House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Afghanistan December 10th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to everyone, including the member opposite, that General Natynczyk acted properly by correcting a certain point yesterday, as the Canadian Forces have on each and every occasion. When there has been credible evidence, we have acted. Our diplomats and soldiers continue to perform marvellously in a theatre and a difficult operation. This government stands four-square behind them. I ask the member opposite to do the same.
Business of Supply December 10th, 2009
Madam Speaker, even the tone of the hon. member's question is quite offensive. The member is now suggesting that those people, those non-partisan public servants who are doing this important work, are somehow unworthy or unable to do this important task. This is exactly what they are trained to do.
I know the hon. member and his party do not support the mission. They have a very questionable record of having supported attempts that this government has made to improve the security of our men and women in uniform. He and his party have consistently voted against giving them the protective equipment they need to do the job. The member shows such courage 12,000 miles from the mission, in the comforts of this place. He should take off his comfortable shoes and walk a mile in the soldiers' boots, outside the wire.
Business of Supply December 10th, 2009
As far as the hon. member who is now tweeting orally in the chamber, we know he has a record of having tweeted in committee. It is quite shameful that the member would suggest that information is impeccably protected in committees when he is guilty of having leaked information that could have been injurious.
Business of Supply December 10th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member was in the chamber, but I know that even having served in cabinet he refuses to accept the reality that it is arm's-length, independent persons within the Attorney General's department who make these redactions. To suggest that it is politicized is simply incorrect.
However, to come back to the fundamental issue as to Parliament's supremacy, clearly the government is going to follow the law, and the law as we all know is passed by Parliament. That is political science 101.
Clearly we are complying with the law, in fact we are complying with the law that was enhanced around issues of security by the government of the member opposite. In the wake of 9/11, there were improvements made to the Canada Evidence Act, including section 38. They were specifically designed to protect the things that have been the subject of this discussion: protecting confidential information, ensuring operational security, ensuring we are enabled to protect that information.
Business of Supply December 10th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate to discuss an issue that has been widely discussed in this place, in committee and certainly throughout the country. I should indicate that I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.
I am joining in the debate to state clearly, once again, that the disclosure of the documents that are sought, the government information and legal proceedings and what Canadians would receive, is done through a process that falls under the responsibility of the Department of Justice. It is a process that is independent from politics.
Earlier in the day we heard from the Minister of Justice. He stated in a very articulate and straightforward way the process by which redactions are done. He clearly indicated that it is non-partisan, independent public service in his department who make these determinations.
I also want to put on the record and restate that Canadians should understand that the reputation of the military is completely intact. There has been nothing done that would indicate they have acted other than honourably in conducting themselves on this mission, as they have consistently throughout our country's history.
Canadian men and women, civilian and military, have done an outstanding job. They have been working selflessly. As we speak they continue to do so in bringing security and peace efforts to improve Afghanistan, a country that has been under siege for decades. They do so at great risk to themselves and their families. Certainly at this time of year our thoughts and prayers are with them in that regard.
While they are putting their lives on the line along with colleagues from 60 other nations, including our NATO partners, they are doing so to help people build Afghanistan to a stable society and democratic country. This is a Herculean task. It is a country where we want to see Afghans one day have a semblance of normal life; that is, to enjoy some of the same rights and privileges we are so lucky and fortunate to enjoy in Canada: stability, education, basic health care, employment and the prospect of a better future.
Through our whole of government mission, the least the government can do is to make sure our dedicated men and women in uniform and the many civilians who are there building that country can do their difficult work as safely as possible. That means providing the right protective equipment. That is something our government had prided itself on. We have provided that equipment: tanks, helicopters; UAVs; and road clearance materials to detect the deadly improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, which have taken so many lives.
I met a young captain on the elevator at the Department of National Defence this morning. He told me that he and his crew had defused or disabled over 800 of these devices in the past month. There is incredible heroic work being done, and it has surely saved and preserved life inside Afghanistan.
The Government of Canada has a fundamental obligation to ensure that the lives of civilians and Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan are not put in further jeopardy or given additional risk by releasing information that may be part of operational security or affect relations with our allies, international organizations, or confidential sources who often provide us with information to help prevent enemy attacks. The government's primary obligation is to protect and promote the lives of its citizens, including our men and women who are deployed.
Special care is also being taken to avoid a situation by a careful review of thousands of documents, pages of which might contain information that could be helpful to the enemy. Governments should do this with the greatest care and responsibility. It is done by officials who are specially trained with an eye to that detail, and it is done independent of the political branch of government.
As I have stated before, section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act applies to all proceedings before bodies with the power to compel the production of information where international relations, national defence or national security interests would be at risk. We will continue to provide all legally available information when issues come forward and when documents are requested. We have produced documents, and we will do so, in accordance with the law.
Provisions of legislation such as the Canada Evidence Act, the Access to Information Act, the Personal Information Protection Act and the Security of Information Act, which Parliament passed in order to prevent public disclosure of information that is sensitive or would affect national security, are justified.
