House of Commons Hansard #137 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

*Question No. 86—Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

*Question No. 86—Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

*Question No. 86—Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Portage--Lisgar for his motion. On behalf of my party I also acknowledge the role of the Speaker in the ruling he has given today. The Speaker's role is always a difficult one, particularly in a case like this where the circumstances are so fractious.

I do not think anyone in the House can miss the significance of the ruling. When one must determine a factual finding such as we have had here, credibility comes up. It is always particularly difficult when it concerns the credibility of a minister.

We in the New Democratic Party acknowledge the effect of the ruling, being as significant as it is, in that it raises the issue of the role the minister can play until the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can finish its investigation and draw the conclusions that will come from it. It begs the question of whether it is possible, in the context the House and the country find themselves in, for the minister to stay in his position until the investigation and findings are complete.

As we have already heard, it will not be quick. A good deal of investigation will go on. The committee will be actively involved in the issue for a significant time. In the interim we have our military in the field. It begs the question of whether our soldiers in Afghanistan can have any confidence in the minister. Can the people of Canada have any confidence in the minister? On this side of the House there is clearly there is no confidence in the minister.

It seems inevitable that the Minister of National Defence must step aside. If he is not willing to do the proper thing and resign as has been suggested, he must at least step aside on an interim basis to allow the committee to do its work and let the chips fall once the work is completed. To satisfy the need for confidence in ministers, particularly in a situation where we have military in the field, the minister must step aside in the interim.

I will address some comments with regard to the directions that need to be given by the House to the committee. It goes without saying that the committee must have the widest possible powers to conduct its investigation. This includes the ability to call witnesses.

The questions I would ask the committee to pose and answer would be the following: First, what briefings did the Prime Minister's office have in the pertinent period from January 21 until the information was finally released to the House this past week?

Second, what briefings did the Privy Council Office have during the same period?

Third, was the cabinet committee on security briefed during this period?

I will back up for a minute. In each case the briefing I am looking at and on which the committee should be seeking information is with regard to our troops capturing prisoners and turning them over to American forces. In each of the questions I have already posed that is the information we are after. Did we get briefings? Did any of those offices get briefings on the issue? I have said the period is from January 21 onward. Perhaps it is even a day or two before that.

The other issue that must be looked at closely is briefings in terms of the chain of command. It is important that the committee appreciate this so I will enunciate the factual situation as we understand it.

The information would have come out of Afghanistan to the command centre in Florida. From Florida it is passed to the Department of National Defence here in Ottawa and, if we understand the minister correctly, to the minister at that point. As the information went through the chain of command was it passed through to any other office in Ottawa or in Canada?

A further question must be posed. We heard from the Minister of National Defence that he was briefed at a specific time which, if we take his evidence at face value, was January 21. The question I want the committee to ask, and which the House should direct it to seek information on, is whether the information was repeated at any time to the minister after January 21.

It is important to understand the context. We have not in reality been in a wartime or combat situation since Korea, and that conflict was under United Nations auspices. It is particularly hard to imagine the issue of taking prisoners would not have come up at a subsequent briefing to the minister in light of the worldwide controversy about the United States' position of refusing to treat the prisoners as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention. This must have come up at other times. It is part of the investigation that must go on for the House to be satisfied it has received full, factual and credible information from the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I have not given you an all encompassing list. As I said at the start of my comments about the directions that should go to the committee, it needs the widest possible ambit of jurisdiction with regard to evidence and witnesses being called for it to satisfy itself and the House that the minister, his role, his credibility and his conduct have been fully investigated.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his input into this debate on what I think is a very important issue. A very historic event has occurred here today by which we might be able to bring back some accountability to this place and bring back some semblance of responsibility on the part of ministers.

The hon. member will recall through his previous experience, and I am sure his following of Canadian politics, that there was a time when indiscretions by ministers, when such things as misinforming the House and putting mistruths in the way of the opposition, were met with accountability, were met with a degree of seriousness not only by the Chamber, which we have seen today reflected in the Speaker's ruling, but also on the part of the government. There was an internal sense of accountability and responsibility to this place and to the Canadian people.

