Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support Mr. Ménard's motion. I find it a little strange that the Minister of Public Safety is involved.
Just from reading the newspapers, my understanding is that there was a Correctional Service Canada contingent there. But their mission might have been far more general, in trying to assist the Afghanis with how to build prisons and set up prison systems. While they were there, they were asked to go and visit—
I don't know. I'd like to know how Correctional Service Canada was there. Did they just sort of pop in and say hello because they were there? Then did someone say, well, you're there, you're in the prison system, so why don't you just go over and have a look? Or was this part of a concerted effort by the government to see what was going on?
Then we have all these other human rights agencies and Amnesty International, etc. But the reality is that the Minister of Public Safety is on the record as saying that he had some information. There were officials there and they reported.
As a committee, we could ask the minister to come here with the officials, but with the focus specifically on Correctional Service Canada...because there will be other committees looking at this, I am sure. The focus should be on precisely what was going on there, what the officials were doing there, and what they saw. Was it part of their overall mission? Was it a subsidiary thing? How good was the evidence concerning what they saw? Was it hearsay, etc.?
The fact that the minister is on the record as involving himself in Correctional Service Canada clearly comes within the purview of this committee. But I agree with the chair, I think we should focus on the role of Correctional Service Canada and the minister.