly agree to have personal information relating to us processed and used for purposes other than those related to the fight against terrorism? Should the simple fact of taking a plane warrant the RCMP and CSIS having a record on a person? No. That has been made abundantly clear in the debates on Bill C-55, both by members of this House and by the privacy commissioner.
It is interesting to know what the privacy commission thinks of Bill C-17. First, it would appear that his concerns about the defunct Bill C-55 were ignored, the ministers and top government officials having failed, so far, to provide him with an appropriate response. This is why he is now calling on Parliament to ensure his concerns finally receive the attention they deserve.
What is so worrisome in terms of privacy in Bill C-17? About clause 4.82 of the bill, which does not place appropriate limits on the powers of the RCMP, the commissioner says, and I quote: “But my concern is that the RCMP would also be expressly empowered to use this information to seek out persons wanted on warrants for Criminal Code offences that have nothing to do with terrorism, transportation security or national security.”
What we must guard against is the risk of creating a precedent that would eventually open the door to increased police control over various areas of our daily lives. For example, if we allowed special powers intended primarily to protect national security and to counter terrorism to be made available to the RCMP with respect to air passengers, who is to say that this special situation will not be extended to rail, bus or metro passengers? If, for example, a suicide bomber were to blow himself up on a crowded train, would we go so far as to flag train travellers and use this same opportunity to look for people with outstanding warrants? There is always a tendency to be overzealous. There is always a point of no return when it comes to overzealousness, a point beyond which we must not go for fear of destroying the fragile equilibrium required to maintain a free and democratic society.
The commissioner also raises another point that we must not lose sight of. The right to anonymity with regard to the state is a crucial privacy right. With Bill C-17, that right to anonymity will be set aside the moment we are unwise enough to set foot aboard a plane. If it were set out in the act that personal information can be used only in the case of persons representing a true threat to national security, we could feel a bit reassured, but that is not the case. Obviously, the right to privacy will be meaningless as soon as Bill C-17 comes into force if the government maintains its position. We have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that you will not have to reserve passage on a ship in order to visit your girlfriend overseas.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois are here to serve the interests of the public, and so they will fight energetically to see that the right to privacy is respected. We share the privacy commissioner's view that there are some major changes needed in Bill C-17.
Privacy is one of our basic rights. We are entitled to expect information on us to be used sparingly, at the very least. For the government to confer upon itself the right to collect information on air travellers is one thing, but the right to exchange and distribute that information is quite another.
As hon. members may be aware, I have been on the citizenship and immigration committee for close to two years. The recent headlines leave no doubt as to the concerns raised by what our powerful neighbours to the south have been doing. If the government is trying to be subtle, as subtle as an elephant doing a polka on the clerk's table would be, that must not make us let down our guard in the least. First, we have to realize that the public safety bill, just like several other bills, amends a number of pieces of legislation to keep them in sync with today's reality. Part 5 of Bill C-17 amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, as follows:
“(snipped)”
Similar provisions in part 5 allow the minister to enter into arrangements. But what change does this amendment make, besides the ability to make arrangements? It adds the words “including the collection, use and disclosure of information”. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act would be amended to specifically allow the minister to collect information, to use it without indicating for what purpose it is used, and to disclose it without indicating what information can be released and to whom it can be disclosed.
In fact, Bill C-17 would give the minister the right to disclose the information to the whole world. Not only that, but it would allow the minister to disclose and release the information but does not provide a detailed framework for such activities. That is what I call increasing ministerial authority without proper monitoring.
As we have said before, maintaining a balance is crucial to a healthy society and the risks of a faux pas are too high.
Let us use a concrete example. The current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is about to conclude an agreement with the United States on safe third countries. Even though this agreement worries us on several fronts, because NGO's oppose it strongly and the UNHCR is questioning the content of the agreement, the government seems determined to go ahead with it. The fact that this agreement will be implemented despite the concerns and protests from civil society is not very surprising. We can just imagine what the situation would be like if Bill C-17 were in force.
We already know that U.S. legislation on immigration and refugee protection is more restrictive than in Canada, to wit the recent revelations on how our neighbours to the south treat people born in certain countries.
With the new powers that the bill would give the minister, he could be authorized to disclose to U.S. authorities information on applications for refugee status made in Canada. Do we have the right to authorize the release of personal information like this? What will happen with the information collected by the minister? One thing is clear, as soon as information is shared with another party, we lose control of it.
In addition to not knowing how the minister might use the information, it is impossible to find out what might happen to it once it was disclosed to a third party. Imagine the results. There is no way of finding out how the information might be used, any more than it is possible to find out the facts. How, then, can we control the dissemination of this information? It is naive, idealistic and even rash to believe that we could control a situation when we have not established sufficient limits.
That is not the extent of it, either. People may think that is enough already. Well no, not quite. Part 11 of Bill C-17 contains a few surprises. It contains, once again, changes to immigration. Indeed, it involves an amendment that would allow for the information collected from airlines to be used to implement any accord or agreement between the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and another party. What exactly is going on in the government? Does it feel so generous that is has to share personal information with everyone? Is it planning to set up a one-stop shop to disclose all of the information on new immigrants? Just take a number.
This is not right. We must be consistent with our principles. If we say that we have decided to live under the rule of law, we cannot allow insidious attacks on democracy to weaken what is meant by privacy protection.
Here is one last element, as if that were not enough. A new clause has been added to specify that the provisions for the collection, retention, disposal and disclosure of information, as well as any disclosure of information for the purposes of national security, the defence of Canada or the conduct of international affairs will be provided for through regulations. That is just wonderful. By specifying that regulations concerning these various elements will have to be tabled before each house of Parliament, perhaps the government thought that we would be easily fooled. To pull this off, the government will need to do much better than that.
Let me remind this government that, under the Immigration Act, once proposed regulations are tabled before Parliament, they may be passed without subsequent changes being tabled once again in the House.
To give a good illustration of what this means, it is as though you and I reached a contract that would bind us indefinitely - how horrible - but only I would have the power to change it as I saw fit, without your approval. Would you sign such a contract? Certainly not, and nor would we.
The government cannot always defend the indefensible. The same goes for the protection of privacy. But I am reminded of something that the philosopher Khalil Gibran wrote in Sand and Foam, and I dedicate it particularly to my colleagues in the government. He said, and I quote:
“Strange that we all defend our wrongs with more vigor than we do our rights.”
I hope that this will be instructive for our colleagues. It is true that the times are changing. Let us only hope that the party in office will finally understand that it must adapt to change by offering us appropriate solutions instead of constantly offering us the same options, month after month, session after session.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill C-18, the citizenship of Canada act.
Like all other members who have spoken this morning, I too feel a sense of tremendous emotion when I attend a citizenship ceremony in my constituency. Perhaps it is one of the most meaningful and memorable occasions for us as members of Parliament. To join with new Canadians when they take the citizenship oath of Canada and to repeat the oath ourselves is truly a moving experience and a reminder of the great freedoms, rights and privileges of this nation Canada.
This is a very important debate for the House. This legislation is very important. Canadian citizenship is the highest right we as a democratic nation can confer upon those living within our borders. These rights and responsibilities define the egalitarian and democratic values that we hold. No one has legal or political rights extending beyond citizenship. A citizen's right to vote and the right to run for political office are our fundamental democratic rights.
In that context, given that tremendous feeling we have about citizenship, the rules for defining citizenship are very important. They run right to the heart of who we are as a nation.
(snipped)
Canada's multicultural citizenship, our multicultural heritage, is unique and is very important. It has become a defining characteristic of our nation in the eyes of the world.
(snipped)
I want to put this in the context of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since its passage, the charter has become instrumental in enforcing citizenship rights. It is our obligation to ensure that this standard is rigorously applied, especially to something as fundamental as a citizenship act.
The wake of the tragic September 11 events has presented the most significant challenge to our rights and freedoms as citizens in recent years. There are those who would react to this horror by severely restricting the very rights and freedoms that this terror aims to destroy.
We must guard the balance between security and freedom carefully in this defining legislation. In our view it is unacceptable that some Canadian citizens are being singled out for discriminatory treatment. The rise in the occurrence of racially or religiously motivated hate crimes is profoundly disturbing. We know the stories. We have been dealing with this in the House over the last couple of days. Some Canadian citizens have experienced discriminatory treatment abroad, particularly in the United States, due to profiling practices.
The recent case of Maher Arar, a 32-year-old Canadian citizen arrested during a stopover at New York's Kennedy airport on September 26 as he was travelling to Montreal from Tunisia and deported to Syria, brought home just how fragile our citizenship rights have become. That the confidence in Canadian citizenship has weakened to the point that one of our foremost authors, Rohinton Mistry, who was born in India, felt compelled to cancel engagements in the United States because of continued harassment by United States airport security authorities is unacceptable.
It is critical that this legislation is consistent with Canadian values that are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, often taken for granted by those who are born here and acquire those rights as their birthright.
Just as changes to our view of citizenship have acted as markers of our social progress, citizenship has also provided the focus for several of the most shameful incidents throughout our history, occasions wherein we as a nation have failed to rise above our bigotries of the moment, some racial and some gender.
In that context we ought to acknowledge the work that has been done inside and outside the House to seek recognition for Ukrainian Canadians who were interned and who were considered enemy aliens. I want to acknowledge the work of the member for Dauphin - Swan River who has a bill before the House to seek official recognition and restitution. It is important for us in this regard to acknowledge the work of those who are struggling to achieve recognition and restitution among the Chinese community and to deal appropriately in this place with the Chinese immigration head tax and the Chinese exclusion act. These two incidents in our past still haunt us. They must be addressed and deserve to be considered in the context of this debate about citizenship.
As we consider changes to the Citizenship Act, they remind us that we must be vigilant to keep our vision and ideals at the highest level and to resist the ever present pressures to backslide or settle to lesser, divisive and exclusionary alternatives. At the time, assigning the restricting of citizenship rights to certain citizens or to deny citizenship altogether to certain identifiable groups may have been acceptable to the majority. Women had to engage in an incredible struggle to attain the right to vote. First nations only won the right to vote in 1960.
These and many other affronts to our current norms were promoted as reasonable by contemporary authorities. Race based immigration policies have only been formally dropped in recent years. Some Canadians contend that lingering vestiges of that bias may still be systemically embedded in our current policy. These issues are not ancient history.
As we examine Bill C-18, the Canadian Citizenship Act, our first question must be, does the bill meet the test? Is this the best we can do to express ourselves to set the parameters for defining Canada in the year 2002?
One key objective of the bill before us is to encourage those eligible to be citizens to in fact take the final steps to become citizens. We must acknowledge that in that process our full knowledge and sense of what it means to be Canadian, respecting the rights and freedoms of all people within the borders and boundaries of this country, must be respected.
