Gilles Duceppe

[Afghanistan, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence finally admitted that he had been aware of allegations of torture since 2006, when the Conservative Party took power. That means that one and a half years went by between the time the government was informed of these allegations and the time the new detainee transfer agreement was signed. Canadian authorities handed detainees over to Afghan authorities knowing full well what could happen.

Will the government admit that it failed to live up to its responsibilities to Afghan detainees?

[Afghanistan, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for security reasons, the government is refusing to provide the opposition parties with reports on allegations of torture of Afghan detainees. And yet, former military personnel, who have now returned to civil life—those who testified yesterday—were given the reports before appearing before the committee, even though they are no longer in the armed forces.

Will the Prime Minister or the minister admit that security is just an excuse to save face in a matter where the government has lost all credibility?

[Afghanistan, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government has always claimed that it did not receive any information regarding allegations of torture of Afghan detainees. Two former high-ranking army officers reiterated this yesterday before the parliamentary committee. Yet, Richard Colvin sent emails to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in May and June 2006 informing him that the Red Cross could not track prisoners once they were transferred to Afghan authorities and that all sorts of things were happening.

Why has the government always denied receiving warnings about the fate of Afghan detainees?

[Afghanistan, November 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, if that is true, why are they not releasing the documents? That would prove their story.

According to another government source, there was a meeting in December 2006 at the Privy Council Office regarding the involvement of the Governor of Kandahar in the torture of Afghan detainees. Since the Prime Minister likes to control everything, he must have been advised that this meeting was held within the offices of his own department.

Can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not said meeting was held by Privy Council Office?

[Afghanistan, November 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a senior official at Foreign Affairs confirmed Richard Colvin's remarks. We now have extensive testimony all along the same lines: the government knew very well, from the fall of 2006, that there was a risk of torture when detainees were transferred to Afghan authorities. It nevertheless decided to turn a blind eye.

Is the Prime Minister continuing to refuse to release documents about this matter because he did not want to take responsibility for the Afghan detainees?

[Afghanistan, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the committee will hear witnesses when it has uncensored documents. The members do not want censored documents that start with “Mr. Minister” and end with “thank you”, with nothing in between. They want to know what happened.

Moreover, in 2006, a meeting took place at the Privy Council Office concerning the governor of Kandahar's involvement in the issue of tortured Afghan detainees. Will the Prime Minister confirm that such a meeting did take place? If so, will he admit that he was personally informed of the allegations of torture as early as December 2006?

[Afghanistan, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence made a clear promise yesterday in the House to table all the documents, memoranda and reports concerning the allegations of torture of Afghan detainees. Tomorrow, the Special Committee on the Mission in Afghanistan plans to hear important witnesses. To do their job properly, the committee members must have the documents the Minister of National Defence promised to provide.

Instead of continuing to ignore the allegations that Afghan detainees were tortured, will the Prime Minister show transparency and table all the relevant documents now, including the 18 memoranda written by Mr. Colvin?

[Points of Order, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think you are bringing a new interpretation and shedding new light on the rules governing this House, but you are the master of the rules of this House. I therefore respect your ruling. Accordingly, I withdraw my words and I will be very careful in the future to ensure that the same rules apply equally to everyone. Is that understood?

[Afghanistan, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, instead of halting the transfer of Afghan detainees, the Prime Minister chose to ignore the facts. His office even sent propaganda lines to NATO officials to help them publicly deny allegations of torture.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, instead of fulfilling his responsibilities, he chose to cover up the whole thing and discredit witnesses like Mr. Colvin?

[Afghanistan, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a number of reliable sources have confirmed that detainees transferred from the Canadian army to Afghan authorities were tortured. In addition to Richard Colvin, both a senior NATO official and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission have confirmed this. Even an Afghan prison warden has confirmed it. Nevertheless, the government insists that these allegations are unfounded. According to the Geneva Convention, all transfers of detainees must be halted if there is a risk of torture.

Will the minister admit that he acted irresponsibly by ignoring the many people who have confirmed that torture took place?