Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect, even if we did that, it would not be logical for those three people to be the first witnesses. We're dealing with sections 37 and 38. That's what all of this discussion comes back to, the application of that, what it means as to who can say what to whom. It's entirely illogical to call those three witnesses--or any others, frankly--until we have dealt with witnesses who can shed light on section 37 and section 38, why it was put in that way, what it means, what their thought process was at the time, what it means now, what it means going forward. That means the people who were there when it was drafted, and the people who are in charge of administering the Canada Evidence Act and so on now, whether it was the Judge Advocate General, the Department of Justice, whoever, and how the Canadian Forces have interpreted that.
Mr. Chair, I'm not saying it's not an important issue. How we carry out our international obligations is obviously very important, but let's not forget that the treatment of Afghans by other Afghans is the real issue, and what people may or may not have seen or may or may not have heard. There have been all kinds of allegations. Not a single one has been proven.
I can tell you that in my view, and certainly from my own experience in my own riding, the only people seized with this issue are in Ottawa. No one, not one single constituent, has voiced a concern to me by e-mail, phone call, town hall meeting, whatever, not one single time, suggesting that they were concerned about this issue and the aspects that are being discussed here.
That doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion and worthy of an investigation, because it does have to be clear to everybody, to Canadians, to people in this House and people on the street. If there's anybody out there who really does view this with some sense of alarm or concern, if they're out there, not a single one has talked to me. I've had a few who have said things in the opposite direction that were perhaps unkind, from a human rights point of view, but certainly nobody has brought this to me, other than people in this House.
It's illogical to single out those three people. If we go down that road, then we'll be proposing some subamendments, sub-subamendments, whatever we're going to do, and under the rules those will need to be dealt with from the bottom up, and we can be here for as long as we need to be here. But Tinsley himself, Mr. Chair, has commented on this kind of a process, saying that it's not appropriate, it's an abuse of witnesses to keep calling them to different venues. He has voluntarily suspended his commission until the issue is resolved by his appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. He said himself that, in effect, this is not the way to go.
I don't know how many people read his judgment on whether to suspend his commission or not. It was quite long, it was quite detailed, and it went into all kinds of detail about section 37 and section 38—not so much section 37, mostly section 38—the implications of that and so on. But until we hear from the people who drafted it and the people who are in charge of administering it today, it makes no sense to call these other folks.
Mr. Wilfert did bring up, quite correctly, that whatever the committee decides to do, in terms of witnesses, can be done at committee of the whole, this committee, or it can be done in subcommittee. It doesn't matter. But we're complicating a motion that doesn't need to be complicated. We've had discussions on it. It seemed like a pretty straightforward motion--Mr. Bachand's motion. It is all-encompassing. It does leave us complete leeway to make it one meeting, two meetings, ten meetings, whatever. It doesn't matter. We can go on ad nauseam, as we are wont to do at times, and there's simply no need to do that.
Mr. Chair, I think my colleague may have some comment as well.
We have made a very simple process overly complicated. I think we should vote on Mr. Bachand's motion as is. We are prepared to pass that as is. Then the committee can move on with three witnesses or one hundred witnesses, in one meeting or twenty meetings. That's the committee's choice.