Debates of Dec. 1st, 2009

Information Related to the Study of Bill C-36

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. minister.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River is rising on a point of order.

Provision of Information to Standing Committee on National Defence

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that relates to the privileges of the House.

During question period today the Minister of National Defence indicated to the House that the Canada Evidence Act obstructed or impaired the ability of the government to provide information to the Standing Committee on National Defence in connection with a matter it is studying now.

As members know, the House has the power to send for persons, papers and records. That power delegated to committees is unimpaired by any statute, unless the statute explicitly mentions the parliamentary power, and the Canada Evidence Act does not in this case.

In this particular case, the general view is that it is contemptuous to mislead or obstruct the House in relation to its privileges, and it is quite possible that the minister has inadvertently or advertently misled the House with respect to this matter of privilege.

Therefore, I would invite the minister to come back to clarify this. If he is suggesting that the Canada Evidence Act prevents the government from disclosing documents, it is my view that it obstructs the House and is wrong in law, and that the matter must be taken up as a matter of privilege.

The reason I am somewhat familiar with this is that eight years ago it almost happened. The House was considering amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, and through inadvertence a lawyer somewhere in the Department of Justice actually inserted a reference to Parliament. Those words were removed before the amendment was made, with the specific objective of ensuring that Parliament's powers in relation to persons, papers and records remained unimpaired and unencumbered.

The minister's answer today left me with no other conclusion than that the government was using this section to avoid making disclosure and that he may have inadvertently misinformed the House and the public. If he has done so advertently, then it is clear to me that it is a matter of privilege and I would be prepared to take it up forthwith.

However, I think we should allow the minister an opportunity to clarify this and he could do so directly with members in the House or he could give me a phone call. In my view, it should be done.

I am putting the House on notice now that I do see a potential serious matter of privilege here.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Transfer of Afghan Detainees

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have seven minutes left.

Before the House moved to question period and routine proceedings, I had an opportunity to review some of the comments that were made to the House during debate by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that I think bear repeating. He specifically made the point that the 2005 agreement relating to the release of Afghan detainees was inadequate.

I am trying to understand why we had to change it in 2007 if, in the Conservatives' view, there was no torture, there was no evidence, there were no allegations and nobody knew of any torture. Why would he characterize it as having been inadequate unless there was in fact a problem? It is almost contradictory for him to describe it as inadequate. I only raise that as a point of interest.

During debate this morning, the Minister of National Defence also addressed the House. He started off by saying that the motion to call for a public inquiry into this matter before us on the alleged torture of Afghan detainees was partisan driven. He said that an inquiry is not necessary, and we pretty well went downhill from there. He also made arguments that we have had a few other processes go on. He referred to the fact there was not one single specific allegation of torture, even though we have allegations of torture from a number of sources.

In the special committee, which he described as having a fair and open process, we know that no documents have been provided to the members of the committee. However, the witnesses who came before the committee all had access to the documents. I wonder how a committee member could possibly be able to ask informed questions if information were being provided by witnesses based on certain documents that the committee members themselves did not have. It just does not compute.

It has also been confirmed that there have been others, including journalists, who have had this information. Amnesty International has had the documents, but committee members have not had the documents. Yet it has been said many times during the debate today that the committee is controlled by the opposition and that it can do anything it wants. That apparently is not the case, since the committee itself has not been able to have access to these documents. We have heard excuses such as they had to be translated and, of course, they had to be redacted.

Today we just had the point of order from the member for Scarborough—Rouge River pursuant to a quote that so many have used, including the Minister of National Defence, that they can only give us the documents they are legally able to give us. For the first time today in question period there was a specific reference to legislation, pursuant to which he would make that statement, and that was the Canada Evidence Act.

Based on the knowledge of the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, who was involved in an amendment to that particular act, that act does not supercede the powers of Parliament and its committees to call for a person's papers or records. Thus it could very well be that the Minister of National Defence has misled the House. It could be inadvertent.

Right now, as it stands, the committee will only be entitled to redacted documents. This is a problem that must be resolved.

When the Minister of National Defence spoke about this, he said that our priority should be the detainees. That was one of his lead-ins, but then he said that there have been a number of proceedings that have dealt with this before. The one that he used as an example was the April 2006 Canadian Forces inquiry, which concluded that members of the Canadian Forces had treated detainees in a professional fashion.

