Debates of Feb. 1st, 2002

Privilege

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes gave a very good illustration of the most crucial issue.

I believe that the main issues at stake here, beyond any other considerations, are trust and credibility. Indeed, in the sequence of events, one might wonder, for example, about the communications between the various government authorities, including between the Department of National Defence and the Privy Council. I think this is one of the things that will have to be reviewed.

The Prime Minister stated categorically that he was informed only on Tuesday morning of something that had been going on for more than a week. I find it very troubling that no one in his political or government entourage informed him or had access to this information. That is the second point.

There are several elements, but there is the minister, his statements, his contradictions and the motivations behind all that. There is the Prime Minister and the fact that he was not informed. There is also the types of communications. We will come back to the substance of the matter later on, but in the meantime the credibility of a minister and the confidence of parliament and of the people in that minister is an important issue.

Third, we must know whether or not Canada is honouring its international commitments and what happened exactly with regard to the prisoners taken in Afghanistan.

These questions remain unanswered. The fact that we are trying to shed some light on the false statements made by a minister, whatever the motivations were, does not mean that we will forget everything else. I am sure that some people are concerned. We saw today that the Deputy Prime Minister was not very comfortable talking about the Privy Council's involvement in this whole matter. It is something that must be cleared up.

I am convinced that we will have questions to ask through the members of this committee, which will have to report to the House, and I hope the House will have another opportunity to speak to this matter. A group of us will study the matter more closely, but I am sure that it is a matter of concern for all members of the House.

The main thing is that we are in a situation of wondering how we will be able to do our job if anybody can come to the House at any time and tell us any old thing, rather than the truth.

We know very well, as I have demonstrated just now with several quotes from the words of the minister in this House Monday night, that he was making use of the conditional tense and making the capture of prisoners in Afghanistan seem to be a hypothetical situation, while knowing that it had happened, while in possession of that information. I have trouble accepting that.

How can we have confidence on some sort of sliding scale? Sometimes we will be able to trust him, and sometimes not. Is this common practice, for a minister to come to the House and not tell the truth? If this is not general practice, there will have to be some consequences.

I can understand that the Chair has given some benefit of the doubt. Parliamentary privileges are at stake, and a situation like this lays our ability to work properly for our constituents open to question. I hope some light will be cast on this, but the government must not think that it is not going to be required to account for other issues in this connection just because the matter has been referred to a committee.

If they think this is a way to avoid the whole thing, they are mistaken. There are many unanswered questions still, not only about the minister's attitude, but also about the attitude of the government.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, in our individual lives and as a group, we should not turn debates that are sometimes quite technical into an obsession. In the last few days, we had the impression that we should apologize for taking part in the arrest of terrorists who killed thousands of people, that we should apologize for taking part in an international war against people who killed thousands of victims.

I know very well what this is all about. I know the reference to committee procedure. This issue should indeed be referred to committee quickly. But I have the feeling that the opposition is greatly misusing this situation. There is a war going on. We are a partner in this war against international terrorism, against people who have a base in dozens of countries throughout the world and kill thousands of people each month.

Ask the victims, the parents and the children who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks. They will have no mercy for the terrorists who have been taken by the allied forces and are imprisoned in southern Cuba.This is not Siberia—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but the time for questions and comments has expired.

The hon. government House leader.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or Standing Order 78(2) with respect to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting of the House, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Privilege

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

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—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton, on a point of order.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is clear the member of the Bloc is straying so far from the issues under consideration by the House today that he must be advised by the Chair that what he is saying is not relevant to the motion before the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I thank the hon. member for enlightening the Chair but I have tried to enlighten all members.

For the members' information, I would like to quote the following

Members are subject to the rules of relevance and repetition and the Speaker must ensure that the debate is focussed on the terms of the motion.

The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague from the other side thinks he made a useful contribution to the discussion. However, you will agree that he did not add one single valid point to the debate.

Instead of shouting, getting all excited and changing place constantly, if he had listened to what I was saying, the member would know that my point is totally relevant to the issue at hand. So I would ask him to listen up, stay put, listen to the simultaneous interpretation and hear what I have to say.