We have spoken a great deal about the chain of command in the military sense. What about the chain of command in the parliamentary and governmental sense? What about the chain of command and the responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to look a minister in the eye and say “You have made a mistake”?

Ironically this involves the Prime Minister, who was denied the same information, and if not denied information then perhaps, if we can believe that this is in fact the case, which there is a great deal of doubt surrounding at this point, informed Canadians on Monday that any question surrounding the taking of prisoners was hypothetical. We know now in retrospect that it was anything but hypothetical. In fact it was factual. Canadian soldiers had taken possession of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan and had transported them to Kandahar airport. This was revealed last week in the Globe and Mail .

I have a question for the hon. member. When we speak of the chain of command in the military I think of equal importance in the question before us and in the context of this debate is the responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to take the hard decision and call upon the Minister of National Defence to tender his resignation, as the hon. member suggested, at least in the interim and at least until the air has been cleared.

I strongly submit that the minister has been damaged. His integrity and his reputation have suffered greatly over the past number of days. His confidence and the confidence that Canadians have in him have been equally damaged.

Would the hon. member care to comment on the issue of the government and the Prime Minister intervening and making a decision? I will not be the one to praise them, but there must be enough talent in that cabinet that they could find a suitable replacement for the Minister of National Defence, at least in the interim, until the issue has been settled to some resolution.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for the question as it gives me an opportunity to address the issue of accountability specifically.

One of the problems I observed from watching the government was the ruling we had in the last year or two with regard to the Minister of Justice, and quite frankly what we heard today both from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There is no sense of respect for the House on that side.

I must admit with regard to accountability the Deputy Prime Minister was ridiculing the question that they should know about the type of information surrounding the taking of prisoners and turning them over to the United States if some underling--

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I hesitate to interrupt again, but I stressed earlier in the debate to hon. members that the question of information of other people is not relevant to the debate before us today. It is a question of the minister's statements and the fact that this is going to a committee which is the subject of the debate.

I think it would be better if we restrained ourselves and kept our remarks strictly relevant to the motion before the House. I would appreciate some co-operation in that regard from the hon. member.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will try to focus more directly in response to the question from my colleague, which was one of accountability around the particular role the minister should be playing at this time while the committee's work is ongoing.

I certainly agree with his suggestion that if the minister is not prepared to see the significance of the ruling, the impact it has had on his confidence, then, yes, the Prime Minister should insist that he step aside for this period of time.

I stressed in my opening remarks that it would be some time, but surely either the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister could be assigned responsibility for the department until such time as the motion is finalized by the House.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I take note of your concern that we keep to the actual motion referring the matter to committee. I would like the hon. member to comment on what I see as a potential problem by sending it to committee. Obviously I support the motion. I think it should happen. I do not see any way around it now that it has been ruled a prime facie case. We need to investigate it and it is the proper procedure and the proper place to do it in committee.

I raise the concern that this issue will drag on in committee for a considerable length of time. I have been through several of these when I was on the committee. As I mentioned earlier, there will be witnesses on procedure. There will be witnesses on precedent. There will be witnesses on what happened. They will review the tapes. They will have the minister and his officials there. This could conceivably go on for a considerable length of time.

My concern, as has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, is that in the meantime life does not stop. Members of the military need to know if their minister will be there for them in the long haul, if he is really on the ropes, if it is just a procedural shenanigan or if it is serious and so on.

The first question I would like the member to answer is whether he thinks we can do this quickly. That is in the best interests of both the minister and the credibility of the department, which is not to blame for it as it is strictly a ministerial problem.

Could he comment, if he can, on why the issue of conflicting statements is important? We were told today that it did not make any difference because the arrests would have been made in the same timeframe and nothing else would have changed. I would argue that it does matter.