I do not know what that has to do with the matter before us, because the question is not how Canadian Forces treated detainees, but how the Afghan authorities treated detainees who were turned over to them by Canadian Forces. There is a difference. I do not understand why the Minister of National Defence would even go there. It just does not make sense.

With regard to whether there is other evidence, I do not know what the rules of the game are with regard to embedded journalist. However, I want to put on the record that I have received information, and I will not give any names because I think there is censorship on embedded journalists before and after they are there. There films and records of, in this case, one Canadian soldier with a detainee on the phone who is advised that the Afghan authorities want to execute the detainee. The order from military command was to release him.

I have a feeling what is happening, as the government continues to stonewall and deny the fact that there have been substantive and credible allegations, is it is starting come out, and it may very well come out. The government needs to be aware of that.

We need to answer these questions. What did the military command know and when? Who knew of the allegations of torture other than Mr. Colvin? What other evidence exists and how widespread the matter was?

We need an inquiry. We need a process to get to the facts, to get to the truth, to get out of this partisan environment that the government has created and has frustrated the operations of the committee. There are clear disagreements on facts. This is worth resolving and therefore it would restore our reputation.

For those reasons, we need to support a public inquiry.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member has pointed out is the problem we have in this place on access to documents. In some cases there are documents. As the member mentioned, certain people have had access to documents. In fact, in the committee we have had witnesses who have had full access to documents. Yet the committee has been unable to access them. We have had a debate on this side and a debate on the other side in the House. That is what we saw this morning.

We do not have a fair process. We have not had access to documents that the witnesses have had. We have had the government at every step of the way censor documents, tell witnesses that if they speak, there will be consequences. The government has gone to the extent to go after Mr. Colvin two days prior to his testimony before the committee. Through the justice department, he was told that he did not have access to the documents that he would have needed for his presentation.

What does the member think the government is doing right now? On the one hand it tells us not to believe what the other guys say. On the other hand, today we hear it does not even want to have an independent lens on this. Why is the government stonewalling on not only the documents and witnesses, but on the whole idea of having a public inquiry?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time to answer the question fully but I understand it.

I do not want to speculate on what the government's motivation is. However, I know, after the time I have been in this place, what the powers of committees are and the delegated authority from the House to committees. The issue has to do with those documents, without which the committee members could not possibly ask the very best questions they would be capable of if they had access to them.

The question is the accessibility of documents. I believe there are two ways to deal with it.

The first is to get the ruling from the Speaker with regard to the minister's statement in this place that he has been relying on the Canada Evidence Act to say that is why only redacted documents are going to be available to the committee. Let us assume there is a legal reason why the committee in its public forum could only get redacted documents.

Another opportunity for the committee would be to have those members of the committee who are not already privy councillors to be sworn into the Privy Council and then to meet in camera to examine the documents to satisfy themselves that the representations made by the government, that there are no torture references, et cetera, could be resolved at least for the benefit of all the committee.

We have the tools. Let us use them.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member for Mississauga South went in the direction he did, which is tools are available to the House and the committee, tools that the government is ignoring.

The Minister of National Defence has said that the government will give information to witnesses because there is a question of national security and they have passed all security clearances. I humbly remind everybody, as the member for Mississauga South has done, that I received all those high clearances as well and so did several of members of my party who sit on this side of the House.

We could use those members who are privy councillors and have received the highest security clearances to receive information and to be introduced on the committee in order to make the appropriate determination as to what the government has done with information respecting detainees who were turned over or not for torture. The issue is whether the government will allow us to do that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is on the defensive and has tried to switch the channel time and time again. I do not want to get into a pissing match, as it were, with the government, but I want to encourage the committee members to push the envelope with regard to the powers available to committees.

The committee has already said that if it can get those documents, witnesses such as Colvin, Hillier and the other two generals could be called back. I believe that once they have had the opportunity to examine the documents, those witnesses should be called back before committee. We should demonstrate to Canadians that we can do this.

