Madam Speaker, we are debating a motion that stems from a ruling made by the Chair concerning the serious events that unfolded this week in the House, which led the Chair to refer the matter involving the Minister of National Defence to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
We think that it was a very good idea and a very wise ruling on the part of the Speaker to suggest that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. All this brings us to reflect on why we find ourselves in this situation.
But first I would like to make a comment. I hope that the government members who sit on the committee, who have been saying that everything will be settled in committee, will be just as open-minded when the committee needs to hear from various witnesses to shed some light on this issue. Certain people will have to come and explain certain behaviours.
People find it unusual and alarming that they have a political system in which a minister said two different things regarding the same facts, two contradictory versions, and that this is accepted by the Chair, who rules that there is no doubt, and that no one protests the fact that the minister gave two versions of the same situation. He said quite clearly that he received the information on two different dates: surely one of those dates was the wrong one. What remains to be known now is whether or not it was done deliberately.
The minister says that he did not do so deliberately. Until there is proof to the contrary, he has the benefit of doubt. However, this raises a number of questions, and if everything the minister says is true, the simple fact that he says “I am sorry, I should have provided the Prime Minister with the information more quickly, but he knows now”, is hardly reassuring.
We are talking about a situation where the Minister of National Defence says that he was briefed about an important situation, namely that Canadian soldiers had captured prisoners in Afghanistan, that they handed them over to the American authorities, and that it took more than one week for the Prime Minister to be informed.
The Prime Minister made public statements on this and the Minister of National Defence did not see fit, following these public statements, to advise the Prime Minister that what he had just said was not accurate.
This is at the very least surprising, particularly for all those who work in political spheres and who follow these things closely, because they are aware of all of the preparation that oral question period requires, in both asking and responding to questions. We hope that everyone arrives relatively well prepared, especially when an issue provokes a major debate in the media. There was a major debate in the United States; there were different versions of the status that would be granted prisoners taken in Afghanistan from those close to the U.S. president.
This issue captured media attention around the world. Meanwhile, here we have the Minister of National Defence who says “I had very important information and I did not think it was important to advise my Prime Minister that he was making inaccurate public statements”. This boggles the mind and raises a number of questions regarding this minister's real abilities.
One may argue, rightly so, that this is another issue. In the present case, however, things have to be clarified, all the more so because the defence minister himself gave contradictory versions of the facts. One might ask why. How can the minister have said two different things?
I will go over some events of the last few days. Last week, there was a cabinet meeting; there was a caucus of the Liberal Party and, on Monday night, there was a take note debate in the House.
I would imagine that when there is a take note debate on such an issue, the minister and the government prepare for it. The minister made several erroneous statements in the House during the debate.
On several occasions, he referred to the taking of prisoners. He used the conditional form, suggesting that it was hypothetical. Actually, he had had the information in his possession for a while, whatever the date mentioned in his statements.
There is cause for much concern. Members of the Standing Commitee on Procedure and House Affairs will have to sort things out, but they will also have to verify the statements made by the Minister in his speech to the House on Monday evening. Here is an example.
Speaking in the House, the defence minister said, and I quote:
Let me assure members of the House that the Canadian Forces will treat detainees in accordance with international law and always fairly and humanely. International law, as reflected in the Geneva Conventions, establishes requirements for all detainee states when transferring detainees. The Canadian Forces will meet its international legal obligations—
The minister used the words “will meet” as if the situation could occur, while it had actually occurred. I am not even raising here the substantive issue of whether the Geneva conventions have been met or not. I had the opportunity to mention during oral question period earlier today that what has happened was actually very far removed from the requirements of the Geneva convention.
In the United States, when there is a debate on what status is to be given to these prisoners of war, with different versions coming from various presidential advisers, the word is that the president will decide. We on the other hand have already decided: “We know what they are going to do with them”. Colin Powell did not know their status, but the defence minister did. That is passing strange.