We have just completed a lengthy parliamentary discussion and debate to finalize the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The government's stated objective in introducing that legislation was to increase Canada's openness to immigrants. The House of Commons citizenship and immigration committee reviewed that legislation and also put a considerable amount of work into studying this in its report, “Competing for Immigrants”.
I am pleased to see today that the minister has tabled a response to the committee's report, “Competing for Immigrants”. I want to register at this time some concerns about the failure of the government to address the main issue of many in our committee, and those who appeared before our committee, about setting a tone, establishing a vision. This included encouraging immigrants to come to this land, not closing the door to legitimate aspirants, or putting in place double standards that clearly are disincentives to those looking at Canada as a country of choice and emphasizing a renewed multiculturalism.
What we have looked for, and still look for, from the government both in terms of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and now the Citizenship Act, is a proactive strategy that encourages people from all walks of life to choose Canada, not one that puts in place a double standard in terms of people within this land nor differentiates between people for who are Canadians by birth and people who are here as landed immigrants or are refugees seeking protection. We want a proactive strategy to promote positive race and ethnic relations to strengthen respect for diversity in tandem with a clear and immediate response to any racially or religiously motivated hatred, and we know from recent events that is more important than ever.
Both the minister and the Prime Minister have stated that the future of Canada's prosperity depends on our success in attracting immigrants. Last July the Prime Minister, in a prelude to the dredging job done in the throne speech on resurrecting broken Liberal promises, reaffirmed the government's 1993 commitment to a 1% immigration target.
We just got the annual report for immigration for 2002. Where are we? We are not close to the 1% target established by the government as a desirable goal for immigration. It is certainly below the levels anticipated for this year. What happened to that dream? What happened to the vision?
We have some significant concerns with the legislation, in the context of the issues that I addressed, with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to our traditions as a nation that assures due process is always in play. We acknowledge the work by the government to move the matter of revocation of citizenship from ministerial and cabinet decision making and discretion to the Federal Court of Canada. However we also note that many discretionary powers still remain with the minister, and vague wording applies in terms of criteria to be applied.
I want to reference, as many others have and will continue to do, the discretion to annul citizenship for false representation or to refuse citizenship based on the following words, “flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. As parliamentarians we deserve clarification of those words. We deserve to push as hard as we can for the government to recognize the need always for due process including the right to appeal and the right to have information to defend oneself in the face of accusations.
I also want to note for parliamentarians our concerns with respect to the abolishment of citizenship judges. One would assume that we would favour objective set criteria for determining citizenship, as we are, but we also know that we lose a great deal when it comes to the role of citizenship judges in showing some flexibility and understanding of extenuating human conditions. We know that by moving the process from judges to bureaucrats we may have a more clearly defined set of rules but we will possibly lose some humanitarian approaches in terms of extenuating circumstances that cannot be ignored and must be addressed. Our concern is to hear from the government how those considerations will be met and how people in real life circumstances will have their needs addressed.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in the debate on Bill C-18. First, I want to make some general comments and then I want to refer to a couple of specific examples in the riding of Palliser that could have a general application to a number of other members of Parliament from across the country.
There are several predominant concerns evident in the bill. It is an effective response to the issue of war criminals and perpetrators of human rights abuses who seek shelter behind Canadian citizenship. It is important to close loopholes and to close the doors to organized criminal activity. We must meet the level of security expectations in the post-September 11 atmosphere. Our caucus does not challenge these objectives.
We intend to ensure however that others are not unfairly denied citizenship for lack of due process or inadvertent error. We intend to ensure that there is one Canadian citizen with one set of rights and that Canadian citizenship is encouraged for all in an equal way.
As with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, there is much government talk of openness and welcoming, but we see here a bill that creates some barriers to the realizations of those worthy goals.
Overall Bill C-18 is similar to its predecessor, Bill C-63. There have been some improvements made in response to previous criticisms but there are also areas of concern that remain unaltered. Contrary to the spirit of clause 12, and we heard this in the House today during question period on the equality of rights and responsibilities of all citizens, there remains the inequitable treatment of citizens born here and those who have acquired citizenship at a later date. In addition to the language requirement and tests which are not applied to born citizens, the bill would permit the revocation of citizenship within five years but only for naturalized citizens.
The residency requirement may still be considered too stringent by some.
The language requirement and not being able to use an interpreter remains a proposal. Knowledge of one official language may indeed be a worthy objective in the settlement and integration of citizens, however in practice it may present a barrier to some otherwise qualified applicants. Those would include: older family members, homeworkers and refugees who may have been traumatized in a previous country.
Canadian citizenship is the highest right that we, as a democratic nation, can confer upon those living within our borders. These rights and responsibilities define the egalitarian and democratic values that we hold. No one has legal or political rights extending beyond citizenship. A citizen's right to vote and run for political office are our basic and fundamental democratic rights. The rules for defining citizenship run right to the heart of who we collectively are as a nation.
Canada's multicultural citizenship, our multicultural heritage, is unique and has become a defining characteristic of our nation in the eyes of the world. Certainly in my lifetime, the evolution of Canadian citizenship truly reflects our evolution as a society from our ethnocentric past to our multicultural present and future.
Since its passage the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has become instrumental in enforcing citizenship rights. We must ensure that this standard is rigorously applied, especially to something as fundamental as the citizenship act.
The wake of September 11 has presented the most significant challenge in recent years to our rights and freedoms as citizens. There are those who, in reaction to the horror, would severely restrict the rights and freedoms that this terror aims to destroy. We must carefully guard the balance between security and freedom in this defining legislation.
We believe it is unacceptable for some Canadian citizens to be singled out for discriminatory treatment. The rise in the occurrence of racially or religiously motivated hate crimes is profoundly disturbing.
We have raised in this caucus, for example, the recent case of Maher Arar, a 32-year-old Canadian citizen arrested during a stopover at New York's Kennedy airport in late September. He was travelling to Montreal from Tunisia. He was promptly deported by American authorities to Syria. That brought home just how fragile our citizenship rights have become in this electrically charged era that we are in.
Similarly, we have the well-known author, Rohinton Mistry, who was born in India. He has cancelled a speaking tour in the Untied States because he fears continuing harassment by U.S. airport security authorities. We find that regrettable and unacceptable.
Canada continues to rely on immigration. We have completed a parliamentary discussion and debate to finalize the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The government's stated objective is to increase Canada's openness to immigrants. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, earlier this year, reported and studied on that. Everybody on both sides of the House acknowledged that the future of Canada's prosperity depended on our success in attracting immigrants.
I want to speak about a couple of specific instances that have occurred in recent months in the community of Regina. By way of introduction the community offices that I have in both Moose Jaw and Regina probably have more immigration cases than any other category of cases that come before the capable staff who work in those offices. I am sure that is not a unique situation and that other members of Parliament would find that they have a similar intensity on this issue of immigration and trying to get people here on visitors' visas and the like.
The two specific cases that I want to indicate to the House are quite different, but both are troubling.
One involves a gentleman named Charlie Smoke, who is a native North American. He says that he was born in Ontario but does not have a social insurance number. He currently resides in Regina. He was working a few years ago at an inner city school, the Kitchener school. However the only way that he could be employed and on the workforce was to have a social insurance number, so he used his wife's number to qualify for work at the school.
He had never denied that he used his wife's social insurance number. He did not use it for fraudulent purposes or anything else. That was the only way that he could work in a school that had a high proportion of aboriginal students, and he was doing good work at that school.
However, on June 19, 2001, Mr. Smoke was visited by Citizenship and Immigration. His troubles began then and have continued ever since. Mr. Smoke asserts that the Canadian government's harassment is a continuation of colonial practices that have robbed indigenous peoples of their self-determination by usurping their land thus destroying their livelihoods and denying their self-identity.
The Canadian immigration department alleges that Mr. Smoke was actually born and raised in South Dakota and has come to Canada since then. The department tried to deport him last year but the Americans would not accept him when he was taken to the border crossing, so he was brought back. He was out on bail, which was posted for him last year.
He recently had his social insurance case dismissed. However he continues to struggle against the harassment by Human Resources Development Canada and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials in Regina. One wonders where this will end for Mr. Smoke. He is out on a speaking tour these days. There is a growing awareness of the issue of an aboriginal person who insists that the borders between Canada and the United States should not impact upon this individual or upon aboriginal peoples who were here long before those frontier lines were drawn. That is, in essence, the case of Charlie Smoke.
The other case involves a person of Algerian descent. His first name is Ahmed. He came to Canada in 1995 and sought refugee status from Algeria. He was in Toronto for a couple of years. He moved to Calgary where he married a Canadian woman and subsequently moved to the city of Regina where he continued to work for four years. He worked in a couple of upscale Regina restaurants as a cook and, like Mr. Smoke, never ran afoul of any of Canada's laws. His application for landed immigrant status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was rejected.
In recent months he was brought in to see immigration officials to have his case reviewed. Immigration officials visited him at his home and insisted that his marriage was not bona fide, but a marriage of convenience.
I became involved in this case and spoke directly with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I was told by the minister that the department would be looking at Ahmed's case specifically. What I did not know was that on the very day the minister told me that when he was in Regina, Ahmed was brought in to the Canada immigration office in Regina. He was fingerprinted and cautioned, and told that the next time he would be picked up and probably detained while awaiting an extradition order.
He was so traumatized by this that Ahmed subsequently left the city of Regina. He continues to live in Canada. His place of residence now is the city of Montreal, although I do not know that for sure. He has committed no crime. His crime was that he wanted to apply for Canadian citizenship and to continue to reside and work in the city of Regina.
There continues to be harassment toward both Ahmed and Mr. Smoke with regard to citizenship. It raises the matter that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has correctly identified, that we have many people in this country who choose to come to Canada, who were not born in Canada, but choose to settle in the major cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. There are many Reginas and Moose Jaws across the country, places that need and would love to have increased population.
Here are people, Mr. Smoke and Ahmed, who have made contributions to their communities, have never had difficulty with the law except as it pertains to their citizenship rights, but certainly have never run afoul of the law in terms of any charges being laid. Yet they are being pushed away and rejected.
I agree with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that we need to find some way to bring people like these to less populated communities.
Saskatchewan has a population of just under one million citizens. It was just about that in the 1930s. The population of Saskatchewan has been steady for 70 or 80 years now around that basis. I think everyone in the province would like to see Saskatchewan grow and not remain stagnant. However it will grow only with an older white population. It will grow only with the assistance of a different outlook on immigration and by trying to direct some traffic to less populated communities. That is what we have been trying to seek in these cases.
It is terrific that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration convened a meeting last month involving his counterparts in the provinces and territories. It is absolutely astounding, practically incomprehensible that it was the first such meeting in 107 years. It speaks to the need for the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments to work together on this and see if we cannot develop some ways that people can be designated to come to other locations than our major Canadian cities. That is the concern we have.