However, if it is frustrated again by the government stonewalling, clearly the case would have been made for the necessity of a public inquiry. Having to call for one, simply is an admission that Parliament cannot do its job if this is not successful. If the government does not call a public inquiry, I hope the committee will dig in its heels and exercise the full authority it has to get the truth.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. I want you to know that I am sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

This afternoon we are debating an NDP opposition day motion and I going to read it again because it has been a while probably since we have heard it. The motion was moved by the member for Ottawa Centre and it states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should, in accordance with Part I of the Inquiries Act, call a Public Inquiry into the transfer of detainees in Canadian custody to Afghan authorities from 2001 to 2009.

It is a very important motion and I am glad we have the opportunity to focus on it this afternoon, given not only the concerns that have been raised in recent weeks, but over many years, on the issue of the transfer of detainees during the war in Afghanistan.

As my starting point, I want to be very clear that I oppose Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan. I firmly believe and am firmly convinced that this is the wrong mission for Canada. If there were some way of bringing the troops home immediately, I would support that endeavour. I look forward to when Canada's troops do come home from Afghanistan in February 2011.

The conduct of war is a very serious issue, and everyone in the House would agree with that. It is essentially what we are discussing today, one aspect of the conduct of the war in Afghanistan. I am very disappointed and often angered by the approach of the Conservative government, that its members would slag honourable public servants who are doing their jobs, like Mr. Colvin, who remain dedicated public servants in senior positions, in intelligence positions in the Canadian Embassy in Washington. I am disappointed that they would slag someone like him who has served our country admirably and that they would insult opposition MPs who ask serious and important questions.

The record of the Minister of National Defence is particular abysmal in that regard. It seems he cannot respond to a question without somehow insulting the person who has put the question in the House. The other is to suggest that Canadian public servants and opposition MPs who raise questions about the matter of the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan are somehow dupes of the Taliban. That is particularly objectionable.

I believe the government is hiding behind the false notion that to raise questions about the conduct of the war in Afghanistan is to somehow not support the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. It is exactly the opposite. It is our job to ensure that they are in this war in exactly the appropriate circumstances. We hold their political masters, the government, accountable for its actions in sending the Canadian armed forces into that theatre of battle, into that war. The motion is about that. The attempts of the standing committee in recent weeks have been about that.

It is hugely disrespectful to parliamentarians and to the Canadian public to characterize the questioning and the attempt to hold the government accountable for its decisions on the war in Afghanistan in the light. I would hope Conservatives change course on that immediately.

The fact we have been unable to use the mechanisms of Parliament so far to hold the government accountable on the question of the transfer of detainees is exactly why we need a public inquiry. We have to ask this question. How does the House and how do MPs do the job of accountability, particularly when the government refuses to release the appropriate documents that would allow people to have the information they need to make appropriate decisions on these issues? If those documents are not provided, it is impossible for members of Parliament to do the job. Again, that is why we need to go to a full public inquiry.

The issue of the detention of detainees and the transfer of them has been raised by New Democrat members of the House for many years. I participated in a take note debate in the House in November 2005 in which we discussed Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan. The matter of the transfer of detainees was raised at that time. In other circumstances I have also tried to get information about the transfer of detainees. I even put a question on the order paper in the House in June 2006. I tried to get information on exactly what was being done in terms of transfers.

I want to read the question I asked and the answer that was given on June 7:

With regard to the Canadian armed forces presence in Afghanistan: (a) how many persons taken prisoner or detained by the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan have been turned over to (i) Afghani officials, (ii) American officials, (iii) officials of other countries or organizations; and (b) how many of these persons remain in custody?

The answer I received from the minister of national defence at that time was:

Mr. Speaker, due to operational requirements and taking into account section 15(1) of the Access to Information Act, information regarding the current status of detainees apprehended by Canadian Forces elements in Afghanistan, as well as to which authorities these individuals were transferred, is not releasable to the public.

I was stonewalled back at that time in getting any information about the transfer of prisoners.

I note that just last week the Globe and Mail seemed to get information about prisoner detainees and reported that in the first 14 months of combat operations in Kandahar province, 130 prisoners were turned over to Afghan authorities. That was according to a government source. There is again an inconsistent policy about what information can be provided to parliamentarians who are trying to make appropriate decisions about this issue with regard to the war in Afghanistan.

