Evidence of meeting #51 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Madame Lalonde was next, according to the list here, and then Madam McDonough.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
The notice of motion states: "That the Committee [...] address [...] the issue of the fate of Afghani prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers [...]"
This means by Canadian soldiers since they've been in Afghanistan. That's what it means. The purpose of Mr. "Orange's" motion is to specify the number. We can ask for the number on Tuesday, and the witnesses should expect us to ask this question. I think the amendment is in order, but you're chairing the committee, Mr. Chairman. In any event we'll have an opportunity to come back to this because the motion states: "That the Committee [...] address [...] the issue of the fate of Afghani prisoners [...]"
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We're going to go to Madam McDonough, but what this says is “urgently address the fate of Afghani prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers”. We can do that in one paragraph. “The fate of the Afghani soldiers is—”
It's not asking for an individual report of every solider. But now you're taking it another step. You're saying we now want another department to tell us the fate of the number, and we want to know—
Madam McDonough.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I simply don't agree with your interpretation. What we have here is a motion, the substance of which is that we urgently address the issue of the fate of Afghani prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers and turned over to the Afghani authorities. It then goes on to suggest several particular ways in which we do that
One is to invite officials for the report to be made available and to appear. Second, a full and uncensored version of that specific report be made available. Third, request some further information; in other words, to go deeper into the substance. It doesn't say some different matter or some different subject. Fourth, I want to make another brief friendly amendment. The point is for us to comprehensively approach this very serious issue, the substance of which is only about three lines here, and then the other parts of the motion talk about the particular aspects of this issue that need to be addressed and the manner in which they might be addressed.
I've already indicated that I want to introduce a friendly amendment, which has, I believe, been acknowledged by the movers of the previous parts of the motion. So number four is that the government table the three agreements into which Canada has entered with the Afghani government regarding treatment and handling of detainees. That's really to get a comprehensive view of what we're looking at.
The reason for not specifying which department, frankly, is when we saw the Keystone Kops routine that went on before this committee yesterday. We had the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs all basically saying, “It's not mine, it's his”, or “No, it's someone else's.”
What are the agreements, and in particular the one that was referred to yesterday? Now there's all kinds of confusion being created about it. I think we have a responsibility in this committee, in considering the fate of prisoners, to look at the agreement into which the government has entered with the Afghani government.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm going to ask Mr. Khan and Mr. Casey—
I'm going to ask the opposition if there's some way that they would either adopt this motion and bring a second motion on the second part, or they would wait until Tuesday and redraft the motion today that covers everything and then submit it.
I do have a problem with a substantive change. You know, when I get the motion like this, yesterday afternoon, I look at this and ask our clerk if the motion is in order and did it come in on time. The answer is yes. When we have one friendly amendment, then another friendly amendment, and then extending quite substantively what the motion is going to call for.... All I'm asking for is an extension until Tuesday, and then whatever motion you want to bring forward...as long as it's in order.
Mr. Khan, Mr. Casey, and Ms. Lalonde.
Conservative
Wajid Khan Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
You've essentially covered most of it, Mr. Chair, but I also want to point out that this motion, which is in order, refers to an existing report from Foreign Affairs. The amendment goes into DND.
If, as you suggested, they want to pull it together, we could look at it on Tuesday.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
I have basically the same thing. The amendment is not in order. It does not conform with the original motion.
This should be a separate motion—different departments, different people.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
To begin, I want Ms. McDonough to know that we have two of the three agreements. The agreement the minister referred to yesterday may not be available in writing, based on the information provided, but I quoted the other two because I had no trouble obtaining them. Instead of having three, we could say "the agreement on the amendment".
It's up to you, Mr. Chairman. We agree on the substance of the motion, but I'd prefer it if mine was adopted today, so that you can take any necessary steps, and so that we can get the report and hear from witnesses as soon as possible.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I have talked with Monsieur—not Monsieur Orange, or Borys, but Monsieur Wrzesnewskyj, and we've considered: we are going to withdraw our amendment and call the question on the main motion.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I'm in agreement with that. We want to advance the first two parts. We'll go after the further issues on another occasion.
(Amendment withdrawn)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The motion is still before the committee. The motion is in order.
Madame Lalonde has already spoken to the motion. Does anyone else want to speak to this motion?
Are we ready for the question?
Madame Lalonde.
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Before you close the meeting, Mr. Chair, I have a point of order on procedure.
Because of your interfering yesterday with my exchange with the Minister of National Defence, I would like to state for the record my displeasure, and advise you that in future, if you want to voice your opinion on a witness, I would suggest you maybe remove yourself from the chair. That way you can voice your opinion. I found my exchange with the minister yesterday was taken out of context.
That's just some advice to you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'll take that advice.
The other point on that is that when you look at the blues and when you look at what you were trying to say, it was contrary to exactly the quote you were quoting. My job is to keep an orderly meeting. Maybe in other ways we had a minor breakdown on this, but when someone is taking a quote and misrepresenting it, the chairman's job is to try to keep a little bit of order.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
You interfered with my time allocated, and I didn't think it was in order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. I'll take that under advisement.
Thank you very much.
We're adjourned.