National Defence Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Braid has a point of order.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I find it regrettable that certain of my colleagues on the other side of the table are not respecting parliamentary procedure. Your ruling earlier in this meeting made it very clear that questions from these members of the committee need to be relevant to not only the minister's presentation today and to the estimates, but also to the time and the tenure of this minister as Minister of National Defence.

I would remind my colleagues of the importance of respecting not only parliamentary procedure, the Parliament of Canada, and the people of this country, but also your ruling from earlier today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Dosanjh, you have the floor, and you will followed by Mr. Harris.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

On this point, sir, I hope it is not Mr. Harris's time that we're expending in terms of the arguments.

Let me just say that this is the second time this has happened. I controlled myself before, but I find this absolutely shocking. This never happened in my 10 years in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. It has never happened here in the last five years. The questions have been wide-ranging on previous estimates; this is part of the cover-up. This is part of the prevention of disclosure.

This minister is not a weakling. He stands up in the House every day and answers questions. Why would you not let him answer questions? It's about the MPCC. It's about the documents that are being disclosed or not disclosed by your government. Why would you not let this minister, who is quite capable of answering questions, answer the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Dosanjh.

I would like to remind members of the committee that Mr. Harris has not yet asked his question. He was still at the preamble, waxing lyrical, when he was interrupted. I would also like to ask him whether he has a comment to make on the point of order.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

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?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Obviously the minister is free to answer as he wishes, but I will repeat--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm sure he will, by the way.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I'm sure he will, but I have to raise the point of order that, once again, this is a timeframe when the minister was not the Minister of National Defence. It is not related to the topic at hand. This committee already agreed, as was discussed previously, that items to do with the Afghan mission would be discussed by the special committee on Afghanistan, not this committee. This is the defence committee.

The minister is obviously free to answer, but I want to reiterate the point of order. What's happening here is that he's hijacking this process of the defence committee for this meeting, with the minister, as the Minister of National Defence, on the topic of estimates and other related issues relating to his job as the Minister of National Defence, not the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is an attempt to hijack this process, and we object to that.

Having said that, obviously the minister is free to conduct himself and answer as he sees fit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

To the point of order, clearly the minister's job involves answering questions daily in the House about this issue and about whether--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

He's not in the House, he's in committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We're talking about his job, excuse me. His current job includes answering questions in the House and dealing with this issue.

Are we wasting $722,000 by giving it to the Military Police Complaints Commission when they can't do their job? That's relevant. Let's get sensible here. I think the minister--

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Order, please.

I will ask the minister to answer the question, please.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd be pleased to answer Mr. Harris' question. With respect to the MPCC, I'm more than happy to discuss the subject matter.

Referencing December 6, 2006, I was in fact the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, but specifically related to the question of documents, Mr. Harris has in his possession, as others have, documents that have been turned over by the government for the purposes of the other committee and the purposes for which they can be used here as well.

I come back to the point, Mr. Chair and colleagues, that the decisions around redaction--or editing, if you will, because I think a lot of people are perhaps not familiar with the word “redaction”--are not taken by politicians or ministers. Those decisions are taken at an arm's-length level by trained officials with national security clearance, aided by the Attorney General's special department on national security. That is to say that decisions are taken around what information can be made public for the purposes of a parliamentary committee or otherwise, based on national security concerns, to protect individuals, agencies, and countries who have in some instances given us information and, perhaps most importantly, to protect Canadian citizens--soldiers and civilians--who are working in missions like Afghanistan, where they could be put in harm's way. Their lives could literally be at risk if certain information is made public for a nefarious purpose. The Taliban or otherwise, those who would do us harm, having access to that information could endanger their lives, so an arm's-length decision is made with respect to that disclosure.

Coming back to the point of commentary that may have been deemed offensive by my colleague and other references to this, the public commentary that references war crimes or being complicit in cover-ups or being complicit in some sort of torture without proof is offensive to everyone. I heard General Gauthier and others take great offence, great umbrage. These are men with 30-plus years of military service having their careers tarnished, tainted by references to inappropriate, even criminal activity. Surely they would be offended by that, particularly when it's unfounded or without evidence.

Let's talk about facts. Let's come back to evidence. Let's come back to issues that can be proved, issues that can be backed up.

We've heard testimony now before the other committee, Mr. Chair, if you will permit me, from three respected generals in charge of the Afghan mission at the time in question. We've now heard testimony from three high-ranking public servants also tasked at that time with respect to the Afghan mission, none of whom in their testimony referenced being in possession of or being aware of specific torture allegations when it came to Canadian-transferred prisoners or detainees.

So based on that, how would anyone at this committee or anywhere else, knowing full well that we take our advice and see the mission through the lens, through the filter of those individuals...? If they didn't see torture or pass on allegations of torture, how would government officials come to any other conclusion? That's how I would respond to the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris, you still have 30 seconds.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The question that really hasn't been answered is, can you seriously think that any committee or commission can do the job of answering the questions that need to be answered if they have information like this? Doesn't that really mean there should be a judicial inquiry, where a justice can look at this and decide whether or not it should be redacted or whether it's relevant?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Harris, the MPCC has received thousands of unredacted documents. You would know as a barrister, sir, as we have already discussed and I think you've referenced, that there are very capable individuals, including the chair, including the MPCC itself, including military and non-military lawyers taking part in that process, who have access to thousands of unredacted documents. Like the parliamentary committee, they also have to respect the Canada Evidence Act. They have to respect the National Defence Act. They are in conflict right now with a ruling from the Federal Court. So it was the committee chair who made the decision to suspend those hearings.

With respect to disclosures, there will be a continued examination of documents and relevant information for disclosure, and the arm's-length departments will turn over information based on advice from the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. These are decisions made by professionally trained officials, not by politicians.

So continued references to me or anyone in the political branch redacting documents is nonsense, and you know that. Mr. Dosanjh, as a former minister, has to acknowledge that this is not a decision taken by government; it's a decision taken by professional public servants. It's not done at a political level.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

How come the media gets in?.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Are you somehow suggesting leaks by the government? We're being simultaneously accused of a cover-up and of leaking at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Minister.

Now I will have to give the floor to the Conservative Party of Canada. The first to have the floor is Ms. Gallant, please.