House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Afghanistan January 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, quite simply, no, that is not the practice of the Canadian army. Again, these decisions are made at an operational level within the chain of command in Afghanistan. We, of course, set the policy. The government relies heavily on and supports the decisions made by generals and those in command in Afghanistan.
What we will not do is take lessons on patriotism or military operations from a man who made up his mind about the mission, went to Afghanistan and hung out at Tim Hortons.
Afghanistan January 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has not changed its position. I have not changed my position.
There is a change, however, when it comes to the position of the member opposite. He now appears to be quite interested in protecting the reputation and well-being of General Hillier, but it was just a short time ago that he said, “I never thought I would see the day when the general and the Canadian army would be a prop for the Government of Canada”. That is what he said.
Afghanistan January 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, that is untrue. The government never hid information about the mission in Afghanistan. The Minister of Foreign Affairs provided information to the House of Commons about an allegation against an Afghan prison representative. We provided this information immediately.
It is true to say that the processes and agreements are working. They are working for us, for the protection of the armed forces and for the prisoners.
Afghanistan January 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the policy is in place. The agreement is in place. It is an improved agreement. It allows for greater numbers of visits. It allows for greater disclosures, which is exactly what happened when the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood in the House of Commons on November 14 and disclosed that there was an issue of great concern. This exemplifies why the agreement was put in place. It replaced the flawed, inadequate agreement left by the previous government.
The operational details and discretions remain in the hands of the military. We make the policy, and we support our military.
Afghanistan January 28th, 2008
More empty words and more unfounded allegations, Mr. Speaker. I see that the break has not tempered the member opposite at all in his flirtations with the truth.
Clearly what has happened here is an operational decision which impacts on the timelines of when prisoners are transferred. It is in place following the agreement that was improved upon, the failed agreement, the flawed agreement that we picked up when took government and that the hon. member's government left behind.
That agreement remains in place. It allows for discretion on the transfers. We are not going to talk about the details of this because it only helps the Taliban. Is that what the member wants?
Afghanistan January 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, no one is saying I have no information about the operation on the ground in Afghanistan, except maybe the Liberal members.
As for this decision, I repeat, as the Prime Minister has said, the military in the field in Afghanistan are responsible for operational decisions and our government is responsible for political decisions.
Afghanistan January 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, clearly, political decisions are made by the Government of Canada, but decisions on the ground, during military operations, are made by the chain of command. Obviously, the government supports these decisions, but on the ground the decisions relating to the transfer of detainees are made by the military.
Afghanistan January 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is answering his own question. Clearly, agreements are working, as my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, indicated to the House of Commons, on November 14. The reason why this agreement is working is of course because of the current ability of Canadian Forces to make operational decisions on the ground in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan January 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, as the new enhanced agreement as of May 2007 allows for, there is increased monitoring. We do have eyes inside the prison. That allows for the type of discovery of the disclosure that this government proactively made.
I have a question for the member opposite. He seems to have changed his position somewhat and has now focused his concerns greatly on the issue of torture. We know he has said previously, “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms...To defeat evil” we must “traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war”--
Afghanistan January 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, what I said at that time was absolutely true. In fact, on November 14 there was a disclosure made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to that very effect.
The important part of all of this, and I am surprised that it is lost on a learned legal scholar like the member opposite, is that the policy remains unchanged. The agreement, which was enhanced--that flawed agreement left in place by the previous government--improved our ability to discover these types of issues by increased monitoring. That is what happened. That is why we have improved our ability to do such things. A proactive disclosure was made.
Surely the member is not suggesting that we simply accept every allegation without--