Debates of Dec. 1st, 2009

Afghanistan

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. David Mulroney, the senior civil servant in charge of the mission, confirmed what we have said all along.

The enhanced arrangement now allows for greater monitoring. That was in place two and a half years ago; unannounced monitoring, a more rigorous ability to have Canadian eyes on information inside the prisons to follow Canadian transferred detainees. If credible allegations have arisen, as was again confirmed, the Afghan sovereign government will do the follow-up with our assistance.

We also notify the ICRC and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Our officials can visit prisons unannounced at any time. These are great improvements from the previous arrangement we inherited. This was confirmed by both the bureaucrats and military who testified last week.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem we have with the government's answers is that it says that we do not have access to credible information from someone like Mr. Colvin and then says, on the contrary, that Mr. Colvin did not have all the facts.

The problem is that the government did not look for the facts. The government did not try to get to the truth.

That is why we will ask again: why not hold an inquiry to get to the truth of the matter?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the member opposite's sanctimonious lectures in this place is that they are really not consistent.

In fact, what we do is to act upon the advice of senior members of the public service, those who were in charge of the mission at the time. We act upon the advice that we receive from commanders in the field, people like generals Hillier, Fraser and Gauthier, who were there during the time in question. We receive that advice. We obviously take that advice and make decisions to support the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.

The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse the government; he cannot dismiss the government's position, knowing we took it from that source.

The Environment

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to a joint study by Le Devoir and the Pembina Institute, action taken by Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions ensures that, if the government maintains its flawed greenhouse gas reduction plan, Alberta will be able to increase its emissions without penalty.

Will the government admit that its climate change plan is tailor-made for Alberta?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to doing our part to fight global warming, to fight climate change. We are committed to taking real action on an international level. We are working in concert with our friends in the Obama administration to have a real and meaningful plan to take a bite out of the carbon emissions in Canada. We are going to continue to do that at Copenhagen and to work constructively with our international partners to get every major emitter on board.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with 2006 as the reference year, the government is undermining all the efforts made by Quebec since 1990 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those by the pulp and paper and aluminum industries.

Does the government realize that by using 2006 as the reference year, rather than 1990, it gives an advantages to its friends in the oil sector, who have done nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions since 1990?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely false and we are pleased that the Obama administration's approach is similar to ours. Our two economies are integrated. There will be a North American approach.

I would remind the member opposite that, in 2007, the federal government transferred $350 million to the Quebec government. Premier Charest himself stated that this would help Quebec achieve its goals.

That is what I call results.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by choosing 2006 as the reference year, the government is ignoring the efforts Quebec companies have been making since 1990: reductions of 41% for the paper industry, reductions of 22% for the manufacturing industry, and reductions of 15% for the aluminum industry. Furthermore, it will be harder for these industries to achieve objectives using 2006 as the base year since, as companies get closer to zero emissions, it becomes more expensive and technically harder.

Does the government realize that it is penalizing Quebec companies that have made efforts, and is rewarding the oil companies in the west that have increased their emissions?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government's plan is quite clear, and that is to search out a binding international agreement at Copenhagen, and from there, to ensure that we have, on a harmonized basis, continental targets and continental rules and regulations with respect to a cap and trade system.

The United States president last week announced a reduction target of minus 17% by 2020 from a 2005 base. The Canadian policy for the last two years has been minus 20% by 2020 from a 2006 base.

These are virtually identical, and we will make whatever minor adjustments are necessary to make them absolutely identical with the same baseline.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only is Quebec being penalized by the choice of 2006 as the reference year, but it could also be the first to pay for this government's inaction, since it exports the most to Europe.

Does the government realize that if Europe follows through on its carbon tax threats for offending countries, Quebec will be paying for Alberta?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Europe. It is exactly a year ago today that the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals, as coalition partners, voted and brought in a coalition accord. That accord, of course, called for a North American cap and trade system.

Since that time, there has been a bit of confusion among the coalition partners. The Bloc and the NDP still search out European targets for Canada. The Liberals seem the most confused. They talk about North American targets, they vote for European targets, but at the end of the day, they brought in a policy last week that has no targets.

Afghanistan

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' stonewalling of the Military Police Complaints Commission is continuing.

It was not enough that for 21 months they would not support the handing over of documents and records. It was not enough that they intimidated witnesses with the possibility of jail time. Now they are refusing to release and make available to the commission legally subpoenaed documents.

What is going on here? Does the Conservative government believe that somehow the commission is working in league with the Taliban? Is that what we are going to hear next?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. What we will hear is that this government will continue, as it has in the past, to provide all information, all documents that are legally available to be provided. There has been a long-standing practice not just with this government but with previous governments in this regard, and even mandatory legal requirements that are imposed on the public service and those of us in government.

