• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

National Defence in Hansard

Status
Not open for further replies.
From 30 Jan 07

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence was not forthcoming with Canadians about the nature of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.  Perhaps the Minister of Foreign Affairs can tell Canadians: Are we there to get retribution and revenge or are we there to destroy the Taliban and rebuild Afghanistan? Will the minister agree to our call for comprehensive parliamentary hearings on the mission to keep Canadians informed on an ongoing basis?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, of course we are there to help the people of Afghanistan. That is exactly what we are doing. We have in place an extensive network of NGOs working with Canadian officials on reconstruction, on efforts to elevate the people of Afghanistan in the areas of good governance, and in the areas of being able to provide more for their own in terms of education, policing, and building their own Afghan army capacity.  There has been ample debate here in this place. I am sure this will continue in parliamentary committees. We look forward to further debate and further discussion informing Canadians about the good work Canadians are doing in Afghanistan.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, on January 20 the Minister of National Defence said “this government will not allow Canadians to be killed without retribution”. Yesterday in the House he insisted that he was right. These kinds of statements hurt the reputation of Canadians internationally. They undermine our efforts in Afghanistan to win the hearts and minds of the population.  Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not believe that his government needs to clearly reject the views of the Minister of National Defence on this very issue?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the Afghanistan compact that has now been in place just over a year, we are seeing economic development. We are seeing development that is making an enormous difference in the lives of Afghans.  We are seeing young girls in school for the first time in decades. We are seeing more women accessing microcredit. We are seeing roads built. We are seeing water put in place. We are seeing all sorts of economic development, coupled with the infrastructure that the Afghan people need.      There are a lot of naysayers on the other side. The member opposite was there recently and saw with his own eyes the progress that is being made.next intervention previous intervention

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to get the job done in Afghanistan when the government seems to be so unclear as to what the job is. Now we see an information strategy that is for five years. It goes right up to 2011. Will the job be done in 2011 or is there really no exit strategy at all? 

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday, but I will answer it again. The military produced a campaign plan based on the Afghanistan compact and upon government direction. The Afghanistan compact is five years, but in the plan it says specifically that it is committed to the end of February 2009 and that is it. 

Hon. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, yet again the defence minister seems to be the face of our role in Afghanistan. Therefore, why do we need information strategies? Why is the minister posting jobs for 80 image technicians in order to be able to explain to Canadians what we are doing there? When will the government join our call for full parliamentary hearings for all of the three d's of diplomacy, development and defence, so that Canadians can be part of defining our job there?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will certainly not be one of our image consultants.  The military, as I said, has built a plan. It has also built a communications plan because soldiers, when they return to Canada, unbridled, tell Canadians about their experiences. So far their experiences are quite positive. They believe in the mission and they believe in what they are doing.

 
From 1 Feb 07

NOTE:  These appear to be the links Minister Verner is referring to:
CIDA Page on AFG
CIDA’s Approach to Accountability and Risk Management in Afghanistan
Current Projects
Results

Afghanistan 

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):  It is not only in terms of climate change that this government is embarrassing Canada abroad. A few days ago, the Minister of National Defence adopted thevocabulary of neo-conservative Americans when he said that our soldiers were in Afghanistan in retribution for the attacks of September 11.  The Prime Minister has still not denounced those remarks by his minister. I will give him the opportunity to do so today.  Can he declare that Canada will always intervene in the world, not for retribution, but to help preserve peace and security for all people?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, of course, we are there to help the Afghan people; but, once again, the leader of the Liberal Party is trying to change the subject of the environment and his failures that are documented in the 10 reports of the former Commissioner of the Environment.  The leader of the Liberal Party has said himself what would happen if he were returned to power, “I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don’t think I will make it”.  He did not make it and he still has no intention of succeeding in the future.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, how can the government represent Canada overseas if it cannot even explain to Canadians at home what we need to do in Afghanistan? This mission is not about retribution; it is about reconstruction. It is not about revenge; it is about rebuilding.  What is the minister of defence doing to re-balance the mission to increase development and reconstruction, so that our military efforts can actually succeed in building support for the Karzai government in the Kandahar region?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    Mr. Speaker--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Speaker:  Order, please. It is Thursday; it is not Wednesday. Hon. members should calm down. The Prime Minister has the floor to give an answer to the question.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper:  Mr. Speaker, let me tell the House what this mission is about. It is about the best traditions of this country: brave men and women putting on the Canadian uniform, defending freedom and democracy, and protecting the rights of people around the world. That is what they are doing. Our job is to support them. The deputy leader of the Liberal Party knows that, and he should tell his leader that. 

