Debates of Jan. 31st, 2002

Minister of National Defence

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It defies belief, Mr. Speaker, that in a time of war the Prime Minister was calling the capture of terrorists hypothetical seven days after it was already a fact. Of course it matters. How can an event with such an important consequence in international law possibly have gone unnoticed by the government?

Did not anyone in the Department of National Defence inform foreign affairs, the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister's Office before last Monday?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister and those in that area of responsibility were aware that Canadian forces were present in Afghanistan. It was not impossible that they would be engaged in activities that would lead to the capture of prisoners. Our understanding entirely was that those prisoners if captured would be treated in accordance with international law.

That in fact was exactly what happened. No transfer of information earlier to the Prime Minister would have changed that result.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the time it took the Minister of National Defence to inform the Prime Minister of the developments in Afghanistan is worrisome and raises questions regarding Canada's compliance with its international obligations.

Indeed, on January 17, the Minister of National Defence stated in committee that the rules of engagement for Canadian troops in Afghanistan had not been finalized. However, four days later, on January 21, Canadian soldiers handed their first prisoners over to the Americans.

Given the chronology of events, could the Minister of National Defence tell us when Canada reached an agreement with the United States regarding their adherence to the Geneva convention?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I quite clearly said before the foreign affairs and the national defence committee that Canada's policy was to treat prisoners in accordance with international law, in accordance with the Geneva conventions and Canadian law, and that if any prisoners were taken, they would be transferred to an ally, the United States.

I said that very clearly was the policy at that time to those two committees.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about clear statements, the minister also said that, on January 17, no agreement had been finalized. But there must have been one by January 21, since a transfer of prisoners took place.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister told the House that, under the transfer agreement concluded with the Americans, and I quote “—they were going to respect all international laws, including the Geneva declaration”.

How can the Prime Minister claim that there was an agreement with the United States on January 21 under the Geneva convention, when the Bush administration only informed him of its position on January 28? Is this a Back to the future thing with the minister?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has always made it clear to us, and I have had conversations as recent as yesterday with the secretary of defence, that it intends to abide by international law and that it intends to operate consistent with the Geneva conventions. That has always been what the United States has said. That is the nature of the agreement and the understanding that we have.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not the opinion of Powell and Rumsfeld, who had opposite views.

The Prime Minister was very clear in the House. He spoke of an agreement with the Americans regarding the respect of international laws and the Geneva convention. The Prime Minister even added “It is in this context that we handed over prisoners—”.

Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that the context to which the Prime Minister was referring was indeed the following: Canada had reached an agreement with the United States when it transferred the prisoners on January 21? According to the minister, there was no agreement on the 17th. Was there one on the 21st? When was that agreement reached?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, we must understand the context in which the Canadian armed forces went to Afghanistan.

First, following the events of September 11, there was a proclamation of article 5 of the NATO treaty. There was President Bush's declaration to the effect that this was a war against terrorism. There were actions led by the Americans, from the very beginning, on October 7, with their armed forces. It was a well understood fact between us and the United States that it was a conflict under international law. That was clear.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the context is that on Friday, Mr. Rumsfeld said that they would not respect the Geneva convention. On Saturday, Mr. Powell said the opposite, and President Bush must make a decision on January 28.

If there is something that is clear, it is that things were not clear in the U.S. administration.

At that point, did something click in the head of the Minister of National Defence? He said “We have prisoners and an agreement that is not clear for the Americans. I should inform the Prime Minister”. Did he inform him, yes or no, or is he pretending he did not? Where is the truth?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, let us hold off a bit here. This is a war. We know that there are prisoners. We know that the international committee of the Red Cross accepts prisoners and it has confirmed that. Also, the United States have confirmed that their prisoners were being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us try to get this straight. The defence minister said that he had not connected the photo of Canadians with prisoners in Afghanistan with a briefing he had received about Canadian soldiers taking prisoners in Afghanistan.

If, as the defence minister claims, there was only one incident of Canadians taking prisoners, and, as the minister said, he recognized the soldiers as Canadians, what did he think he was looking at? Was there more than one incident or is the minister still continuing to mislead the House?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention whatsoever of misleading the House. I gave my comments this morning with respect to the chronology of events.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to all of Canada and the international community that the first Canadian casualty in the Afghanistan conflict is the minister.