To go back to the case of Ahmed, I am pleased that the minister is looking at the situation of a similar Algerian family that sought refuge in a church in Montreal. He says that he will deal with that. The indications are that the government is in the process of dealing with that. I am taking him at his word that whatever applies in the province of Quebec will also apply in the other provinces and territories and in the case of the Ahmed, who approached our office, that he will feel sufficiently protected to return to Regina and have his case heard there. Obviously he is at large in the province of Quebec and presumably would be unable to work there given the decision he made to leave Regina because of the threat of imprisonment and deportation to Algeria.
I think the government has badly misread the Algerian situation. It has argued that it is safe for people from Algeria to be returned to that country. Obviously the Algerians who are in Canada do not agree with the assessment. That is why they are seeking refuge in churches and leaving the Reginas to go to larger centres to disappear while this is being sorted out.
I encourage the government to look at this, deal with it and deal with it in a fair way that allows people like Ahmed, who has made a contribution in the City of Regina and wishes to continue to make a contribution in our community and our province, to have the right to do so.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government's right hand does not know what its left hand is doing when it comes to national security.
The foreign affairs minister said for two months that the United States had offered no justification or information for the deportation of Maher Arar. Yet we now know that the RCMP knew of Arar's activities. They questioned him nearly a year ago and they were notified weeks ago by the FBI of its information.
My question is, when did the minister know of the RCMP's holding of information on this matter?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we would not in any circumstances of course disclose information of that sort, whether we had it or not, with respect to a particular individual.
Of course we raised issues regarding the consular rights of the individual involved, but in no circumstances would we confirm or make any comment on any information that we might have about an individual --
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he said he did not know. It would be nice if there were somebody here to actually answer a question on this.
While the minister participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist, it apparently took a trip by the U.S. Secretary of State for the minister to admit what he really knew.
Officials now acknowledge that they have had evidence on Arar's activities for weeks. Why did it take a newspaper article to correct the record? Why did the minister and the government not reveal these facts to the House before today?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is working with United States authorities on this issue to clarify the matter. We do not comment publicly on these matters related to international security.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will ask that minister. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked in the House of Commons about this file. He acted as if he knew absolutely nothing and said he was going to consult the United States because he had no justification or information.
The minister's department has an agency under him, the RCMP, which had that information. When was that information passed on to the Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is confusing the issue of a citizen's consular rights, that is, rights to consular support in any circumstance, and the issue of whether or not there was substantive information that concerned this particular individual in the possession of U.S. authorities.
In the former, of course we will intervene in order to ensure that consular rights are respected. In the latter, we will not be prepared to comment.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is time the Liberals told the truth: that their system of screening and security checks is pathetic. Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in.
How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?
Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member for Calgary -- Nose Hill that Mohammed Atta, the conspirator behind the September 11 destruction of the World Trade Center, received his visa from U.S. authorities six months after September 11.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government needs to take responsibility for what it is doing to protect Canadian security. The fact is that these Liberals were asleep at the switch.
Arar was not properly checked. Instead, the government ran around chastising the U.S. for sending Arar back to Syria, where he is also a citizen.
Why is it that the Liberal security system is so weak here that they overlook vital information that the U.S. picked up on a routine check?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if hon. members on the opposite side would listen, I want to make it very clear that we are on top of our game in terms of international security. The RCMP and CSIS are very much on top of their game in ensuring that we are protecting Canadian citizens against terrorism.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister gave an evasive answer concerning Maher Arar and his possible terrorist ties. As members know, a few months ago, the Minister of Foreign Affairs proudly announced that there was no reason to deport Mr. Arar. Now we know that the RCMP had received warnings about Mr. Arar weeks, perhaps months ago.
When did the Minister of Foreign Affairs receive these warnings?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, we do not discuss in the House specific cases with respect to criminal activity.
I can assure the House and the entire country, however, that we are vigilant when it comes both to repressing terrorism and to protecting the rights of Canadian citizens when necessary.
An hon. member: Oh, oh. The lights went out.
The Speaker: Order, please. Speculation about what caused the failure of the power is not something we will indulge in during question period. Things may have dimmed a bit but I am sure the questions and the answers will be very stimulating.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Somebody up there did not like that response, Mr. Speaker.
There is lack of vigilance in the country on terrorism. Fourteen groups have been banned in the U.S. and in the U.K. but they have free passes here in Canada.
The minister said that he could not talk about security matters but when he thought everything was lovely about this gentleman, he was talking about him all over the place. When he receives some information that he was dangerous, all of a sudden it is “oops, maybe I should not have said something”.
The minister talked about it before and should talk about it now. He should shed some light on it. When did he know about this?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we take threats very seriously but we do not cancel civil liberties without cause.
As I indicated to the hon. member before, we listed seven entities. We are working on listing others but we will do it based on accurate information, not the latest headline in some paper that the hon. member happens to have read.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Seventy-six days ago, 32-year-old Canadian citizen Maher Arar, husband and father of two young children, was returning to Canada through the U.S. from a family vacation. He was apprehended, interrogated and deported without legal counsel first to Jordan and then to Syria, a country he left at the age of 17.
These actions violate international law and they violate his rights as a Canadian citizen. Still there is no explanation for Arar's plight, not from the American government, the Syrian government nor our own government.
When can the wife and kids of Maher Arar expect him home in Canada?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member and the House that we are remaining in constant contact with the Syrian authorities to ensure that we have consular access to Mr. Arar. Our ambassador has met with him. We will continue to make sure that he receives consular access. We are making all representations possible to try to get the return of Mr. Arar to his family and to Canada as soon as possible.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this young family does not want consular access. They want their husband and father home in Canada.
We are talking about a young wife who has received no explanation for the disappearance of her husband, no explanation for what he is suspected of and no explanation for why the government cannot do anything about assuring his safe return to Canada. He is languishing in a Syrian jail without legal counsel, without medical care and without even being permitted to make a phone call to his family.
Why has the foreign affairs minister not met with this woman as-
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, consular cases are always extremely complicated. I want to assure the hon. member that the government is doing its best in the interests of Mr. Arar and his family to get him back. We should not engage in politics in the House about the matter, which may or may not be productive in that respect.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government whip is quoted as saying about Canadian Maher Arar:
“We were astounded that the U.S. deported him. But now that he's in Syria, there's not much we can do for him”
What is astounding is that the government told Mr. Arar's family to be patient for six months, that Canada was doing everything it could to get him home.
I ask the Prime Minister, if shrugging it off when a Canadian citizen gets shipped off to an authoritarian state, stripped of his rights, and tried in secret, is everything the government could do, then what would doing nothing look like?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, doing nothing might be when I spoke personally to the minister of foreign affairs of Syria about this, when our ambassador has attended regularly on Mr. Arar's behalf, and when we have made regular representations to the Syrian government.
Mr. Arar has been constantly in contact with our representatives. We are doing our very best. I took it to the minister of foreign affairs of Syria and said that if the Syrians had a case against Mr. Arar, they were to make that case in court and enable Mr. Arar to defend himself or to have him returned to us. As it is, they are now saying they intend to make a case. They are entitled to do this. We asked them to move as precipitately as possible and we will continue to protect his--
i will read this tomorrow, I just got finished reading what Captain wrote, and it really upset me, so I need to wait to read this. Thanks for posting it, it is very interesting to me.
BTW, it was a very big story in the UK, when we lived there, despite it being ignored here in the US.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, there was a time when Canada played a leadership role in shaping the world. Under the Liberals, the government is trying to escape it.
For a decade now, Liberal indifference has eroded Canada's authority in the world. Canada has gone from a position of influence to a position of irrelevance.
Now it seems Canadians are paying the price for Canada's diminished influence abroad. Canadians can no longer assume that a Canadian passport will be respected by other countries. They can no longer assume that they will have meaningful access to and support from Canadian consular officials when in trouble.
Canadians are angry at the inability of the government to protect our own people, including people like William Sampson, Bruce Balfour, Mahar Arar and Zahra Kazemi.
When will the government stand up to protect Canadians travelling abroad?
William Sampson was charged, in Saudia Arabia for a murder he did not commit. He was tortured into giving a false confession and faced execution by beheading. It is an easy interview to find because he credits his survival to being a "bastard" and considers it a prised family trait: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sampson/interview2.html
Zahra Kazemi was arrested for taking pictures outside of the outside of an Iranian prison during a student protest. She died three weeks later while being interrogated. At first, the Iranian officials were trying to claim that it was a stroke and then they tried to claim that her death was accidental. Shahram Azam, the doctor who examined Zahra Kazemi after her death, fled Iran with documents which showed just how severe her beating was: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/31/Dr.Azam050331.html
Stephan Hachemi is Zahra Kazemi's son.
Bruce Balfour was accused of being a spy.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Vaudree,
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, indications are that Syria is about to subject Maher Arar to a trial. To add to that nightmare, there is no Canadian ambassador in Syria at the moment and the Canadian government has backtracked from its promise to pay for Mr. Arar's legal counsel.
With no clear charges, no transparency, no Canadian ambassador, and no government support of legal counsel, how are the rights of this Canadian citizen to be protected? The Prime Minister promised the Arar family that he would do everything that he could. What has he done?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, as do other members of the House, we have been in regular contact with the government of Syria. In fact when our ambassador last visited Mr. Arar, he specifically said that our representations had aided his position, had helped him. He was very grateful for the fact that his position had improved there.
Obviously this is a matter of Mr. Arar being a Syrian national as well as a Canadian national. The Syrian authorities are saying they are going to press charges against him. We have taken the position that they must release him to Canada. We seek to get his release but obviously we must deal with the Syrian authorities in dealing with a Syrian national under Syrian law. We are using all efforts we can to make sure Mr. Arar is well and we get him out-
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, with respect to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, has the Government of Canada asked the United States government why Mr. Arar was deported to Jordan for 12 days and then transferred to Syria? Who transferred this Canadian citizen to Jordan and who moved him to Syria?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada has raised this at the very highest level of the United States, including Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In addition, we have made it very clear to Syrian authorities that Mr. Arar be brought back to Canada. In the event that they do not do that, then we want him brought forward for trial. We understand that he will be brought forward for trial in the near future. We have met with his lawyer and Canadian officials there. We are making it very clear that we want access to that trial and the ability to monitor it all the way through.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I just simply asked who transferred this Canadian citizen to Jordan? Why was he transferred to Jordan, and then 12 days later transferred to Syria? However, I will move on.
U.S. officials have said that Canadian authorities had indicated that Mr. Arar was not welcome back in Canada. Did Canadian authorities ever question Mr. Arar, or accuse him of any terrorist related activities?
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already told the member, this matter is being discussed at the highest levels. We have been in contact with the top American authorities.