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, Canada has committed $100 million for development in Afghanistan, but this House remains completely in the dark about how those funds are being spent.  Can the Minister of International Cooperation tell us what accountability measures are in place to ensure that the funds dedicated to assistance and reconstruction are being spent wisely and for the direct benefit of the Afghan people?

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as we know, at the request of President Karzaï, the Government of Canada has made a commitment to assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.  I would like to invite the member to consult the very complete Internet site that we put in place yesterday. He will find not only the amounts invested in Afghanistan, but also the results and the progress that we have made since we, on this side, committed $100 million per year.

 
From 6 Feb 07

National Defence

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, on the very first day the House convened last year, we asked for an emergency debate on the treatment of Afghan prisoners because of a deal that had been signed by the Chief of the Defence Staff during the middle of the last election, with the backing of the Liberals. It is a flawed agreement. It does not live up to the standards that Canada sets for human rights.  Today very serious allegations of abuse have been made against the Canadian Forces. Could the government tell us that the investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission will not be interfered with and that it will be a public investigation?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Forces are professional and well disciplined and they live by the best values of society. The alleged incident reported in the media today is under investigation and those investigations will determine the facts, whatever they are.  I assure the member that I do not interfere with, nor will ever interfere with, any investigative process.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does talk about openness and transparency frequently, but his government has introduced Bill C-7, a bill that would gut the powers of the Military Police Complaints Commission. The forces have been through enough with what happened in Somalia and the allegations and the cover-ups.  Can the Prime Minister and the government not see that this time we have to set things right? We have to be above reproach here. What will be the timeline of the commission? Will it be a public investigation, and can we be sure that National Defence will disclose what really happened here?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, first, the Military Police Complaints Commission has not even determined whether it will get involved. It is investigating it right now.  However, I can assure the member that any board of inquiry, any reports that come from the investigations will be made public.

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I also have a question regarding those allegations of possible violence by the Canadian Forces toward detainees under their guard.  According to article 7 of the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Canadian Forces must keep written records of detainees such as medical condition. Now it appears that some of these reports are missing.  Will the Minister of National Defence immediately table these missing reports and was he aware of these allegations before the official complaint of Mr. Attaran?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, there are two investigations going on, and perhaps three investigations, to find out whether there is any truth to this allegation. At the moment we have an allegation, which will be investigated. If there is truth to it, corrective action will be taken. If there is no truth to it, it will pass away.

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, our support for our soldiers in Afghanistan is undeniable. I know they have to do superhuman work in extremely difficult conditions. However, the allegations on the condition of certain Afghan detainees are troubling. Our fellow citizens expect our Canadian Forces to reflect our values abroad and to respect international conventions.  I have two questions. When the Minister of National Defence caught wind of these allegations, was he already aware the situation before Mr. Attaran complained? And what does he intend to do to shed light on the matter?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I have just said that there are two investigations, possibly three investigations, going on which will determine whether records have been adjusted or not. We will have to wait for the outcome of the investigations. 

(...)