Back in that debate in November 2005, which I mentioned earlier, the NDP defence critic at that time, the hon. Bill Blaikie, also raised the issue of the transfer of detainees. Members may remember that the context was slightly different at that time. The context was a concern that Canada's JTF2 was turning over prisoners taken to the United States. At that time there were very serious questions about the United States' record on prisoner detention coming out of its operations in Iraq but also in Afghanistan.

Mr. Blaikie raised those issues with the minister of defence at the time. He also raised the issue of Canada abiding by the convention on torture, particularly article 3 of that convention, which states:

No State Party shall expel, return...or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Mr. Blaikie raised that in connection with the concerns that we had back in 2005 with regard to the transfer of Afghan prisoners taken by the Canadian armed forces. Mr. Blaikie also then quoted Professor Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia on the issue of turning over detained prisoners to the Americans and the American involvement in torture.

Dialogue was happening in Canada and in our Parliament at that time about the transfer of detainees to American and Afghan authorities.

We have raised over a long period of time our concerns about the limitations of the transfer agreements that Canada had in place and the fact that they did not seem to meet Canadian values or the standards of similar agreements negotiated by other countries.

In that regard, the work of the most recent NDP critic for defence, Dawn Black, was also very important. On her first day in the House as NDP defence critic, after she was elected to the House in the 2006 election, her first question in question period was about Canadian values and how they were exhibited in Canada's policy of turning over detained prisoners to the Afghans.

We need to remember that in that period Ms. Black was often up in the House asking questions about Canadian prisoners, including what measures were in place to ensure they were not being tortured. The minister of defence of the day, time and time again, said that the Red Cross was in charge of doing that and, eventually, after the Red Cross reported that it was not mandated to report on that, he had to withdraw that statement.

We know from sources, like the U.S. state department and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, that torture is practised in Afghan prisons. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has said that 98.5% of prisoners held in Afghanistan are subject to torture. We cannot believe that the 1.5% who have not experienced that are the ones that Canada has turned over to Afghan authorities.

We know that groups, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have made very strong statements about the need for a public inquiry given the unanswered questions and given the impossibility of getting the correct information that has not been completely redacted and has been rendered almost useless as a result.

We know the importance of having this public inquiry. It is so Canadians can have the details and parliamentarians can have the details to make appropriate decisions about the war in Afghanistan.

Information Related to the Study of Bill C-36

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A debate was going on concerning the movement to concur in a committee report regarding breach of privilege that was moved by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh. At that time, I rose with a desire to speak but we were informed by, I believe, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that the minister concerned by this motion for breach of privilege should be allowed the opportunity to speak. Therefore, at that time, I requested that I be allowed to reserve the right to speak once the minister had risen and spoken to this particular issue.

It is my understanding that the minister has spoken, has offered his full and unreserved apology and, as such, I will waive my right to speak to the issue so as not to hold up the Speaker's ruling on this.

I also wish to underline for the Speaker that when I rose earlier for clarification on a statement made in this House by a member which mirrored the contents of a document that the House had already deemed to be a breach of privilege of a member's privileges, I was not in any way challenging the Speaker's ruling that he had made earlier. I would not wish him to take it as a challenge of his ruling, as I respect the Speaker entirely. I was simply seeking a question of clarification with regard to a decision taken by this House yesterday evening. However, if the Speaker took that to be a challenge of his ruling, I apologize unreservedly and wholeheartedly to him.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the remarks from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Transfer of Afghan Detainees

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns people have had around the debate and, in particular, at committee has been trying to sort out the different evidence provided by witnesses to committee.

I will just read into the record the question I asked of the three generals at the Afghan committee. I asked, “was there...visits to NDS prison or to Sarposa prison during 2005, 2006 by Canadian officials to follow-up...[on] the detainees...?”

The following answers were provided. General Hillier said, “That was not part of our mandate in the agreement”. Lieutenant-General Gauthier said, “Exactly right and I made reference to that in my comments, that our soldiers weren't trained human rights monitors”. General Fraser said, “That wasn't part of our mandate to go and inspect prisons”.

I just say that to ask my colleague the following questions.

The generals were very clear that they did not have a role in monitoring what was going on in the jails. Mr. Colvin was raising concerns about monitoring what was going on in the jails. Mr. Mulroney said that we were doing no follow up until he came in to try to fix things, leaving a whole 15 to 16 months where detainees were being transferred and there was no monitoring of what was happening in the prison.