The Prime Minister is down in the United States talking about the loonie, but he is also no doubt talking to people about our role in Afghanistan. Without the proper facts, without a consistent message from the minister in the House, he will get a grilling not on Canadian involvement but on what parts of the minister's statements are true.

It is a pretty serious matter when the Prime Minister heads off to our neighbouring superpower and has to say “I really do not know what is going on; the minister does not tell me”.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue of speed, I have only been here almost a year. I have certainly never been through something like this so I suppose I am not as confident as the minister to speak to it.

Let me just suggest in terms of my trial background that I can see where there will be some significant issues around whether the committee will summons certain witnesses.

In particular the issue of national security will be raised. Does that then mean the committee will be coming back to you, Mr. Speaker, for rulings on witnesses or documents? Are we to get into that?

In addition to what I can see as a fairly substantial number of witnesses that would have to be called, we could get into some procedural harangues which would certainly delay it. I cannot answer my friend's question in terms of a time estimate. I would not even hazard trying to do that.

With regard to the other issue around conflicting statements, I have one answer to make. I will limit it to this in light of the time. I take some issue that perhaps there might not have been different conduct directed to our troops had we known about this.

Fourteen days ago the debate was raging over how POWs were to be treated and whether they were in fact POWs at all. I cannot help but say that if factual information had come forward at the time on these troops having apprehended these prisoners, the issues may have been dealt with differently.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in what I think is a very important and historic debate from which some consequences may flow. Those could be significant consequences.

In the overall context of the debate the point has been made a number of times, in particular by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, that we are living in a very unusual time, a time heightened of awareness about a ongoing conflict in another part of the world, in Afghanistan, in which Canadian troops have entered the theatre of war.

With that backdrop and with that reality we have the minister of defence who is responsible for the administration of decisions that very much affect those soldiers in the theatre of war. We know that the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry embarked yesterday on its mission. We know that for weeks, if not months, members of joint task force 2, an elite Canadian commando unit, have been on the ground in that country participating in the American war effort against terrorism.

That very minister who holds the responsible position of administering those decisions and those actions has found himself embroiled in a very serious issue over the veracity of statements he has made pertaining to that exercise in the theatre of war.

I would submit that we are homing in on the issue. By virtue of your decision today, Mr. Speaker, you have placed a great deal of emphasis on the conduct of the minister. We are talking about the integrity of our parliamentary system. We are talking about the accountability of ministers when they rise in their places and put information before the country.

The decision that has been taken will involve a tribunal, in essence, a committee coming together to examine the actions and the statements of the minister. Within that context we know that contradictory statements were placed before the House of Commons.

On Tuesday the minister made reference to the fact that on the previous Friday he had been given certain information about the taking of prisoners. The very next day, within 24 hours, he contradicted himself in saying that it was in fact just on the Monday he was made aware of those actions by Canadian soldiers. This is a clear contradiction within 24 hours.

We also know that added into this mixture is the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada who one would hope is at the very top of government, the highest office in the land, made statements on the Monday that referred to a question from a reporter about the taking of prisoners in Afghanistan by Canadian troops. He said that it was purely hypothetical. Now we know that was not the case. In fact there had been some significant breakdown in the communication between the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister of Canada.

I would suggest this is not only an affront to Canadians. It is certainly an affront to those in the House of Commons who bore witness to these statements, but most of all and perhaps more telling is that it is confidence shattering for the Canadian military to see this kind of clownish behaviour, this breakdown at the highest levels in communication on an important issue like the taking of prisoners.

A number of members, including my friend from Windsor--St. Clair, talked about the fact that the taking of prisoners was certainly something that did not come out of the blue. This debate has been going on prior to the incident of Canadians actually taking prisoners. It was anticipated that it might in fact happen.

Further to that I have to reference the Deputy Prime Minister's flippant remark about what difference would it make or what possible change would have been effected if this breakdown in communication had not occurred.