Afghanistan

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, today the media reported that Canadian soldiers in Kandahar mistreated Afghan prisoners. Such accusations are troubling and require speedy action on the part of the government.  Will the government commit here and now to fully investigate these serious accusations and not to imitate the Liberals who did everything in their power to hide the reprehensible conduct of soldiers during the events in Somalia?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are two investigations going on and potentially a third. Whatever results we get from these investigations will be made public. We will get at the root of the matter, if there is something to get at.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, there is another problematic aspect concerning the Canadian mission in Afghanistan: following up on the prisoners Canada transfers to the Afghan authorities.      Can the Minister of National Defence tell us why Canada does not have an agreement similar to that signed by the Netherlands, which enables them not only to follow up on what happens to prisoners, but also to visit them once they are turned over to Afghan authorities?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, we had an agreement signed in December 2005, which details the handling of prisoners. It also says that all rules of war must be followed. The Red Cross has reviewed this document. It has also reviewed our handling of prisoners. The president of the Red Cross said that we were doing outstanding work.

(....)
 
From Hansard, 14 Feb 07

Afghanistan

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, the release
this morning of a study on Afghan hospitals by the Senlis Council again underscores
the imbalance between the military side of the mission in Afghanistan and the
humanitarian side. We need to remember that in Bosnia, $325 per inhabitant was
spent annually on humanitarian development, whereas in Afghanistan, less than
$50 per inhabitant is being spent.  How many reports like this one will have to
be issued before this government decides to rebalance Canada's mission in Afghanistan?

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie
and Official Languages, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did when we took power was
to increase the budget for development in Afghanistan. In this way, we made sure we could
do what we had set out to do in Afghanistan.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the minister.  The disgraceful condition of the hospital in Kandahar, as described in this
report, dramatically illustrates the weakness of the humanitarian side of the mission. We
are talking about a place of death, not a hospital.  Given that the Taliban could launch
an offensive in the spring, does the government not believe that investing in medical
infrastructure would send a strong message that Canada is there to help the Afghan people?

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie
and Official Languages, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member does not seem to understand yet
that Canada is there to provide Afghanistan with development assistance. We are closely
monitoring the situation at the Kandahar hospital.  As you know, we are working with our
partners in the field. As soon as needs are identified, we allocate funds so that projects
can be carried out.



National Defence 

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, last week a senior DND official gave
testimony at the defence committee that nothing had been done to implement the Conservative
promises to 5 Wing Goose Bay. That is right, nothing, zilch, nada or, as we say in our part
of the country, not a darned thing. He also said that Indian Affairs, not National Defence,
is the lead department on northern and Arctic sovereignty.  Since the Minister of National
Defence has washed his hands of the file, I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development this. What are his plans for his base at 5 Wing Goose Bay?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I find this the height
of hypocrisy. It was this member, a member of the Liberal Party, whose intention was to close
the base in Goose Bay, who is asking these questions. It is our government that is maintaining
Goose Bay. We will maintain it into the future and we will give it an operational requirement,
not those people.

(....)

Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence knows a lot
about hypocrisy and I say to him that if my question is not for him, then stand down, general.
My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.  If he cannot
remember what he promised the people of 5 Wing Goose Bay, I can send him a DVD. He promised
a UAV squadron and a rapid reaction battalion for Goose Bay, perhaps the same battalion of
rapid reaction he wanted to send to five other places across Canada.  I ask the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is now in charge of defending the north, will
he honour the Goose Bay commitments made by his absent-minded colleague in the Department
of National Defence?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker:  Order. We will have some order. The Minister of National Defence now has the
floor. We will have order please.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, we will meet our
commitments to the north. We will meet our commitments to Goose Bay, unlike the previous
government which was planning to cut Goose Bay and eliminate all the jobs.

(....)

