Afghanistan Committee on Oct. 21st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have one minute left, Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We want to see the government do more in engaging with other countries in the region. As was mentioned, this war cannot be won through military means, and I think that's pretty clear. So I want to know what the government has done.

Has there been any initiative to talk to countries in the region, like India, Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, etc.? I think that's something Canada could do, and I certainly encourage you to do that if you haven't.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

The entire United Nations force that's engaged there is involved in that type of diplomacy. But Canada specifically has put together a very successful program called the Doha process. We engage and encourage people from Pakistan and Afghanistan to meet and discuss everything from borders to reconciliation. So Canada is very much involved in those types of discussions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But I'm talking about all the other countries in the neighbourhood. Has there been something of that nature?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

From the point of view of diplomacy, discussions are ongoing on a variety of levels.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But are they with those other countries?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Yes. When I was in Saudi Arabia we had discussions about Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia's role, and how they can do more.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But what about the other countries I mentioned?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

There are discussions with other countries too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Dewar, your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Minister, a couple of issues were raised that you said you would respond to.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'll get back to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Hopefully we'll see them.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I appreciate some of the points that have been raised. We'll look into them and get back to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Okay.

We'll suspend for a few minutes while we move in camera.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

We've only had 40 minutes to ask questions of the minister here. I find that quite inadequate considering the importance of the issue and the heft of the issues on the agenda.

I am wondering how quickly we can get the minister back. There are many other items that I wanted to speak to. I find this whole session extraordinarily frustrating at best.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I agreed to be here for an hour, and I base my daily schedule on my commitments. I'm here until 4:30. I'm sorry there was some problem with the sound system. I abbreviated my remarks at the start.

This has been very helpful to me, and I'd be delighted to come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Very good.

We'll be dealing with future business later, and that might come up.

Thank you, sir.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

We have two motions in front of us: one from Mr. Bachand and one from Mr. Dewar. One is dated October 9 and the other is dated October 15.

Mr. Dewar, because yours came in first, you may speak to it and we'll see how it goes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm going to defer to my colleague Mr. Bachand to table his first, in the spirit of cooperation. Before I do that, I want to give a reason for the motion.

At this committee we are dealing with the resolution that was passed in the House, and there was a whole piece around detainees. The opinion of the House is:

that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the government must:

(a) commit to meeting the highest NATO and international standards with respect to protecting the rights of detainees, transferring only when it believes it can do so in keeping with Canada’s international obligations;

(b) pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people;

Finally, the piece that I think is most important is:

(c) commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to report on the results of reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials;

That's why I brought my motion forward. But in the spirit of cooperation, I'll defer to Mr. Bachand and allow him to table his motion first.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thanks for that. I appreciate it.

Mr. Bachand, we're going to deal with your motion first. You'll have an opportunity to speak to it. Go ahead.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Dewar, from the NDP. He has been very kind.

I must also provide the following clarifications. We introduced this motion second, I agree, but we never changed the text of the current one. There are some preliminary amendments today that we can probably discuss later, but I still want to reassure my colleagues and tell them that, from my point of view, when the committee passes a motion like this, we are allowed to provide the list of witnesses subsequently. That is important for us.

I have read Mr. Dewar's motion and I completely support his list of witnesses. But others could be added. The merit of my motion is that no specific time is mentioned. In other words, if we are not finished after two hours, or four, we can continue the meeting for six hours or eight hours. We have to get to the bottom of this matter and I feel that it is important that we do not set time limits.

It is also important that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House of Commons. That is not in Mr. Dewar's motion, but it is in mine.

As I see it, this motion is in no way restrictive. If we pass it, the committee gives itself all the flexibility it needs to take the time to hear from relevant witnesses and to look at the famous Canada Evidence Act in depth.

Mr. Chair, I have said for a long time that national security is continually held over our heads. Are members not allowed an opinion on overall operations? Can we not get a little more information on what exactly is going on? This would probably allow us to do so. We would also get an explanation as to why we are always being told about national security. Why does national security prevent Afghan detainees from testifying before the Military Police Complaints Commission? Why is the commission caught up in rules, procedures and legal complications? Those are the questions we will be able to ask, Mr. Chair.

Having checked this out with the highest authorities, I am reassured that this committee's mandate involves the same privileges as a standing Commons committee. I checked that thoroughly, because I did not want to find out, for example, that, if we summon a very reluctant witness, who really does not want to come to testify...Standing committees have procedures that allow us to require witnesses to come, up to and including issuing a subpoena. This committee of ours, even though it is not a standing committee, was created by a motion in March 2008 and has all the same attributes as a standing committee.

Finally, I come back to the motion passed in 2008. It specifically mentioned the treatment of Afghan detainees. It says that we must comply with international standards when it comes to Afghan detainees. It also mentions that if it is felt that information is being withheld from Parliament, people can be required to come to explain why the Parliament of Canada cannot be told certain things.

Judging by the government's responses, it seems that information is being withheld from us. The diplomat Mr. Colvin reported to 70 people, and General Hillier admitted that many people in the government—in CIDA and in Foreign Affairs—knew the fate of, and the dangers faced by, Afghan detainees when they were handed over to Afghan authorities.

That leads me to say that my motion covers all those aspects: the right to require people to testify when they do not want to, ministers, for example, and all the people on Mr. Dewar's list; and above all, the review of how sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act are being used. It takes care of the lot, you might say.

And finally, I once more thank my colleague Mr. Dewar and the NDP for their kindness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, sir.

We have a couple of people. Mr. Dewar, and then Mr. Hawn.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to move an amendment to the motion, what has already been laid out, to add to the end of Monsieur Bachand's motion, basically a sentence, and invite Peter Tinsley, chair of the MPCC; Richard Colvin, diplomat; Captain Steve Moore, Canadian Forces provost marshal; and General Hillier, to discuss concerns regarding the MPCC hearings. The rest, as he mentioned, would obviously be within the spirit and scope of the motion.

That's the amendment we want to bring forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

That's the amendment you're proposing.

We have an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to respond to one of Monsieur Bachand's comments. There were various people in Foreign Affairs, in the military, in government and so on, who were aware of the allegations. That's all. Allegations are cheap and easy.

With respect to the motion—and I know we're discussing the amendment—and I'll talk about the whole package, a study of sections 37 and 38 is what seems to be the hang-up in terms of what's releasable and so on. We think it's right and proper to have a discussion on sections 37 and 38 with the appropriate expert witnesses from the JAG and from the justice department, and whoever else.

We do not support the amendment to it under the motion as presented by Mr. Bachand. We can come up with a witness list to include anybody, including Tinsley, Colvin, Moore, and whoever else. That's not necessary as an amendment to the motion. In fact, because of the current circumstances of the MPCC, with an appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal, it has some prejudice of that process.

We think the basic motion is fine as is, and the committee can submit witnesses from wherever they want. The amendment is completely unnecessary, and we do not support that.