Ujjal Dosanjh

[Points of Order, December 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the nub of the matter is that our view of the law and the convention is different from that of the government. For the last several months, it has been standing in the House and saying that section 38 is the reigning section, that it is the section that governs non-disclosure of documents.

Today, the government admits through its own letter from the Department of Justice that section 38 does not actually apply to parliamentary proceedings. That has been a big lie that the government has perpetrated in this chamber over the last—

[Afghanistan, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, General Natynczyk acted honourably. He admitted that he was not provided with a full account of a Canadian detainee abused in 2006. He wants answers.

No one in the government, including the Prime Minister, seems to have the courage, the honour, the integrity and the desire of General Natynczyk to get at the truth. I dare them to prove me wrong. Why would they not call a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, General Natynczyk had the courage, the honour, and the integrity to correct the record today as he discovered more information. A Canadian detainee was captured, photographed, and transferred to the Afghan national police in June 2006. It was known that torture had happened before. He was abused and retaken by our troops.

Is it not time the Prime Minister had the courage, the honour and the integrity of General Natynczyk, and called a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the military, but I have no confidence in that minister right now. The Conservatives refuse to tell the truth on detainees. They censor documents. They intimidate public servants.

The only real source of information on detainees has been some brave public servants and the media. However, they are branded as liars by the Conservatives. A public inquiry is the only way Canadians will discover the truth.

Can the minister stand and say today there has not been a single proven case of detainee torture abuse in Afghanistan?

Why will he not call a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, at every opportunity, the Conservatives have misled this House on detainees. Every day, new information belies their claims.

Today we find out that as they were denying detainee abuse and torture, they were preparing media lines on how to handle the truth if it is discovered by Canadians.

They hide the truth. Once discovered, they spin themselves into an even deeper hole.

Will the government call a public inquiry so that Canadians can learn the truth?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to reports that Canadian soldiers witnessed Afghan children being sexually abused by members of the Afghan National Police or the Afghan National Army: (a) were any complaints or reports filed with either the Canadian Forces, Military Police, Department of National Defence, or Department of Foreign Affairs alleging that children were being abused; (b) when were these complaints or reports filed; (c) what actions were taken to address these complaints or reports; (d) when was the Minister of National Defence or his office informed of the existence of these complaints or reports; (e) what instructions were given by the Minister of National Defence or his office with regard to these complaints or reports, and when; (f) when did the Minister of National Defence first receive a briefing on this issue; (g) when were briefing notes first written by either the Minister’s staff, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian Forces, or the Military Police; (h) were the Canadian Forces or Military Police ever instructed not to report incidents of child sexual abuse and, if so, when; (i) were the Canadian Forces or Military Police ever instructed not to intervene or prevent incidents of child sexual abuse if they witnessed them and, if so, when; and (j) when were the Canadian Forces and Military Police explicitly instructed to report or prevent such incidents?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to the withholding of information by the government under section 38 of the Evidence Act for reasons of national security: (a) what criteria or guidelines are used to determine whether a piece of information would have an impact on national security; (b) how does the government define “impact on national security”; (c) who in the government is responsible for determining which pieces of information will be subject to section 38; (d) do the Ministers of Justice, National Defence or Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister or their offices have an input on what information will be withheld on national security grounds; (e) what role does the Department of Justice play in redacting or suppressing information under Section 38 of the Evidence Act; (f) what role does the Privy Council Office play in reviewing or further redacting information that could have an impact on national security; (g) what role does the Prime Minister’s Office play in the decision to withhold information on national security grounds; and (h) what role does the Prime Minister’s Office play in reviewing or further redacting information judged to be a risk to national security?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to Afghan detainees: (a) when did the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence receive each of the following documents: KANDH-0029, KANDH-0032, KBGR-0118, KBGR-0121, KBGR-0160, KBGR-0258, KBGR-0263, KBGR-0265, KBGR-0267, KBGR-0269, KGBR-0271, KBGR-0274, KBGR-0275, KBGR-0291, KBGR-0292, KBGR-0302 and KBGR-0321; (b) what actions were taken or instructions given in response to these documents; (c) did the offices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence receive copies of each of the listed documents and, if so, when; (d) what actions were taken or instructions given by the offices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence in response to these documents; (e) were briefing notes prepared or was a briefing given for either Minister with regards to these documents and, if so, when; (f) did the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office receive copies of these documents and, if so, when; and (g) were briefing notes prepared, or was a briefing given to the Prime Minister regarding the documents and, if so, when?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 7th, 2009]

With regard to the mission in Afghanistan: (a) what contingencies have been developed in the event that the Canadian military mission is extended beyond 2011; (b) what ministerial resources have been devoted to this effort; (c) what major material purchases have been acquired to facilitate such contingency; and (d) what measures have been taken to prepare our human resources in the Armed Forces for the contingency of extension?

[Afghanistan, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is a story about Brigadier General Joseph Deschamps, who was the chief of staff for operations in Canada's expeditionary forces in January 2008. He said, under oath, that the government was not telling the truth.

The evidence given by Brigadier General Deschamps and Colonel Noonan proves beyond a doubt that there were proven reported incidents of abuse of Canadian-transferred detainees.

Would the Minister of National Defence now apologize for misleading the House and provide complete uncensored documents regarding detainee abuse?