We continue to pursue the matter, both with American and Syrian authorities. Mr. Arar is no longer in Jordan; he is in Syria. We think that is the situation we should be dealing with.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Today is the first anniversary of the United States' arrest and deportation to Syria of Maher Arar.
Yesterday the RCMP assistant commissioner stonewalled in committee and refused to say what information the RCMP had passed on to the United States about Arar.
Will the minister now answer that question? Will he stand up for this Canadian citizen and confirm that Canada has absolutely no evidence linking Maher Arar to terrorism?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all I reject the allegation of the member that the RCMP stonewalled at committee. They did not.
The RCMP in fact laid out the facts, and the facts are these: The RCMP were not involved in the decision by the United States' authority to arrest and deport Mr. Arar. Nor was the RCMP involved in making suggestions to the Americans that Mr. Arar be deported to Syria.
Those are the facts and the member should understand that. Those are the facts and I cannot say more than that.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, in early summer both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General expressed concern that information about Maher Arar may have come from Canadian sources to the United States.
I ask, did any agency of Canada give any agency in the United States any information about Mr. Arar before, during or after he was detained in New York and deported by U.S. authorities to Syria?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made this very clear before and one of the assistant commissioners of the RCMP has made it very clear before the foreign affairs committee: the RCMP was not involved in the decision made by United States authorities to arrest and deport Mr. Arar.
The RCMP did not at any time suggest to United States authorities that Mr. Arar should be deported to Syria. Those are the facts. The hon. member may not like the facts, but those are the facts.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, he is right. I do not like the answer because he did not answer the question; I said all agencies.
But moving right along, when asked why Canadian citizen Mr. Arar was held in custody in Jordan for 12 days, foreign affairs officials indicated that the Jordanians said he was just, and I quote, “in transit” for 12 days. That just does not make sense.
Could the minister tell this House the real reason that Mr. Arar was held in Jordan? And could the minister tell this House who held him in custody: the Americans, the Jordanians or the Syrians?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can really only go back to the previous answer that the RCMP was not involved in any way with suggesting that Mr. Arar be deported to Syria. It was just not involved. Those are the facts. I cannot go beyond that because the facts are the facts.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one year and 10 days after being illegally detained, interrogated and then deported to Syria by the U.S., Canadian citizen Maher Arar has been released and will be reunited today with his family.
New Democrats are deeply relieved about his release, no one more so than the member from Halifax who worked tirelessly with Maher's wife, Monia Mazigh, and his family for his release. The support of the community and groups like Amnesty International were critical to keeping up the pressure for his release.
Maher Arar and Canadians deserve answers to tough questions that remain. Why did the U.S. detain him and deport him to Syria despite his Canadian passport? Why has Canada not registered more strongly its objections to the U.S.'s illegal treatment of this Canadian citizen? What role, if any, did our Canadian security agency play in his detention and deportation from the U.S.?
The NDP will continue to demand answers to these questions and affirm our commitment to speak out against the abuse of Canadian citizens' rights.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General, and it is the fifth time I have asked the question. I would like to have a really straight answer. I will ask it very simply.
Did any agency of the Government of Canada, RCMP, CSIS or any agency or department give any agency in the United States any information about Maher Arar before, during or after he was detained in New York?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again along the lines of previous answers I have given, I will have to keep it as simple as I can for the member.
The facts are that the RCMP was not involved in the decision made by United States authorities to deport Mr. Arar and it did not at any time suggest to the United States authorities that Mr. Arar should be deported to Syria. Those are the simple facts and that is the answer.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Maher Arar is finally a free man, back where he belongs in Canada, enjoying his first full day with his family in over a year.
I want to thank everyone for their untiring efforts to have Mr. Arar returned safely home, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister, members of Parliament, the NGOs and individuals who have worked ceaselessly for his freedom. I want to pay tribute especially to two people, first to Gar Pardy, now retired director general of consular affairs, for his relentless pursuit of justice for Mr. Arar and to the public servants who worked with him on this file; and above all, to Mr. Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh. Her unfailing faith in her husband, her eloquence in defending his rights as a Canadian citizen and her persistence in arguing his case have shown an unbelievable courage.
There are questions to be asked and to be answered, but today is for celebrating and wishing the family our best.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, the wife of Maher Arar recently made public that the RCMP came to their home in January 2002 asking to interview Mr. Arar.
Will the Solicitor General confirm what the Arars have already made public?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that as Solicitor General I do not speak on operational matters of the RCMP. It would be inappropriate to do so and I do not intend to do so today.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Solicitor General is very selective in what he will release and what he will not release, which is operational details.
He has said that the RCMP was not involved in the decision, which was an operational detail, but he will not release other information that we want.
The fact is that every person in that committee hearing today and every Canadian now know that information that came from Canadian authorities resulted in the incarceration of Maher Arar in Syria for a year.
Will the Minister clear the air, clear his reputation and call for a public inquiry now?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the premise of the hon. member's question.
What Canadians do know are the facts. The fact is that the RCMP was not involved in the decision by the United States authorities to arrest and deport Mr. Arar. The hon. member opposite may not like that fact but that is the fact and he need not allege otherwise. Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General refuses to clarify whether the RCMP did indeed provide information to the Americans that could have led to Mr. Arar's deportation to Syria. Yet the Americans themselves, at the highest level, have not hesitated in saying that they acted on Canadian information.
Can the Solicitor General tell me, yes or no, whether the RCMP provided the Americans with information on Mr. Arar?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite might not like the facts but I just spent an hour before the foreign affairs committee, at which the member was there, and I, in fact, answered those questions.
I have been assured by the commissioner that the RCMP was not involved in the decision by the Americans to arrest and deport Mr. Arar. Those are the facts. Whether the hon. member likes those facts or not, those are the facts.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has never said that the RCMP did not pass on information. That is not the same thing. CINAR, Radwanski, sponsorships, all of these are in the hands of the RCMP. There is no longer any way of getting information here in this Parliament. The government refuses to speak. This is why the Arar case requires a public inquiry in order to exonerate this citizen whose rights have been trampled on and whose very life was put in danger.
Is this country being run by the RCMP?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before the committee this morning, the RCMP operated within its mandate and within the laws of the country.
I can tell members that the government, as a whole, worked strenuously to ensure that Mr. Arar was returned to Canada. He is back and we certainly are pleased to see him back in this country.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague from Churchill for speaking out so eloquently and forcefully against Bill C-17 on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.
I would like to make a brief comment on the destructive impact of the government's approach to civil liberties since September 11, 2001.
We recently learned that the oversight body of the RCMP that has the responsibility for ensuring that Canadians who have concerns about the abuses of power by the RCMP has said that it is powerless when it comes to dealing with abuses under the anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36. Shirley Heafey, the head of the RCMP civilian watchdog, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, said:
“We can't (investigate) unless there's a complaint, and even if there is a complaint...we can't see the information. So for all practical purposes, there's no civilian oversight.”
Just today a group of prominent Canadians in the international civil liberties monitoring group have called for an independent inquiry into the serious abuses around the deportation of Maher Arar to Syria by the United States and the possibility that there may have been collusion with the RCMP. There was no oversight body whatsoever on that. The minister responsible for the RCMP stonewalled and covered up on that issue as well.
I remember when Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, was passed. We were promised that there would be full and effective oversight. We were told there would be no problem. New Democrats rejected that bill then as an assault on our civil liberties just as we are rejecting Bill C-17 today as an assault on our civil liberties.
I wonder if the hon. member might comment with respect to the total absence of any meaningful safeguards in Bill C-17.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, absolutely and certainly I want to acknowledge what my colleague is saying.
The record of the government should have everybody just shaking in their boots. We should not expect any kind of representation or fair recourse because it has not been there from the government. I recall an answer given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in question period one day. His reasoning for how Maher Arar ended up in trouble was that he had another citizenship as well.
Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Individuals should not have to apologize if they were born somewhere else or had citizenship of another country, then came to Canada and became Canadian citizens, lived here for years and were active participants in our society. In turn, the Canadian government has turned its back on them. Because we want to buckle down to possibly appeasing the U.S., are we going to turn our backs on Canadians?
What happened to sovereignty? What happened to a government standing up for its own citizens? That has been lost with the government. Knowing that we should have an even greater concern when we see this other piece of legislation.
My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas was absolutely correct. The government cannot be trusted. The bill cannot be trusted. There will be no oversight. We will have more problems along the way. I do not want to see any Canadians harassed, not any one of them, over this type of action as we fight terrorism because that is not the answer.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague from Churchill to comment in regard to the legislation that is being used abusively against the Pakistani community generally, and with the exception of one person who is from India, over the last couple of months. People were under simple suspicion, and even that is probably stretching it, that they may somehow be involved in terrorism.
They were incarcerated and not told what the accusations were against them because there were no accusations in effect. Simply, on the whim of some immigration officials, they were incarcerated. A number of them are still incarcerated.
It has produced a chill because the result of some of those positions taken by some of the officials has been that people have now applied to voluntarily leave the country even though they may have a number of other remedies available to them under our immigration laws and common law that would allow them to stay in the country. But because they have had this mud thrown at them, this smear done on their reputations that they might somehow be associated with terrorism, they have voluntarily offered to leave the country.
I wonder if my colleague could comment if that type of chill that has been created in the field of immigration now. Could it spill over into other areas because of Bill C-17?
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I do not think there is any question that will happen.
As a once proud nation that was there to stand up for people from throughout the world who were having their human rights violated, Canada opened its doors. That is why a good many of us are here today because our ancestors came over. This was a nation that opened its doors to people and said that they would be given a better life, that they would not have to live under regimes that did not allow a democratic process. Canada said it could do that for them because that is what the country was about.
Under the current government and Prime Minister, with those members and that caucus over there, they have turned the page in Canadian history.
My colleague from Mississauga South was commenting on the War Measures Act and how it was important to have that in place at one time. Whether or not we decide whether the War Measures Act was important, the bottom line is that the War Measures Act ended. It was only there for a crucial moment and at least it was gone.
The bill before us will be law forever. This will be a day-by-day, year-by-year, decade-by-decade War Measures Act imposed upon Canadians, and it is not acceptable.
Canada will lose its place in the world as being considered a democratic nation. We will hear numerous reports--they are guaranteed to be coming--of infringements on people, harassments, and being jailed without the right of access to lawyers and the democratic process. Is that what we want? Is that how we want to be seen in the world? I do not think so.
If we allow that to happen, then those terrorists who took an active part in the September 11 attack have succeeded. They have made us no better as a nation than the countries and terrorists that were doing it, and that is the absolute reality of this.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): I would also like to address the powers that will be conferred upon the RCMP and CSIS. We are aware of the case of Maher Arar—on which my colleague from Mercier has been asking questions earlier. This Canadian was apprehended by the Americans when in the United States and was subsequently returned to his former country.