In fact, these laws protect the security of our country, and the security of Canadian citizens and our representatives as well as members of the Canadian Forces who work in dangerous places in order to put our values into practice. All members will certainly agree on the importance of the protections afforded. That is why certain parliamentary conventions acknowledge that they are necessary.
When one looks at the legal aspects of this, certainly our courts understand the importance of such protections.
To place this argument in a better context, to take it out of the parliamentary and sometimes partisan atmosphere we work in, let me share a quote from the Federal Court case of Singh v. Attorney General. In this case, Mr. Justice Andrew MacKay, no relation, stated:
Canada's international relations, in particular relations with our allies, rely on the exchange of information for common benefit. There is a public interest in maintaining the confidence of foreign governments so that Canada's agencies, particularly those concerned with security, will continue to receive timely information from others that may be relevant to Canada's interests. Confidential information, by definition, is information that is passed along in confidence that it will not be disclosed without the permission of the provider or the source. If Canada does not enjoy the confidence of its allies, our international relations and security may well suffer. The public has a very high level interest in maintaining that confidence.
Mr. Justice MacKay went on to say with respect to national security:
To effectively provide a defence against terrorism and to participate in a global effort to constrain it, it is imperative for Canada to maintain as highly confidential the investigational interests of our security services, the sources of their information, the technologies and techniques they employ, the identities of their employees and particularly their informants. Canada's security agencies must maintain the confidences and the cooperation of foreign agencies that have shared confidential information with our services in the expectation that it would not be divulged. The public interest served by maintaining secrecy in the national security context is weighty. In the balancing of public interests here at play, that interest would only be outweighed in a clear and compelling case for disclosure.
Every clear-thinking member of the House, certainly those who have served in cabinet and even now in opposition, must surely agree with those sentiments.
Another clear example is the case as recent as October of this year, when Chief Justice Allan Lutfy of the Federal Court ruled on an access to information request. The applicant sought specific information related to persons detained by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan: their names, identification numbers, operational detail, circumstances of capture and the like. The Chief Justice stated:
I find that the information in issue...including the nature of the operations and the location, date, time and other circumstances surrounding the capture of the detainees. On the record before me, I am satisfied that the disclosure of this information in 2007 could have been of assistance to the enemy of the CF in Afghanistan, could have caused harm to members of the CF and others in that country and could reasonably have been expected to be injurious to the defence of Canada or its allies within the meaning of s. 15 of the Act. The determination made in 2007 by National Defence not to disclose this information was made on reasonable grounds.
This is partial advice from our courts, and it is additional information that should be recognized and taken into consideration in this debate. As parliamentarians, we must recognize our responsibilities and the necessity of safeguarding sensitive information.
The process under section 38 of the Evidence Act serves as a useful surrogate to identify information that should not be disclosed. Simply put, there is no mechanism to ensure the protection of information that is injurious to our national security, national defence, international relations, and information disclosed in the committee context.
This is why we will continue to follow the process. The law is in place to ensure first and foremost the security of our men and women in uniform and civilians serving so valiantly in Afghanistan and other places around the world. I would hope that members would take this matter seriously and not pass this motion, in the interest of their lives and the lives of their families.
Afghanistan December 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, again, General Natynczyk spoke the truth this morning. He received new information this morning, which he shared with me.
This information, by the way, was recorded on a battlefield at a time when soldiers were under extreme stress. There were different versions of what took place in this instance.
All of that was laid out by the general in his press conference this morning. He has called for a military board of inquiry, which will occur. That will allow the facts to be disclosed.
As is always the case, we have been forthright, we have been straightforward and will continue to be.
Afghanistan December 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the new information was provided by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Walter Natynczyk, this morning. It came from field notes that were made at the time of the incident. Something that happened almost three years ago, while I was in a different department, and that was not known by the Chief of the Defence Staff, is hardly something that I would know.
What it does prove is that when credible evidence comes forward, Canadian soldiers act meticulously, ethically, and marvellously each and every time. We applaud their efforts and their courage. They did the right thing.
Afghanistan December 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again, and I repeat, I act on the advice, the information that came through two departments, in this instance first the Department of Foreign Affairs and now the Department of National Defence. We act on that information. We assume it to be accurate. There has now been a correction issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff. He made me aware of that this morning. I accept this correction.
There will be ample opportunity to examine this incident. There will be ample opportunity to discuss this. There will be a military board of inquiry. We will deal with facts, not the political ranting and raving of the member opposite.
Afghanistan December 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would answer this way. As the Chief of the Defence Chief has said, there will now be a military board of inquiry to look into this particular incident. When did that information come to my attention? This morning when I received a call from the Chief of the Defence Staff. That is factual. That is the way it works when we have senior officials; the Chief of the Defence Staff contacts me, shares advice, shares information. The hon. member would know that as a former member of cabinet, but he is engaged in a partisan political exercise.
We will deal with facts and evidence and do the right thing.
Afghanistan December 9th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I will never apologize for standing beside the brave men and women of our professional civil service and the brave men and women in the Canadian Forces. I stand beside them. I support them, as do members of this government. They perform their duties marvellously. Without exception they have been ethical in the conduct of their duties. We support them in each and every way, and we will continue to do so.