Let us look at it from a different standpoint. What if it were Canadian soldiers who were taken into custody? What if it were a Canadian casualty and that type of information was not communicated? What we are talking about is a pipeline. There appears to be some blockage in the pipeline that did not allow the Prime Minister, who is in the highest office and who ultimately is at the highest level of accountability, to get important information in his office so that he could make decisions.

The versions of the facts that are now out there still appear to be somewhat muddied. By virtue of sending this to the committee, at the very least we will have an opportunity to find out what exactly happened, who had that information at the appropriate time and who did or did not follow their instructions and pass on that information. It is about integrity and it is about competence.

Given the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister in particular and, in fact, the reaction of the minister, there appears to be this almost toxic mixture of arrogance and ignorance over this issue, as in “how dare the members of the opposition try to make issue of this and how dare they try to play politics?” We certainly cannot hold a candle to this government when it comes to the ability to play politics nor do we have the massive army of spin doctors that exists.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Or the inclination.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Or the inclination to do so, as my friend points out.

This exercise will allow us at the very least to put it to a committee, albeit Liberal dominated, which will have to hear from witnesses, from the minister himself, perhaps from the joint chiefs of staff and from personnel in the PMO and the PCO as to how this occurred, how this fundamental breakdown in the sharing of information came about.

Parliamentary democracy, I would strongly submit, and I know that the Chair would agree, hinges on accountability and responsibility. When we see this sad spectacle of the minister of defence avoiding and not answering questions, sweating and stewing before the cameras, it does a great deal, I would suggest, to undermine the confidence of Canadians in our system and in what is happening in our military.

Heaven knows that we do not need to do any more to demoralize our soldiers given the debacle over their equipment, their uniforms and now their mission. We have to be very careful not to delve into any suggestion that the military has made mistakes, has withheld information or has done anything in any fashion that could be construed as wrong or inappropriate. This is a political debacle. This is not about the actions of our brave men and women in the theatre of war.

The question here about casting aspersions or questioning the word of a minister is a very serious allegation. It is a very serious thing. That is why, of course, the parameters of parliament do not permit us to use words like lie, mislead or mistrust. These types of references are forbidden in this place, which the Chair is more than familiar with.

However, I would suggest that for far too long members of the opposition, and by virtue of that the fifth estate as well, the media, always have given the benefit of the doubt to the Prime Minister and this government. They have always maintained that surely they did not do this intentionally, that surely this was not information that was intentionally withheld, that there could not be that degree of incompetence.

I think it is far more palatable, in fact, for Canadians to think that the government did intentionally withhold information than to think that this was purely an act of incompetence, that there was such a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command and the way that the information should have flowed into the Prime Minister's Office. That is probably something that the vast majority of Canadians would simply find unacceptable or so distasteful that they would not want to think it could happen.

Yet there is doubt. There is a real question in people's minds as to what happened, what exactly transpired this week in terms of that vital information about Canadians' actions in the theatre of war not receiving the appropriate attention and the appropriate level of importance so that it would wind up missing the Prime Minister. These actions occur and eight days later the Prime Minister maintains, and there is a real question here as to whether that could in fact be true, that he did not know, he was not aware. That is a scary thought. Canadians overwhelmingly want to believe in the competence and the integrity of government, yet this has been shaken this week in a significant way.

Of course the debate on the handing over of prisoners will, I suggest, be taking place at some point and already has begun, and there is also the decision to seek guarantees from our American colleagues to ensure that proper treatment will be shown to these prisoners and that they will be treated under the Geneva convention. Donald Rumsfeld has given guarantees that a decision will be taken in short order. A tribunal will decide whether this designation of unlawful combatants is the correct one or whether the Geneva convention should attach in its entirety to prisoners of war. That debate will no doubt occur, but again, to emphasize, this subject matter has been out there for a long time yet in the context of that, even when it occurred, when Canadian soldiers took prisoners of war or unlawful combatants, somehow there was a blockage or a breakdown in that fact being communicated to the Prime Minister, to the highest office.