Judging from the RCMP's behaviour, if it had more power given to it, this would lead to almost an automatic connection between the RCMP and the Americans. This lays open to question the rights of citizens, of the people of Canada and Quebec.
So those are the powers. The bill includes provisions which confer extended powers on RCMP commissioners as well as the director of CSIS, in connection with the gathering of information on air passengers from the airlines.
The more we travel, the more we will be under surveillance. That is what this means. The more often we take a plane, the more the RCMP will interfere in our business. The more often we visit countries likely to have links with countries that have links to terrorists, the more likely the RCMP is to interfere in our business. It is unacceptable that so much power is being given to the RCMP, particularly when we have seen how it acted in this matter, which is getting so much media coverage and attention in the House.
We tried to amend this bill so as to limit the powers relating to retention and use of the information gathered in this way. We often hear reference to someone “flagged by the RCMP”. What does that mean? It means that the RCMP collects information on such individuals, based on the assumption of a link with terrorism. This information is on file with the RCMP and can be used at any time in order to violate the freedom of members of the public. It is really dangerous to give so much power to the RCMP with Bill C-17.
We also wanted to ensure that the information gathered would be destroyed within 24 hours of landing unless there were any suspicions about the passenger. What point is there in keeping information? But no, the time limit will be seven days. In other words, during those seven days the authorities are in possession of information on an individual which can lead to digging deeper into that person's life, far more than to just find out about his past, his background, when he takes a plane.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we now have two different versions of what is factually correct about the Maher Arar case.
The Solicitor General says that no information was passed to the Americans. The Minister of Foreign Affairs says that he believes Colin Powell's version, that the Americans received information from Canadian authorities.
Which is it? On which minister's report is the Prime Minister basing his decision not to have a public inquiry?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question before a committee several times yesterday. Clearly, the RCMP is a very highly respected organization and has tremendous integrity.
I have been assured and I have said that the RCMP was not involved in the decision made by the United States in this matter.
I know that the member and the party opposite do not like to hear those facts, but those are the facts and we are standing by those facts.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General would not know a fact if it bit him on the rump.
The Solicitor General was quoted as saying that rogue elements in the RCMP passed along information to the Americans. Since then he has reversed himself, he has covered up, and now he claims the RCMP were not involved.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told our foreign minister that the RCMP did disclose information on Mr. Arar. The foreign affairs minister went so far as to state that “Mr. Powell spoke truthfully to me”.
Again, my question is for the Prime Minister. Who does he believe and who should Canadians believe? The Solicitor General of Canada or the U.S. Secretary of State.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I heard that question coming from the rump over there in the corner.
This is a very serious matter. We recognize that. We have talked to the RCMP extensively. I have said to Canadians and to the foreign affairs committee that we do not talk about operational matters within the RCMP.
I have outlined very clearly that the RCMP was not involved in the decision by United States authorities to arrest and deport Mr. Arar.
Could I be more clearer? I could not.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Did Secretary of State Colin Powell tell the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Canadian sources gave the United States information that led to the deportation to Syria of Mr. Arar? While he is at it, would he tell us whether Mr. Powell said that Canadian source was the RCMP?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with Secretary Powell and I raised this matter. I protested strongly to the United States that when Canadians are in the United States they should be treated as Canadians and returned to Canada. In the course of that discussion, he said to me that advice from his officials was that this was appropriate in terms of international law by the United States and it was covered by arrangements. That was his advice to me. This is what he was told by his officials.
Secretary Powell and I always have the frankness of accords. He knows very strongly that Canada is of the position that when Canadians are in the United States they should be treated as Canadians and returned to this country, and the Solicitor General and I work on that premise.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that was not the question. The question was, did Colin Powell indicate to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a discussion with him, that information that came from Canadian sources resulted in Mr. Arar's incarceration for a year in Syria?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my conversation with Secretary Powell, he said that the American authorities had acted within their jurisdiction to take the steps they did based on information which they had received which justified the steps that they took. That is the information which he told me. That is what he gave me and of course that is what he was operating under.
Secretary Powell was perfectly frank with me. He operates on the basis of advice from officials like every other secretary of state in the world.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): It is becoming increasingly clear from the replies he has given in the Arar case that the Solicitor General does not take this House seriously. What we are asking of the Solicitor General is not whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took part in the decision by the Americans to deport M. Arar to Syria. The real question is very simple: did the RCMP send information on Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, to the American authorities—yes or no?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject entirely the premise of the hon. member. We take this issue very seriously and we always have.
As a matter of law and practice, and the hon. member should know this, the RCMP does not discuss operational matters in public, nor should a Solicitor General and I do not intend to do that.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are playing a very odd game. The government is using the RCMP for obscure purposes and the RCMP is agreeing to play along. Neither the government nor the future prime minister want to answer our questions. That is an example of the democratic deficit.
I ask the Solicitor General once again if information concerning Maher Arar was sent to the Americans by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me expand a little further on the reason why neither I nor the RCMP talk about operational matters. We do it to protect the privacy of individuals involved and to protect the integrity of investigations that are ongoing. That is why it is necessary to do it. The fact of the matter is that in this country we operate on the principle of innocence.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly difficult to learn with any certainty the RCMP's true role in Maher Arar's deportation to Syria by the U.S. authorities. We know that the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is currently evaluating various scenarios so it can get to the bottom of this affair.
Since RCMP obstruction of the commission's work is not beyond the realm of possibility, does the Solicitor General intend to change his mind and order a public inquiry, which we feel is the only way to shed light on this whole affair, which is getting cloudier by the minute?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question so many times in the House that I think the member could almost memorize the answer. The facts are the facts and I have stated them. The facts are that the RCMP did not disclose to the American authorities on this issue. It was not part of the decision. It is that simple. Those are the facts.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the more the Solicitor General says, the less we understand. It is becoming increasingly cloudy.
Since it is becoming increasingly clear that the Solicitor General is trying to cover up the RCMP's actions, what will it take for the government to show transparency and order a public inquiry, as Amnesty International has suggested, this very day?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. I have tried to be very transparent on this issue. I went before the foreign affairs committee. I answered questions this morning at the justice committee on this issue. The answer remains the same as I have stated in this House several times. The member knows what that answer is. Those are the facts. The RCMP was not involved in the decision to arrest and deport Mr. Arar. That is how simple it is.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, I just received a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs that says that Maher Arar was only in Jordan while he was “in transit” on his way to Syria.
The Syrians confirmed yesterday that he was not in transit but he was incarcerated and being interrogated while he was in Jordan.
Why would the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell me that this Canadian was in transit when he was really in jail and being questioned?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arar was deported by the American authorities from New York to Syria. He passed through Jordan; he was in transit in Jordan. He was taken to Syria through Jordan.
The letter is absolutely accurate. The hon. member knows that. That is exactly what we said and that is the truth.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, being interrogated and in jail is not in transit.
The Syrians confirmed yesterday that Mr. Arar was in jail and not in transit at all. Now that we know Mr. Arar was in Jordan, where was he in Jordan? Who had him in custody while he was in Jordan? Did the minister ever ask any of these questions?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, we asked those questions.
However, Mr. Arar has returned to Canada. I think it is important to allow Mr. Arar to have an opportunity to tell his story as to what happened to him. We are respectful of that and we will allow that to happen.
We will respect the case of Mr. Arar as we respect the cases of all citizens. We will not prejudge what they will say about their rights, which we intend to support in defending them.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General.
Today the Solicitor General reaffirmed that there was no contact between Canadian and American officials prior to the deportation of Mahar Arar to Syria.
However, today in the Toronto Star there is a quote from an American official which says that Canadian security informed them that Arar was under surveillance by Canada because he had travelled to Afghanistan.
How can the minister continue to deny that there was an exchange of information between his government and the Americans that may have led to the deportation of Arar to Syria? If he continues to deny that, why does he not just resign?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make it clear all along that I cannot confirm or deny any investigation of any individual or any matter involving the RCMP.
That would be irresponsible of me, including in terms of any exchange of information. To do so would violate the privileges of individuals and could impinge the integrity of investigations.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that Maher Arar is back in Canada, out of harm's way, we must act to clear away any cloud hanging over his and his family's heads.
I was encouraged by this week's news that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is considering holding an inquiry in the public interest. I encourage the commission to do this.
We must find out whether American claims are true that information provided by the RCMP played a role in Maher Arar's detention and deportation and whether RCMP sources played any part in his continued incarceration in Damascus at the same time that the foreign affairs minister and the Prime Minister were making every effort to have him returned to Canada.
His family's terrible ordeal with not be over until these and all uncertainties surrounding the last year are fully and publicly resolved.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government has refused to provide any information on the Maher Arar case. The RCMP is not providing any information as well in terms of its participation. Meanwhile, Lloyd Axworthy has said, “Canadians are being treated like mushrooms--kept in the dark and fed fertilizer”. The foreign affairs committee now has invited the American ambassador to testify.
Could the government explain why it resorted to inviting the American ambassador to testify about the role of the RCMP, which is our national police force, in its involvement with a Canadian citizen? Why can the government not answer that question?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking why a committee invited someone to appear before it. I hate to remind him, but Standing Order 108(2) enables committees to do exactly that.
NOTE: Lloyd Axworthy is a former Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs, present Chair of the Advisory Committee for the American Division of Human Rights Watch, and present President of the UofW. His last Common Dreams article was “Missile Counter-Attack: An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” on March 2005.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with Maher Arar back in Canada, the government hopes this case will go away, but we need a full blown independent inquiry into why a year of Mr. Arar's life was stolen from him and his family.
Canadians, especially our one million Arab and Muslim Canadians, worry that there is nothing to prevent the same thing happening to them. Justice demands that we determine what happened to Maher Arar and how we will protect our citizens at home and abroad in the future.
Will the government today commit to that independent public inquiry?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that Mr. Arar is back in Canada. The government has worked strenuously to see that he was returned to Canada.
With respect to the specifics of the member's question, this House and previous Parliaments established such a body for what the member is talking about, that is, the commission for public complaints against the RCMP. If Mr. Arar or any others want to avail themselves of that process if they feel aggrieved, then that option is open to them.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The family of Maher Arar has asked for a public inquiry. The announcement from the RCMP complaints commission begins with a premise that much of its inquiry will remain secret. Canadians have no confidence in this.
Why is the government hiding facts from the many foreign born Canadians who are rapidly feeling like second class citizens? Why is the government not ordering a public inquiry under part I of the Inquiries Act?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday and a number of other times, I have certainly indicated to the House and to the public that the commission for public complaints against the RCMP is available to those who want to avail themselves of that process. In this case, Mr. Arar may want to avail himself of that process.
This morning the chair of the CPC announced that she would look into the matter and lay it out for potential allegations that she would also look into. I am pleased at that and we will let the process take its course.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week's so-called leak alleging what Canadian citizen Maher Arar supposedly said to his Syrian captors was grotesquely irresponsible.
