Debates of April 19th, 2010

Afghanistan

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister is well aware that the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission has not been allowed to see the documents. Witnesses can see the documents, and so can the government's lawyers, but the person presiding cannot.

What kind of a hearing is it if the chair—the judge, in effect—cannot see the documents?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the questioner and all members that government lawyers will continue to work with the MPCC to provide all necessary documents relevant to its mandate. I suggest to the hon. member that he let the commission do its work.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental principle of our justice system that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. On Wednesday, we had a serious allegation from a witness in front of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. The same day, the general said he was going to refer to an inquiry. The next day, the general dismissed the complaint and the same day the minister in charge dismissed the complaint as well and attacked the credibility of the witness.

What kind of a process can there be when the government is judge and jury in the same case and does not give a neutral inquiry a chance to do its job?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, what we saw coming from the chief of the defence staff was a very comprehensive response. In that letter he described what actually happened in a military operation where an armed insurgent was threatening the lives of Canadian Forces. There was information provided in that letter that provided answers which very much were contrary to the evidence of another witness who had given information that the hon. member seems to embrace quite quickly.

There is a forum for this information to be examined. I know the member is getting exercised. He does not like facts. The reality is that the facts are there for all to see.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the facts are there for all to see. The evidence of detainee torture is mounting. We have Colvin, Anderson, Gosselin, Malgarai, the U.S. Department of State, our own human rights reports and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. The government makes the feeble defence that none of these allegations is true and if the allegations are true, nobody has told it.

Whether the Conservatives have been guilty of continuing the torture of detainees by sending them to the NDS or the subcontracting of torture ought to be determined by a judicial inquiry. Why would the government not have the courage to call one?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing exactly what he is accusing others of doing by accepting this evidence without taking it into account. He has listed a number of names. I could list all the names of the senior officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I could list all of the leadership of the Canadian Forces, all of whom have given a completely contrary view of the evidence of what was taking place around the allegations of Taliban prisoners.

Those forums are there. We have the MPCC. We have the parliamentary committee. We now have Mr. Justice Iacobucci reviewing documents. The hon. member is on a different track for political reasons.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is asking the government to accept any evidence. There are allegations and there are counter-allegations. They say these allegations are true; others say other allegations are true. The fact is nobody can determine the truth, least of all that government.

We need a public inquiry. We need a judicial inquiry. We need the scrutiny of a sitting judge. The government does not have the courage. It is a cowardly government. It does not want to face the facts. It should stand and be clear with Canadians and call a public inquiry.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about courage in this place. It is very easy from the safe sanctuary here in the House of Commons to judge this.

The courage I am interested in is the courage of the Canadian Forces, the men and women on the ground in Afghanistan at this very moment fighting to protect our values both at home and abroad.

We have forums to look at this particular situation. We have people, very qualified, who have given evidence. We have heard from senior members of the Canadian Forces, those within the Department of Foreign Affairs, those within the public safety department.

I put a lot of faith in both the bureaucrats and the leadership of the Canadian Forces.

Justice

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice launched the fifth annual National Victims of Crime Awareness Week symposium.

Our government's commitment to ensuring that victims of crime have a strong voice in the criminal justice system remains a cornerstone of our justice agenda.

Would the Minister of Justice please tell the House what our government has done for the victims of crime in this country?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his continual support of our justice agenda.

As part of a government that is committed to supporting victims, we created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. We committed $52 million over four years to help federal, provincial and territorial governments respond to a variety of needs of victims of crimes. I have to tell members how pleased I was to see an additional $6.6 million in the 2010 budget.

I am proud to be a member of the only political party that will stand up for victims in this country.

Afghanistan

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today in Britain the High Court heard about how detainees were punched repeatedly, suffered electric shocks and sleep deprivation at the hands of the notorious NDS. Meanwhile, in Canada, the government refuses to recognize that torture is widespread, despite the fact that we have transferred many more detainees than the British ever did.

We learned over the weekend that just between January and September 2009, Canada transferred 163 Afghan prisoners to the dreaded NDS.