As a result, when questions were asked here in the House of Commons and different versions of those facts were perpetrated, were put out by the minister, that, I would suggest, has very much wounded not only his ego and his political career but it has wounded Canadians' ability to trust and have confidence in the minister.

That leads me to the point of what will become of the minister. What will become of this committee? We know that when the minister, his staff and individuals who no doubt will be called before the committee are given an opportunity, there will be a tendency to just brush this aside and wash our hands of the issue as quickly as possible because they will not want this to fester and be a distraction to parliament. I would suggest that this is not the way we should proceed, by any means. This is such a serious situation and it has long term ramifications, not only for this situation. As I alluded to earlier, what happens when a Canadian soldier is taken into custody? What happens when there are soldiers who, God forbid, lose their lives in the theatre of war and the information does not make it back to high command, to the parliamentary precinct and into the Prime Minister's Office?

That is what we have to be concerned about as well, because a very dangerous precedent has been set. That is what we need to address and what we need to alleviate as much as the political future of the minister; it is to ensure that the integrity of the system will be protected. There must be consequences for there to be accountability.

Madam Speaker, I know you would agree that if the minister stays in office it will shake people's confidence if there are no consequences. The standards of the Prime Minister and in fact the entire standards of the House of Commons and the parliamentary system demand that there be consequences and that ministers take responsibility.

I believe that in this country there is an incredible appetite on the part of the public at large for politicians to stand in their places and admit when they are wrong, admit when mistakes are made. That in fact would be well received, granted not if it happened too often, but when it does occur. I think that in many ways we should be encouraging that taking of responsibility but that has not been the reputation and that certainly has not been the record of the government.

We know that the Prime Minister when in opposition made very bold and brash statements, as opposition members do, about what he would do when he formed the government, how his ministers would be directly accountable, how their actions would be transparent and open, and when those ministers made mistakes, what would happen? They would take responsibility. They would fall upon their proverbial swords. We can all be very metaphoric in our examples of what should happen, but it is really at the very root of parliament that parliamentarians, and ministers in particular, are directly accountable and responsible to the people who elect them. They have to act responsibly when they make mistakes.

There is also another issue of confidence that I have not touched on. That is the confidence of our allies, the confidence of those countries that are working with us to address this horrible issue of terrorism that is rampant. The actions of government as they reflect on our military operations are very much under the microscope at this time. We are very much out there in the world right now by participating in this monumental effort to address the dangers and perils of terrorism, so our allies' confidence is also of great importance to us and does factor into the minister's decision if he chooses to remain and if the government chooses to simply try to put this issue aside.

In the parliamentary tradition ministers are collectively responsible for the actions of their colleagues, so in fact this is a reflection on the entire government. This is not simply about one member of the cabinet. The cabinet speaks with one voice. That has been the tradition in this place. If it is the government's position that the minister can simply slough this off, walk away and move on with his very important responsibilities, then that reflects on the entire government. There is a moral ethic that has to be applied by the minister, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister acting in his stead.

It is unfortunate in many ways that it took a ruling from the Chair. It is unfortunate that the government and the minister essentially have been forced on bended knee to account for their actions, because we know this issue was on its way to page 10. It was not going to be a priority, yet by virtue of the hon. member from Portage la Prairie moving the motion and other members of the House, including the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, making the case that this is not something that can be washed away, we are now at this important and pivotal point.

The public has to be confident that when the actions of government or ministers are transgressions, and here we are talking about fundamentals, about what in legal terms would be the equivalent of perjury, putting untruthful statements forward, they have to be dealt with in the most serious fashion. It is not a matter of simply putting this to committee and forgetting about it. That, I would suggest, would further undermine confidence in the system.

We are very hopeful that when the issue finds itself in committee after a vote in the House it will be dealt with in the same serious nature with which we have seen the Speaker of the House and other members address it. There should be no assumption that when the House sends a minister to committee there will be a rallying around that minister on the part of the government. There certainly should be a great degree of independence in place.