No one in the military, no one on this side of the House, and especially Canadians, have any confidence left in the defence minister.

On behalf of all Canadians and on behalf of our military men and women who do such a great job for us, will the Minister of National Defence now do the honourable thing and resign his seat?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, let us keep a little perspective here. The Canadian forces were engaged in Afghanistan recently as part of an international military force that was committed from October 7 when the military action began. The fact that Canadians were engaged in a situation in which they were in harm's way is not a surprise and should not have been a surprise to anyone. The fact that they have carried out their duties with distinction, doing what they were asked to do and have succeeded in doing it, should also not be a surprise to anyone.

The complaint that the member has would make no difference whatsoever to anything that has happened in this conflict.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of National Defence considers whether he will do his duty and resign, tonight members of the Princess Pats are leaving Edmonton to do their duty in Afghanistan. They need someone at the cabinet table whom Canadians and they can count on.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister not put the interests of our troops ahead of the pride of the Liberal Party and name a minister whom Canadians and our troops can respect in this time of crisis?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I only wish I had five dollars for every time the hon. member has asked for someone to resign.

What we have here is a situation in which Canadians are being put in harm's way in defence of freedom and liberty in a dangerous part of the world. Their minister has stood up for them in cabinet, has represented them well in the country and has served a long time in his post. He knows what he is doing and he is the person to be in that job at this time, and we are proud of him.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister stands up for him. He does not even tell the Prime Minister for at least seven days when Canadians have been taking prisoners that might put us in danger.

This minister is more than an embarrassment to the government. He is a danger to the country. The Government of Canada should do its duty: put Canada first and give the troops in Afghanistan a minister they can trust.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to understand how the right hon. member thinks that the taking of prisoners in Afghanistan puts us in danger.

In fact, the danger is that this attempt at scandalmongering distracts Canadians from realizing the important service that is being performed on behalf of all of us by our Canadian armed forces personnel in the gulf and in Afghanistan.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a scandal because of this minister. Here are the facts. The Minister of National Defence misled the House and Canadians about when he found out that the Canadian forces were involved in the capture of terrorists. He misled the House.

Then he blamed his bad judgment on our military by saying that he had not been informed within the 24 hours that is required when in fact he was.

How can we keep a minister of defence in his position when he tries to blame the military for his bad judgment?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is not blaming the military. The Minister of National Defence is the first person to give credit to the military of Canada.

He has given a full explanation today in the House of what happened. I am sorry if the hon. member is not satisfied with that explanation but I guess that is not surprising.

Let us get on with recognizing what is at stake here, what the Canadian forces are doing on our behalf in Afghanistan.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of National Defence said he did not hear about the capture of prisoners till four days after it happened and when the military knows that it has to inform him within 24 hours then he is blaming the military. That is what he is doing.

A minister who will blame the military should not be in his position. How can this minister possibly stay in his position when he knows that Canadians have no trust in him any more?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, again it is not surprising when members of the opposition ask for resignations. That seems to be what they do.

The important thing to recognize here once again is that Canadian troops are doing their job. They are doing it in difficult and dangerous circumstances and they are not doing it for frivolous reasons. They are doing it because the time has come for Canadians to play their role in ensuring that terrorists no longer have the opportunity to commit the kinds of crimes that we saw occur on September 11.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence knew since January 21 that the Canadian Forces had handed over their first prisoners to the American forces. We know that prior to January 28, the Americans had not decided on their position. We were left in the dark for one week.

How does the Minister of National Defence explain that he did not see fit not to warn the Prime Minister of what was happening, preferring to let him make public statements to the effect that the question was hypothetical “We will see when we have prisoners”?

Is it not important that the Prime Minister was led to say something that the Minister of National Defence—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the House, I had a discussion the week before this matter of the mission with the Prime Minister. It was quite clear what the policy was with respect to international law, Canadian law, and the transfer of prisoners.

When the actual mission did occur I was concerned first that our troops were okay, second that the mission had been successful, and third that they had operated within the rules of engagement within the Canadian policy framework, and they had.