Peter Van Loan

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the conduct of our troops, as mentioned in the report. Indeed, it is the questions and behaviour of the opposition that is undermining our troops on the battlefield.

I will read what the agreement says regarding allegations of abuse:

In the event that allegations come to the attention of the Government of Afghanistan that a detainee transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities has been mistreated, the following corrective action will be undertaken: the Government of Afghanistan—

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois is not proud of our troops and their behaviour under the circumstances. This is a good example for Canadians.

We now have an agreement with a lot of protection. Here is another excerpt:

Representatives of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), and Canadian government personnel, including representatives of the Canadian Embassy in Kabul and others empowered to represent the Government of Canada will have full and unrestricted access to any persons transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities while such persons are in custody.

This is an agreement—

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the current agreement provides some protection. I will read from the agreement. I invite the opposition to listen:

The Government of Canada will be notified prior to the initiation of proceedings involving persons transferred by the Canadian Forces and prior to the release of the detainee. The Government of Canada will also be notified of any material change of circumstances regarding the detainee including any instance of alleged improper treatment.

That is in the agreement and it is working well.

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians did not do anything. Canadians acted exemplary in the field.

I am amazed to hear the Liberal Party continue on this vein. Fifty-four Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have lost their lives in the field of battle, fighting a murderous and treacherous regime as part of a UN led mission in Afghanistan. Our brave troops are fighting to bring peace, security and human rights in a war-torn land. We have an excellent agreement in place.

It is time for the opposition to get on side, side with our troops, our good fighting men and women in the field, for once and support the good work they are doing.

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the arrangement that we have been able to strike. No less than Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail who says this about it:

The new deal transforms Canada into the standard-bearer for all foreign countries in the monitoring of transferred prisoners in Afghanistan.

He goes on to say:

--the deal exceeds the safeguards in other NATO arrangements, including the much-vaunted British and Dutch agreements.

The members of the opposition should for once admit that it was their failure in the past that led to whatever flaws they were unhappy with in the 2005 agreement. There is now an arrangement in place that is satisfactory and we are very pleased with what we have.

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the conduct of our troops serving in Afghanistan. Their conduct sets a good example.

I will go on to continue to read in French an element from the agreement:

The Afghan authorities will be responsible for treating such individuals in accordance with Afghanistan's international human rights obligations including prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, protection against torture and using only such force as is reasonable to guard against escape.

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the case in question, obviously the Canadian Forces were able to take action quickly to ensure that there was nothing improper allowed to continue. In fact, that is exactly what our new agreement ensures will continue to be the case.

I will read from it because I know I invited opposition members to do that yesterday and apparently they are not interested in what we have done. It states:

Representatives of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Government personnel, including representatives of the Canadian Embassy in Kabul and others empowered to represent the Government of Canada will have full and unrestricted access to any persons transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities while such persons are in custody. In addition to the International Committee of the Red Cross, relevant human rights institutions with--

[Afghanistan, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the case the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie speaks of is actually a good story for the Canadian military. It is a case where the military saw some treatment, some roughhousing of an individual, and stepped in immediately to put an end to it. That is how things should work. That shows that things were working well in the field.

The agreement that we have in place now has received very good reviews, no less than The Globe and Mail where it says in the editorial today:

It is a very good agreement, equal to those obtained by the governments of Britain and the Netherlands in most ways, and superior in two significant ways--

I would be happy to go on further.

[Privilege, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on May 1, 2007.

The hon. member accused Merlin Preuss, a government official with Transport Canada, of intimidating witnesses who were to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a very serious allegation, because intimidating witnesses is clearly unacceptable.

However, I maintain that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member is invalid for two reasons. First, there is no proof that the situation described by the hon. member constitutes a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. This is a question of the interpretation of facts.

Second, this matter concerns the standing committee's work. Since the committee has not presented its report on the matter, it cannot be examined by the House as a valid question of privilege.

I would first like to present the facts of the situation. Mr. Holbrook, chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, appeared before the committee on February 21.

The hon. member referred to an affidavit by an assistant to Mr. Holbrook. In this affidavit, she indicated that Mr. Preuss had mentioned to her before the meeting of the committee that, if Mr. Holbrook planned to have any Transport Canada inspectors with him, he would “have an issue with it”, the insinuation being that this shows that Mr. Preuss' intention was to intimidate a witness. This allegation was examined by the standing committee at its March 28 meeting. At that time, Mr. Preuss stated that it never was his intention to intimidate or influence potential witnesses. He said, and I quote:

My sole purpose in making the call was to find out whether Mr. Holbrook intended to have civil aviation inspectors appearing with him, so that I might ensure that everyone involved knew of their roles, rights, and responsibilities.

At no time during this brief phone conversation with Mr. Holbrook's assistant did I make any threats regarding the appearance of inspectors before this committee.

There is therefore no evidence to suggest that witnesses have been intimidated. I understand that, during the April 23 meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the chair actually made remarks to that effect, saying that there was no evidence to support these allegations.

At best, we are dealing with diverging interpretations of the facts with respect to the conversation Mr. Preuss had with Mr. Holbrook's assistant. I submit that there are no grounds to conclude that a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege had occurred.

From a procedural point of view, I also submit that there can be no prima facie case of privilege at this time, given that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has not submitted a report to the House on this matter.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit indicates on page 128:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee which directly deals with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

Since the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has not tabled a report on the matter, I submit that this is not a valid question of privilege at this time.

[Business of the House, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue our focus on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

This morning we completed the debate at report stage on Bill C-10. That is a bill to introduce mandatory penalties for gun related crimes and other violent acts. Our government proposed amendments at report stage to restore what the Liberals had gutted from the bill at committee, mainly those aspects that will ensure violent criminals actually serve time in jail. We will be voting on these amendments next week.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-22, which is the age of protection legislation, followed by Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation that would require criminals who are convicted on two separate occasions of a violent crime to prove to the court why they are not a danger to the community.

Next week will be strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It effectively kicked off today when Bill C-16, the fixed dates for elections act, received royal assent.

On Monday we will resume debate on Bill C-43. That is the bill that proposes to give Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate.

Our government will be introducing a number of new measures in the House of Commons next week, which I will address at the appropriate time.

Of course, we still have Bill S-4, the bill to establish Senate term limits, which has been languishing in the Senate for almost a year now. It would be nice if the Senate passed that. It would be nice if the Liberal senators could get on with it, so that we could actually have that bill here in the House of Commons as part of our focus on democratic reform next week.

Tuesday, May 8 and Thursday, May 10 will be allotted days.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 I would like to conclude debate tomorrow on the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I would like to conclude debate on May 11, 2007 on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Subject to an agreement with other parties, there may be interest in concluding debate at second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax bill, as early as tomorrow.

On the question of Bill C-30, we see elements of that legislation that we brought forward that are very valuable relating to biodiesel, alternative fuels and so on, and we will seek ways of introducing that in the House of Commons. However, we have absolutely no intention of bringing forward the Liberal carbon tax plan, which is now at the fore of that bill, which would establish an unlimited right to pollute for polluters. All they would have to do is pay and they would have an unlimited right to pollute. That is not our approach. We are bringing in regulations to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases. That is our approach.