I was saying that our colleagues from the Canadian Alliance were very generous in the motion they submitted to the House, because they referred to certain contradictory statements. What I am saying now is that there are other contradictions besides those mentioned by our Canadian Alliance colleagues in the motion or the question of privilege that led to the motion we are now discussing.

These were a few of the contradictions that I was in the middle of describing when our colleague got his knickers in a twist for no reason. Among these latest contradictions, which were not included in the question of privilege, but which most certainly could have been included, and I commend the kindness of our friends from the Canadian Alliance for wanting to protect or at least spare the government and the Minister of National Defence from too much worry, but among these contradictions, there is certainly the fact that we were told that the Geneva agreements and the Geneva convention would be respected.

We were even told in the House again today that the government, that Canada, had done what it had to do, when clearly we did not respect the Geneva conventions.

This is most certainly cause for concern, for how can we be a credible player on the international stage during a conflict of this type, when we are crying from the hilltops that we will respect the Geneva conventions, when quite clearly we have not?

There are of course a number of contradictions with respect to dates, facts, chronology, and obviously this brings us to the motion at hand which will soon lead to the calling of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which will have the official mandate, by order of the House, to get to the bottom of this issue.

First, I would like to commend the government members for their decision to support the motion. I think that this is a demonstration of openness and of their responsibility. I hope that this is not simply a diversionary tactic they are using to smother the affair in some obscure committee that is never televised.

In closing, I hope that the government members will make a conscientious effort and will truly try to get to the bottom of things, that they will allow us to call witnesses who will truly allow us to get some answers, and that this is not another pathetic attempt or operation, as has often been the case in the past, to cover up this affair as quickly and as cleverly as possible.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have a question that is germane to the process that will be undertaken in reviewing the entire affair.

Does the hon. member feel it would be appropriate, given the direct involvement of a minister of the crown and the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, the chief government whip and all parliamentary secretaries who are part of the procedure and House affairs committee remove themselves from any proceedings that pertain to the matter? Given their innate bias and their connection to the Prime Minister and the cabinet, does the hon. member think it appropriate that they sit in judgment of the affair?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his well-chosen question.

I must admit that it did not strike me as pertinent to ask such a thing, since I felt, naively perhaps, that our colleagues on the government side would do what has to be done under the circumstances, that is to show judgment, impartiality, objectivity, conscientiousness. That is perhaps asking too much of them.

In fact, in the public interest and with a concern for transparency, a concern for justice, a concern for respect, or quite simply just to avoid even the slightest suspicion that there could have been any manipulation, or misdirection of the investigation, I think that the government would indeed be wise, without waiting to be asked, to comply with the wise suggestion from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It would be showing its true desire to get to the bottom of things, rather than trying to make use of the procedure and House affairs committee merely to stifle the problem.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an indication of how badly off track the debate has gone that we hear the hon. member across the way talk about the Geneva convention. I could not help but hear his comment that Canada was not respecting the Geneva convention.

Is the hon. member accusing the government of committing war crimes in Afghanistan? If so, what particular--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. Because one of the hon. members was not speaking to the motion I will not allow a question that is also not on the motion.

The hon. member for Dewdney--Alouette on the motion before the House.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I put my question I remind colleagues of the statement made by the Speaker today which, as we get close to the end of debate today, should refocus our attention on what the debate has been about. As you have instructed us, Madam Speaker, it has been about the motion before us.

The Speaker clearly said “There appears to me to be no dispute as to the facts. I believe that both the minister and other hon. members recognize that two versions of events have been presented to the House”. That is what we have been talking about today. It is what the entire motion is framed around.

The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar then moved the motion:

That the charge against the minister of defence, for making misleading statements in the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

My hon. colleague used to be a member of the committee as did I. We understand the importance of matters that are brought forward to it. We understand the importance of allowing all hon. members, in the context of the debate before us today and without straying from the facts, to put their comments on record about procedure, process and the relevance of entertaining this type of debate. It is entirely necessary to debate and put our comments to the committee so it may as part of its deliberations be able to reflect on what we have said in the House.

I have heard today from government members that this is some kind of sidetrack issue--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I must inform the House that this item will be taken up at 11 a.m. on Monday when the House resumes.

Private members' business will not be taken up on Monday.

It being 2.30, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)