Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security 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.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Yes, but we're asking for the minister and Correctional Service Canada.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
But that's not what you said. You said that we should bring them over here from Afghanistan.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Whoever can speak on behalf of Correctional Service Canada. Also, I presume we'd have to have at least one who was actually there.
They're there—it's my understanding, but I'd like to know more—to help the Afghanis build and manage a prison system. So I don't think pulling them away for a meeting so that parliamentarians can understand what the heck is going on is such a big deal.
Conservative
Liberal
Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC
I have been a strong supporter of NATO's effort in Afghanistan and for Canada to help build democracies and so on in the third world countries. It's a very idealistic mission that promotes Canadian values. While we are trying to do a very honourable job, I'm very worried that at the same time as we are seeing evils being done, we are deciding to ignore those kinds of things. It hurts us. It hurts our reputation; it hurts our ability to promote that kind of thing in the future.
The agreement the Liberal government signed with Afghanistan contained a clause that the Afghani government would respect the Geneva Convention. At the same time, if there are indeed tortures and the Geneva Convention is being violated by the Afghanis, if we turn a blind eye to that, it would incriminate the Canadian side in that action.
As these reports from all different sectors have reported, there is certain evidence of torture and so on. To me, this is why, by looking into this matter and by asking that question, we are not pulling the rug out from under our own soldiers in Afghanistan; I think we're protecting them by making sure that as the Government of Canada we are not asking them to do the wrong thing. I take great offence from others who think it is not being supportive of our troops.
I support Mr. Ménard's motion because although the actions of the correctional officers might not be dealing with the safety of Canadians, this committee has authority over the Correctional Service of Canada, so it's important for us as committee members to have an understanding of what the employees of these ministries that we are responsible for are doing. We are answerable to the public, to Canadians, for their actions.
I appreciate that the officers from the Correctional Service of Canada are helping, but it is important. If they do indeed witness torture or have some kind of proof of torture on the ground in those prisons, and if we do not act on it, then we become complicit in that kind of activity. This is why I think it's important for this committee, which is responsible for the Correctional Service of Canada, to have full knowledge of what they have seen on the ground.
This is why I support Mr. Ménard's motion.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
I hope everybody in Afghanistan reads the record here so they know what we're doing.
Please go ahead, Monsieur Ménard.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I will limit my answers strictly to some brief points to explain precisely, even though I thought I did so at the end of my presentation, why I am making this motion at this committee rather than letting others deal with it.
I would like to say to Mr. Norlock, whom I respect enormously, that even if we take different positions on some matters, we are generally in considerable agreement on fundamental questions.
I would point out to him that the Geneva Convention does not apply only to the armies of sovereign countries, but to all situations in which armed forces are involved, whether the forces are national or not. Many desperate young people who are not able to earn a living are attracted by salaries of about $10 a day to be part of Taliban forces. Several democratic countries around the world won that democracy because of illegal groups.
I am quite satisfied that the Geneva Convention applies. The instructions given to our soldiers and our officers support that: if ever they are taken prisoner by Taliban forces, they are to invoke the Geneva Convention and refuse to give more than basic information. Moreover, they always carry a card with them that they can read if ever they are taken prisoner. So I really believe the Geneva Convention applies.
My references to the Geneva Convention are above all to explain how important observing it is in the eyes of members who are grappling with the moral dilemma of accepting Canada's participation in a mission in Afghanistan under the UN banner. I also did so to assure myself that we would require conditions that allow us to act in accordance with our fundamental principles.
I also understand perfectly your reasoning about the effect that this could have on the troops. I have always been in favour of freedom of information. I have always said that, when information is wanting, rumours start to fly. And rumour is always worse than the truth. So I suggest consulting the best source of information. Mr. Norlock, I suspect that the rumour we are hearing at the moment is worse than the truth. I understand that this could have adverse effects on the morale of the troops. This motion is intended to go straight to the source and to get as close as possible to the truth by hearing the accounts of people who have been on the ground there.
Why this committee? Because the witnesses who are there—and their minister has commented—are people who report to the department for which we act as the critics. There is no other reason. Technically, we must hear from them, but there are more fundamental reasons that I have explained to you, reasons that go to the principles that we all share.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I don't know that we're going to get around to the vote today, because there's a lot of discussion taking place. I have two more speakers on my list.
Mr. Lee, and Mr. MacKenzie.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Other than in some tangential ways I don't see that there's a whole lot of jurisdiction of the public safety minister here. He might have a few Mounties and some correctional officials over there giving advice, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that it is part of the mandate of Mr. Day to manage the NATO intervention in Afghanistan and all that goes with it in terms of foreign affairs and diplomacy, etc. Likewise, it is clearly not the mandate of this committee. It never was. What goes on in Afghanistan stays in Afghanistan.
What has happened is that this minister, who does report to this committee in the parliamentary sense, has spoken in the House and has almost pretended that there's some connection between a CSE official and this prisoner business. I wonder what would happen over at the health committee—because there probably are health officials from Canada assisting in Afghanistan—if the Minister of Health said in the House that we have health officials advising on water supply for the prisons over there. Would the health committee call the health minister and start a whole inquiry about the prisoner thing based on water supply? I think not.
By the same token, the minister should want to be accountable for what he says in the House, and this is the committee that would normally call him. I will confirm that there is a tangential jurisdiction in relation to this public safety minister and the Mounties and the CSE officials who may be over there, but none of that has anything much to do with the core issue of the handling of detainees in Afghanistan.
If this committee were to embark on an inquiry, this committee would have real trouble enforcing its powers to send for papers and records in relation to officials and ministers who have nothing to do with the mandate of this committee. We'd be way outside our jurisdiction. We could only do a partial glimpse of this thing, not a full one, in my view.
Mr. Cullen's suggestion may be viable. We can take a look at the CSE window on this, but it wouldn't get near the core of it, and in my view, it's way outside the mandate. I think we should be very cautious about pretending to move into this window.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I have two more speakers here. Do you want to bring this to a head today or not?
Mr. MacKenzie.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Lee has said what I was going to say. There are lots of other government officials over there.
I think we need to put it to an end and vote, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
I think, Mr. Chair, that we are totally off course. I think the motion says specifically—and perhaps the preamble is confusing—that “it invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear—and invite the Correctional Service Canada employees who have been to Afghanistan, or are currently there, so that they can report their on-site observations to the committee—”. That's the motion I'm supporting.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I think I will end the discussion here.
You have indicated that you want to bring this to a head, so I will ask for a show of hands, unless you want a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived)
