Evidence of meeting #1 for Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was steering.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, in December Parliament spoke very clearly that it wanted the unredacted documents. We now have the Prime Minister indicating that Mr. Iacobucci, to my understanding, will review what has already been done by officials to see whether or not there are any further documents that may be released.
Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding. Without the terms of reference, without the mandate—again, only going by what I have heard—this motion seems premature to me. Maybe Mr. Iacobucci is doing this. I don't know. It's not this committee that has instructed Mr. Iacobucci, it's the Prime Minister who said he would want him to review the documentation to see whether or not any additional information may be released.
From my perspective, I don't see why we would be dealing with this motion at this time. What we really need, and hopefully we'll receive it very quickly, is the mandate he's been given, and the terms of reference, and the timeframe that has been established in terms of reporting back, hopefully directly, to Parliament and obviously to this committee.
Until we have that, I don't really see why we would pass a motion. Maybe he's already looking at it. Who knows?
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
The motion as read says that this committee requests that Justice Iacobucci review the release of documents and information, etc., etc. As a member of this committee, I'm not prepared to recommend that Justice Iacobucci review anything, and particularly documents that this committee has asked to see and hasn't seen, and that Parliament has demanded be presented and have not been presented, in a fundamental challenge to the privileges of Parliament.
For this committee to support this is to go totally contrary to the privileges of Parliament and what we decided to do. We do not agree that Justice Iacobucci has a role to play from the government's point of view. If this committee had decided they wanted to do that, that would be a different matter, but we haven't decided that. We decided that the documents should be released.
Also, if we want to sit as a committee, by the way, and talk about in what manner we would receive these documents, whether it be a subcommittee, in camera, or in certain procedures, well, we're certainly capable of doing that. This is not what this is about.
This is an add-on to a government plan that has yet to be detailed and that we at this point oppose and will continue to oppose as long as it fails to respect the privileges of Parliament. So I certainly can't support this motion, although the notion that whatever inquiry that needs to take place includes going back to 2001 I think is already a given.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I have just a final point and then let's call the question. I really hope this is not an attempt by the Liberals--and I will accept Mr. Dosanjh's, because I know the response he's going to make--to duck any responsibility for what actually happened there. We did have difficulty getting former Liberal ministers before the committee prior to Christmas. I assume and I hope that will not be difficult--
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
--the next time we ask, but again, Mr. Chair, we can do the math, so let's call the vote.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I will go to Mr. Dosanjh and I'll also, because this is your motion, give you the last opportunity to speak to your motion.
Mr. Dosanjh.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I just want to suggest to Mr. Hawn that rather than presenting this motion to this committee, which derogates from Parliament's own privilege of the right to receive documents...
I would suggest, Mr. Hawn, that your members should make a recommendation to the Prime Minister in the same vein: that the Prime Minister should actually do a full public inquiry going back to 2002 and to 2009. I think that's appropriate. The Prime Minister sits with you in the caucus. You make a recommendation to him, find out what the terms of reference are, and broaden them to include this.
I have no difficulty with that. I said publicly and the Liberal Party has said publicly that we have absolutely nothing to hide. We should go back to 2002 and up to 2009 and determine what the governments at various times have or have not done.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Yes, and the first part of that has been done. This is merely an attempt to get the committee onside with all of that.
Go ahead and call the vote, Mr. Chair.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All those in favour of the motion before you, which was brought forward by Mr. Hawn?
(Motion negatived)
That is defeated. All right. With that...
Mr. Hawn.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
That stems from some activity before Christmas. It kind of goes to Mr. Bachand's point about a boycott and it's to clarify the record. I don't need a response unless one is forthcoming, but it was suggested--I think it was on December 21 at the ad hoc meeting of that side of the committee--that no offer had been made by this side for an alternative way to proceed over the Christmas break. I was essentially called a liar on national television.
The offer, in fact, was made. It was made to the vice-chair. It was made behind the curtains on their side of the House three or four days prior to that. The offer was for a teleconference whereby we could discuss future business, because we were all going back to the ridings to do things that had been planned for months and months and months. This was not an issue of national urgency or a national emergency.
An offer was made. The point was suggested that the offer had not been made and that somehow I was lying about that. I just want to correct the record. The offer was made and the person to whom the offer was made knows it. I'll just leave it at that.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Thanks, Mr. Hawn.
You know, we have a new year, 2010, and hopefully we can all take a deep breath. Let's forget the ill feelings of the old year and welcome in the new and proceed. I don't know if we have to carry this thing out, but I do appreciate that, Mr. Hawn. I think we'll probably just leave it at that.
Mr. Wilfert, did you want to drag this on?
9:35 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, since indirectly I was mentioned, I have to indicate first of all that I have not sought nor have I ever thought I would be the clerk of this committee, and therefore any suggestion that teleconferencing, which in my understanding would not be appropriate in any event, given the fact that you have to be physically here at a committee in order to have a committee operate...
If there was any interest in having teleconferencing, or any suggestion of that, it would go to the clerk. It would not go to me. I don't organize any meetings of this committee--never have, never will. Therefore, to suggest that I would agree to or would have supported any suggestion of that nature is false. And I did not have the power, unless somehow there is some rule that allows the vice-chair of a committee to do that.
You as the chair could not do that. You in fact have to talk to the clerk. They organize the place, the time, the meeting, and, obviously, if there's teleconferencing.
So it is not an appropriate comment and I just want to clarify for the record that did not occur.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
Thank you all for coming. Enjoy the rest of your day.
We are adjourned.