House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was inuit.
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, when there is credible evidence of cases of abuse, Government of Canada officials have always acted responsibly. If the opposition truly wants to hear the testimony of the senior officials, there are people who want to speak, and I encourage the opposition to listen to them.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have just learned that Mr. Colvin has advised members of the committee that he is not in a position to provide the committee with the documents that he undertook to provide them. He has been told by Department of Justice lawyers, through his employer, the Department of Foreign Affairs, not to disclose those documents to members of the committee.
How can the minister continue to stand in this place and talk with such piety about who is censoring what and who is restricting what, when it is very clear that the only party in the House that is restricting evidence coming before the committee and coming before the House of Commons is the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government of Canada?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the hon. member's righteous indignation, we have been cooperating with respect to the parliamentary inquiry. We have been turning over documents that are relevant to the investigation. We have cooperated with other impartial arm's-length investigations that are taking place.
The hon. member does not have a corner on virtue. We are cooperating in this regard and we will continue to do so. He can feign his outrage. This is a public exercise. We are hearing from witnesses. It is interesting to note that David Mulroney is prepared to testify but the member and his party do not seem anxious to hear from Mr. Mulroney.
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that the government is not willing to let the documents come out that will allow us to do our job. That is what is at stake.
Also, the current director general of DFAIT, with respect to the Afghan task force, said this about how they go about doing their business: “We don't investigate those allegations. We simply record them”. He went on to say that having recorded them, they then passed them on to the Government of Afghanistan.
How can the Conservatives possibly hope to get to the bottom of any allegation if they take such a passive attitude to the information that is coming forward?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, when officials at Foreign Affairs and officials at the Department of National Defence were in possession of credible allegations, they acted. Going back two and a half years the action began. The action began to clean up the mess that we had inherited from the party opposite. The action began to rewrite the transfer arrangement, to arrange for more prison visits and to train officials inside the prison.
What is interesting, when we hear the allegations of partisanship, is to note that the Liberal Party is now fundraising on the issue of Taliban transfers, trying to scare Canadians and further smear Canadian soldiers who are doing important work in Afghanistan.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, in early 2006, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is now the Minister of National Defence, received a report on human rights in Afghanistan. When a heavily censored version of this report was made public, it said, “military, intelligence and police forces have been accused of...torture”. We can only imagine what was kept secret.
Can the minister tell us why he waited 18 months to take action?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, as I and the Prime Minister have stated a number of times, we did act. We acted two and a half years ago. We acted when we had credible and substantial evidence that related to the transfer of prisoners taken by Canadian Forces.
These are very interesting issues that we should be concerned about in Afghanistan but these are general allegations and general observations. These are reports that pertain broadly to the situation inside Afghanistan prisons.
We were concerned about it and we acted when we had credible evidence. We continue to act to improve the situation in Afghanistan. We can be proud of the actions of our diplomats and soldiers doing that job.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 2007, a UN report stated that “in a significant proportion of cases...torture had been used to force confessions”. These investigations were conducted jointly by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the UN.
Did the minister pick up the phone and call anyone at the UN? Did he call Louise Arbour or did he choose to be wilfully blind and do nothing for over a year?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
No, we did more, Mr. Speaker, than read reports or pick up the phone. We got to work with our officials on the ground in Afghanistan to improve the transfer arrangement. We spoke with our diplomats serving in Afghanistan to see that the arrangement was improved and enhanced.
We got to work putting in place programs that would help train prison officials. We got to work ensuring we could have Canadians actually track the transfer of detainees by going inside the prisons. We invested in the physical surroundings of where prisoners were being held.
These are real actions, not phone calls, not reports and not pontification about what could be done. We took action. We can be proud of the work that was done in this instance.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed a very clear motion by the Bloc Québécois on the targets that Canada should advocate for in Copenhagen. A majority of parliamentarians want Canada to support an ambitious plan to limit global warming. We already know that the Minister of the Environment is not planning to advocate for either Quebec's position on the issues or the House's.
So my question is simple. Is the minister planning to do nothing more than defend the interests of folks in Calgary and oil companies whose main goal is to see Copenhagen fail?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, today's headlines were all about the American targets, and our position on the matter is very clear. We will harmonize our targets with those of the United States with respect to the regulatory system and a North American emissions trading system.