It is a responsibility we take incredibly seriously. Our number one priority is to protect the operational security of our men and women in uniform and that will continue to be our priority.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made a lot of promises about transparency that it has simply never kept, whether to do with the commission or to do with the parliamentary committee, which has asked for documents, as it has every right to do.

The government is not respecting that right. It is trying to intimidate witnesses from testifying. It is selectively leaking to certain journalists the supposedly secret documents that have to be protected, but not to the processes that are established here in the House of Commons.

Why will the government not simply support a public inquiry? This is why we need a public inquiry. There is a vote today on this. Is the government going to vote against making the truth—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the committee has had the opportunity to hear from public servants, from senior public servants. It has had the opportunity to hear from three Canadian heroes, three generals who have worked in this regard on behalf of our men and women in uniform, on behalf of their country. What we have seen at the committee is that there has never been a confirmed case of the torture of a transferred Taliban captive.

Those are the facts and it is important that those not be left out in this regard.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of those generals said that the documents should be made available. The government should follow that advice.

If the Conservatives have nothing to hide, then what they should do is launch a public inquiry, as we have requested.

We would like to know whether the government's policy is to ignore its own written reports on torture, without investigating or doing anything. We would also like to know which ministers were in the loop. Was the Prime Minister aware of torture cases? Will the government abide by a majority vote in the House to launch a public inquiry, yes or no?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, when this government gets credible, substantiated evidence with respect to this issue, we have acted. We have acted in the past.

What we have done is to have sought a prisoner transfer agreement. We have had enhanced monitoring. We have seen a significant effort on behalf of Canadian public servants and on behalf of the men and women in uniform to accept their responsibilities and to do their jobs. There has been no specific allegation from anyone that they have not done that.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government ignored reports on torture in Afghan jails from the U.S. state department, the UN human rights commissioner, and its own partner, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Then the allegations of torture hit the press. It suddenly became concerned, not because of human rights or international law, but because the Prime Minister is always more concerned about his own image than the reputation of Canada.

It is the reputation of Canada that demands a public inquiry. Why will the government not call one?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, the ranting and raving and unfounded allegations from the member opposite are not going to change the facts.

We acted and acted responsibly on advice that came from senior military advisers, military generals and commanders on the ground in Afghanistan. We acted on the advice of Mr. David Mulroney, who was a senior bureaucrat, a public servant and an impartial person helping us with decisions in Afghanistan.

That is the responsible thing to do. That is in fact what I would suspect the member opposite and his government did when they were receiving this same type of advice. The difference of course is that we took action. We took responsibility. We improved the arrangement. We improved the resources, as we did with the military.

That is our record. Let him defend his.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee on Afghanistan has not received any documents from this government, although these have been made available. The government has no problem leaking them to a few chosen journalists. I guess the members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan may be somewhat of a security threat to this country.

Will the government stop the stonewalling, produce the documents, stop the spin and call a public inquiry? If it has been doing such a good job, what does it have to hide?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, talk about sucking and blowing. We are being accused of not releasing documents but leaking them at the same time.

There is a mandatory obligation on public officials to ensure that when information is released, it is in compliance with the Canada Evidence Act. That legislation was made more robust by, and wait for it, the previous government.

With respect to information, I think most people, even the hon. member, can understand that we want to protect operational matters, information received from other countries, other sources, confidential sources, national security. Those are the reasons these documents are being examined by the Department of Justice.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite receiving warnings that began in May 2006, the government did nothing to put an end to the transfers for 18 months. Canada's reputation as a world leader in justice and human rights has been damaged by the actions of these Conservatives.

How can the Prime Minister talk to the Chinese government about respect for human rights—in Tibet for example—if he cannot lead by example?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Despite that rambling dissertation, Mr. Speaker, I will take Canada's record on human rights over China's any day.

I go back to the issue at hand. What we do as a government is act responsibly. We enhanced the arrangement to allow for greater monitoring inside prisons. We upped our ability to train, monitor and mentor prison officials. We invested in the physical prisons themselves. Those are the responsible things we did, and we started doing that immediately after taking office.

Contrary to the allegations, we acted responsibly, quickly and improved the situation in Afghanistan.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another new version of events from the Minister of National Defence. His version changes every day.

The Conservatives deliberately hid the fact that, for 18 months, they regularly turned Afghan detainees over even though there was a real and serious risk that they would be tortured.

How can the Prime Minister go to China and defend human rights, particularly with respect to Tibet, when his own government is guilty of violating those same human rights?