How can the government continue to say that these transfers were not at risk of torture? Does it think there is a separate suite for Canadian detainees in the NDS? Come on.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, come on. We have had a system in place for a number of years improving upon the transfer arrangement that we inherited when we came to government and which was found to be lacking. We have had an opportunity now to both mentor and monitor what takes place inside Afghan prisons. We have invested in the Afghan justice system. We are there to help build their capacity. There have been a number of incidents that have been discussed here in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committees, and at the MPCC. There are documents that are being reviewed by an independent judge. All of this is being done for the purposes of ensuring that the mission is going well.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this new information supports what Richard Colvin told Parliament back in November. The NDS is notorious for torture. It is corrupt and releases even high-value prisoners for bribes. It is accountable to no one. Yet, we send prisoners to it for “further questioning”, and when we receive a substantial allegation of torture, we ask the NDS to do what? To investigate itself.

Is the government incapable of seeing the problem in this picture we have presented? When will it halt the transfers to the NDS and call an inquiry?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member incapable of listening to testimony from any other witness than those who fit his purpose?

We heard from General Gauthier. We heard from General Thompson that same day and his testimony that they worked with the NDS, that they turned prisoners over, in some cases, for criminal investigation.

We are there to help the Afghans build their capacity. We are there to ensure that the Afghan system improves. It is not perfect. We did not find it perfect. We are certainly leaving it much better than when we first arrived in Afghanistan almost 10 years ago.

Arts and Culture

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons passed a Bloc Québécois motion to extend levies to the sale of digital audio recorders, but it seems that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has no plans to include this measure in the amendments to the Copyright Act that the government will soon be introducing.

Why is the Minister of Canadian Heritage rejecting this legitimate measure, which the Union des artistes au Québec called for, and which would ensure fair compensation for artists?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, once we have tabled our bill, the member will be aware of the facts and will have an opportunity to talk about it.

The government has always said that it provides financial support to artists. We do not want to force consumers to pay another tax for no good reason. The budget offers increased funding for Quebec's artists and its cultural community, but the member voted against the budget.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is insulting the cultural sector by refusing to ensure that artists receive fair compensation. Furthermore, the Union des artistes believes that by opening telecommunications companies to foreign investors, the Conservative government is threatening the cultural sovereignty of both Canada and Quebec.

When will the government realize that its deregulation policy is threatening Quebec's culture?

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. We do not need any advice from the Bloc Québécois about how to protect Canadian culture. Our investments and our bills are protecting this country's culture. The Conservative government will always be proud to do whatever it takes to protect and celebrate Canadian and Quebec culture.

Pensions

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government said it was searching for a solution for Nortel employees on long-term disability. However, a few hours later, these same employees stated that the Conservatives had told them they would do nothing. This is an unacceptable contradiction.

Yes or no, will the government help these people who may go bankrupt because of its inaction?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Finance is meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts today to discuss the future of the Canadian pension system.

At the same time, in the individual case that the member mentioned, he knows, or should know, that those individual pensioners, through their lawyers, made a deal with the creditors to deal with their pension issues for the remainder of the year.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

That is no help, Mr. Speaker.

There is a private member's bill in the Senate today that would deal effectively with this matter. Since opposition parties support the bill, the Prime Minister has the power to cause all members of both Houses to carry this bill at all stages today. This would be a humanitarian act to rescue hundreds of Canada's most vulnerable citizens who, through no fault of their own, will otherwise face a life of crushing poverty.

Will the Prime Minister act?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member. What he is proposing that this House and the Senate do is to supercede the rights and responsibilities duly agreed upon by the creditors and by the lawyers for the pensioners. He seeks to put his will in place of the free will of those individual parties. That is not the role of this Parliament.

Justice

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this the first day of the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, the government's own victims' ombudsman is saying that crime victims are being shortchanged by the Conservatives.

Ombudsman, Steve Sullivan, informs us that millions have been cut from victims services. He said, “Victims of crime are on the short end of the stick”.

If victims are truly a priority for the government, could the minister tell us if he will restore funding for the victims of crime?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we can all agree on is that standing up for victims is not a priority of the NDP. That is the first question I have had on this subject in about a year, so I thank the member for the question.

As I already indicated, we created the role of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. We committed $52 million over four years and we stand by that commitment.

I was pleased to see the Minister of Finance include an extra $6 million for victims in this country. That should have everybody on their feet supporting victims of crime in this country.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the ombudsman's comments cut to the heart of what is wrong with the Conservative crime agenda.

The government says that it is supporting victims by imprisoning more Canadians for longer sentences. It is supporting victims that way.

That is wrong again. According to Mr. Sullivan, “By focusing solely on sending people to prison longer, we're not serving the majority of victims of crime”. He also says that sentencing concerns are a very small part of meeting victims' needs.

Does the minister agree with the ombudsman that longer prison sentences do not meet the main needs of most victims of crime?