Evidence of meeting #51 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Just one moment, please. Does this continue at the end of the motion?
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Yes, it's at the end. It says “report”, period. Then it would continue:
We also request that the Department of National Defence provide a fulsome monthly table of the number of prisoners captured during our Kandahar mission to date; how many have been passed on to Afghan authorities; and any records, if available, of their present status.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
It shouldn't say "Kandahar", it should say "since the start of our presence", because prisoners were being transferred before that. You'll recall that Mr. Eggleton previously had problems with this.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
[Editor's note: technical problems] We're entitled to ask for this. If they can't give it to us, that would be unusual. We're asking for it.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It might be important, but my question is whether it substantively changes the motion. You're asking now for a continuation of the defence. That is very different from the first part of the motion.
I'm going to go to Mr. Goldring.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I have two concerns with the original motion. One is that this report has involved a number of people in the mission in Kabul, and given that the mission is already stretched with regard to human resources, bringing them all here will put an unreasonable burden on the mission, I believe.
The second issue I have is the calling for the uncensoring or the removal of the censoring on the report. I want to question that. I wouldn't be comfortable with that for a number of reasons. We have a Charter of Rights, and the people deserve a reasonable amount of protection of their own. What are the liabilities for me to be part of a discussion or part of a report that has other consequences? So I have a concern on that. Do we need to know that information?
My overall concern is, what type of liability does that leave me open to, because under committee circumstances, how can we guarantee the confidentiality of that?
Those are my two concerns on it.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We're still discussing whether or not this is, with the amendment, an acceptable motion, because it substantively changes this motion, in my opinion. I'm of the opinion that this motion is in order, but the amendment is not in order. The amendment would be in order if we were to present it and give notification that we would like to come with that motion. Give us the 24 hours and we could deal with it Tuesday. You can speak to it, but I'll make the decision.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
What the amendment speaks to is just a portion of the original motion, and the intention is to provide clarity. So if you take a look at the second line of the motion, it says “urgently address”, and this is the part it speaks to, “the issue of the fate of Afghani prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers”. What this motion speaks to is providing the number, so are we dealing with 50, 100?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, it doesn't really deal with the number; it deals with the fate of those soldiers.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
No, that's the motion. The motion deals with the fate. I'm just asking for the number, a table that would give us—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, you're asking for information as to the number of prisoners from this point on and the number that are there now and from this point on that are taken prisoner, taken captive--
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
No, no, maybe you misunderstood the amendment, Chair, with all due respect.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Yes.
We also request that the Department of National Defence provide a fulsome monthly table of the number of prisoners captured during our Kandahar mission since its beginning—
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Take out the word "Kandahar". The soldiers are in Afghanistan.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
—with the additional textual correction,
to date; how many have been passed on to the Afghani authorities; and any records available of their present status.
You see, the motion itself speaks of the fate of Afghani prisoners captured. Are we dealing with two or three, or are we dealing with five? That's what this amendment does. It helps us to quantify the issue that the motion speaks to. How big is this issue? The only way to address that is to have the information available at that time to know what the scope of it is, so that's what the intention is.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I know what you're saying and I understand why you're saying it, but when we come to a meeting like this where we're going to discuss a motion, and all of a sudden yesterday afternoon we say we can accept that motion, it's in order, but when it comes and it substantively changes, and then I have to rule whether or not the motion is still in order.... If this motion were resubmitted—Here's the deal. We could have done this on Tuesday anyway, and if the motion were resubmitted and we did it, and we'll make extra....
Do we have draft reports Tuesday?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
So we would have lots of opportunity to discuss this on Tuesday. This motion would be in order, but I haven't heard any arguments yet that would say that now asking the defence department to do what you're asking doesn't change the motion substantively.
Madame Lalonde.