We have seen previous occasions in this parliament where the Minister of Justice, not through personal actions of her own but through the actions of her department, found herself on two separate occasions appearing before the committee. Again that is a precedent that has been set and it should be followed, but this differs greatly in the sense that we have a minister who himself has made certain statements and taken certain actions that have drawn into question his truthfulness, his veracity. When the issue goes to committee, the committee will no doubt delve into this in greater detail.

I am pleased that this has occurred for one reason and one reason only: The parliamentary tradition of holding ministers to account may be something that now will be taken off the shelf, dusted off, revisited and enforced.

One would hope that throughout this entire exercise there is some contrition, some humility that might creep into the government. As I have said, the levels of arrogance mixed with ignorance on this issue appear to have done severe harm, not only to the government itself but to parliament. Heaven knows, this is not a time when we can afford to tarnish the reputation of this place. The number of voters who stayed home in the last election is evidence enough that Canadians' confidence has been severely impinged upon. I look forward to seeing this issue go to committee and I know that all hon. members will participate in that process fully.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to specifically follow up on some of the member's comments and try to zero in on the motion that we are dealing with today, especially the apparent contradiction between statements made in the House and why it matters.

It seems to me that the crux of the matter is “should we care?” It does not make any difference. The Deputy Prime Minister asks what the difference is and says that it does not matter.

I have jotted down three or four things that I would like the member to comment upon that are essentially the crux of why it matters. It does matter whether we hear the facts here and whether we hear conflicting facts on such an important issue.

The first thing that was touched upon already by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough was that the Prime Minister was embarrassed. I do not care if the Prime Minister gets embarrassed; he has embarrassed himself before.

Today the Prime Minister is in New York defending the Canadian dollar and all things Canadian, and trying to put a good face on things. He is no doubt also talking about the war effort with people. They, if not with tongue in cheek then probably with a bit of a smirk on their faces, are wondering if our Prime Minister even knows what he is talking about. Of course it matters because it embarrasses the Prime Minister and therefore it embarrasses the country. This is important because he is our main representative abroad.

Second--

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Order, please. I fail to see the relevance of what is going on in New York to the motion. I would ask the member to stick to the subject matter, which is the motion before the House. The Speaker has ruled a number of times today that we must be strict on the rule of relevance.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I think it would have made a difference because of the conflicting statements and the questions we were able to ask in the House of Commons subsequently.

It is one thing to take a minister at his word when he says what happened. We believe it has to be the truth because we are all compelled to tell the truth here and we want to hear the truth. Yet when we do not hear the truth and do not get the whole goods it changes the entire focus of the House's questioning, particularly on the rules of engagement.

The Prime Minister stood up and said there were two kinds of prisoners, he argued that there were prisoners involved in terrorism and prisoners involved as unlawful combatants in the Taliban government.

We on this side of the House said there were no prisoners anyway so it really did not matter, it was just a theoretical discussion, but it did matter and the fact that we got conflicting views from the Minister of National Defence made an entire difference on our follow up here in the House to get to the facts.

I would argue that, since we did not get the facts from the minister, it made a big difference on how quickly we pursued the idea of rules of engagement. The Americans had the rules of engagement in their wallets which explained what they would do if they took prisoners.

The commander of our troops said that we went there with the rules in our heads. If we knew, and when we knew, that prisoners were taken, I would bet that we would not have said that we should do our best and we would live with the consequences.

If this side of the House, the general public and the armed forces had a set of facts that were consistent and we knew that we were actually at the point of taking prisoners, this would no longer be theoretical.

It is essential to know what we do when we take prisoners. It is not a matter of guesswork or of taking it down in one's head. It is a matter of the military saying to the Minister of National Defence that based on his word the armed forces will do the following.

We on this side of the House will support our troops fully but we need to know that when we get an answer from the minister it will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth because otherwise everything else falls from that. We cannot then say the rules of engagement are somewhere in the mix and our troops will get them sometime.

