I was going to add the very same thing.
I would ask Mr. Braid to have some patience until I get to my question, which is quite relevant and very similar to the kinds of things the minister was just talking about, which presumably are on the topic; otherwise you would have ruled him out of order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your understanding.
The document I'm referring to is one written by Mr. Colvin, in consultation with Lieutenant-Colonel Elms and Madam Bloodworth, and sent to a number of people, including a number of addresses in Foreign Affairs as well as military addresses, CEFCOM, etc., and the Privy Council Office. It's on the subject of Afghanistan detainee issues. It refers to memorandums back in July, October, and November of 2006. The entire memorandum is blacked out for two and half pages, so there's absolutely nothing made available. The answer, which is directed to the ambassador, is also blacked out and entirely unavailable to the MPCC, the House of Commons committees, or the House of Commons in general.
Minister, given that one of the questions arising in terms of international human rights law is that the rule expressed yesterday by Colleen Swords and also expressed a little while ago by Brigadier-General Watkin.... The rule of international law is that we aren't to transfer prisoners to a real risk of torture or abusive treatment. That's what Brigadier-General Watkin has said is an expression of international human rights law. The question is very simple. Do you honestly think that either the MPCC or a committee of this House can actually understand what Canadian officials knew about the situation with this kind of evidence, and does this fact, this problem, not support the need for a proper public inquiry with a justice who could sift through this, who would be able to decide what is relevant and what is not? Isn't that a more proper forum for this kind of thing?
We're talking about giving more money to the MPCC, but they can't get the documents. Isn't it more sensible, more realistic, and more open to have a full public inquiry so that this can get off the agenda of the political realm, which it is very much in now, and get to an objective, proper consideration of the relevant issues and not go off on sidetracks?