We should tell the U.S. reporters to come and ask their questions to our defence minister. He seems to know, and know with certainty, when no one did in the U.S. Where there was a whole public debate going on about the actual status of these prisoners of war.
Monday's debate was very educational. I again quote the Minister of National Defence:
As happened during the second world war and the Korean war with Canadians and Americans, as part of our responsibility in turning them over and transferring them to another force, which is a common thing to do, we have to ensure—
“We have to ensure”, as if there were a situation that might perhaps occur. This was Monday evening, during a take note debate, which had somewhat the flavour of an emergency debate on a very important issue. Anyone with the slightest respect for our institutions and for the public does not come to the House and make statements that he knows very well are not true.
I was involved in that debate and I find it totally unacceptable that the Minister of National Defence treated this as a kind of academic situation for the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to take prisoners. He put on a great show, a wonderful performance about “Under these conditions, we will respect our commitments, we will do this or that”. It had already happened, and he knew it. He owes us some explanations.
Why? Because he had known for a week. There had been a caucus meeting. I would remind hon. members that, when the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs met, the matter of detainees' status was the topic of discussions originally raised by the government side. I recall that. I was in my riding and following the debates on the CBC French radio network in order to know what was going on in committee. Some Liberal MPs were concerned that Canada might not respect its international commitments.
All the government members met a week later and the government would have us believe that neither the Prime Minister, nor the Deputy Prime Minister, nor others who must be prepared to answer questions from members of parliament, were told that this was no longer theoretical but a real issue, because the situation had occurred. Perhaps they do not have enough respect for their caucus to be prepared. There is a problem here.
The next day, we were back in parliament after the break for the holidays, after the recess in December and January. Again, on the first day of the session, after we had just got back from our ridings, they did not see fit to inform the Prime Minister and to tell him that the Minister of National Defence had some information.
The Prime Minister said after the caucus meeting that the taking prisoners was a hypothetical issue.
No one in the entourage of the Minister of National Defence, among the Prime Minister's advisers, or among government and Privy Council officials, followed the issue closely enough to ring a bell and say “The Prime Minister erred on Sunday, but we should tell him the truth so that at least he is ready on Monday, in parliament”.
There is cause for concern. Is it common practice on the other side of the House to hide information from the Prime Minister, to let him come here without knowing the facts?
Either there is a major problem and the Prime Minister should be concerned, or else there were other people who knew things and who acted as if they did not know anything. It remains to be seen whether the committee will have all the necessary leeway and the co-operation of members opposite to also shed light on these possibilities, because the committee could look at very interesting things.
The issue of when Privy Council received the information was raised today during oral question period. The minister said that he reported to cabinet on Tuesday. That is fine. But it must be understood that in real life having ministers informing the Prime Minister of everything, of every decision made, is not the only line of communication. There are official communications among defence authorities, the Department of National Defence and the Privy Council. It would be disturbing if this were not the case. And all these communications do not rest strictly with the minister who, incidentally, was out of the country.
I am convinced they protected themselves; they passed on the information in various ways. Other people in the government knew. So either these people did not pass on the information, or others knew but today they are keeping quiet, and the defence minister has a lot more on his shoulders than is apparent today.
I would like to respond to a comment made by some members on the Liberal benches. We, as parliamentarians, have every right to have our say right now before the matter is referred to the committee. In any case, if it were not relevant, it would not be allowed by the Standing Orders I suppose. This debate is allowed under our rules and it might guide and steer those among us who will sit on this committee which will have an important role.
Hopefully this will not end with an order to government members to deliver the goods in order to put an end to the whole matter. This is a real concern, but let us take a chance and see whether the committee will be able to do the job, especially once we see the list of people who will come and testify before it.
In this whole sorry mess, one wonders too what are the real reasons, what might be the rationale for hiding this information from us or relaying it in an erroneous way. Because that is exactly what happened.