The Princess Pats left last night still without the rules of engagement in their wallets. They are going there saying they will pick it up when they get there and hopefully some of the other guys will fill them in on what they will be doing.

We need to know the facts. Without consistency in the facts, how can anybody in the chain of command or in the House of Commons follow up with any meaningful discussion about where we go from here? That is why it has been referred to committee. It goes to the core of ministerial competence and confidence, not only that which we have but that the Prime Minister should have in that minister.

Everything flows from that. When one's word is in dispute then nothing else will work. If the word is in dispute then all bets are off because we do not know where to start the conversation. We cannot have a debate on issues because we do not know what the starting point is. We need to know the facts.

The minister was incredibly wrong to give two answers to one question that involved things about notification when he knew things and how he communicated them. It is beyond the pale that we would say whatever, because everything follows from the first statement of truth. When we do not start with the truth everything that follows is wrong, flawed, weak, feeble and just wrong.

I would like the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough to talk about why ministerial accountability in this case, and the unwillingness of the minister to communicate the truth to the House, put the entire ministerial accountability system into disrepute. More importantly, it has hampered the ability of the House of Commons, the Fifth Estate , the people who reported on this, and the Canadian people to have faith in the minister and that is why the minister should step aside until this investigation is over.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the seriousness and the passion of the question from my friend from Fraser Valley.

I wish to emphasize that the issue of proof is very much what lies at the root of this issue. Our system would crumble if we were to pull a balaclava over the truth every time disputes arose and leave Canadians wondering what happened. Our justice system and parliamentary democracy would crumble.

It shakes one's confidence to wonder if there is a need for a committee. I would not go as far as to suggest that members of parliament must be sworn under oath when we become parliamentarians. However we have sworn an oath. We swore an oath to serve our people responsibly by coming here. That aura should be constantly around us. It should be omnipresent in the Chamber.

There are certain precedents within Canada and within the Commonwealth that apply here. I can find no better words in responding to the member's question in the context of a minister who finds himself in the eye of the storm over comments that have been made than to refer to a volume entitled The Question of Confidence and Responsible Government authored by Eugene A. Forsey and G.C. Eglington. The then prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, who originally came from Lorne, Pictou County, Nova Scotia, in responding to questions about the resignation of ministers within his government is quoted on page 23:

This government has always upheld the fundamental principles of ministerial responsibility, and that the appearance and reality of integrity are indispensable parts of our system of government. I have insisted, and our party expects, that responsibility should be maintained...The penalties in public office are high. It is my intention to recommend to His Excellency the Governor General that the resignations be accepted--

That precedent has always been there. It is expected. It is something that is very much germane and relevant to our discussion. One would hope that we will maintain the expectation of the public that ministers will take responsibility for their actions and their indiscretions.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, having listened to the debate for over two hours now, and having heard expressions of profound, synthetic indignation on the part of opposition members, I must conclude that we are dealing with a tempest in a very small teacup.

Not one scintilla of evidence of incompetence has been suggested by members. If anything, this is a case of work overload on the part of a very hard-working and committed minister of the crown who has the respect and support of most of his colleagues in the House, certainly on this side. He also has the respect of the entire population of Toronto who elected him as mayor. He has displayed a high level of professionalism over the years.

If anything, the minister of defence could be accused for a non-flamboyant style. If anything, he could be accused of being rather modest in his interventions and refraining from rhetoric. To suggest, as did the last speaker a few minutes ago, that this little event is a reflection on the entire government, is absolute nonsense.

It seems to me that members of the official opposition are bereft of issues of substance and are losing sight of the larger picture, the real issues of the country. It is astonishing that they would devote two valuable hours of the House to pursuing a non-matter, a non-problem that has been referred to a committee of the House, and very correctly so, for its ultimate destination and deliberation, and where I am sure it will be disposed of very quickly and effectively.

