Debates of Feb. 1st, 2002

Minister of National Defence

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first the Minister of National Defence blamed his not telling the Prime Minister about our troops capturing prisoners on being in Mexico. Then he changed the story, which he seems to be doing an awful lot lately, and said that he did not connect it with a photograph on the front page of a newspaper.

I cannot understand what a photograph in a newspaper has to do with when he tells the Prime Minister about our troops capturing prisoners. I would like the Prime Minister to explain that if he possibly could.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Defence has explained what happened. He has expressed his own regret over the way events transpired.

Even in other jurisdictions, this is not a hanging offence. The point is that right now the role that the minister needs to play on behalf of our troops who are overseas is of far greater importance than the political games that seem to be played on the other side of the House.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister had done his job properly, he would not be wasting his time defending himself because he had made these mistakes. He would be spending his time defending this country and the troops. He should be doing that. Instead we have an unanswered question as to what having a photo of our troops with prisoners in a paper has to do with when he tells the Prime Minister.

Surely the Minister of National Defence can give us an explanation of the connection. I do not understand the connection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am going to have to often quote Major-General (Retired) Lewis MacKenzie, but what he said about this was interesting:

I frankly don't give a damn whether he was told or if he told somebody else or what the timings were. I know that politics have to be played, but in my estimation this is not the time to do it. There are greater things at stake here.

I am with the general on that one.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence confirmed, while alluding to himself and the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister had indeed discussed the treatment of prisoners who might be captured in Afghanistan. The Minister of National Defence said, and I quote “We had discussed it”, we being the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, “in terms of the policy issue and how we would conduct ourselves should we get into a situation involving the taking of prisoners”.

Are the comments made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence not a confirmation that he and the Prime Minister had indeed made a decision, in full knowledge of the facts, as to the fate of prisoners taken in Afghanistan, and this—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, for some period of time it has been the policy to follow international law, Canadian law, and to turn over any detainees to the United States. This was a position I enunciated before the foreign affairs and defence committee. That is the situation we have followed.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence say that they would respect international law when a decision was made one week before they took prisoners and when, last week, the Americans were still contradicting themselves publicly on what they would do with prisoners, whether or not they would be treated in accordance with international agreements?

How could the minister, and particularly the Prime Minister, give us assurances they did not have at the time the decision was made? The debate was public last week. How do they explain that?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what is important is the policy was in place. When prisoners were ultimately taken, they were taken in accordance with that policy.

We follow international law. We follow the Geneva conventions. We expect the United States to do the same. The United States had clearly told us that it intended to follow international law and the Geneva conventions.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the prisoners taken in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence acted in full knowledge. They had discussed the issue in the joint committee one week before the events in question took place and they made a decision.

How can the Minister of National Defence now justify the fact that he and the Prime Minister calmly decided not to respect international law, to the detriment of Canada's international reputation?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. We are following international law.

There are people that are being sought because they are terrorists. They have inflicted a great deal of pain on the people of the United States through what happened on September 11. These people should be brought to justice. That is what this is all about. That is what we are involved in doing. It is not only the United States, though; it involves the protection of our own country, the safety and security of Canadians from any possible terrorist acts.

We want these people brought to justice. We are following international law and Canadian law in doing it.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, article 12 of the Geneva convention states, and I quote: “Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention”.

The Americans argued publicly about what they were going to do with the prisoners, and he tells us today: “We know what they were going to do with them, so we are respecting the Geneva convention”.

Is that what he would have us think today? Does he take us for complete idiots?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the United States gave us assurances that it would be following international law. It continues to do that.

There is a dispute over the question of status determination and status determination tribunals. The United States is saying that the people it has are unlawful combatants. There is the question over whether any of them may be prisoners of war. That needs to be clarified. That is a matter we continue to dialogue with the United States to clarify. The United States has made it very clear that it intends to follow international law. It intends to treat these people and are treating these people humanely.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what is happening all around us, it is very hard to believe that there is only one way for the Prime Minister to find out about national security matters. To leave critical national security matters in the hands of one person, namely the defence minister, is just beyond belief. That is why we have a foreign policy adviser and a deputy secretary of security and intelligence who report directly to the Prime Minister.

I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister today: When did the foreign policy advisor and the deputy secretary of security and intelligence find out about the arrest of prisoners in Afghanistan?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has made it clear that he briefed the Prime Minister in an appropriate way at cabinet on Tuesday.

I want to make one thing clear. Our troops were engaged in Afghanistan properly, under commitments made by Canada to respect international law. It should not have been a surprise to the hon. member that in doing so they might find themselves arresting people.

I know there is great concern about how well treated the al-Qaeda prisoners really are going to be. However let us understand one thing very clearly. The role of the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan is a role that they play in accordance with international laws of conflict.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister was not told when he should have known about these developments. That is why there is a foreign policy adviser to him and a deputy secretary for security and intelligence. They are paid to know. They have to know. They need to know so that the interests pertaining to national security are conveyed directly to the Prime Minister on an expeditious basis.

The question for all of us today is, why was this very important information not sent to those individuals and directly to the Prime Minister and left in the hands of one person, namely the defence minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has agreed that it would have been preferable had he advised the Prime Minister earlier.

Let us understand something. Despite the preamble to the hon. member's question, Canadian national security was not affected by the fact that some Canadian troops had taken prisoners in Afghanistan. It was not. It was a relevant piece of information. It was important. The minister has said that he should have conveyed it to the Prime Minister sooner. He wishes undoubtedly that he had. But as I said, it is not a capital offence.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The issue here is precisely about how we best serve Canadians whose lives are on the line in Afghanistan. They need a minister who tells the facts immediately to the Prime Minister and who tells the truth to this House of Commons.

Will the Minister of National Defence accept that he simply cannot exercise the authority his high office requires and voluntarily step aside, at least until the privileges committee has reported? If he will not do that, in the interests of the troops in whose name he speaks in this House, will the Deputy Prime Minister summon up his courage to recognize--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, back in 1993 there was a very high profile candidate for the hon. member's party. He is that party's expert on defence and here is what he had to say. I will just remind him:

I frankly don't give a damn whether he was told or if he told somebody else or what the timings were. I know that politics have to be played, but in my estimation this is not the time to do it. There are greater things at stake here.

He goes on to say:

The last thing that we need right now is changing the Minister of National Defence.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should quote the whole article and not just parts of it. He knows that General MacKenzie would never support a minister who lies in the House.

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member knows that kind of language is inappropriate in the House and I know he will want to withdraw that word at once and continue with his question.

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

Mr. Speaker: that he would never support a minister who tells two contradictory stories in the House of Commons deliberately.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who presides over an ad hoc committee on public security in the cabinet. Surely--

[The Speaker]

Order, please. Would the right hon. member please withdraw the word he used earlier which I think he knows is unparliamentary.

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

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word which the Chair finds offensive.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who chairs the ad hoc committee on public security and anti-terrorism, a committee which no doubt oversees Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Was official military information on Canadians capturing prisoners sent or passed on in any form to the ministers who sit on that committee or any officials who serve them, and when was that information received?