Does my colleague from B.C. not think it is about time we find out exactly what was going on in order to sort out the stories? The generals said that it was not their job, and I agree with them. We have Mr. Mulroney who said that it was not his job. We have Mr. Colvin who said that he found out what was going on, that he told people but that no one responded.

Do we not need an inquiry to figure out what is going on?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very disconcerting to hear that there was no process in place for following up on those complaints. We heard that from the generals in their statements that nobody was doing that work and that nobody had the mandate to do that work. The one person who has come forward to say that he was trying to do that work was ignored and, worse than that, is slagged by government members every time he tries to bring this to our attention. I think it is really inappropriate.

Beyond that, it is very important to listen to what other human rights workers, the people who do that kind of work, have said. One of them is Joanne Mariner from Human Rights Watch who puts into question the whole value of the paper agreements that are in place. She stated:

We have seen in other contexts, like Maher Arar's rendition to Syria, that these paper guarantees do nothing to protect prisoners against torture and ill-treatment. Too often they just serve as a fig leaf, to give the appearance of trying to prevent abuse.

There is somebody who follows this issue, who is well-respected, who is known around the world for this work and talks about the agreements only giving a fig leaf of respectability to the abuse and the torture that goes on in Afghan prisons.

I think we absolutely need a public inquiry.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to loop back in my comments to what Mr. Colvin said. As I just read into the records, we have established from committee what the three generals said. They said very clearly that they were not responsible for following up on what was happening in the jails.

We know that at the time Mr. Colvin was raising this issue he was concerned about there being absolutely no process. We had no idea what was happening to those detainees when they were passed over, and the generals supported that when they said that was not their job and that they were not responsible for that.

It leaves us with a question. If the generals are saying that they were not responsible for the monitoring and follow up of the detainees, if Mr. Mulroney is saying that there was no process, and Mr. Colvin is saying that this was his concern and the reason that he wrote the reports, why does the member think the government has decided to go after Mr. Colvin when he was the one doing his job?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like a clear case of shooting the messenger, the only person who was trying to do the appropriate thing and trying to do his job appropriately in these very difficult circumstances.

It always seems to me like the full implications of being in a combat role and being in war in a combat role have eluded our governments. One of the clear examples of that has been the fact that there has not been clear policy from the very beginning about what to do with prisoners taken by the Canadian Forces.

It seems very clear that from the very beginning there has been nothing but confusion on that point. I would say that this is one place where our government has failed us. It has failed to make sure that the appropriate policies were in place. We need the inquiry.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate on our NDP opposition day motion calling for a public inquiry into prisoner torture in Afghanistan.

Judging by some of the emails my office has received after commenting on this issue on CTV's Power Play, there are some Canadians who think it is a waste of time to try to get to the bottom of this issue. I am happy to note, by the way, that none of those emails came from constituents in my riding of Hamilton Mountain.

One man referred to the detainees as “scumbags”, another as “local bandidos”. The inference is that what happens to Afghan detainees does not much matter because they are, to put it mildly, unsympathetic characters.

Less obliquely, government members and indeed the Prime Minister shamefully suggest that if I stand up to oppose the torture of Afghan prisoners, I am siding with the enemy instead of supporting the brave men and women in our own armed services.

Let me start by making one thing absolutely clear. The reason we need to get to the bottom of the allegations that Canadian officials were complicit in the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan is because we put our diplomats and soldiers on the ground at risk. Canadian troops serve our country with valour and honour, and they do so by engaging in accordance with the law.

This issue is not just about morality and altruism. It is about the law. Canada ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture and it wrote it into Canadian law by passing both section 269.1 of the Criminal Code and Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. There is no ambiguity. It is illegal to hand over prisoners of war when torture is a known possibility. Turning a blind eye to torture is not supporting our troops.

Our troops are in Afghanistan to stop human rights violations, not to be complicit in them. Our armed forces need to know that when they are following orders, they are not being asked to commit crimes against humanity. The cover-up is endangering our soldiers and hurting our mission by turning Afghans against us. It is precisely because I support our troops that I support this call for a public inquiry into the allegations of prisoner abuse.

Frankly, I would be happy if we could get to the bottom of this matter without the drawn-out process of a public inquiry, but the Conservative government has consistently covered-up its role in the Afghan scandal and Canadians deserve unconditioned and complete answers.

