House of Commons Hansard #115 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jury.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, instead of halting the transfer of Afghan detainees, the Prime Minister chose to ignore the facts. His office even sent propaganda lines to NATO officials to help them publicly deny allegations of torture.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, instead of fulfilling his responsibilities, he chose to cover up the whole thing and discredit witnesses like Mr. Colvin?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Government of Canada does not control the communication policy of 28 NATO member countries. In fact, to suggest so is absolutely ridiculous. But let us come back to the main issue though. The fact is we acted decisively two and a half years ago. We started investing in the training of prison officials, investing in the physical surroundings of those prisons. We have spent time, money and effort, and sent qualified people to those prisons to monitor conditions. We continue to do so because of an enhanced arrangement, when we inherited an inadequate arrangement left in place by the previous government. Unlike the previous government, we acted.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cynically declared that his government does not attempt to intimidate people who do not agree with it. One need only observe how whistleblower Richard Colvin was treated to conclude that the Prime Minister spoke in bad faith. Instead of acting responsibly, the Prime Minister condoned his goons' attacks on the diplomat who revealed that prisoners transferred by Canada were tortured.
Instead of attacking the messenger, why was the government not transparent about its involvement—yes, its involvement—in the matter of the torture of Afghan prisoners?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, it is a bogus allegation. We have suggested the testimony that was heard last week is not credible. It is not substantiated. In fact, references to all prisoners being tortured, to innocent people being rounded up by the Canadian Forces does exactly what members of the opposition do not want; that is, cast aspersions over the Canadian Forces and the work they are doing.
We are protecting people. We are investing to improve the capacity of how Afghans treat Taliban prisoners. We have invested heavily in that regard. We will continue to do so. To cast aspersions and blur the issue is to dishonour the services being provided--
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, through the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the government continued to evade responsibility in connection with the torture issue by stating that “these stories are about Afghan allegations against other Afghans".
Since Canada was involved in the transfer of prisoners to the authorities that employed torture, and given that the Geneva Convention imposes obligations even when doubt exists, how can the government continue to deny its responsibilities?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, we have taken responsibility. We have acted. We have invested. In fact, to date, Canadians have made over 180 visits to detention facilities. That came about as a result of the new transfer arrangement.
In fact, we have gone further. We have invested $132 million in improving the Afghan prison system. We have invested in its officials. We have spent time training officials. We will continue to do so.
In fact, to quote an individual involved in this effort, Gail Latouche of Correctional Service of Canada said, “Corrections Canada who do the same work have seen zero evidence of torture or other abuse”.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission has reported 400 cases of torture, but the Conservatives still refuse to face the facts. But the chief of defence staff has confirmed that the Canadian army stopped transferring prisoners a number of times.
Can the government answer some simple and factual questions? How many prisoners were transferred by the Canadians? How many times were these transfers stopped, when and why?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, the facts and figures that the hon. member has put forward do not apply to prisoners transferred from the Canadian Forces. Those are broad-sweeping numbers that speak to the conditions in the prison. They do not apply to the numbers that were transferred by Canadian Forces.
With respect to what we did, we stopped transferring when the agreement was not working; an agreement that we improved upon; an agreement that enabled unannounced, unfettered access to prisoners that we transferred.
Let us talk about where the responsibility begins and ends. We took responsibility. We acted. We improved the situation and continue to do so.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I assume now then we will get all the evidence about the visits that took place in those particular cases so we can see exactly what happened. Will the minister table them in this House as quickly as possible?
We have to deal with the fact that the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission reported on 400 cases of torture. How can the minister be so sure that absolutely none of them are relevant to the Canadian situation?
Colonel Abdullah Bawar, chief warden of the Sarposa prison in Afghanistan, confirms, “Yes, there was torture and people were certainly beaten. Hands and legs would be tied and they would be beaten with cables”.
How--
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. The hon. member wants to just accept that some of this or all of this applies to prisoners transferred by Canadians, and that in fact is not the case. That is the crux of the issue. We are asking for these allegations to be proven. There have been no proven allegations that we can refer to.
What is important is to listen to somebody who is there on the ground. Gail Latouche of Correctional Service of Canada reports that, in fact, unequivocally, she and three of her colleagues working in Afghanistan have said there is zero evidence of torture and abuse, based on the visits taken place by Canadian officials.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to this whole question of torture, unlike other party leaders, we are not going to stand for denying of the evidence. We are not going to cover up the truth. We are not going to write books justifying torture in any way, shape or form. Nothing can justify torture and nothing can justify the full-scale denial mode that we see from the Conservatives right now.
Why will the government not do the right thing and launch a public inquiry, as we have called for, so that we will have all the facts on the table?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member demonstrates very little faith in the parliamentary committee and in the independent arm's-length organizations that are currently looking at the issue. In fact, he shows very little faith at all in having evidence substantiated or actually proven. That is what is important.
