Debates of Dec. 10th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Documents on Afghan Detainees

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the important thing is to launch an inquiry. We need an inquiry to figure out who is responsible for what and to restore Canada to its rightful position.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's answer to the government member's insightful wedge type question that we have heard from other government members as well, trying to incite people in the House.

My colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, made an observation earlier today that may provide an ultimate solution here. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Holland have a very transparent system with regard to detainees. In fact, in Holland, the parliament has to be informed whenever a detainee is transferred. When the government finally extracts itself from the current mess it is in, maybe it should look to best practices elsewhere to develop a better system.

As far as the Liberals are concerned, it is nice to see, since they got us into this mess in 2003 without a debate in the House, they at least are willing to have the public inquiry to include their time in office. However, I am particularly upset with the government. When I asked a question about why the government leaked Mr. Colvin's memos to the media and why it was obstructing the parliamentary committee's request for documents, Conservatives deliberately hid from that question. The Conservatives will not answer the question. They go around and answer any other type of question they can, but not that one. Could the member give me some observations as to why she thinks they are doing that?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the government chose the worst possible way to manage this situation. As my colleague said, the Dutch and the British are much more transparent about the situation they find themselves in because of this awful war.

Furthermore, from the beginning in 2005, the agreements should have been more similar to the Dutch and UK agreements. I am sure the whip will recall that that is what I recommended back when he was the defence minister. He did so in the end, and he told the committee on April 25. The agreement was signed on May 3, but when he told the committee, it was a done deal, which surprised us.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, I understand the member's passion and I listened very carefully to the member state that there are in fact different levels of security. The member would know, going to committee, that some documents are secure for Canadians and some are internationally secure. There are probably six levels of security. Many of us have the opportunity to share in some of those levels.

With respect to releasing documents and this particular motion, would the member not agree that there is a need, for a nation that deals with other nations and has information from other nations in order to work together in the best interests of the national security of democratic nations around the world, that not all information in all documents can be released?

I remember being in a committee where the member for Mississauga South would not release documents that had no security implications. It is—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I must interrupt to give the hon. member time to respond within the 30 seconds remaining.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am thoroughly convinced that if the government had not adopted such a completely closed attitude, if it had been open to discussing documents that could have been disclosed and others that might be more sensitive, I am sure the committee would have found a way to discuss them.

But when that is not possible, we must exercise our rights, and that is that. Mr. Walsh informed us of our rights.

National Defence

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you were to seek it, you would find agreement for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study of Arctic sovereignty, 12 members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A.; and Winnipeg, Manitoba, in February/March 2010 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to)

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Madam Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find agreement for the following motion. I move

That, in relation to its study of high speed rail in Canada, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be authorized to travel to La Pocatière, Québec, in January/February 2010 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

(Motion agreed to)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gatineau, Museums; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, Health.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Documents Regarding Afghan Detainees

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating an opposition motion that is actually bringing to the floor some fundamental issues with which there is disagreement, and depending upon how that is disposed of, it will affect how parliamentarians will be able to discharge their responsibilities.

The first element has to do with the constitutional right of parliamentarians to call for persons, papers and records. I would refer members to the publication called The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records: A Sourcebook on the Law and Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena Powers for Canadian and other Houses, authored by a member of Parliament, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, back in 1999.

In the book, on page 29, he makes general references but I will just read one of them. It states:

As Maingot notes, “a privilege may not be diminished, prejudicially affected, or repealed save by express statutory enactment to that effect.

The right to call for persons, papers or records is a constitutional right. It is also in our Standing Orders, as the members are well aware, and it has been used often in committee. The issue before us in part has to do with the Canada Evidence Act, paragraph 37-38, which essentially deals with an exclusion with regard to public or national security or safety.

It states that in the powers and in parliamentary privilege issues, the only way that the power can be exempted or taken from Parliament is if it is in a specific statute, specifically expressed, and that is the subject-matter with which the Law Clerk of the Parliament of Canada gave his opinion to the committee.

I was there when former General Hillier and two other generals gave testimony before the committee. Each of those three persons, even former General Hillier, had copies of the documents in question, unredacted. They had the full information and they were in fact giving their testimony with the full knowledge of all the details.

I thought it was kind of interesting that they all basically gave the same story that there was nothing in these documents that would tend to indicate that no torture took place of detainees turned over by Canadians. The committee had asked for these documents. There was the problem of having to have them translated before they could be circulated to the committee, but ultimately some of the documents were received and they were redacted. Some of them in fact were totally blacked out.

It begs the question, why is it that the government is prepared to say, and the witnesses on behalf of the government are prepared to say, that there is nothing in here that would indicate any evidence whatsoever of any torture being suspected or having taken place; not one instance, not one case, to quote the Minister of National Defence? The government says, “It is clear, you do not have to worry about it, but we are not going to give you the documents so that you can satisfy yourselves”.