Let me remind members of the House that this issue did not just surface with Richard Colvin's testimony two weeks ago. In fact, the NDP's former defence critic, Dawn Black, was the first to raise the treatment of Afghan detainees in the House as far back as April of 2006.

The government stonewalled in its replies. Legitimate attempts by Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to find out what was going on were similarly delayed. The Conservatives used every available dodge, including Canada's anti-terror laws, to shut down a lawful inquiry by its own Military Police Complaints Commission.

The government does not want Canadians to learn the truth. As Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom rightly points out, that is why:

--in its usual brutal fashion, the government is attempting to turn this affair into a referendum on the Taliban.

Essentially, it is arguing that anyone who complains about torturing Afghan prisoners is either a traitor or a Taliban dupe.

The Conservatives know that the best defence is a good offence as they are scrambling to save their ministers from having to resign because they most likely have misled both Parliament and Canadians. However, for once, let us leave politics out of this.

In reality, the prisoner transfer protocols that may have contributed to the problem were the work of the former Liberal government, not the Conservatives. The original agreements were already in place when the Conservatives took office in 2006, but that is not the point. The point is that Canadians deserve answers. Who knew that the detainees who were handed over to Afghan authorities were routinely tortured? When did they know about it and what did they do about it?

Let me lay out part of the chronology that is now part of the public record.

On April 5, 2006, NDP defence critic Dawn Black called on the Conservatives to ensure Canada's prisoner transfer agreement reflected “our values as Canadians”. The then defence minister and member of Parliament for Carleton—Mississippi Mills declined. He said, “We have no intention of redrafting the agreement...there is no need to make any change in the agreement”.

On May 26, 2006, Richard Colvin, political director of the provincial reconstruction team, filed his first “serious, imminent and alarming” action message on Afghan detainees.

On March 19, 2007, the then defence minister and member of Parliament for Carleton—Mississippi Mills apologized for telling the House of Commons that the Red Cross would share information with Ottawa about alleged abuses of detainees after Canadian troops handed them over to Afghan authorities.

On April 20, 2007, Colvin filed an action message with 71 addresses in foreign affairs and national defence, including the provost marshal.

On April 23, 2007, Graeme Smith wrote in the Globe and Mail:

Afghans detained by Canadian soldiers and sent to Kandahar's notorious jails say they were beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked and subjected to electric shocks during interrogation.

On April 24, 2007, Colvin sent an action message on detainees as chargé d'affaires of the diplomatic mission in Afghanistan, and a response to the diplomatic contingency plan drafted by national security adviser to the Prime Minister.

Again, on April 24, 2007, the NDP leader and MP for Toronto—Danforth called on the Prime Minister to fire the defence minister. The Prime Minister denies reports of abuse and blames the Taliban. He said:

Allegations to the effect that we are not living up to our responsibilities are only being made by the Taliban.

On April 25, 2007, a Globe and Mail article read:

The Harper government knew from its own officials that prisoners held by Afghan security—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I would just remind the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that we cannot use proper names, even if we are quoting a document or a news source. We still have to make reference by riding or title.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly change the wording of the exact quote. It read:

[The Prime Minister's] government knew from its own officials that prisoners held by Afghan security forces faced the possibility of torture, abuse and extrajudicial killing.

On April 25, 2007, Colvin filed four reports on detainees, including two formal ones sent to senior officials in Ottawa, including the head of the Afghanistan task force.

On April 29, 2007, Conservatives continued to deny detainee abuse, by saying:

We have yet to see one specific allegation of torture. If they have a specific name, we'd be happy to have it investigated and chased down,

That was the current Minister of Public Safety on CTV's Question Period.

On October 28, 2009, the NDP foreign affairs critic and member for Ottawa Centre tabled a motion that read:

That the Committee hold hearings regarding the transfer of Afghan detainees from the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities.

The motion was adopted by the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. It was in front of that committee that Richard Colvin gave his explosive testimony. Colvin, who was stationed in Afghanistan in 2006, testified that torture was standard operating procedure and that it was likely all Afghan prisoners handed over by Canadian Forces were subjected to torture.