NOTE:  Here's the 15 Jan 06 news
release outlining the CPC's campaign platform on Atlantic military presence:

.... Under the "Canada First" plan, a Conservative government will:

- Improve the Atlantic Fleet by purchasing two new replenishment ships, a new transport ship,
and frigate and submarine upgrades. A program to replace the existing frigates and destroyers
will also be initiated.
- Increase naval personnel in Nova Scotia by 1,000 regular forces to meet new Atlantic fleet
crew requirements and to bring existing establishments up to full strength at CFB Halifax.
- Increase army personnel in New Brunswick by recruiting, training, and equipping 500 new
regular forces for CFB Gagetown and improve base infrastructure.
- Establish a regular army presence in Newfoundland and Labrador by stationing a new 650
regular force rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay for Atlantic Canada requirements.
- Enhance air force capability in Atlantic Canada by stationing a new long range unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) squadron, with approximately100 regular force personnel, at CFB Goose Bay.
- Add new fixed wing search and rescue and transport aircraft, upgrades to the current
Aurora aircraft, and 250 additional regular and reserve force personnel at CFB Greenwood.
- Provide new territorial defence battalions with 100 regular and at least 400 reserve force
personnel for emergency response to be stationed in St John’s, Newfoundland;
Halifax, Nova Scotia; and St John, New Brunswick....
Click to expand...

SHAMELESS SELF PROMO ALERT:   News Releases issued during the last election campaign
by the CPC on defence issues can be found here.
 
From Hansard (Commons), 15 Feb 07

Star of Military Valour

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Sergeant Patrick Tower,
who served at CFB Wainwright, will become one of the first ever recipients of Canada's Star of
Military Valour.  In true soldier fashion, Sergeant Tower insists that he was just doing his
job when he led two of his comrades through 150 metres of enemy fire to help a group of Canadian
soldiers who were pinned down and had suffered heavy casualities.  Later that day Sergeant Tower
learned that four soldiers, including his best friend, were killed during the battle. His courage
and selfless devotion to duty figured significantly in the survival of the remaining platoon members.
A soldier since the age of 17, Sergeant Tower is proud of his troops, his country and his mission
and he humbly points to those who did not come home as the true heroes.  However, when heroes do
manage to come home, like Sergeant Tower, it is a privilege to recognize and thank them for their
service to Canada, to peace and to democracy, and I am humbled to do so today.  Thanks and well
done Sergeant Tower.

(....)

Juno Beach Centre 


Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Juno Beach Interpretation
Centre in Normandy, France is an excellent facility that commemorates the role and the sacrifice
of Canada's military during the second world war.  A group of World War II veterans formed the
Juno Beach Association and with their president, Garth Webb, they were the driving force behind
the creation of the centre.  It is acknowledged as a forum for learning and building awareness
of the role of Canada in the world.  Increased demand has created financial challenges for the
centre. What is the government doing to assist in the operation of the only facility in Europe
where Canada commemorates the second world war?

Hon. Greg Thompson (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance
to pay tribute to our veterans, the corporate citizens and more than 18,000 individual Canadian
donors who made the Juno Beach Centre a reality. They were determined to have a lasting memorial
to honour the men and women who made remarkable efforts during the second world war. The centre
was built on the Normandy coast.  Today, at Lester Pearson Catholic High School, the Prime Minister
and I had a chance to recognize veterans like Garth Webb and, to show our unwavering support, we
announced $5 million in funding over the next decade so the Juno Beach Centre will never again be
in jeopardy.

(....)

From Hansard (Senate), 15 Feb 07

(....)

National Defence

Cost of Recruitment Advertising

Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like to
continue with the questions concerning advertising asked yesterday of the minister. Can the
minister tell us the total cost of the recruitment advertising campaign for the Canadian Forces
this year?

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I would like to
remind senators of rule 24(1), which states:  When the Speaker calls the Question Period, a
Senator may, without notice, address an oral question to:  (a) the Leader of the Government
in the Senate, if it is a question relating to public affairs, (b) a Senator who is a Minister
of the Crown, if it is a question relating to his ministerial responsibility, or (c) the
Chairman of a committee, if it is a question relating to the activities of that committee.  In
this case, the question is for the minister, and she is not here at present.


