Lawrence Cannon

[Rights & Democracy, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote an interested party, who said:

He is just highly respected in the whole field. I just don’t understand the questioning of his credentials.

This comes from Leslie Campbell, former chief of staff to Audrey McLaughlin and current senior associate and regional director for the Middle East and North African National Democratic Institute.

[Rights & Democracy, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have made the necessary decisions. We have asked Mr. Latulippe to take on this extremely important responsibility because of his ability and experience. We have asked him to take on the responsibility of running this organization. This is an extremely important organization that plays a key role on the international stage, and we intend to keep supporting it.

However, if the parliamentary committee wants to call anyone to appear, it is free to do so. As I have said, it is quite—

[Rights & Democracy, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government appointed Mr. Latulippe as president of Rights & Democracy following an open and transparent competition.

We believe that with his extensive experience, including with the National Democratic Institute, he is not only an appropriate candidate, but a very well qualified one.

[The Budget, March 5th, 2010]

A little bit of class.

[Rights & Democracy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the comments of the opposition in the consultation process, but that is not the only factor. The factor the government pursued was to be able to appoint somebody who was competent and who had the experience and the skills to run this organization.

The government is committed to this organization and we want to see it succeed.

[Rights & Democracy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I believe that, but I am not the only one. Others will attest to this. For example, let me quote Charles Messier, director of the parliamentary affairs liaison office for MINUSTAH: "I am not surprised that the Government of Canada would choose such a strong, dynamic man for a strategic position within Rights and Democracy". Now that is positive feedback.

[Rights & Democracy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that Rights & Democracy is an arm's length organization that is run by a board of directors. Its staff is not part of the public service.

I met with the president and people from my department have met with the staff. We acted by appointing a CEO, who possesses all the necessary tools and skills to fulfill his duties. We strongly believe in this organization.

[Rights & Democracy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Rights & Democracy, as we all know, is an arm's length organization that is run by a board of directors and its staff is not part of the public service. I have spoken with the chair and made it clear that returning to governance and stability is the priority that this government, as well as this House, is looking for.

I will meet with the chairman of the board as well as the new president, who, as I mentioned before, possesses all of the competency, skills and toolset to be able to do a good job.

[Rights & Democracy, March 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to first extend my deep condolences to Mr. Beauregard's family. His death is obviously a great loss.

The Government of Canada continues to support Rights & Democracy. The projects they run in countries like Afghanistan and Haiti further Canada's objectives with respect to foreign affairs and policy.

I have met the organization's president, and officials from my department have met with representatives of Rights & Democracy. I want to say that, in appointing Gérard Latulipe, the government has selected a person who meets the job requirements.

[Business of Supply, December 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my first words in this debate will be to remind my colleagues of this solitary stark fact: we are at war. Of all people, we should never forget that.

As we speak, thousands of our soldiers are risking their lives in the most dangerous place in the world. They are defending the values, institutions and principles that our great democracy represents. They are fighting to bring freedom, security and justice to one of the poorest, most vulnerable states in the world.

And what does the opposition, all three opposition parties, want to discuss today? The progress of our mission? No. The safety of our soldiers? No. Are they worried about the criminal and cruel tactics employed by the enemy? No. What all three opposition parties want is to obtain access to secret documents to try to prove that our enemies in Afghanistan are mistreated by their own people.

For weeks the opposition, all three opposition parties, have been desperately trying to embarrass the government by alleging that our troops and civilian personnel in theatre of war are somewhat complicit in torture. The reputation of our armed forces, police personnel and diplomatic service be damned. They, all three opposition parties, are searching every nook and cranny to unearth some kind of evidence that would show Canada is responsible for the commission of war crimes.

I am not even sure the opposition, once again all three opposition parties, care that the release of information they are demanding would be irresponsible and damaging to our national interests. They do not accept that section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which puts restrictions on the release of information for reasons of national defence and national security, applies in this case.

In defining national security, I want to remind everyone that the federal courts determined that this includes information provided in confidence by foreign agencies and confidential diplomatic exchanges. Many, if not most, of the documents that the opposition has identified fall into these categories. We are bound to respect our obligations under the law not to release information that would put our national security at risk.

National security, protecting our troops, the success of our mission, those are words that you do not often hear from an opposition member. All risks are good, even giving information to the enemy, because we truly are facing enemies. We do not run any prisons in Afghanistan.

The commitment of the government is clear. It has been repeated many times by the Prime Minister. All the information that can be released will be made available to members of the special committee. Last week we released some of the documents that have been asked for by the committee. The documents produced for the Military Police Complaints Commission alone constitute several thousand pages.

We also have obligations to confidentiality in our relationship with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which plays an important monitoring role of detainees in Afghanistan. This organization is mandated under national humanitarian law to visit detainees. It works to improve the conditions of detention of detainees and to ensure they are treated humanely and receive judicial guarantees according to international standards.

Information on ICRC visits to detainees is shared only between the ICRC and the detaining power. The ICRC's activities are based on a policy of confidentiality, which is key to maintaining its neutrality and impartiality and to securing access to detainees and people in need in various contexts around the world.

Officials of my department meet regularly with the ICRC in Geneva, Washington and in their field offices around the world, including Afghanistan. Releasing the details of those discussions would not only jeopardize our relationship with a long-standing partner but compromise its ability to do its important job effectively in Afghanistan.

The irresponsible demands of the opposition could also bring harm to third-party organizations and individuals our diplomats often meet with confidentially.

Finally, I would also remind—