Peter MacKay

[Afghanistan, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the first part of the hon. member's question. General Walter Natynczyk is an honourable man and he did the right thing by correcting the record as he did this morning.

Clearly, I accept what he has said. Clearly, this House should accept what he has said. The CDS, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has now called for a military board of investigation to look into this particular incident.

We continue to have faith in our CDS, in our members of the Canadian Forces who continue to perform marvellously on the ground in Afghanistan. We have confidence in what they do each and every day.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we acted upon the advice of senior officials both in the Department of Foreign Affairs and on the part of the military. We acted responsibly, we acted decisively. I have been clear, I have been consistent, as has General Natynczyk.

If the hon. member does not want to take my word on this incident, let us look at what he said, “Based upon the soldier's assessment they had no interest in the individual...We didn't take this person under custody...what we did on the ground was just basic routine questioning. We have taken the individual away from the Afghan police”.

They did do the right thing. That is one thing we can agree on. The soldiers in Afghanistan are doing a magnificent job and we back them 100% on this side of the House.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have been clear and I have been consistent. We have disputed the credibility of the evidence, not the credibility of the individual. I want to be clear about that. We have acted upon credible evidence. We have heard now from a number of senior bureaucrats, senior military upon whose advice we acted.

The hon. member cannot accept the evidence of those who have testified before the committee who have rejected the one lone witness and then suggest the government should have done anything differently. We acted upon the advice of those individuals. We cannot act on allegations that are put forward that are not substantiated.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, those are more ridiculous, unfounded allegations that cannot be substantiated.

When our military and when our diplomats provide information to the government, we act on that advice. When we have credible sustained information or evidence, we take appropriate action.

With respect to the Red Cross, this was a case with notifications to the Red Cross about prisoner transfers. While lengthy delays in the notification to the Red Cross occurred under the previous government, we made changes to improve that, just as we did with the transfer arrangement, just as we did with investing in our military, just as we did with improving the mission and picking up where the previous government dropped the ball.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have complied. We have released documents. We continue to do so with information that will not endanger troops, that will not endanger our relations with allies or international organizations and that will not identify confidential sources.

Those redactions are done by non-partisan, independent officials at the Department of Justice. They are applying provisions that the previous government implemented in the wake of the September 11 attacks. We have continued to provide legally available information for tabling for the purposes of the MPCC and for the purposes of the parliamentary committee.

I am not sure what the hon. member is suggesting. We have been straightforward, clear and consistent.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear and we have been consistent.

We did not wait. We acted on the advice of senior military and senior diplomats. We acted on the advice of people like David Mulroney, Colleen Swords, Scott Proudfoot, Linda Garwood-Filbert, Generals Hillier, Fraser, Gauthier and now Natynczyk who all testified today. All corroborated the position of government and all rejected and refuted one lone witness.

Why would members opposite not accept the evidence given by those credible individuals closest to the ground, closest to the mission, all giving advice to the government upon which we acted to improve the situation in Afghanistan?

It is a straightforward situation. Those members refuse to accept it.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let us take it out of the highly charged, accusatory place called question period. Let us look at what impartial senior public servants had to say. Paul Chapin said, “I think what set me back is how serious the allegations are and how flimsy the evidence was”. This is a colleague of the individual in question.

Senior Ambassador David Mulroney said:

This is where I think he went from an observation to speculation.

Mr. Chapin went on to say, “To summarize, persons were not qualified to make certain assessments. It was irresponsible to make a charge without hard evidence”.

We act on hard evidence. We act on allegations that can be proven. We made changes and improved it. We continue to do so.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was not. It was in fact our priority to go about improving the transfer arrangement, investing in the justice system, mentoring the police and prison officials, improving the physical surroundings where Taliban prisoners were being held, and ensuring that the Canadian Forces had the necessary resources to do that important work.

Again, that is a mess and a failing by the previous government. It deployed into Afghanistan with inadequate equipment and forest green uniforms. We should be having a public inquiry into that move by the members opposite.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary. Our first priority was to clean up the mess that we had inherited. That was to improve the transfer arrangement. We have been clear and consistent in telling the House, committees and everyone that we acted upon credible evidence that was presented to us at the time, two and a half or three years ago.

We have been clear. We have been consistent. We acted at the time. We continue to act and we rely on the credible information we receive from senior diplomats and senior military. We have heard them all testify. They all corroborate the government's position. Why would they not? They were acting at the time. We were acting on their advice. I wish the hon. member would take the advice of the individuals closest to this issue.

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, the Chief of the Defence Staff is not only a soldier but the top soldier. I will take his word. He said that what Canadian soldiers “did on the ground was just basic routine questioning”. He also went on to describe this in a sequence. He said, “The notes you see are from the military police who were called in at that time”.

So it was after the fact. This is a recitation of an after the fact description of the event. He said, “We didn't take this person into custody”.

If the hon. member does not accept my word on this, she should accept the word of General Natynczyk, and not like the hon. member opposite who suggests that somehow it is morally weak and—