That is very clear. Today, President Obama is targeting a 17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, and the Government of Canada is aiming for a 20% reduction below 2006 levels by 2020. These two goals are almost the same. The Bloc Québécois should support our—
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, it sounded as though the minister was speaking on Quebec's behalf. How can the minister claim to speak on Quebec's behalf in Copenhagen when everyone knows that Quebec's position on this issue is diametrically opposed to that of the minister and his government? The government has chosen to protect oil companies and work against Quebec's economic and environmental interests.
This government is not pro-environment, it is pro-oil company. That is—
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. As we said, our government will harmonize its targets with those of the United States, as the president announced today.
Canada will continue to attach the same prerequisites to its targets, such as significant reductions in emerging economies like China and India, along with the introduction and passage of important energy and environment legislation in the United States and Canada.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mint has lost track of large quantities of gold and silver. Over $15 million worth of precious metals vanished in 2008.
Deloitte & Touche is saying this is not an accounting error. The RCMP is saying it was not stolen. The mystery deepens the more it is investigated.
Can the minister tell us what happened to the Royal Canadian Mint gold, now that a year has gone by since it went missing?
Rob Merrifield ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the missing or unaccounted for gold at the Mint, the external review that has been taking place over the last period of time has accounted for that unaccounted for gold, and it is in the hands of the Auditor General at the present time for validation of the numbers
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, to say the least, the minister does not seem to be in a hurry to find the lost gold.
Back in June, Deloitte & Touche recommended that the Royal Canadian Mint review its technical processes in order to ensure that the gold was not simply thrown down the drain during the refinement process.
Can the minister tell us whether that lead produced any results?
Rob Merrifield ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)
Mr. Speaker, the external review that has been ongoing over the summer is nearing completion. It is in the hands of the Auditor General for validation and we will have those actual numbers when the Auditor General is through.
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, the matter of torture in Afghanistan is now beyond who knew what and when. The facts show clearly that the government continued to transfer the detainees to a risk of torture. This is not an issue about our troops on the ground. This is about the Conservatives in Ottawa and their failure to uphold Canada's legal obligations with respect to torture.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House why he ignored, neglected and did not fulfill his legal obligations under domestic and international law with regard to torture?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, when officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of National Defence had credible allegations we acted. We acted substantially and we acted quickly. We invested in the prison system, Afghan's justice system, $132 million in fact. We went about improving the transfer arrangement left in place by the member's government. We went about ensuring that we could have Canadians monitor prisoners after transfer. That was a substantial improvement from the situation we inherited.
Those are things that Canadians can take pride in. We always put human rights first. We always ensure that we are acting in the best interests of our country. We can be very proud of the diplomats, soldiers and aid workers who continue that important work in Afghanistan today.
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no court in the world that would accept ignorance or wilful blindness as a defence.
Information on the risk of torture in Afghanistan prisons was widespread and undeniable. Not acting has put our troops on the ground at risk. It has damaged Canada's reputation as a moral leader in the world.
Why has the Prime Minister and his ministers stuck their heads in the sand, violated international law and refused to protect our troops?
Peter MacKay ConservativeMinister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway
Mr. Speaker, no court of law would take the evidence of one individual based on reports of second-hand and third-hand information and hearsay from Taliban.
As far as when I knew, as I said before, I was updated on a site visit from Foreign Affairs officials in June 2007 after the enhanced arrangement was put in place. We then, as previously stated, heard from a deputy minister who at that time had briefed me with respect to information he had received from sources on the ground in Afghanistan, and site visit information that came from both Ms. Bloodworth and Mr. Colvin. That was in June 2007 after the new enhanced arrangement was in place.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago, the Prime Minister promised to take part in the Copenhagen conference on the condition that other heads of state confirm their attendance first. Well, 65 of them have. The United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Spain, Australia and Brazil will all be there. Not only is President Obama going, but so are his Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Commerce.
Now that all the others have taken the first step, will the Prime Minister go to the conference in Copenhagen?
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have always been clear. If there is a meeting of all major leaders involving climate change, I will of course attend.
I would just note that President Obama has not confirmed his attendance at the leaders' meeting in Copenhagen. In fact, I have discussed the matter with him directly.
