Evidence of meeting #2 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 documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
In fact I believe it did happen.
Are you suggesting there should be unrestricted access of these documents, notwithstanding the probable damage that it could do to our soldiers? Is that what you're suggesting?
4:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
No, it's quite the contrary, Mr. Abbott. We've never advocated for that. We've just advocated for some kind of process that's more functional. For example, in the Military Police Complaints Commission, again, those lawyers are top-secret-cleared. We've suggested to have those lawyers look at the documents and then work out with Department of Justice lawyers what information can be introduced and which redactions, without our being involved in that. We've understood and recognized that there are legitimate national security concerns with respect to those documents.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
The name Iacobucci comes to mind in connection with that answer. What is wrong with Mr. Iacobucci? Why would you insert an additional process when my friends are complaining about how long this is going to be taking? You're now suggesting we layer a little bit more onto Mr. Iacobucci, are you?
4:25 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
The way I see it is that at least the Military Police Complaints Commission lawyers can do something with the documents. There is some utility if they see the uncensored documents.
As I understand it--and I've read those terms of reference a couple of times--all Mr. Iacobucci is doing is giving a second opinion with respect to whether those redactions or national security privilege was properly applied. He's not going to be doing anything else once he reviews that. So I don't know about that.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
That brings us to 4:30. We want to thank you, Mr. Champ, for appearing before our committee today. I know you appeared once before when not all members were here. Thanks for coming back today.
We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes, and then we're going to move into committee business. My understanding is we're going to be dealing with a motion from Mr. Hawn. As well, we will go in camera and deal with our steering committee report a little later on. We'll suspend for one minute.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Welcome back, everyone. We're going to move into committee business. You have before you a motion of which notice has been given by Mr. Hawn. He has fulfilled the 48-hour requirement for this motion.
Mr. Hawn, would you like to speak to your motion, please?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Yes, Mr. Chair, I will do so quickly.
The motion is that the committee begin without delay to investigate and study Canada's preparation and plans for withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in 2011 and Canada's whole-of-government efforts and plans in Afghanistan post-2011, in light of the fact that the end of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan is quickly approaching in 2011 and that the committee was constituted to specifically study the mission's purpose and changing nature in a whole-of-government context; and that the policy relevance and importance of these plans are clearly of immediate concern and primary importance.
That goes to questions that are of the greatest concern to our NATO allies and non-NATO allies. They are certainly of the greatest concern to the Canadian Forces and members who are obviously aware of what's happening in 2011. They would appreciate some guidance on the mission.
Frankly, looking forward to something productive is a lot better use of this committee's time than looking backward. We're all going to bring witnesses. The witnesses are going to say, frankly, what we expect them to say. Anybody who is surprised at Mr. Champ's testimony shouldn't be. He's an employee of two organizations that are fighting our government, so of course he's going to say that.
This is just a desire to get back to what the committee should be about, which is studying the mission and the conduct of the mission moving forward to 2011, and the future of this mission. That's of far more importance, in our view, than is engaging in what we think is a partisan political witch hunt.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
So, Mr. Hawn, your motion would also include Canada's developmental role, the whole-of-government approach....
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Between now and 2011, what's going to happen? How does the withdrawal take place? What does the mission look like after 2011? What roles can Canada play? What resources would those take? It's the whole mix of where we go from here.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, first of all, as you know, the committee passed a motion from Mr. Harris to deal with the continuing study of the Afghan detainee issue, and that was passed by this committee.
I had suggested to Mr. Hawn the other day, Mr. Chairman, that the official opposition would be more than happy to support this motion, with two provisos. One is that we go immediately to a full public inquiry so that we can deal with the detainee issue and have all the relevant documents. The second was that we simply--and I know that it's not a friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman--take out the words “begin without delay to”. In other words, it would say, “that the committee investigate and study Canada's preparations”, and so on. We are quite happy to do that, but since we have already passed a motion to deal with the detainee issue, that obviously takes precedence.
We are prepared to look at this. I guess it will depend on how many witnesses and on what the timeframe will be on the detainee issue. But there's no question. We do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the detainee issue is a waste of time. We don't believe that it's a political witch hunt. We believe, in fact, that it's getting to the truth. Unfortunately, if we want to move to this motion immediately, all we have to do is get the government to call a public inquiry, and we'll deal with it today. Otherwise, we want to be on record as saying that we support what Mr. Hawn is saying, but it has to come after the current discussions we are having with regard to the detainee issue as, again, passed by this committee.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to second the motion to remove the words “begin without delay to” from the motion.
Surely we need, at some point, to look at this issue. But you know, we have, at this point, an outstanding effort by this committee to get access to unredacted documents. We ourselves should be finding a way to receive those documents without doing injury to national security or other aspects of confidence in the public interest. And I believe that we can do that. As long as that remains unresolved, I think we still have to continue with the Afghanistan study.
We heard new information today. For example, it may take up to two years for Mr. Iacobucci to do his review. You can interpret it whatever way you want, Mr. Dechert--I've interpreted it one way--and we'll let the chips fall where they may. I will agree that we need, at some point, to look at that, but not before we have some resolution to this issue of our ability to get at the truth through this committee. The reason we're doing this work, by the way--and I think Mr. Champ recognized that today--on the detainee issue is that there doesn't appear to be another effective mechanism available to do the whole issue. As he indicated, the Military Police Complaints Commission is looking at only one specific aspect of it. An inquiry would look at the whole picture. We're attempting to fill the gap until there is an inquiry, and I think we have an obligation to do that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Harris, I missed the first part. Are you prepared to move...?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
If he didn't move it, I will move it, and if Mr. Harris is seconding it, that will be fine.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
My amendment would simply be to remove the words in the first line, “begin without delay to”.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I'll be brief, because we all know how this is going to turn out. Simply put, Mr. Wilfert's amendment would frankly gut the motion. They're within their rights to propose any amendment they want. They're within their rights to pass it. But let's be very clear that it would gut the motion. Simply put, we have a process in place with Justice Iacobucci. They don't like it. No matter what process we put in place, they're not going to like it. That's a simple fact. We object to the amendment just because of the fact that it will effectively gut the whole motion. But they can proceed any way they like.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Hawn.
We'll go to Mr. Bachand and then to Mr. Dosanjh.