Mr. Speaker, I understand that my time will be interrupted by the period allocated to members' statements and oral questions and that I will be able to continue after that. I would like begin by thanking you for allowing the procedure to continue, since we are dealing with a very serious case in which a minister has provided the House with two totally contradictory pieces of information.
First of all he told the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that he had been informed on the Friday, and then a little later in question period, that it had been on Monday. This makes an extremely important difference to the minister's statement.
What I would like to draw to hon. members' attention today is that the matter is even more serious than that. There is a second reason why the minister might need to be brought before the committee—and this will need to be debated.
Yesterday, in his own defence, the minister used the following arguments, and I quote his exact words:
The question I answered on Tuesday from the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois I answered in the context of a photograph I had seen on Friday for the first time. When I saw the photograph for the first time I did not connect it with a briefing I had received the previous Monday —
I will again focus the attention of the members of this House, who are going to debate in committee how the statements by the minister are going to be handled, on the question by the Bloc Quebecois leader and the minister's response. The minister, hon. members will recall, said “I was speaking of a photo”.
What the leader of the Bloc Quebecois had asked was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who is appointed Minister of National Defence should normally be sufficiently qualified to be appointed.
Since when did he know that Afghans had been captured by Canadians and handed over to Americans?
Nothing could be clearer than that. He continued:
Since when did he know that? And why did he not inform the Prime Minister who, as recently as Sunday, stated that there were no such prisoners? Why did he not bother to tell him during yesterday's caucus meeting, before oral question period?
What is going on with this minister? Did he know or did he not?
The minister responded to this extremely clear question as follows:
—I first became aware of the possibility on Friday.
At no time did the minister refer to any photograph whatsoever. At no time, either in the question or in the answer, did there remain any doubt whatsoever regarding the possibility that a photo might have been taken, which could somehow have misled the minister.
Not only did the minister formally contradict himself before the House, and we will find out why he did so in committee but, what is more, the minister covered up his contradiction with an excuse which I am unable to find acceptable parliamentary language to describe. The minister added insult to injury by rising in his place a second time and offering the following excuse to his peers and to you, Mr. Speaker:
The question I answered on Tuesday from the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois I answered in the context of a photograph I had seen on Friday—.
To a perfectly clear question “When was the minister informed that there were prisoners?”, he replied that he found out on the Friday. His explanation: he saw on Friday a photo of Canadian soldiers taking prisoners, and he replied “Friday”.
My comment is that the Canadian army and all of Canada are involved in a highly strategic operation under circumstances which I need not remind anyone of, but which leave everyone concerned and aware of how important the exceptional role of the Canadian army is in this conflict. Normally, we send the Blue Berets for peacekeeping.
For the first time in years, Canada is undertaking an active operation through the Canadian Forces. This is not a peacekeeping operation. We are active in the field.
Third, this is such an important mission that Canada sent an elite unit of the Canadian Forces in camouflage to take part in this combat mission. We are talking about a highly strategic operation, an unique operation, the likes of which we have not seen in years, an operation that is being carried out by an elite unit.
The Minister of National Defence confirmed that he had an indepth conversation about this operation at a cabinet committee meeting the week before. The minister had been informed that, for the first time in many, many years, the Canadian Forces active in the field were taking prisoners. This is no small affair. For the first time during special missions, the Canadian Forces are taking prisoners.
During this same time, the Americans were discussing publicly the fate of the prisoners. Everyone was aware of the debate going on in the U.S. until the President made a decision; and even then the fate of the prisoners remained vague. But the Americans were publicly questioning what should happen to the prisoners.
Then, on Friday, the minister finally got visual confirmation in a photo of the fact that our Canadian soldiers had taken prisoners. How is it that a person who is at the head of the Canadian Forces, who is in charge of a highly strategic international operation, who has sent an elite unit with all of the implications involved as per cabinet decisions, who has been briefed that we had taken prisoners for the first time in years, who has witnessed the Americans discussing the fate of these prisoners, and their treatment, which was still undecided—and there were diverging opinions on the matter—how is it that this minister, during all this time, could not make the connection between a photo showing soldiers capturing prisoners, of which he had been informed one week prior, and the event? How could he not realize that they are one and the same?
He said himself that he did not make the connection:
When I saw the photograph for the first time I did not connect it with a briefing I had received the previous Monday—
How can a minister rise in the House in such a particular context and tell his peers, in defence of an erroneous statement he gave, that “I had not made the connection between a photo of Canadian soldiers with prisoners and a briefing, four days earlier, to the effect that, for the first time in years, Canadian soldiers had taken prisoners”?
The minister will have a hard time explaining to the parliamentary committee why he hid his first contradiction with another one that is even more blatant and obvious. It is unbelievable that a minister would behave in such a scary way, with such contempt for the House of Commons.
It is unbelievable that the man who is in charge of the Canadian armed forces, who would not think of informing the Prime Minister that prisoners had been captured, who is responsible for a broad international operation, who was informed of an action and who saw a photo four days later that confirmed the action, would then say that “I did not make the connection”. If he did not make the connection between a photo of Canadian soldiers rounding up prisoners and the information that he had been given, it speaks volumes about his judgment and his ability to understand his responsibilities.
If the Minister of National Defence is behaving so erratically, it is probably because he is trying to hide some information from the House. What I am saying is that we will have to find out why this man, this member of parliament, behaved in such an incredible way before his peers in the House of Commons, if it is not to protect other information or persons who may have played a role and who may have behaved somewhat like the minister.
The committee will have to determine not only why this minister behaved in such an incredible way, but also why he tried to cover up his first contradiction with an explanation that does not make any sense, an explanation that not one Canadian would accept. Why did the minister do this? Why would a minister agree to put himself in such a position before his peers?
This is what the committee will have to determine. The government party, which agreed to let the committee look into the matter, will also have to agree to let witnesses give evidence. It is not enough to agree to have the minister appear before the committee; the government must also let witnesses appear. It will have to let us question—
