Afghanistan Committee on March 17th, 2010

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We had more or less the same discussion when the small committee met the other day. However there is one argument that I hold strongly to that has not yet been made by my colleagues.

Mr. Hawn would like us to proceed without delay to review Canada's preparations and plans for the upcoming withdrawal of Canadian Forces. I would like to point out that we had an excellent opportunity to do just that after the holidays, for four weeks, but the government decided to shut down the House. In the process, we lost a considerable amount of time.

I would also like to remind you that the committee was prepared to continue this work before the holidays, but that the Conservative Party delegation boycotted the proceedings. So then, when I hear that we should get down to work without further delay, I have to respond that the delay was of the Conservative Party's own making. That is an important argument in the context of today's discussion.

We also agree that the words “without delay” should be stricken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I agree with my colleague who spoke before on this side. I believe that this particular committee has been established to deal with the whole issue of Afghanistan. If I may point this out to my colleague, part of the resolution of the House indicated that the Special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the laws and procedures governing the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information to Parliament, courts, Canadian people, or those responsible for administering those laws, and on and on and on. One of the core functions of the committee is how this government has been dealing with the issue of sharing information with Canadians about something that goes to the core of who we are.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, I believe this government has been less than forthcoming in their plans for 2011. We don't know. We can't study—

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

That's exactly why we want it.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

We can't study something out of thin air that doesn't exist. We need to hear—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Let's have order.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

We need to hear what the government has to say; otherwise it's academic. We could study and recommend A and the government could simply do B. We want to know what the government has planned.

Let's not get into some academic studies and ignore a very important function that we're performing on which the government refuses to have a public enquiry, refuses to cooperate with the Military Police Complaints Commission, and refuses to divulge and disclose information to this committee or to Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dosanjh.

We have Mr. Obhrai, Mr. Wilfert, and Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'll state very shortly an alternate point of view here. Not putting the words “without delay” in here raises the question as to when we're going to do it; is it after 2011 or what? Understanding that those on the other side are playing absolute partisan politics in everything, we will never win any argument with these guys.

Anyway, it's on the record, so why don't you call the question? I want you to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai. When we're finished debate, we will call the question.

Mr. Wilfert.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madame Lalonde had her hand up earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, it was Mr. Wilfert and then Madame Lalonde.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay, I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman that—

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

As you can see, he has something against women.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I follow the list that we have here.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I will make it very clear that I am deleting “begin without delay to”.

We're prepared to deal with the study Mr. Hawn is talking about on the condition that we complete the detainee study issue first. We have not come, Mr. Chairman, to a resolution as to how many witnesses we're going to have and what the timeframe is. If we can come to a resolution of that, I'm sure at some point.... I agree with my colleague Mr. Dosanjh and others that because of the proroguing of the House we lost time.

We're quite prepared to work cooperatively with all concerned. To suggest somehow that the detainee issue is of no value or not important.... It is in fact part of the March 2008 resolution that was adopted by the House of Commons. So we have the right to study it, we are studying it, and we are going to do so and go to the next one, on the condition that we complete this study first.

So “begin without delay to” is our amendment, seconded by Mr. Harris.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Wilfert, then let me ask you a question. How long do you anticipate this study going?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That will depend, I guess, on how cooperative all members of the committee are, which includes the government members.

Mr. Chairman, there have been many times when we have been able to work very well on all sides. The reality is that if we have a common interest here to deal with this issue, I think we can deal with it in a proper manner and a proper spirit. But we want to make it very clear: we are not suggesting in any way that this is not an important issue to be studied.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, Mr. Wilfert.

We're coming to you, Madame Lalonde.

We can't disclose what took place in an in camera steering committee room, but what I'm hearing now is a little different from what we heard in that room.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That is not the case. That's an interpretation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Lalonde.

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

I am in favour of the amendment, obviously, but I do have the following question for Mr. Champ: quite apart from the need to know the truth about whether or not detainees were tortured, how is this whole situation affecting the Afghan people, the future and the Karzai government? Since he has been looking into this for some time now, does Mr. Champ have some idea? This is also an important consideration. It is not simply a matter of resolving a dispute and getting at the truth here. It is also important to know how this will affect Afghanistan's reconstruction. I would have liked to hear his answer. He told me that certainly it was important, and it is, because if we come across looking like hypocrites who knew about the torture, but who still continued to transfer prisoners, we lose some credibility. Therefore, it is important to understand that we must put a stop to the transfer of prisoners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Lalonde, thank you for speaking to the amendment. We really appreciate that you stuck to the amendment.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

First, I'd like to thank Mr. Dosanjh for speaking in favour of this motion as written, when he made the point that 2011 is coming very quickly, as is stated in the motion, and at this particular point Mr. Dosanjh and the rest of this committee have absolutely no idea what the government plans are. Certainly I appreciate his speaking in favour of the amendment that we begin this without delay so that we can be doing something that is relevant to what is going to be happening in the future.

I don't think there's any question that this could very possibly drag on, if there is a lack of good will, and at this point it seems as though there may be a bit of a lack of good will. This could drag on well into 2011, probably just about six months after Mr. Iacobucci delivers his edict, as a document that could be available to this committee.

I am absolutely in the largest quandary to try to understand where the opposition are coming from when they're asking for a full public inquiry. I wonder whether there's anyone on the opposition side who could give me the name of any full public inquiry ever that has not gone over its time, and well over time.

Can you imagine a full public inquiry on this issue being able to have a commencement date before at least six months from now? Can you imagine a full public inquiry being able to go without a request for an extension? Can you imagine a full public inquiry not requiring a further extension for the writing of the actual report from the public inquiry?

We're talking about a full public inquiry. If that were ever granted, it would be in the least interest of the Canadian people, if this is indeed the pressing issue the opposition says it is, for the simple reason that we'd be looking at a time at least two or three years from now before the conclusion of a full public inquiry.

Contrast that with Mr. Iacobucci, who has been given the job of taking a look at the redactions, making available whatever documents are able to come before this committee.

If this committee wants to work very quickly with the potentially revised redacted documents and do whatever they're going to do, these are all very interesting things. But I wonder whether the people of Canada might be interested, as Mr. Dosanjh so generously advanced, in knowing what the Government of Canada prospect is in terms of 2010, how the government is going to go about doing these things so that the people of Canada can be part of the pullout, part of the end of the armed conflict side of the Canadian government and the people of Canada in the country of Afghanistan.

As I say, I'd like to thank Mr. Dosanjh for speaking against this amendment clearly, because he recognizes the importance of this committee's being able to get on with its job of going ahead and getting to what the government is going to be doing in 2011.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Hawn is the last person we have. Then we can vote on the amendment.

Go ahead.