Brian Pallister

[Minister of National Defence, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asked to believe that the Prime Minister did not know about Canadian soldiers capturing al-Qaeda terrorists for more than a week. However there are other people in the chain of command who should have informed the Prime Minister: the chief of defence staff, the assistant secretary for foreign policy and defence, and the minister of everything, the Deputy Prime Minister who is supposed to be briefing the Prime Minister daily on security issues.

Did any of those people inform the Prime Minister or does the entire flow of vital defence and intelligence information depend on the whims of the Minister of National Defence?

[Privilege, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 48. I regret that I must bring this matter to your attention today.

It has been demonstrated that the Minister of National Defence has deliberately misled the House. Hansard has recorded his misleading statement. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has picked up the admission of that misleading statement while the minister was scrummed outside the House after question period yesterday. I have that tape, Mr. Speaker, and I will submit it to you.

The minister has not apologized to the House for his misleading statements nor has he made any attempt to clear the record in this place. I view this conduct to be inconsistent with the standards that the House and the public expect from its members. Accordingly, the Minister of National Defence is in contempt of the House.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, the Minister of National Defence, in response to a question in the House, stated that he learned about the involvement of Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan on Friday, January 25, 2002. The minister said at that time:

Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday. It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.

Yesterday, in response to a follow up question, the minister said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, I was first informed about the detention of prisoners and the mission within 24 hours of when it actually occurred.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister knew within 24 hours, then the minister learned of the incident on Monday, January 21 or, at the latest, on Tuesday, January 22.

After question period, during the scrum outside the Chamber, the minister admitted that he indeed misled the House. He said that he regretted giving the House false information. As I said earlier, I have the tape and can make it available.

On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May it states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May it states:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

At page 234 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , it explains that in order for the Speaker to find a prima facie case in a matter involving a deliberate misleading statement, there must be “an admission by someone in authority, such as a minister of the crown or an officer of a department”.

Mr. Speaker, we have two contradictory statements by the minister recorded in Hansard. One was made on Tuesday, January 29 and one was made on Wednesday, January 30. We have videotape showing the minister admitting to misleading the House in regard to these statements.

The evidence that I have presented is prima facie. The records of the House as well as the video records of the media confirm that the minister knowingly misled the House.

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Foreign Affairs, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's picture is not next to prepared in the dictionary. Our Canadian soldiers are being sent to the Afghan desert in forest coloured uniforms and they will not be the only ones working in the dark.

The defence minister is in the dark when it comes to the activities of the JTF2. The officer in charge of those troops, which will be deployed in two days, said today that they were still in the dark about the rules of engagement and the rules for handling prisoners. The Prime Minister is being kept in the dark by the minister.

When will the Prime Minister step up and turn on the lights as far as this deployment is concerned? Canadian people want to know.

[Foreign Affairs, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that United States troops use anti-personnel landmines to defend themselves. The minister has just given a non-answer. It says explicitly in our laws in Canada that Canadian troops are prohibited from using landmines or participating in joint operations where landmines are used.

The official opposition has obtained a memo signed by General Maurice Baril which says “Were Canadian forces personnel to engage in such activities, they would be liable to criminal prosecution under Canadian law”.

Will the Minister of National Defence assure the House with absolute certainty that no Canadian soldier will face prosecution because of--

[Foreign Affairs, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for a clear answer for a change. I am shocked by that answer. I will be surprised if the answer to this question is that brief.

How can Canadians believe that this Prime Minister did not know that our troops have been turning over captured al-Qaeda fighters to the U.S. for detention when their pictures are on the front page of the Globe and Mail ? If the Prime Minister did not know, he is incompetent. If he did know, he has deliberately mislead Canadians. Which is it?

[Foreign Affairs, January 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister called the taking of prisoners in Afghanistan a hypothetical situation. However now we know it happened last week. The government has said that Canada would be following international law and the Geneva convention.

While the Canadian Alliance will always oppose torture and mistreatment, we do not believe that terrorists have exactly the same rights as legitimate soldiers do.

Could the Prime Minister confirm to Canadians that our soldiers were following international law by turning over captured fighters to U.S. forces?

[Middle East, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to take terrorism more seriously when it happens to North Americans than when it happens to Israelis.

The Palestinian authority shelters Hamas, just as the Taliban shelters al-Qaeda. Both groups want to destroy Israel and both have international reach. The only difference is that Hamas kills Israelis while al-Qaeda kills North Americans.

Surely if Hamas is a terrorist organization in the Middle East, it is a terrorist organization in Canada as well.

Will the finance minister list all Hamas affiliates as terrorist groups and freeze their assets?

[Middle East, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at both the United Nations and Geneva convention meetings last week, the government took sides against Israel. In so doing, it has allowed Canada's international voice to be used as a megaphone for advancing the Palestinian cause. Canada's role in this effort hinges on our ability to remain neutral, to have a balanced position. The Liberal government has jeopardized that.

Does the Prime Minister not recognize that by allowing Palestinian supporters to use the United Nations for their agenda, he is motivating the very terrorist elements whose atrocities kill innocent civilian people?

[Pearl Harbor, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago today Pearl Harbor was attacked, taking the lives of 2,390 Americans. It was a day of infamy.

The attack galvanized the entire United States and it brought them into the war. The rallying cry became “Remember Pearl Harbor!”.

Pearl Harbor stands as a lesson in the need to be vigilant in our defence of our values and our freedoms.

In recent years with the end of the cold war that lesson may have been forgotten by some governments. Tragically, not quite three months ago, the free world was again reminded of the dangers of complacency.

Today yet again the free world is defending itself against aggressors that seek to destroy what we value. September 11 has also become a day that will live in infamy.

Let us hope that the tragic events of December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001, will serve future generations as examples of both the tragedies of terrorism and the courage of those who defend us from it.

[Terrorism, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the member's answer.

The government's position will be used by terrorists, sadly, to legitimize their actions against Israeli civilians. A respected government member agrees with our position that this is one-sided. This declaration is not helpful to the peace process. The Canadian delegate to the conference said that it was more detrimental than ever to the diplomatic process. The Prime Minister himself called it totally unacceptable and the government supported it.

Was the government's position a mistake or does it agree with the anti-Israeli resolution? Which is it?