Peter MacKay

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

What is a charade, Mr. Speaker, is someone who purports to be a lawyer standing and saying that we should just accept evidence without any test, any process whatsoever that questions what is happening.

Of course we pick up more prisoners than other countries. That is a tribute to the good work being done by the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan today.

The member is a lawyer. I would ask him to refer to the comments of a former member of the House who said that a proof is a proof when it is proven. He should follow that advice.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me state the truth again. First, there has never been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred prisoner from Canadian Forces.

Second and most important, Canadian Forces always respect international law, always perform to the highest standards, always comply with things such as the Geneva Convention, as does this government, and will continue to do so.

We will continue to work with Afghans to improve their capacity to build on these things. That is what we are there to do. That is why we are so respected internationally. That is why the member is off on the wrong track.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we encourage people to come forward when they have evidence to give. We encourage them to speak the truth. The reality is those statements have to stand up to scrutiny. Those statements have to be put in the crucible of testing the veracity of what is being said. In this instance, it does not make that test.

Let us take a look at what was said. One of our brigadier generals, Daniel Menard, a commander of Task Force Kandahar, was asked yesterday about the possibility that somehow evidence was being withheld. He said:

This is not the way that we operate and certainly not the way we...working at (Defence headquarters). We just do not do things like that.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to turn this into a procedural argument. Clearly the reality is there is no credible evidence, none, zero, to suggest that a Taliban prisoner transferred from Canadian Forces was ever abused.

What is shocking is we have members opposite who are lawyers who want to completely ignore due process, want to completely ignore any evidence being held up for scrutiny, want to just accept the word of the Taliban. That is shocking. I do not think any member opposite would believe, credibly, that the Taliban is not beyond telling lies about what happened to them in prison.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, maybe he earned a promotion.

Let us be clear. The reality is two and a half years ago we acted on credible evidence. We acted on concerns that were being expressed from a number of sources. We invested in the system. It was because of the concerns being expressed by Colvin and others that we did so.

However, when it comes to the holus-bolus broad brush strokes that somehow suggest that every transferred prisoner was tortured, even those who we do not know whether they came from Canada, that is not credible. What is less credible is the bleating of the member opposite.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is the inadequate failed transfer agreement that was left in place by the previous government.

The reality is there were all kinds of allegations going on at the time. There were all kinds of bits of information that suggested the Taliban were being transferred into prisons that needed to be improved. That is what we did. We invested in the prisons. We invested in training. We invested in improving its justice system. We upped our game with respect to working with other agencies. Guess what? Things are better in Afghanistan today as a result of those efforts. The hon. member opposite cannot say the same about his government's performance.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly what is insulting is the hon. member continuing to take at face value evidence that comes, in most circumstances in this context, from the Taliban itself. It is particularly troubling that the member would continue to cast aspersions that really in a way reflect on the work that is being done by members of the Canadian Forces.

There is not one bit of evidence, not a scintilla, that points to mistreatment of Taliban prisoners by the Canadian Forces. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a direct line to the good work being done by our military in Afghanistan.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago we acted. Two and a half years ago we actioned a file to improve the system based on evidence we were receiving from many different sources. That has been admitted here a number of times.

Mr. Colvin said yesterday that he was asked to stop putting things in writing. This is a ridiculous accusation. Mr. Colvin's accusations are completely unsubstantiated. They were voiced publicly two and a half years ago. We acted on them. Mr. Colvin himself admitted he had multiple opportunities to raise these issues directly. He chose not to.

We acted two and a half years ago and we continue to act. The member opposite can throw as much mud as he likes.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago we did act. Two and a half years ago we began the process of improving the system in Afghanistan, investing in human rights, working closer with agencies on the ground, ensuring that we were going to be able to one day turn Afghanistan over to the people of Afghanistan to do the things that we are doing for them.

To suggest somehow that this is being covered up, we have been responding to questions in the House, in parliamentary committees, in the media, at the Military Police Complaints Commission. We have been nothing but up front and honest in disclosing information about this. We will continue to do so.

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little troubled by his question. Mr. Colvin gave evidence. We are not restricting him from doing so. We are not preventing him from doing so.

In fact, with respect to his own evidence, let us be clear. He admitted his evidence was second and third hand. He admitted he did not have any evidence that reflected directly on transferred prisoners. He admitted he had an opportunity to speak to ministers, mainly myself and others who were in his presence, and he chose not to raise them. He admitted even that he did not speak to senior members of the military because he thought they might react badly. That is not the job of a diplomat.