The Solicitor General has no choice but to investigate those leaks and demand accountability. Or, did the Solicitor General, and perhaps the foreign affairs minister as well, intend the release of such allegations in a scurrilous attempt to undermine Maher Arar's credibility before he can justly disclose details about his illegal detention, deportation and imprisonment?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious issue. The member for Ottawa West—Nepean also raised it with me last week.
I want to be very consistent on the issue. The fact of the matter is that I, as Solicitor General, should not, nor should others, speak on operational matters related to national security for several reasons.
It is important that we not do that, first, clearly not to jeopardize investigations and second, very importantly, not to impinge on the integrity of individuals.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to stand in the House and raise the Maher Arar file. If this file is not cleaned up, it will certainly be a bleak mark on Canadian civil rights.
Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria in 1970. He came to Canada in 1987. After earning bachelor's and master's degrees in computer engineering, Arar worked in Ottawa as a telecommunications engineer. His wife, Monia Mazigh, has a Ph.D. in mathematics and they have two young children.
I wish to praise at this time the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his personal interest and involvement with the Arar family.
As Canadians, we know that civil rights are the pillar of this democracy that we live in and believe in. We all know there are many bleak moments in Canadian history.
Let me review a few of them: the internment of Japanese Canadians during the second world war and the internment of Ukrainian Canadians during the first world war. Between 1914 and 1920 over 5,000 Ukrainians were interned in 24 work camps across the country. There was also the Chinese Exclusion Act from 1923 to 1947. Hopefully, we can learn from history.
This week, I had the pleasure of meeting Jean-Louis Roy, the president of Rights and Democracy which is an arm's length organization created by Parliament in 1988. Rights and Democracy is an independent non-partisan organization that works with civil society organizations and governments in Canada and abroad for the benefit of developing nations. Its main focus is civil rights.
Here we are going around the world doing a great job, I must say, promoting civil rights and democracy, and at the same time we probably do not do all that we should do in this country.
That is why I believe this file is very important in the history of this country. There is no doubt that Mr. Arar was apprehended, not because he was a Canadian but because he was a Canadian of Arab descent. There is no doubt that racial profiling took place. The man was detained by U.S. immigration and naturalization officers at New York's Kennedy airport while returning alone to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia. He is a citizen of this country. If this can happen to Maher Arar, it can certainly happen to many other Canadians, whether they are Arab or of other ethnic descent.
I hope the government will pay attention and ensure that there is a transparent process to get to the bottom of this.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to the question and comments that have been put to the House by my hon. colleague, the member for Dauphin--Swan River.
I am pleased to see that the government's efforts and the efforts of Mr. Arar's wife have led to his safe return to Canada. I also want to inform the member for Dauphin--Swan River, the other members in the House and all Canadians who may be listening right now, that the government has in place a strong review mechanism for the RCMP.
Review of the conduct of the RCMP members is provided by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.
On October 23, just seven days ago, Miss Shirley Heafey, the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, announced that she had initiated a complaint regarding the RCMP's conduct in the deportation of Mr. Arar to Syria.
Ms. Heafey has publicly indicated that the complaint requires the RCMP to report on the following matters: whether RCMP members improperly encouraged U.S. authorities to deport Mr. Arar from U.S. territory to Syria; whether the RCMP failed to discourage U.S. authorities from deporting Mr. Arar; whether they improperly divulged information or conveyed inaccurate or incomplete information about Mr. Arar to the United States and/or Syrian authorities; and finally, whether the RCMP improperly impeded the efforts of the Canadian government and others to seek the release of Mr. Arar.
For those who do not know, the commission was established by this Parliament in 1988. Its primary role is to receive and review public complaints about the conduct of RCMP members. I would like to emphasize that the commission is an independent body. It is not part of the RCMP. Ms. Heafey herself has noted that this independence is essential to ensure that the public complaint process is conducted with impartiality and fairness.
As required by the RCMP Act, the chair has referred her complaint to the RCMP for investigation. Now let us allow this process to unfold in the appropriate manner.
Once the RCMP investigation is complete, the RCMP commissioner has to report the results to the commission, including a summary of any action that will be taken by the force.
The chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP may then take further action deemed appropriate by her. There are several options available to her, including a review of the complaint based upon relevant materials provided by the RCMP, a request that the RCMP investigate further and/or provide additional information, and the chair also has the authority to further investigate or to conduct the holding of a public hearing.
The commission has indicated its commitment to make its conclusions publicly available once the process is completed.
Given the sensitive nature of police work, information provided by the RCMP to the commission for the purpose of this process must be properly held. I will conclude by saying that prior to -
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for Dauphin--Swan River.
Mr. Inky Mark: Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate the commission chair, Shirley Heafey, for starting the application of complaint.
The Arar family and friends have been demanding a full public inquiry into this case. The RCMP complaints commission has no power to impose discipline or to order compensation payment to the victims.
I read from the same page that the parliamentary secretary received from the Internet. It states that the commission chair can initiate a complaint, and the complaint has been referred to the RCMP for investigation. In other words, members of the RCMP are investigating themselves. That is kind of ludicrous.
How do we get transparency out of this process? That is why there needs to be a full public inquiry into this matter.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Madam Speaker, the answer is simple. The answer is to let the commission, an independent body, do its job. The commission has the authority to review the investigation of the RCMP of this complaint and then the commission has the authority to conduct its own public inquiry into the complaint if it is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the RCMP. That is the first thing.
Second, one only has to look at what happened after the APEC summit where there were allegations that pepper spray was used by members of the RCMP and that there was an abuse of authority enforced by members of the RCMP. It was that very commission that conducted a public inquiry. When its report came out there was no one, not the media nor opposition members, who did not applaud the report of the commission and say that it was a fair, transparent and credible report --
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today Maher Arar, recently released from a Syrian prison, spoke for the first time on his terrible experiences of the last year.
Our government must demand explanations and apologies from the American government for his deportation after a hearing with no legal representation. We must demand redress from the Syrians for the torture and inhumane conditions Maher endured. We must investigate leaks from within our own government that has put his and his family's life, including two young children, at danger.
We must leave no stone unturned until he has a chance to clear his name and have his and his family's lives back to normal.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Maher Arar case, I do not think we have ever seen a government so energetically trying not to get to the bottom of anything. This situation needs to be fixed. Fortunately the members of the foreign affairs committee feel otherwise and they recommended by a majority vote with all parties participating that there be a public inquiry into the Maher Arar case to find out what kind of Canadian complicity there was and what happened to Mr. Arar.
I ask the Solicitor General, will he finally listen to reason and call for the public inquiry for which we have been calling for so long?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for other countries, but I can and do speak for the RCMP and CSIS. I can assure the House that those agencies are operating under their mandates and under Canadian law.
Further, the chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP has compiled those allegations and in fact has set a process in place to look into those allegations. That process was set up by a previous Parliament. It was set up to deal with these kinds of issues. I am sure that she will deal with this issue through the proper process.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we need an inquiry to find out how the Americans got hold of Mr. Arar's lease, or for that matter to find out whether or not we are in fact contracting out torture to the Syrians.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
A deeply disturbing aspect of Maher Arar's nightmare is that Canada may have been complicit in shipping one of our citizens to Syria to be tortured and then treat confessions gained through torture as credible.
Is the government now prepared to support the foreign affairs committee's call for a comprehensive public inquiry to get to the bottom of this sordid affair, or does the government have something to hide?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all the member's allegations are absolutely ridiculous.
The fact of the matter is, as I have already answered in the House several times, there is a process set up by previous parliaments to look into these kinds of issues and that is through the CPC. In fact, that process is taking place.
We are glad that Mr. Arar is back in Canada. The Government of Canada, including the Prime Minister, his envoys and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has done everything in their power to ensure that he got back here.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today Maher Arar gave chilling testimony of torture and abuse in a Syrian dungeon. He also indicated our government did not do enough to defend his interests.
He now joins William Sampson, Bruce Balfour, and Stephan Hachemi in saying that soft talk does not work with tough tyrants.
Mr. Arar's case raises so many important and urgent questions. Why will the government not spare Canadians the millions of dollars and months of delay of a public inquiry, and just give Mr. Arar the answers to his fair questions now? Why is it delaying and what is it hiding?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times, the government is not hiding anything. The fact of the matter is that we have been as transparent as we can be on this issue.
It is the law and practice in this country that the Solicitor General, or other government representatives or indeed the RCMP, does not talk about operational details. It is to protect the integrity of individuals themselves, their privacy, and to protect the integrity of other investigations. That is the practice.
On top of that, there is the CPC review under the authority granted to it by the House.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Syrian regime has one of the worst records of human rights atrocities in the world. In 1982, 25,000 civilians were massacred in Hama, Syria's third largest city after President Assad ordered the liquidation of all opposition there.
Syria has provided haven and support to terrorists and continues to defy the United Nations by maintaining its illegal occupation of Lebanon. Now we have the testimony of a Canadian being tortured.
How bad must it get before our government will go to the United Nations and ask for a vote denouncing Syria's actions against Canadians and democracy itself?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I called in the Syrian ambassador this afternoon and I asked him to review the evidence of Mr. Arar.
You must agree with me, Mr. Speaker, and every member of the House, that it is extremely troubling. This is a very preoccupying case. The government takes it very seriously. We have conveyed our concerns to the Syrian government and we will continue to convey our concerns.
We will work for Canadians who are apprehended and who are incarcerated abroad in a way to ensure their security and liberty. We will continue to do that forcefully with all the diplomacy at our command.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Canadians heard Maher Arar's heart wrenching testimony about his 374 days of torture and hardship. His ordeal would have been even more horrendous but for the efforts of his courageous loving wife, Monia Mazigh.
Today we pay tribute to this remarkable woman. She has inspired Canadians with her unrelenting efforts to raise awareness of what happens when the rights of citizens are trampled in the name of so-called national security.
In her typically humble way, she insists that the credit belongs to her mother and to Mr. Arar's loving family, calling them true heroes for their support while she struggled against incredible odds to bring Maher home to safety, to justice and to his family.
Monia Mazigh dared the unknown forces who violated the rights of her husband and for 374 days robbed her children of their father.
We are all deeply indebted to Monia Mazigh for her devotion in fighting for the rights and freedoms that her family should enjoy and that all Canadians prize so dearly.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, watching the Liberal caucus goings-on this morning, I thought the Prime Minister might not have a seat but I am glad to see he has found a place to put himself. However, I do have a serious question.
Maher Arar was imprisoned and tortured in a Syrian prison. Canadian officials may have been involved in his deportation. Yesterday in an all party committee of the House, members of all parties basically unanimously demanded that the government hold a public inquiry into this situation.
