Madam Speaker, first, I want to reply to the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, because the hon. member for Témiscamingue could not do so, and tell him that he is out to lunch.
What is going on today has nothing to do with questioning Canada's participation in the current mission to Afghanistan. Of course, a few weeks ago, before the so-called take note debate, we might have wondered whether or not to send troops, when everything had already been decided. We could have considered how appropriate it was for Canada to take part in such a mission.
But the fact is that the government decided to take part in that mission. Consequently, we must stand by the troops deployed, these men and women from Canada and Quebec. There is no doubt that we must support Canada's action over there.
That being said, the problem is that when the hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord says from the outset that those who are arrested are criminals, assassins and terrorists, he is behaving exactly like those people in the United States who wanted to act without complying with the Geneva convention.
Those involved deserve that we at least determine whether or not they took part in reprehensible actions or operations against the international force, before finding them guilty.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord probably made comments that far exceeded his thoughts—this is perhaps something that happens very frequently—in fact, I am convinced that what he said a few moments ago goes beyond what he thinks.
I want to go back to what I said earlier, in my comments to the hon. member for Témiscamingue. There is a fundamental principle in the British parliamentary system concerning the confidence of the House.
Given the contradictory statement or statements by the minister, that confidence is, to say the least, shaken. We must dig deeper to find out if the minister deliberately made statements that may have misled the House and is therefore in contempt of the House.
If there are doubts about the confidence that the House may have in the minister, there most certainly are doubts as well in the population about his capacity to perform his duties. If there are doubts in the population, as I just said, there are some in the Canadian Forces, and this is very dramatic.
If there are doubts in the Canadian Forces, there must certainly be in allied headquarters, are, seeing our troops joining theirs, very concerned about this turn of events. Consequently, I believe that the strategic or rather tactical position of Canada in this mission in Afghanistan is in question.
This is why we certainly must support—and I know that I am straying from the subject matter of the motion as such but I will come back to it, the comments made this morning asking that at the very least during the study of the issue in committee the minister temporarily withdraw, so that we may have all the necessary credibility on the international scene.
There obviously are contradictions in the statements made by the minister, as the Speaker of the House has acknowledged in his ruling, although he could not presume from the outset, and I believe this is legitimate, that the minister acted intentionally.
When the minister says to the House that he was not aware and that he learned about the fact when he saw the photo, and we learn later that he actually was informed earlier, that is, about 24 hours after the events have taken place, which would be around January 21, I believe that this is a cause for concern and a source of confusion.
In a context such as this where we are in a crisis situation, where our soldiers are at the front, where our soldiers are risking their lives daily, how can we, in all this confusion, be sure that Canada is able to do the job properly on the ground when the minister is not even able to do his political job properly here in Ottawa?
It is cause for concern that a minister would keep to himself, intentionally or not, information as important as this and not pass it along to the Prime Minister. Obviously, he did not pass along this information until the morning of Tuesday, January 29, but the Prime Minister had to field questions on this on Sunday.
It will be recalled, as the member for Témiscamingue mentioned earlier, that Liberal party members were the first bring up the issue of the Geneva conventions. It is astonishing that the minister did not take the trouble to reassure his colleagues at the Sunday caucus meeting that the Geneva conventions were being respected, that he preferred to keep this information to himself until the cabinet meeting on Tuesday.
Let us say that the minister, without due consideration, did not see fit to pass this information along to caucus. The Prime Minister still found himself with microphones in his face and journalists asking him what he was going to do if Canadian soldiers captured alleged terrorists and took them prisoner. “Hypothetical question,” he answered. “We will cross that bridge when we come to it”. And he added: “In any event, should the situation ever arise, we are going to respect the Geneva conventions”.
On Mondays, there is an oral question period. As the member for Témiscamingue pointed out, this was the first time since we adjourned for the Christmas break that we had been back in the House to debate all sorts of general matters, but this one in particular. Oral question period began. Normally, after the scrum in which the Prime Minister took part the day before, one would think the Minister of National Defence would pass on any information that he has--and we now know that he had some--to the Prime Minister, so that he will be able to answer the questions which he will inevitably be asked by members of this House.
But it appears that again on Monday the Minister of National Defence, perhaps again without due consideration, did not see fit to inform the Prime Minister. Finally, on Tuesday, the Minister of National Defence made up his mind to put the Prime Minister in the picture.
So the veracity of the facts mentioned by the defence minister certainly raises questions. The ability, or at least the judgment, of the defence minister raises questions, but this is not the topic of the current debate; I will not disagree with that.
This being said, there are certainly other questions which are still nebulous. For example, we were told here in the House no later than a few minutes ago that Canada will respect and has respected and done what it had to do in this matter. Canada did what it had to do.
If they say, as they did again today in this House, that Canada did what it had to do when it transferred prisoners to the Americans, this means that contrary to what the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence told us, Canada in fact has violated the Geneva convention.
If I may, I will read article 12 of the third convention, where it is said, and I quote:
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is party to Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.
My colleagues opposite can rave and rant all they want; the fact remains that what I am talking about right now goes to the heart of the issue we are currently debating.
The ravings and rantings of my colleagues opposite remind me in a strange way of what Sir John A. Macdonald said referring to the dogs in Quebec as Louis Riel was about to be hanged.
This being said, surely there is more information that—