Industry

Purchase of Military Aircraft from Boeing Company—Regional Spinoffs

Hon. Francis Fox: Honourable senators, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and pertains to the awarding of the contract for the C17 aircraft about
which we spoke a while ago. Could Minister of Public Works and Government Services enlighten
a number of observers and analysts in this country on the value of this contract's economic
spinoffs?  The figure of $3.4 billion in economic spinoffs has been mentioned, but then the
$1.6 billion maintenance contract was awarded to the U.S. Air Force. Rather than this contract
going to Montreal or Winnipeg, it has been awarded to the U.S. Air Force and the contract value
is reduced to $1.8 billion. The engines for these aircraft will be purchased in the United States,
which does not help Canada's aerospace industry. In the end, we have a contract worth only
$800 million.  The analysts at Le Devoir, Mr. Sansfaçon among them, and Quebec union leaders,
including Mr. Massé, are wondering about the actual spinoffs from this contract. The government,
of course, refuses to say whether there will be spinoffs for specific regions.  There are doubts
about the real economic spinoffs for the Montreal region. Could the minister shed some light on
this matter for all Canadians because it seems that he is the only one who understands what
these significant economic spinoffs are for this region, when others see them going elsewhere,
especially to the United States.

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cite rule 24.1.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the question was for the minister.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I could also cite the Speaker's recent ruling of
October 19, 2006.

Senator Fox: Point of order.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The Speaker's ruling confirms the point of order with
respect to questions addressed to a minister. This time I really did hear Senator Fox
pose a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The minister
is in the chamber and may choose to answer or not.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, the question was directed to the Minister for
Public Works, but the question had more to do with Industry Canada. Since the question
was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it is a question that has to do with
national defence, and those questions, as you know, are directed to the Leader of the
Government in the Senate on behalf of the departments.

Senator Fox: Your Honour, I will repeat the question. The question was directed squarely
at Canada's Minister of Public Works and Government Services. He signed the contract as
the minister responsible for public works and it is as such that the question was asked
of him. To not answer it would be an affront to Parliament.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I want to remind you of rule 24(1):
When the Speaker calls the Question Period, a Senator may, without notice, address an
oral question:  (a) to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, if it is a question
relating to public affairs, (b) to a Senator who is a Minister of the Crown, if it is a
question relating to his ministerial responsibility, or (c) the Chair of a committee...
This is what we have done until now. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is
not in the chamber at the moment. The minister has the choice to respond or not.

(....)
 
From 23 April, 2007 (My apologies for missing so much time.  Course will do that to you)  :salute:

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, today's Globe and Mail raises shocking allegations about the treatment of Canada's Afghan detainees, including savage beatings, electrocution and extreme cold.
    Before the Prime Minister smears those who dare raise questions about our mission in Afghanistan, he might consider the simple question on the minds of Canadians today: Are these detainees being tortured?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, obviously we are aware of these allegations. In fact, very recently, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government signed a new detainee transfer agreement with the government of Afghanistan, with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.
    Obviously, officials of our government will be following up these allegations with officials of the government of Afghanistan. What we will not do is what the Leader of Opposition suggested earlier, that we bring Taliban prisoners to Canada. That will not be the position of this government.
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will certainly say that, as things stand at present, we cannot turn detainees over to the Afghan authorities. Even the chair of the Afghan independent human rights commission has said that his agency is unable to monitor the treatment of Afghan detainees.
    How can the Prime Minister be sure the local authorities will honour the Geneva Convention?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, we recently signed a new detainee transfer agreement with the Afghan government. We are going to hold talks with the Afghan authorities to monitor progress and make sure the new standards are met.
    At the same time, we are not going to consider the proposal made by the leader of the Liberal Party to bring Taliban prisoners here to Canada.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, in that case, we will have to keep them under our control in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister cannot tell Canadians that he will continue to turn human beings over to the Afghan government as things stand now.
    As for his Minister of National Defence, first he tells us that the Red Cross will monitor the treatment of detainees. Then, he tells us that the Afghan independent human rights commission will do the monitoring. But the commission says that it is unable to do so. And now, despite these statements, there are more and more signs that detainees are being tortured.
    Will the Prime Minister demand that his Minister of National Defence resign?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, these are serious allegations, and the government takes them seriously.
[English]
    Once again, we take such allegations seriously. That is why we have concluded an agreement with the Afghan government. It is why we will be in discussions with them to pursue this matter and to ensure that they have the capacity to undertake their terms of the agreement.
    At the same time, I am not sure precisely what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting. We are not going to bring Taliban prisoners to Canada.
    As for the Minister of National Defence, his job is to make sure our forces in Afghanistan have the tools needed to do their job, and he is doing that job.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, first the Minister of National Defence said that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission would guarantee the treatment of detainees. The minister must have known that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has no capacity to do any such thing. Then the House leader said that the government had given the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission $1 million to carry out its duties. The government had done no such thing and CIDA had to contradict them.
    This is just one part of a staggering picture of misinformation and mismanagement. What is being done now to get the situation under control?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    In fact, Mr. Speaker, as the deputy leader of the Liberal Party knows, the government has signed a new agreement.
    The previous Liberal government had an agreement in place that has proven to be inadequate despite the Liberals' assurance, and despite what the deputy leader of the Liberal Party himself said last year. He said:
    I have been in places of Afghan detention myself and have seen the work that the International Committee of the Red Cross does, and I believe it is the best guarantee of their safety and freedom from abuse.