Why is the government refusing to have a public inquiry to lay to rest some of these allegations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is completely unacceptable and deplorable what happened to this gentleman who is a Canadian and who was sent to Syria rather than to his country of Canada. We have protested. This morning I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister to get in touch with their counterparts. A few minutes ago Secretary Powell said that he would try to find out if there is in reality one Canadian involved in that. The name will be given to Canada if there is one and we will act accordingly.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is completely acceptable that we would get the facts from other countries but we should be getting the facts from our own government of its role in this case.
Consular officials visited Mr. Arar in New York and Syria, yet somehow the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General all refused to accept any responsibility. What is the government hiding? Why does the government refuse to disclose all of the facts of its role in this case?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have revealed all the facts that we know about it. There is nothing the government knows that has not been made public.
I find it very hypocritical from the opposition because on the 18th of November, 2002 the Leader of the Opposition criticized us for having “participated in high level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist”. The same day the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill criticized us for “chastising the U.S. for sending Arar back to Syria”. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on this side we are prepared to have a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the truth. The government should be prepared to do exactly the same thing.
Mr. Arar, members of the opposition and members of the government are asking for a public inquiry. The Prime Minister's own whip says that no stone should be left unturned. I believe the Prime Minister's successor will hold a public inquiry if he does not, so will the Prime Minister, for the benefit of all of us -
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is just another fishing expedition. The people who are responsible for the deportation of the gentleman to Syria are in the government of the United States, not the Government of Canada. I cannot understand why the opposition wants to blame the Government of Canada for the actions of the Americans. This gentleman should have come to Canada. He should not have been sent to Syria.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, the investigations of allegations of wrongdoing and Canadian complacency in the Maher Arar case are very troubling. Evidence warrants a full and open public inquiry which would include the Department of Foreign Affairs, CSIS and the RCMP. A public complaints commission will not have a wide scope, nor will it be transparent, nor does it preclude a full public inquiry.
Given the widespread support on both sides of the House, before the Prime Minister steps out of public life, will he step in and initiate a full public inquiry into the Arar case?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not one who would presume that some Canadians are guilty of something in that like the opposition. The fact is that this gentleman was deported from New York to Syria by the government of the United States, and the government of the United States should have informed Canada before acting.
We have complained to the government of the United States. We want to know the name of the Canadian person who might be involved. Secretary Powell said to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that if such a name exists, it will be given to Canada.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, that is fine, but there may be more than one name.
Authorities in the United States have admitted that the Arar case fits what CIA officials have termed extraordinary rendition, the practice of turning suspected terrorists over to foreign intelligence services which are known to torture prisoners.
Were the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Solicitor General aware of this practice of extraordinary rendition? Has this happened in the Arar case? If the minister is aware of this practice, will he report on those findings to the House?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I completely reject the suggestion that we have not been active in bringing back Maher Arar. We worked on bringing back Maher Arar. I spent a great deal of time on it. As the Prime Minister pointed out, the party opposite criticized me and criticized the Prime Minister for the work we were doing on behalf of a Canadian citizen.
To say now that we are going to be responsible for the policies of another government and what it does is again an attempt by the opposition to blame the government for what another country does.
I have raised it with Mr. Powell. We have raised it with the American authorities. We have heard the American ambassador speak about this issue.
We act on behalf of Canadians and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, according to the Liberal member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, the Solicitor General may be a team player but has not been let in on the game plan.
Insinuations by his own colleague that the Solicitor General is a good boy but does not know much suggest that the Solicitor General has been kept in the dark about the RCMP's role in the deportation and detention of Maher Arar.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Was he kept in the dark as his own colleague suggests or was he privy to the RCMP's complicity with the United States authorities?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The allegations, as outlined by the member opposite, are indeed very wrong in terms of the complicity of the RCMP.
The fact of the matter is, and the hon. member knows it, I do not speak on the operational details of the RCMP, nor should I.
Let us put things into perspective. The Government of Canada has complained strenuously about what happened to Mr. Arar. The decision was made on foreign soil on the basis of information of which we do not know. Allegations were made against the RCMP and we have put a process in place to deal with those allegations.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, these are the allegations of his very own colleague.
The member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia stated that he is not sure the Solicitor General has been told the truth by the RCMP and that in fact the RCMP has stonewalled the Solicitor General. Therefore, he knows no more than anyone else in the House regarding the Maher Arar case.
Perhaps the Solicitor General would like to set his own colleague straight. Was he fully apprised of the RCMP's involvement with the United States authorities in the Maher Arar case or has he lost control of his department, as his own colleague suggests?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have put in place a process.
The chair of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP has compiled the allegations against the RCMP. That process is in place to find out whether the allegations made by that member and others are in fact true or not.
We want to, and I certainly want to, get to the bottom of this issue.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It appears to everyone, with the possible exception of the Solicitor General, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and now the Prime Minister, that there was some form of Canadian complicity in what happened to Maher Arar.
So I ask the Prime Minister, why does he want to spend the last few days as Prime Minister, someone associated with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defending the obviously disgusting role that the Canadian government played in this particular case?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think this is an accusation based on nothing. He has not proven anything.
The facts are that this gentleman was in New York and he was deported to Syria by the American government. The Canadian government had nothing to do with it.
When we heard about it, we protested and did everything we could to get him out of jail in Syria. We sent people there to talk with the government. We did everything until he was liberated by the Government of Syria.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government knew that he was in New York and could have acted before he was deported to Syria. There is a Canadian role in this.
Will the Prime Minister call a public inquiry so we can know what it did or did not do in order to prevent Mr. Maher Arar from becoming the object of this so-called rendition, or as I called it yesterday, contracting out of torture? Shame on Canada.
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. member has let his emotional rhetoric get ahead of the facts and common sense.
As we note, and as Mr. Arar personally testified to, a consular official did meet with Mr. Arar.
Our consular officials in New York were working hard to deal with Mr. Arar's case. Our consular officials were in touch with Mr. Arar's American lawyer to appear before immigration authorities. Our consular officials were surprised to find that Mr. Arar had been deported to Syria.
The hon. member cannot allege that we did not do everything in our power in New York to see him and protect him.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General repeatedly said in this House that the RCMP was not involved with the decision to deport Maher Arar. On the contrary, it appears that the single piece of evidence that caused Mr. Arar to be jailed and tortured for a year is a copy of a 1997 lease from Ottawa provided by a Canadian agency.
If it was not the RCMP that was involved in supplying this document, which agency was it?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that is what we are trying to do with the processes that are in place. We are dealing with the allegations, such as that one, which have been alleged against the RCMP.
That process and that body were put in place by the House of Commons itself, by Parliament. We need to allow that process to do its work so that we can indeed get to the bottom of this issue and see what is fact and what is not.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arar was tortured and jailed for a year. He is entitled to know who gave the U.S. authorities a copy of his lease from Ottawa in 1997.
The Solicitor General must know how that copy of the lease got to the United States authorities. Will he tell us who gave it to the Americans?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really seems to love to get into rumour and conjecture. We are trying to get to the facts in this case, and the process has been set up to find the facts.
In fact, the CPC is doing an investigation on that very matter right now. We operate in this country, and maybe the hon. member does not know this, on the presumption of innocence as it affects Mr. Arar.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to initiate a public inquiry into the Arar case, because the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP is already looking into the affair. This commission has no power to investigate the role played by the Department of Foreign Affairs or CSIS in the deportation of Maher Arar to Syria.
Is the Prime Minister aware that only a public inquiry will make it possible to bring all the facts to light, and that if he refuses, the logical conclusion is that his government has something to hide?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my party's whip raised the issue, for example. We have been in the forefront to make sure that Mr. Arar could return to Canada.
However, people are demanding a public inquiry into the activities of the U.S. government. To hear the opposition talk, it is as if this gentleman had been deported to Syria directly from Montreal. He was deported to Syria by the U.S. authorities. Therefore, it is the U.S. government that owes an explanation to all Canadians because it was the one that deported him.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Arar has been through is the direct consequence of the events of September 11, 2001. Since then, it is easier and easier for the Americans to obtain private information about Canadian citizens.
Is the Prime Minister aware that this case illustrates what we were afraid of, that is, that the government will sacrifice freedom to the cause of so-called security?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have passed laws here in this House to ensure that the security of Canadians is safeguarded. Since September 11, 2001, the world has changed. I think that the hon. member does not want to admit that.
Terrorism is a problem that must be taken very seriously. Here, we have passed laws that have passed the charter test and that ensure the security of Canadians and combat international terrorism. This is an obligation we have, and we are shouldering our responsibilities.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
The committee has considered the issue of cases involving the detention of Canadian citizens in certain foreign countries and calls upon the Government of Canada to initiate an independent public inquiry into the Maher Arar case, including the examination of the role that government departments and agencies may have played in his deportation by the United States and his subsequent incarceration in Syria.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is an application for an emergency debate concerning the allegations surrounding the arrest, deportation and imprisonment of Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was held without charge and tortured in a Syrian prison for one year.
There is ample evidence that officials of the Government of Canada were involved in his arrest and in the decision by the United States to deport Mr. Arar to Syria and not to Canada.
In deciding the merits of this application, the Speaker I know is required to take into account several criteria found in Standing Order 52. I would like to address those.
First, it must be a specific and an important matter requiring urgent consideration. I would argue that it is urgent because just days ago leaks came from certain government agencies, unnamed agencies, that actually put Mr. Arar and his family at risk now.
It is also urgent because there is another Canadian in the same prison. We have learned from Mr. Arar's presentation that there is another Canadian in prison by the name of Mr. Abdullah Almalki. He could be being tortured right now as we speak.
Yesterday, Mr. Arar spoke publicly for the first time since his release from prison and his return to Canada. What requires immediate attention by the Parliament of Canada is the suggestion that Canadian officials, or rogue elements in the employ of Canada, were complicit in his deportation to Syria for torture.
There are now indications that information that was leaked by Canadian officials, while Mr. Arar was in prison, points to the fact that Canada was receiving intelligence reports based on confessions that were extracted by the torture of a Canadian citizen. This requires immediate consideration by the members of the House. The responsible ministers of the crown should make full and complete statement on this issue. It cannot be defended by a scrum and sound bites.
Second, consideration should be given to the degree to which the matter comes within the scope of ministerial responsibility.
It is evident that ministers are responsible and answerable for the actions of all agents of the Government of Canada, including officers of the RCMP and CSIS and other intelligence agencies. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is answerable for the actions of Canada's diplomatic and consular services that were involved in this case in New York, Syria and elsewhere. The Prime Minister has told the House that he made representations to the Syrians.
Third, the Speaker is to consider if there are other opportunities to raise this issue. Just a few minutes ago the foreign affairs committee tabled a motion that was passed in committee asking the government to hold an inquiry.