It is also important to note, again, that not a single, solitary, proven allegation involving a transfer of a Taliban prisoner from the Canadian Forces has been proven. The operational details on the ground are available. We will be hearing from more witnesses this week and I suspect more in the future. Let us hear what those people have to say.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, our international and national legal obligations are clear. These laws expressly prohibit the transfer of prisoners who may face torture.
Direct proof is not needed. If there is any reasonable suspicion of torture, we must stop the transfers.
Why are the Conservatives avoiding this critical responsibility under international and Canadian law?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker, Canadian officials in Afghanistan absolutely abide by international obligations. They absolutely abide by the Geneva Convention and they are further enabled to carry out those responsibilities because of a new enhanced transfer arrangement.
Let the hon. member explain to the House and Canadians why it was that his government, when leaving office, only put in place an inadequate transfer arrangement that we had to improve upon months after taking office.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to be teaching Afghans about transparency, human rights and the rule of law, but the Conservatives are avoiding these responsibilities here at home. This is not about the Canadian Forces. It is about the failure of the Conservative government here at home.
When will the Conservatives stop acting against our interests abroad and here at home, and when will they call an independent public inquiry?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Let us let due process, Mr. Speaker, determine what the facts are here. Let us actually let the parliamentary committee hear from individuals on the ground who were doing their important work.
I do appreciate the fact that he has pointed out that not a single Canadian, whether Canadian Forces or otherwise, is implicated in any wrongdoing. That is important for Canadians to understand.
It is also important to remember that the enhanced agreement was put in place by this government because of the failings of the previous administration to do its important work to protect Canadians in the field working to improve the situation in Afghanistan. That is something those members will have to explain over time.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, honest democratic governments have nothing to worry about when it comes to accountability and transparency. They know that those are the only ways to guarantee they are legitimate.
This government should encourage everyone who knows the truth to come forward.
Instead, the Conservative government treats whistleblowers like Mr. Colvin with contempt, and try to create a diversion.
Why is this Conservative government so afraid of the truth?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Let us examine that, Mr. Speaker. The reality is we are truth seeking in this exercise. We want to hear from individuals and we want to put the truth on the record, the truth being, obviously, that we have invested heavily in the improvement of the situation in Afghanistan.
It is clearly undeniable that we improved the transfer arrangement we inherited, the failed arrangement put in place by the previous government. We do want to hear from individuals who can bring forward credible, proven allegations, not just recitations of what was heard, what was passed on, what was read in reports, or what was disclosed by Taliban prisoners themselves. That is what the evidence is so far. We have not seen a single scintilla of proof.
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Speaker, here is what one authority said about protecting whistleblowers:
--we want to ensure that those public servants who wish to report unethical or illegal behaviour they witness in government can do so without suffering retribution.
Who said that? It was the Conservative Prime Minister in 2006.
Why has he broken his promise of protecting whistleblowers and why did he fail to treat these allegations of torture seriously when first informed about them?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Here is a quote for the hon. member, who is always so reasoned and pointed, Mr. Speaker. This is from a colleague of the individual who gave evidence last week. Paul Chapin, a former diplomat, said, “I think that what set me back is how serious the allegations are and how flimsy the evidence [is].” He went on to say, “It would have been rather more reassuring had he been able to provide some of the detail that would give credibility to these serious allegations”.
These are not partisan comments. These are from an individual who worked in the professional public service of Canada. These are serious allegations. It requires serious evidence to back it up, not just taking someone's word for it.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, the number of supporters who want to ensure success in Copenhagen is growing. In addition to China, the United States and Russia, which are reviewing their strategies, now Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel want to enter into an ambitious agreement in December to address climate change. As calls for leadership are increasing, Ottawa remains silent.
Is the Minister of the Environment not beginning to feel a little lonely, given that the oil companies are his only allies in Copenhagen?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada aspires to see an agreement in Copenhagen, which is why I was in Copenhagen last week as one of 20 ministers drawn together by the chair of the Copenhagen process to try to lend form and substance to what will happen at the convention. This morning I met with representatives from the European Union, the Government of Spain and the Government of Sweden.
We will continue to be a constructive player at the table. We will, however, search out something that is superior to Kyoto and that suits our industrial needs, our climate and our geography as Canadians.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot go to Copenhagen empty-handed. Équiterre and the Pembina Institute are calling on parliamentarians to support the Bloc Québécois motion demanding that Canada take a constructive approach. Quebeckers want strict reduction targets that will help prevent irreversible global warming.
Whose interests will the Minister of the Environment be defending in Copenhagen, those of big oil or those of Quebec?