    He gave that assurance himself.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, I have been in Afghan places of detention and I have no confidence in the capacity of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to protect prisoners.
[Translation]
    They were beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked, electrocuted. These are very serious allegations, and Canada's honour is at stake.
    When will the Prime Minister replace his incompetent Minister of National Defence with a minister who can make sure our allies and Canada itself respect the Geneva Convention?
[English] 
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that our forces in Afghanistan treat the detainees with proper care. They follow all the rules.
    We have made a recent agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and it has guaranteed that it will report to us any abuses of any detainees we transfer. I have the personal assurance of the leader of the human rights commission in Kandahar and the national level.

Afghanistan   
  Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, the revelations concerning torture victims in Afghanistan are positively appalling and Canadians are very concerned about this. The NDP raised this issue a year ago. Afghan authorities use torture in order to mentally and physically break their victims.
    Will the government finally do the right thing, which is to immediately put an end to the transfer of prisoners, launch a public inquiry and dismiss the Minister of National Defence today?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, we take these rumours seriously. We are asking our officials to investigate this with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and with the Afghan officials.
    I might remind the member for Toronto—Danforth that we recently had an agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. It has promised to advise us if any of our detainees are abused.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the Prime Minister was enumerating the responsibilities of the Minister of National Defence. He forgot to mention that one of his responsibilities is to ensure that Canada is abiding by international law.
    The fact is the minister has, by his own admission, misled the House. He stated himself that it was his responsibility to ensure that transferees were handled properly at our end and at the Afghan end.
    Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and instruct his Minister of National Defence to stop the transfer of prisoners now and get a full inquiry going, and then ask for his resignation?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, we have the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission which has the authority to go into the Afghan system. It will advise us of any abuses. We said that we would provide any logistics support it needs to carry out that function and that is our stand.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back.
    The Minister of National Defence recently said that Canadian troops could stay in Afghanistan for over a decade. Additionally, last week he confirmed that cabinet has not even discussed this issue.
    For months the government has given confused and conflicting messages about the Afghanistan mission. Will it now be clear with Canadians and support the Liberal motion that establishes 2009 as the end of our combat role in Afghanistan?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the member alleges things that I never said. I said that the current military commitment is at the end of February 2009.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians and our allies deserve a clear and honest answer on when Canada's combat duties in southern Afghanistan will end.
    Tomorrow there is a vote on the Liberal motion that gives the government an opportunity to be straightforward for a change and yet all we hear from the minister is rhetoric.
    The question is not one of support for our troops. We all support them and their good work. The question is, will the minister do the right thing and commit to end Canada's combat role in Kandahar in 2009 and inform NATO allies of this deadline immediately?
  Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the opportunity to welcome the hon. member back. We are all delighted to see that he is looking in good health.
    As I said last week in answer to this question, the government's position is clear. Our allies, the international community, the Afghan government, nobody is asking us to make a decision on 2009 this week.
    I have to say that only the Liberal Party would consider a clear position to be a position that we must withdraw two years from now right away.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, this minority Conservative government has never been clear about the mission in Afghanistan and has never bothered to think about when or how this mission will end.