There are no allotted days available to members until the new supply cycle begins in 2004. I believe the Speaker has also noticed that there are certain political activities afoot that could lead to a prorogation of the House. In any event, it is clear that the ministers who were in office during this incident may not be in place much longer. The House needs to hear from them while they are still in office.
The Speaker may note that this case has been the subject of examination in committee. Mr. Arar's statements of yesterday are such that the entire House should be seized with the issue, rather than just a few members who are participants in the committee.
I respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, that you allow this emergency debate because it is an urgent situation.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have among us today Mr. Bill Sampson, who was here to appear before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade about his more than two years of detention in hellish Saudi jails. This is his first visit to Canada since his release, in August. This is also the first opportunity I have had to see him since I visited him during his imprisonment, in March of 2002. Today's events understandably bring back strong emotions in me.
He survived during all that time because of his uncommon courage and strength. In his cell, thousands of kilometres away from home, he was isolated, tortured and awaited death by beheading. I want to pay tribute to him for being an example of courage and tenacity to us all. I also want, on his behalf, to thank the people of Canada and Quebec for their unrelenting support.
The evidence he gave this morning was extremely unsettling, especially with respect to the attitude of members of the Canadian foreign service, who apparently presumed he was guilty rather than innocent. Canadian citizens must be able to rely on their government to protect them against this kind of abuse abroad. This evidence makes an independent public inquiry into this matter all the more necessary.
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the compelling testimony of Maher Arar has reinforced the argument for an independent public inquiry to address the following unresolved issues.
First is the precipitous role of the United States, which breached international law and its own domestic law in deporting Maher Arar to a country where the U.S. acknowledges that a detainee cannot get a fair trial, and is routinely tortured.
Second is the role, if any, of Canadian security and intelligence agencies in facilitating Maher Arar's deportation.
Third is the review of the character and efficacy of Canadian public policy respecting both the U.S. and Syria, particularly during the period of Maher Arar's detention and torture in Syria.
Fourth is the clearing of Maher Arar's name from false and prejudicial allegations, such as that he was a member of al-Qaeda or had visited Afghanistan.
Fifth is the Jordanian transit connection.
Such an independent public inquiry is not mutually exclusive from the pursuit of other remedies, such as the RCMP Public Complaints Commission and Security Intelligence Review Committee oversight.
Justice delayed is justice compromised or denied.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister rightly expressed concern about what had happened to Maher Arar. He pointed the finger at the fact that it was the Americans who actually deported him, yet there remain many unanswered questions with respect to the Canadian role. Did the Americans consult the Canadian government as to whether or not they should deport him to Syria? If they did, what did Canada say? If they did not, what does that say about our relations?
I ask the Prime Minister, is he not willing today on his last day in the House of Commons as Prime Minister to do the right thing and initiate an adequate inquiry into what exactly happened and what the Canadian role was in this particular incident?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that this deportation was done by the American government and we were not involved.
One official said that they had received advice from the Canadian government. The Minister of Foreign Affairs asked his counterpart who had said so to reveal the name and the information they have about the so-called Canadian participation. We are not to start an inquiry in Canada about something that has been done in the United States, having no facts to justify an inquiry.
If things come from the Americans that demand that we look further, of course we will look at what can be done. Accordingly, at this moment -
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in my last question ever to the Prime Minister, I would ask him in his answer not to abdicate to the Americans the responsibility for sorting out what happened. Why are we asking the Americans what Canadians did? Why can we not find that out for ourselves, either as the government or through an inquiry?
Would the Prime Minister use this last opportunity to finally give an answer I might be happy with and say that he will do something about this, that he will have the appropriate inquiry? Let Canadians find out what Canadians did. Let us not depend on Americans to tell us what happened.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I like to be nice. It is not that I do not want to be nice.
I know one thing, when we have inquiries of this nature a lot of expenditures are incurred. If there is no Canadian, it cannot be justified. He cannot name one person on the Canadian side who is responsible for anything. We checked with all the departments. We could not find anything. The only accusation came by a statement from the secretary of state of the United States who said that Canadians were involved. It is in my judgment his responsibility to say so.
If there was no Canadian involved, this is not the time to have a fishing expedition.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Speaker, hopefully the Arar case will not become a black mark in Canadian history. The way this man was treated goes against basic human rights. Canada's reputation is at stake. Canada is known around the world as the protector of human rights.
Mr. Arar's family and friends, the Liberal backbench, and the opposition are unified in calling for a full public inquiry.
My question is for the Prime Minister. To clear the air, why will the government not hold a full public inquiry?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are taking this issue very seriously. The commission for public complaints, on the original allegations raised by members opposite and others, is doing its review under authority granted to it by Parliament.
We are moving ahead and the member opposite should not be portraying otherwise.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Mr. Speaker, that leads me to ask another question. What is the value of Canadian citizenship?
Citizens of Canada must be assured that the government will do everything possible to protect them if they are detained in another country. Now we hear of Abdullah Almalki, another Canadian, who is imprisoned in Syria without charges.
When will the Liberal government come to the aid of another detained Canadian?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the press yesterday, we are doing exactly that.
We have requested consular access in respect of this gentleman. Up until now, the Syrian government has taken the position that he is a Syrian citizen and it is not obliged to do that.
We said that this answer was not satisfactory. I am awaiting a reply from the foreign minister as a result of my enquiry to the ambassador as of the day before yesterday.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we must be dreaming. The Canadian government is holding the U.S. government to account for information provided to it by Canadian sources, which led to the deportation of a Canadian, Maher Arar, to Syria.
Does the Prime Minister not find it odd to ask the U.S. administration to reveal who, in Canada, provided it with information? Is it not up to his government to tell us?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the members of this House want to know the truth behind what happened. The Attorney General has launched an investigation into this deportation in an attempt to get answers. In the meantime, the Prime Minister has quite reasonably asked me to ask our American friends, who allegedly received some information, whether they could help us in this investigation. This is entirely reasonable. It is in line with the cooperation we have always enjoyed with the United States. I believe this is a reasonable measure, and completely acceptable under the circumstances.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many have said that the current investigation will not uncover the truth, hence the need to turn to the Americans.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason everyone is able to shirk their responsibilities in this case, as they did with Bill Sampson, is because the government is refusing to hold a public inquiry for fear of finding out the whole truth?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we operate on the presumption of innocence in this country and I think that should be stated.
Second, the commission has a lot of authority at its discretion in terms of doing its investigation, given to it by Parliament for this specific purpose. We want to get to the bottom of this issue and the CPC is looking into those allegations so we can see where the problem was.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with regard to its investigation on Maher Arar, the RCMP conducted several searches in the Ottawa area in January 2002. No one knows what the RCMP seized because the search warrants are classified. The only thing we know is that, during the course of an interrogation, Maher Arar's lease was shoved in his face by U.S. authorities.
Do those two factors alone not justify a public inquiry into the Canadian government's actions in the Arar case?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, as the Solicitor General has already stated many times in the House, we cannot comment on the RCMP's activities, particularly when it is a matter of national security.
With regard to the lease, the RCMP complaints commission is currently reviewing the matter. It is now before the commissioner.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has said, the Solicitor General has acknowledged that the intelligence services did exchange information and, at the same time, he exonerated the RCMP. He has made an unfounded conclusion that Maher Arar's lease was stolen by foreign spies.
The facts speak for themselves. The RCMP conducted several searches, and Maher Arar's lease ended up in the hands of U.S. authorities, who deported Mr. Arar without the Canadian consul taking the threat seriously.
Is a public inquiry not fully justified, given Canada's role in this sequence of events?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the entire House knows that there are media reports and then there are facts. The facts are that the Solicitor General does not and cannot comment on RCMP activities involving national security.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.S. Ambassador Paul Celluci have acknowledged that Canada provided them with intelligence on Canadian citizen Maher Arar.
Do these revelations alone not justify a public inquiry?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
It gives me an opportunity to again inform the House, as the Solicitor General has done on a number of occasions. The RCMP complaints commission is already involved in an investigation. The commissioner will review the investigation report and determine what further action is to be taken. This complaints commission was created by Parliament itself; it is impartial and independent. So, I would ask that the process be allowed to take its course.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be serious here. The number of disturbing occurrences is increasing. First we had the death of Zahra Kazemi, then Bill Sampson's two and one-half years of torture and imprisonment, and now ten months of torture and imprisonment in the case of Maher Arar.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that it is now imperative for the government to undertake a thorough review of its policy on protecting the rights of all Canadian citizens when they are out of the country?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree, along with every member here, I am sure, that these are highly disturbing cases. We have a great deal of sympathy for Canadians in trouble in other countries, and have worked very hard on their behalf. There are 3,000 Canadians imprisoned in other countries for a variety of reasons. I can assure you that we are working hard to protect them.
In light of these tragic events, we will be reviewing procedures within our department in order to see how we can improve them. We will continue to act in the best interests of Canadians who are in other countries, whether in prison or not.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, current and former U.S. intelligence agents maintain that Syria is acting as a subcontractor and doing the dirty work for the U.S. when it comes to torture. The Maher Arar affair is raising troubling questions about Canada's possible complicity in this kind of deal.
In light of these unsettling revelations, does the government not realize that, in the name of fundamental freedoms, it is important to make sure that Canada is in no way associated with the U.S. approach and that only a public inquiry can give us this assurance?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and this government want to assure this House that the intelligence services abide fully by the law.
I urge anyone who believes or has information to the effect that the intelligence services have violated the law to file a complaint with the independent commission which has the power to investigate these services.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after William Sampson, after Maher Arar, we have proof that, as we feared, the government sacrificed freedom for so-called security. Canada put its geopolitical interests and those of its neighbours ahead of the security of its own nationals.
Does that not in itself justify a public inquiry?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite, from the Bloc Quebecois, has information to the effect that one of this government's agencies violated Canadian law, I encourage and even urge him to file a complaint with the agency that has the power to investigate all intelligence service activities.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government insists that the presumption of innocence remains firm under the Liberal's watch. The horrifying ordeals of Maher Arar and William Sampson indicate otherwise.
The government hides behind the RCMP review, while other Canadians languish in jail, such as Almalki, in Syria, Maati, in Egypt and who knows how many next door, in the U.S.
Why will the government not launch the comprehensive public inquiry that is needed and that Canadians want now
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Parliament created an independent agency called the Public Complaints Commission Against the RCMP. That commission, which is impartial and has authority over the RCMP, is conducting a review as we speak. I would urge the member to let the commission do its work.
If the member has information about other cases where she is alleging, or others are alleging, wrongdoing on the part of the RCMP, she should bring those allegations to the commission. If the member has allegations against SIRC, she should bring it to the SIRC --
NOTE: Paul Celluci had quite a reputation by the time he retired as Amercian Ambassador to Canada. To get some idea the esteem in which he was held, click on “Video: A tribute to America's Ambassador to Canada”
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
