Afghanistan Committee on March 11th, 2010

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have another motion, Mr. Chair, and that relates to documentation. I have it in French and English. My motion reads as follows:

That this committee request that Justice Iacobucci review the release of documents and information from the Privy Council Office, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and National Defence, and other relevant documents from 2001-2005, regarding Taliban detainee policy, and especially documents prepared by Ms. Eillen Olexiuk while she was employed for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. So this is just making a recommendation. This is basically to make a recommendation that Judge Iacobucci has the... The committee's recommendation would be that they continue viewing all relevant documents from the Privy Council, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and National Defence and other relevant documents from 2001 to 2005 regarding Taliban detainee policy, and especially documents prepared by Ms. Eileen Olexiuk while she was employed for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Afghanistan.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I have a clarification. It's not that the committee do that, but that this be added to Judge Iacobucci's mandate, to cover 2001 to 2005, as Mr. Dosanjh recommended yesterday on CBC.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have Mr. Harris, Mr. Bachand, and then Mr. Dosanjh.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an interesting motion. Certainly the proposal that whatever study is being undertaken go back to 2001 is something that's consistent with even the Liberal motion calling for a public inquiry.

I'm curious, though, if the suggestion is that Mr. Iacobucci be somehow or other an agent of this committee and that he would do something on behalf of this committee and report back to us. We don't seem to have any control over Mr. Iacobucci.

In principle, I have no problem. Perhaps we should get Mr. Iacobucci here next week and see exactly what he's doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. As I understand it, this motion is simply a recommendation to him. It's a request--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Making sure that he covers everything from the beginning of the mission to today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Bachand.

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

I think that is a very nice try on Mr. Hawn's part. In my opinion, the committee should continue to have the freedom to look at all the documents it wants. We have already talked about this. I consider Parliament to be sovereign. In my opinion, there is no way a judge should start investigating and reviewing documents to decide which ones will be sent to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. That is not the point. The Bloc Québécois' position is that we must see all the documents.

I will not give any legitimacy to the government's position that we have to listen to a judge or that we leave it up to a judge. I feel the committee is sovereign and sufficiently capable of deciding which documents it wants to see. We want all the documents that have already been provided, but uncensored. Anything that would make us transfer our power to review all documents to a judge is against the Bloc Québécois' philosophy and mine. In addition, I do not think we even have the actual mandate of the judge.

So I am against this motion for the reasons I have just presented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand. This is not dealing with... As you've suggested, it's not dealing with information from our committee, but this is a recommendation that the judges, you know, take a look at it.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Well, this is a recommendation that actually defies all parliamentary conventions. It is asking this committee to in fact go against its own understanding of parliamentary privilege. Parliament in fact has the right to see all documents. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Bachand.

The government is obviously sovereign in making whatever recommendations they are going to make. I would recommend to the government that they call a full public inquiry rather than playing these silly games, bringing this to the committee so that we make a recommendation to a judge who hasn't even been appointed yet, who doesn't have terms of reference yet, such that we actually send a recommendation that diminishes Parliament's own power in the traditional sense of the term. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I would suggest that if you really want to send a recommendation to the government, we should pass a motion in the committee, again reiterating Parliament's position, that in fact they should provide us with uncensored documents. That's the correct motion to present.

I will not be a party to a motion that actually diminishes parliamentary power and in fact hands that power to the Prime Minister--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So Mr. Dosanjh, you would oppose this motion--

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

On that basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

—to expand the ability of Mr. Iacobucci to carry out the responsibility that he has already been given?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I would absolutely.

Look, I would be happy to vote on whether or not we should get full disclosure. I have already said publicly, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, that the government can send all of the documents starting in 2001 to Iacobucci, if they so wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Well, that's all this is saying.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The committee--

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Look, we don't even know what his powers are. Has he been appointed? Where is the appointment order? Is this committee now wanting to make Iacobucci its own instrument? Then bring him here. Let's ask him questions first...whether he's been appointed.

This is absolutely baseless. It has no basis in reality right now. This is fiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm a bit perplexed at this. Mr. Dosanjh and I were on CBC last night, live, and he was quite happy with having all these brought forward.

The government is proceeding down the road here with Justice Iacobucci. This is merely to clarify what we think should be included in Justice Iacobucci's mandate when it is published. It's being worked on now. I can't tell you when that's coming. That's not part of what I personally am involved in.

The government is proceeding down that road. We can play games here all day long, but the government is proceeding down that road. That is not what this is; that is merely clarifying what Justice Iacobucci should be looking at. He's not an agent of this committee. He's being appointed by the government to look at which documents are releasable, at what information is releasable in the interests of national security and international relations.

I might point out that Derek Lee's own private member's bill, as published, has provisions for the withholding of information by the applicable minister, by the Prime Minister, in the interests of national security and international relations. That's in his own private member's bill.

So let's not talk about playing games here, Mr. Chair. There are games being played very strongly on the other side. We should just get on with our business.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let's go to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

The motion is here. Anyone else on this motion?

Madam Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Hawn, I do not think anyone here wants to play games. The situation we are studying is too important. The lives of the people and the soldiers in Afghanistan along with everything to do with the involvement of Quebeckers and Canadians are not part of a game.

Mr. Hawn, I understood what you meant, but there is another way to protect national security. It is the constitutional right of the committee to receive all the documents. It can undertake not to disclose the contents of a number of these documents, as the Americans do. It is safe to say that the United States is a country where the members of the House of Representatives and the senators have responsibilities that are at least as important as ours. And they agree to conditions in order to have all the information. They are the ones who have all the information.