Perhaps they could find the time and energy instead to devote their attention to issues such as rising unemployment, security at our harbours and airports or perhaps issues emerging, particularly in the last few months, of climate change and the fact that at the present time we are going through a phase of persistent temperature readings that are five to seven degrees Celsius above normal. If that sounds too esoteric and difficult for hon. members, perhaps they could devote some attention to the issues of population and immigration. If that is not appealing enough, perhaps some time and effort could be devoted to the state of water quality across the country or pollution in the Great Lakes. If that is perhaps too difficult to tackle, then perhaps they could devote some time to the lack of adequate regulations in the field of aquaculture and the state of our fishery.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I will remind the hon. member, as I have reminded all other hon. members, of the relevance. The relevance is the motion before the House which is to refer to committee.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, I welcome your reminder and I plead guilty in that respect. I will return to the theme by concluding that there is an enormously long list of items that could take precedence over the one to which the last two hours have been devoted.

Therefore, one must conclude by asking whether there is an intelligent role for the official opposition to play in the House of Commons, whether there is a way in which this item can be disposed of in a matter of minutes so that the House can return to its normal business and not be distracted by phoney allegations and accusations that have no foundation with respect to a minister of the crown who has the respect and admiration of everyone in the House, except for a few. We need to get on with the business of the nation and demonstrate, I would hope, on the part of the opposition, that it understands its mandate is to perform a constructive role in the opposition in the best interest of the business of the country.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I have great difficulty accepting what the hon. member has just said. He is suggesting in a rather simplistic way that the House should get back to more serious business.

This position seems very subjective to me and it suggests that the terms of engagement of the Canadian Forces in a foreign country are of no importance to the hon. member.

Our troops have been sent to a place where the situation is very problematic. Here we can see that our political leaders are unsure about our troops' terms of engagement. When they have information in their possession, they do not even take it seriously enough for the minister of defence to inform the Prime Minister that Canadian soldiers have taken prisoners of war in Afghanistan.

For the hon. member, it is not important that for a whole week no one was aware of the situation and that the government is not sure whether Canada's international commitments of have been met. The Geneva convention is not something important, in the view of the hon. member. It does not seem to be important to know how our troops will behave on the field. Furthermore, he says that we should consider other issues. He was referring to employment insurance. What a bunch of hypocrites.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to repeat the same thing once again. As I told the hon. member for Davenport, members must focus their remarks on the topic being debated. The same goes for questions and comments. They must be on topic. I will repeat this as many times as I have to.

The hon. member for Témiscamingue can resume with questions and comments.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I invite you to reconsider, because I believe it is very relevant and it ties in with the matter at hand.

What I am trying to convey to the member, who said himself that there were other priorities, is that we are debating a motion aimed at giving a committee the mandate to shed light on this matter. Parliamentarians are having their say and they are saying what their expectations are, and they are putting in context the facts known to the public. These are all important things that will help members in their work when the committee starts sitting.

I find his comments unacceptable and I would ask him to repeat what he said earlier, if he really believes it, namely that defining the terms of engagement under which soldiers operate when on a mission as important as this one is not important to him. Is this really the message he wants to send and does he not think that the House should have its say regarding the fact that Canada must carefully define the terms of engagement for these people, and also live up to its international commitments, namely the Geneva convention and others?

There is no doubt there is a connection here. If the House was misinformed, it is because there is a hidden agenda. There is a reason why things were done the way they were. The committee might be able to shed some light on this as long as members opposite who will sit on the committee work in good faith. For now, I assume they will. For the rest, we will see. In this context, it is an extremely important question.

What I have to say is that for us it is important enough that we must take the time to talk about it.

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Témiscamingue did not understand. I will try to make him understand that the issue is not as he has described it.

The minister recognized that he made a mistake. The Speaker of the House decided to refer the matter to the committee. The committee will review the matter and make a decision. This is where things stand now.

I find it really appalling that the member for Témiscamingue would invoke the Geneva convention and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the mistake made by the minister.

The mistake made by the minister will be examined by the committee. That is where the matter will be settled. We must therefore move on and proceed with our work.