    The Minister of National Defence now says that the Canadian Forces could pull out on the condition that the Afghan forces double their size, which seems very unlikely to occur by 2009.
    Will the minister finally admit that he has no intention of pulling the Canadian Forces out of Afghanistan in 2009?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, our position is that the military commitment is until the end of February 2009. At an appropriate time our government will discuss any possible changes to that commitment.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to be completely inconsistent when it comes to Afghanistan.
    The minister says one day that we are not at war and then says the exact opposite the next. One day, he says we are in Afghanistan to exact revenge, and the next day, he says we are there to beat the Taliban. In the past, he has said that we would not beat them with military force.
    Given that the equipment recently purchased will not arrive in Afghanistan until a few months before 2009, will the Minister of National Defence finally admit his secret intention to extend the mission in Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about flip-floppers, they are over there. The Leader of the Opposition voted against the extension in Afghanistan; now he supports it. Members over there are flip-flopping all the time. They are the ones who have no consistent position. That party has had three positions in the last year.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, last March we pointed out the dangers of turning over prisoners to the Afghan authorities. In April, we took it a step further and referred to a report by the U.S. State Department, which listed all the corrupt practices found in Afghan prisons.
    What has the Minister done since then? Nothing, even though a colonel responsible for human rights in the Afghan forces stated, “In some cases, individuals have to be tortured, otherwise they do not talk”.
    In light of such serious accusations, the minister did nothing. There is only one thing for him to do—resign.
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, in fact, our government has done something. We have signed an agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and it has promised to inform us of any abuses of detainees in its system. This is a unique agreement that only Canada has.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, Canada's representatives advised the prisoners to provide true information in order to avoid being mistreated. Even the Minister of Public Safety was informed of this on his last visit to Kandahar.
    Why did the Minister of National Defence not take action sooner? What is the Prime Minister waiting for to ask for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence?
[English]
 
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. It will inform us of any abuses in the system.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence no longer has the credibility to manage this department. He has been hiding the truth for several months.
    My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will he assume his responsibilities and does he intend to take action so that Canada will stop transferring prisoners to the Afghan authorities until such time as he has negotiated a new agreement that guarantees the safety of prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, as has been stated a number of times already by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, Canada does take its responsibilities very seriously. These allegations that have been published today have not been confirmed by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.
    We are looking into the issue. I fully intend to take this up with my counterpart. Other officials will be consulted as well. Canada will continue to do its best to see that definitively Afghan prisoners are not tortured nor abused.
[Translation]
  Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot get out of this one because he is responsible for the application of international treaties. Other countries, the Netherlands in particular, have succeeded in ensuring the safety of prisoners. I would like to remind you that Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Convention against torture.
    Will the minister undertake to do everything possible to stop the transfer of prisoners until he obtains an agreement with guarantees, like those the Netherlands has achieved, to monitor and have access to prisoners no matter where they are in Afghanistan?
     
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I said that the Government of Canada still intends to work with the other countries and participants in this agreement. Obviously we still need to research the information and consult with the other countries and other people, particularly those from the government of Afghanistan.

