Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have just a few comments. I'm going to try to keep it strictly technical, if I may.
First, allow me to say that I try to remain as dispassionate as possible, most times. I chair another committee, the access to information committee, and I got a little hot under the collar this morning, just before this meeting—which is kind of unusual for me—because of the attempts by the Bloc to push a motion with respect to this subject matter. The motion challenged my impartiality in the chair in that the matter had not come up when we were dealing with other items.
Having said that, I want to let the committee know that there is a motion before my committee dealing very specifically with the issue of access to information regarding the report and whether the report was properly censored, or whatever the case may be. I say that because it's very specific. This motion says:
That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, first of all, immediately take up the issue of the fate of the Afghan prisoners captured by the Canadian military and turned over to the Afghan authorities
So I ask myself, what is the jurisdiction of this committee to deal with non-Canadians in a country other than Canada who are being guarded in another country by other people? The only possible link could be that they were turned over by Canadian soldiers. It seems to me that the actions of Canadian soldiers would be better investigated by the defence committee, or the foreign affairs committee, or both committees, or in a joint committee.
I fully understand what Monsieur Ménard has said. He brought it here because the Minister of Public Safety made comments, and because Correctional officials were over there, and he has jurisdiction over Correctional Service Canada. But I have great difficulty seeing how the Standing Committee on Public Safety—which I presume is the standing committee on Canadian public safety—and National Security, which I presume concerns Canadian national security, would have jurisdiction to deal with an issue dealing with foreign people on foreign soil being guarded by foreign people.
This is the wrong committee for this type of motion. I'm as concerned as the next person about human rights. I'm as concerned as the next person about people being treated properly, regardless of what their own motives are. We don't sink down to the level of those who attack us; we try to maintain some degree of respect for human rights, and frankly, I don't think there is any implication that Canadian troops have done anything wrong. If anything, the implication is that some agreement was signed that hasn't taken into account what might happen if people captured by Canadian soldiers were turned over to Afghan authorities, as opposed to NATO authorities, for example.
So I'm having great difficulty in understanding how this committee would be seized with this issue, with the possible exception of Mr. Cullen's point of making it a very focused inquiry. Frankly, I think that would be virtually impossible. It will become a circus atmosphere when the Minister of Public Safety comes—if he comes. We can't compel him to appear in any event, as we know. I suppose we could have the Correctional Service people. But from my perspective, I'm having difficulty seeing how this committee's mandate would authorize this kind of motion.
I don't want to get into all of the emotional aspects of this issue and supporting the troops, or anything. In my view, the motion might be very well taken up in another committee, but I can't see that this is the committee that should take it up.