Colvin filed multiple reports on prisoner treatment, sending them to more than 70 senior military and government officials. No government action was taken in response to the reports, and he and others were told by senior Canadian government officials to stop putting their concerns in writing.

The current defence minister responded by characterizing Colvin's testimony as “not credible or as unproven allegations based on lies by Taliban prisoners”.

Emails obtained by the media show that the Prime Minister's Office was warned in 2006 of the abuse concerns. A former government official has said that it was virtually impossible that the minister would not have at least been briefed about the torture concerns.

In fact, despite the defence minister's contention last week that not a single Taliban prisoner turned over by Canadian Forces can be proven to have been abused, the transfer of detainees to Afghans was stopped twice in 2007.

I thought the editorial in last week's, Globe and Mail made the point, spot on:

The federal government's dissembling on abuse Afghan detainees suffered after they left the hands of Canadian Forces is now transparent. The government must be held to account...If Canada knew about torture, and allowed it to continue, the government needs to say so, and say why. Instead of more attacks on public servants, Canadians deserve unconditioned and complete answers.

The only way Canadians are going to get those answers is through a full public inquiry. The inquiry must have access to all government documents relevant to the torture of Afghan detainees.

If the government has been truthful with Canadians, then it has nothing to fear from the inquiry, but Canadians have a lot to gain and they have a right to know. The treatment of Afghan detainees is about human rights and it is about justice.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. would remind us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather interested in this whole debate primarily because, as the member said, Mr. Colvin's testimony was somewhat incredulous. I was there and I asked him if it was true what he said in his testimony, that the people he interviewed, who he said had shown signs of torture, were people who had been turned over by the Canadians. He said no and that he was not really sure. I suggested that that was maybe rather important.

He also suggested that when they were walking back to their cells as he drove off, he happened to notice that they were holding hands with their guards and laughing as they walked back to their cells. I suggested to him that maybe there was some question as to whether they had been tortured, considering that they were laughing and walking gleefully back to their cells with the people who were holding them.

It went on and on. People can take a look at the testimony. I cannot really understand the request for a public inquiry. As I pointed out, Colvin is one of 5,000 Canadians who had gone through the theatre in that period of time. He made some very interesting observations and came to some really crazy conclusions.

According to this member, she wants to have a public inquiry. At what cost? Would it cost $1 million, $2 million, $5 million, $10 million, or $15 million of Canadian taxpayers' money? Would that money not be better to continue the polio eradication program that we are conducting—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I am going to have to stop the member there to give the member for Hamilton Mountain enough time to respond.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I have just been asked to put a price on human rights. I cannot believe that the member is asking me what the value of human rights is in dollar terms. The reality here is that we do not know what has been happening to Afghan detainees.

The member asks how else the government could spend money. Let me give him some really concrete examples. The reality is that, as much as it spouts the rhetoric of supporting our troops, when our troops come home after having served our country, they receive almost no support from the government. I wonder if members in the House actually know that troops coming home out of the theatre of war are entitled to 10 hours of counselling for post-traumatic stress.

The member started off by saying that Mr. Colvin's testimony raised some questions for him. Other testimonies have raised questions for other members in the House. That is precisely the point of having an inquiry. We do not have all of the answers. What we do know for sure is that some of the generals who testified before the committee said that they had not actually been able to do site inspections.

Let me give three quotations. General Hillier said, “That was not part of our mandate in the agreement”. Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier said, “Exactly right and I made reference to that in my comments, that our soldiers weren't trained human rights monitors--”

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I am going to stop the member there. I am trying to portion the time equally. We will go to the member for Mississauga South on questions.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that one of the more fundamental issues through this whole debate and in the call for the inquiry has to do with the accessibility of documents. There are some questions about why they were redacted and whether or not the Canada Evidence Act is sufficient justification for not making those available.

However, the issue really is that the government has withheld this information for some time. It is clear from those documents that have been obtained from public sources that it was virtually impossible to fully understand the import of these documents. There appears to be a reason why the government wants to hide something, simply because it is saying that the generals have indicated that there is nothing in these letters that mention torture or indicate any allegations of torture.

If that is the case, why would the government not take all reasonable steps to ensure that the committee members were apprised and had access to that to verify that there is what the generals say there is not?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 30 seconds left for the member for Hamilton Mountain.