This is a fundamental issue in terms of parliamentary privilege. It is a fundamental right of parliamentarians to have access to information, and for parliamentarians who are sitting at the committee and want to ask questions of witnesses, how can they ask questions of witnesses when they do not have all the information that the witness has?

How can we test them on the veracity of their testimony? How can we get to the nub or the point that we are trying to get at without having the information before us? The members did not even have the redacted information when these witnesses were called, but members at the committee said, “We want the assurance that we have the right to recall these witnesses once we eventually get the documents”.

It is pretty clear, if we look through the various events that transpired with this special committee on Afghanistan, that there seems to have been what some would describe as obstruction of the committee to do its work. That is so fundamentally wrong if parliamentarians are unable to discharge their responsibilities and to exercise their rights to ask those questions. That is substantively where the debate has been going so far.

Today there is a motion before the House which I think comes on the basis that we have not been able to get the information, but we have the evidence coming from the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Natynczyk, who has now come forward and indicated that yes, there was a clear known case where a detainee in the custody of Canadians was turned over and that detainee was abused.

There is more to come. I am absolutely convinced of it because I have also heard stories myself coming from journalists who were embedded in theatre in Afghanistan. They have an interesting situation. If members would want to try to find out they should ask what are the rules of the game guiding embedded journalists? Can they disclose any information on things that they have personally witnessed? They have taken film. They are censured before and after. Is all the film accounted for? My understanding is from what I have been told, it is hearsay though, that in fact some film does exist in the public domain, clear evidence of further examples of torture.

That is going to come out because we cannot expect that people are going to hold on to this when it is so vital to the public interest. Canadians, as the previous speaker said, are very concerned that somehow it is not a matter of the military. It is a matter of the direction of the military and that comes straight from the government. The government is the one who is responsible. The government is the one who has put roadblocks in the way of parliamentarians getting the information.

There is no question that parliamentarians do not want to somehow put Canada in a position of embarrassment or any other sanctions. I think the concern is that parliamentarians want to be absolutely sure that we are now doing the right thing and that if there is a problem that it is corrected.

In fact, before all of this occurred the Minister of National Defence had actually said that the protocol for turning over detainees was inadequate. Therefore, in 2007 the government came out with a new protocol.

If the government said it was inadequate from the previous government, why was it not changed immediately? It begs the question. It cannot just say it was inadequate so it came out with something else in 2007. However, in the interim, under its watch, things were happening. The allegations were there.

Mr. Colvin testified to that. We have subsequently had so many former ambassadors come forward and defend the right of a whistleblower to do this. This the right thing to do, to say there were concerns. Those concerns were raised at various levels but also at the highest level and they were suppressed or denied.

Very slowly this cover-up is being taken apart and the information is coming out. I think the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Natynczyk, did the right thing, the honourable thing. He said that he found that information, it was true, and here it is. He did it as soon as he found out. The government however has not.

Whenever the matter is raised, the government's approach is to attack back and say that we are doing this because we do not stand behind our troops. That is just a strategy. Flip the channel, change the channel, get the attention somewhere else and say “They're the bad guys and we're the good guys”.

The issues before the House ought to be focused on. When people start to switch the channel, we know that we are on the right track. When they start to heckle and yell, we know we are on the right track.

This is an issue before this place which is fundamental to the supremacy of Parliament to call for persons, papers and records to get to the truth and to do the right thing. That is why we are fighting for this. That is why the majority of the House supports this motion.

The motion is asking that, and I will not read it all, the House provide in original and uncensored form:

all the documents referred to in the affidavit of Richard Colvin dated October 5, 2009;

He was the first witness before that committee. It also asks:

all documents within the Department of Foreign Affairs written in response to the documents referred to in the affidavit of Richard Colvin, dated October 5, 2009;

all memoranda for information or memoranda for decisions sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning detainees from December 18, 2005 to the present;

all documents produced pursuant to all orders of the Federal Court in Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, Minister of National Defence and Attorney General of Canada;

all documents produced to the Military Police Complaints Commission in the Afghanistan Public Interest Hearings;

all annual human rights reports by the Department of Foreign Affairs on Afghanistan; and

accordingly the House hereby orders that these documents be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.

There is a suggestion that somehow these documents, if released, would create a further risk to our military, either as individuals or collectively. We have been at war in Afghanistan for a long time. I do not think it is a secret. I do not think there is anybody on either side of the conflict who is unaware that there are tens of thousands of people in theatre from a variety of countries, and more coming.

To somehow suggest that an individual soldier might be at risk because of information coming out, we have tools to work with that. If the Minister of National Defence were acting in good faith, he would not tell us why we could not have the documents presented to this special committee. He would tell us how we could have them. The difference is we do have tools.

I had suggested this earlier in this whole chronology of events was this. This is a special committee dealing with this. Since most of the members on the committee are already privy councillors who are sworn to secrecy of state secret information, the others members could also be sworn in and bound to secrecy. They could then have access to documents, look at them and it if there were a case, say we needed to protect the information.

