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.