I go back to the Geneva convention which sets the rules regarding prisoners of war. I quote article 12 of the convention which says that “prisoners of war may only be transferred by the detaining power”—Canada in this case—“to a power which is a party to the Convention”—the United States—“and after the detaining power”—therefore Canada—“has satisfied itself”—it becomes a bit technical—“of the willingness and ability of such transferee power”—the United States— “to apply the Convention”.
That means that when Canada takes prisoners of war, it can hand them to the United States only if it has guarantees that the Americans will respect the Geneva convention. But we are being told here: “We trust them. The Americans will respect the Geneva convention”. We are more or less giving them a blank cheque. While this was going on, there was a controversy in the United States about the status of these prisoners. Ultimately, the decision was left to the president. But that decision was made just last Sunday.
The prisoners had been handed over to the United States a week earlier. Therefore, it was impossible to have any guarantee about their status. The Americans had not made a decision on the matter. I need an explanation of this. It has everything to do with the sequence of events that unfolded after that.
But it is rather embarrassing for Canada now to admit that it transferred prisoners without knowing how they would be treated.
I do not mean to stand up for people who may have committed crimes but in our society and in our system, people have the right to a fair trial. That is why we have due process. That should be respected. Otherwise, why bother signing conventions?
On that point, I understand the government. They are a bit nervous about this because they are concerned about Canada's reputation. In this situation, it seems that the government put our elite troops under the Americans without thinking too much about it and just told the Americans: “Good luck, and use them as you see fit”. If that is the case, we should know it. Will it be the same for our soldiers who just left? Will they follow American orders and will they be accountable to the Americans only?
It may not be very popular with Liberals who want to brag about our independence from the United States to admit that we do not have much of a word to say, but if that is the case, we have the right to know the truth.
There are many things and what is going on is no trivial matter. Ultimately, this is about knowing the framework in which Canadian soldiers have been sent, in the context of a mission as important as this.
I am thinking of the families, for instance, who know people in the Canadian armed forces and who must be worried that we are not too clear on whether they are reporting to the Canadian or the American authorities, although as things now stand, they would perhaps feel better knowing that the authorities around here are not calling the shots. But this raises a number of questions.
Naturally, I hope that the committee will be able to shed some light on this. The fact remains that, right now, the reputation, the credibility, of the minister is very badly tarnished. This is why some have argued that during this period the reins should perhaps be handed over to someone else.
I will give an example. The Minister of National Defence said “I was out of the country. I was informed that soldiers had been captured” as though it were almost a trivial matter. On his return, he said “When I saw the photo, it made me think that there might be a connection with what I was told a few days earlier”.
If that is the case, I must repeat that I am very worried. He knows that soldiers captured prisoners, he saw the photo in the newspaper and he said that there was maybe a connection. They were recognizable by their uniform. It will be recalled that the uniform they wear in other countries is a distinctive feature of Canadian troops. Furthermore, it was because of this that they were recognizable in the photo.
Would the Minister of National Defence, or all the people in his entourage—because I imagine they must read the newspapers at National Defence as well—not have thought of saying “We really should advise the Prime Minister of the situation. It is in the newspapers. We know that there were prisoners. There is a major international controversy taking place over this, but I am not going to advise the Prime Minister”. What more was needed for the Minister of National Defence to wake up at this point and say “There is a problem”?
Either he did not act as he says he did, and something else happened—once again we do not know—or there was a serious lack of judgment. Either way, there is cause for concern. There was either lack of judgment on the part of the minister or a lack of respect for the House where, I repeat, a special debate was held on that issue Monday evening. It was a real masquerade, because the Minister of National Defence made several statements based on the fact that he had information, but he was saying the opposite of what had really happened.
Therefore, there is a serious credibility issue, and one of trust, both from the public and the House, not to mention that our privileges as parliamentarians have been violated. I hope the committee will clear the air, on the basis that mistakes were made by the minister. It does not suffice to say “Yes, I made a mistake”. There are implications and consequences, and I hope the committee will show some authority and make sure our privileges and our rights are respected in the future.