I think they can start off with the Colvin documents. If the witnesses presenting to the committee say that they did not notice anything that gave them any indication whatsoever that there was any evidence of torture, then why would they be reluctant to release that to the committee members so they could satisfy themselves.

It is a disconnect. If there is nothing there, and if three generals are prepared to say there is nothing in there, why is the government saying that it will only give us the blacked out version. Why not swear them in? Why not go in camera? Why not give them a chance to look at it and demonstrate that the government can be trusted on this?

The actions of the government thus far have been that members do not trust it. It has nothing to do with whether we have the greatest respect for our military. The trust in our military is not the question. It is the trust in the government.

The government has not shown good faith. As a consequence, Parliament is now seized with a motion before it, saying that we have to do something about this because this is not going away. The government, at its own peril, is going to continue to play this game, to cover up the facts and the details until it is whittled out. Other stuff will come out, and the government knows it. It always does.

About an hour ago the minister tabled in the House the quarterly report to Parliament for the period of July 1 to September 30, 2009. There are some interesting developments to report upon, an election and all other good things.

The report is really only 13 pages long if we forget the attachments. I think this is really important because it tends to go to what we are talking about right now. The conclusion says, ”This is a conflict of utmost complexity in the region of violent instability. We share this difficult mission with our close allies under UN authority and, most importantly, with the Afghan people. Although the endeavour remains risky and the outcome far from certain, Canada's mission in Afghanistan underscores the values that Canadians themselves hold dear”.

That is why we are there, to underscore the values that Canadians themselves hold dear. The value is respect for international law and international human rights. That is the value. The government may put it in a report, but I do not think the it believes it. I do not think it really believes that human rights are worth fighting for. I do not believe it has given any indication that it will protect and defend human rights. I cannot believe all of the different things that have happened.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Are you kidding me? Madam Speaker, he is insulting the soldiers that died protecting human rights.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The member for Cambridge is going to rant. That is fine. He can do that. The law clerk gave an opinion to the committee. The Department of Justice lawyers challenged it. They said that there was an override because of sections 37 and 38.16 of the Canada Evidence Act. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River was involved in that to make absolutely sure that it did not override the powers and privileges of Parliament.

It is clear. He gave a second opinion. He said that they never explained. The lawyers from the justice department just said that they rejected the advice of the parliamentary law clerk, the person who had the resources necessary to advise parliamentarians of the legal ramifications of things and our legal rights. The second opinion said that he totally dismissed the justice department's assessment of whether the Canada Evidence Act applied here.

The issue is that Parliament has a constitutional right. It is in the rules and privileges. Regarding the issue of this committee, there are tools to have done this. To get it down to its simplest form, one has to go back to the initial documents that the three witnesses had in the second meeting after Richard Colvin was before the committee. They had the documents. They testified there was nothing there that would indicate there was any concern about torture or releasing detainees where there was a concern of torture occurring.

If that were the case, why would the government simply not take all reasonable steps to satisfy the committee that this was the case? The government said that it could not give the committee anything in time for these witnesses, so members would to have to go on the fly based on what the witnesses said and not what they knew. The government said that it would have to translate the information, so it would take a bit longer. It said that when it gave it to the committee, there would be a lot of blacked-out pages because it was very sensitive and could be a problem.

That is not the case. The witnesses said it was not the case. The testimony of those witnesses said that there should have been nothing blacked out, but it was. Why? Because the government is covering up. The government is caught and the government will to have to be accountable.

All the government does is throw it back and say that we have no respect for or do not support our military. When people hear that, they know the government is just trying to change the channel. It does not want to be accountable and it does not want to respect the rights and privileges of Parliament.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that we have the tools and one of those tools is redaction. I would like to remind the member of that because he chooses to forget.

The member has a lot of experience as a chair of a committee. In fact, he is the chair of the so-called ethics committee. When we were on the ethics committee, we put up a list of a number of witnesses that we wanted to hear from and that member denied the entire list. The member also did not get documents to committee members while we were doing our work on the so-called ethics committee.

As a past chair myself, our committee had opinions from Mr. Walsh and we fully respected those opinions. Mr. Walsh is the epitome of this area as a member of the legal advisory committee. When we put forward funding for our troops, members of the Bloc voted against that, but that is another story. Mr. Walsh gave an opinion to our committee.

If I may, Madam Speaker, for the chirping on the other side—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. minister can finish his question.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I appreciate that very much, Madam Speaker. When Mr. Walsh gave an opinion at that time the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP did not take that opinion and voted completely opposite to it. The member has a lot to account for.

Would the member not admit this? If there was information in those documents, for example, the names of the soldiers, the numbers in a brigade, a troop in an area, the location of the transfer, would that not be subject to security interests? The Taliban would just love to know how many of our soldiers are wandering where.