 
From 24 April, 2007:

Afghanistan  ​
 
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, last month—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
The Speaker:   
    Order, please. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor. We want to be able to hear his question.
[Translation]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff:   
    Mr. Speaker, last month, the Minister of National Defence went to Kandahar to look the head of the Afghan Human Rights Commission straight in the eyes.
    Yesterday, he told this House that the Commission “has the authority to go into the Afghan system”. Today, we learn that their people cannot even set foot there.
    Why does this government refuse to immediately stop transferring prisoners until an assessment is done?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that our government and our forces in Afghanistan are in communication with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. We are continuing to offer all possible assistance. Until now, we did not have the information that is being reported today in the papers. If there are problems, the government will work with the independent Afghan commission to solve them.
[English]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):   
    So, Mr. Speaker, the transfers will not be stopped. That is unacceptable.
    We have heard from minister after minister that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission will monitor prisoners transferred by Canada. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that the government would “ensure that they have the capacity to undertake their terms of the agreement”, but this is ridiculous.
    The Afghan commission has seven staff and no access to prisons. Why did the Prime Minister not ensure that the commission had this capacity before signing the agreement and before telling the House, on countless occasions, that it could do the job?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, once again, our officials are in ongoing communication with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. We have offered any help that is necessary. We are not at the moment told of the problems that have been reported in the papers today. Obviously, if there are such problems, we will act.
    However, we have an arrangement. We are working on that. We believe we are moving forward on the arrangement.
    I can say once again for the hon. member, the suggestion by his leader that we would bring Taliban prisoners to Canada is not the position this government would take. We are in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from coming to Canada.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, so the transfers go on. Once again, it is unacceptable.
    The government's handling of the whole affair has been disgraceful. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence do not seem to understand that the honour of Canada is at stake. We need to ensure that our military uphold the best traditions it has always upheld, of complying with the Geneva convention.
    There is no conceivable reason to keep this mission under the control of a minister who does not seem to know which way is up. Will the Prime Minister stop this sickening charade and fire that Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, once again, as I said, officials from the Government of Canada and from the military are in constant communication with not just the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, but with other agencies of the Government of Afghanistan to ensure that the arrangements are being respected. If they are not being respected, we will obviously act.
    However, I should say this. I think what is disgraceful is to simply accept the allegations of some Taliban suspects at face value. That is not appropriate for a Canadian member of Parliament. I will tell the House what else is inappropriate, the position of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party who said that he—
The Speaker:   
    The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the government cannot skate around this question. It is the government's duty to inform Canadians immediately.
    What is the status of Afghan prisoners? How many have been transferred? What is their current situation? Have they been tortured, yes or no, and is there any risk of torture? Canada's reputation is at stake. It is time the minister answered the questions Canadians are asking.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, there are some serious allegations. At the same time, we are working with the Afghan government and the Afghan independent human rights commission to ensure that such things do not happen.
[English]
    Mr. Speaker, what I do have to say, and you did not give me a chance to say it, is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said that he favoured “indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war”. Those are the exact words of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party. Those are not the positions of the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:   
    Order, please. The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. We will have a little order.

Hon. Lucienne Robillard: 
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister remains true to form. He has never been able to take responsibility for his own actions. He is being asked some very simple questions here today. Since the Conservative government signed the new agreement, what has been happening to detainees and prisoners? Has anyone visited them? In what conditions are they being held?
    If the Minister of National Defence is incapable of answering some simple questions, why does the Prime Minister continue to place his trust in that minister?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is charged with inspecting the Afghan prisons. If there are difficulties in the Afghan prisons, the commission will inform us. To this date, it has not informed us.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, first the Red Cross was supposedly monitoring the prisoners transferred to the Afghan authorities. That was not true. The minister is now saying that he has concluded an agreement with the Afghan independent human rights commission, which will report to him on the detention conditions of the prisoners. Today we learn that the commission does not have access to all the prisoners, that it lacks resources and that it cannot report to the Minister of National Defence.
    How can the Prime Minister still have confidence in his Minister of National Defence when he is telling us falsehoods about the commission, just like he did with the Red Cross?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, again, I know there is regular contact between the Canadian Forces, the Government of Canada, the government of Afghanistan and the independent commission. To date we have no evidence that supports the allegations. However, I have asked the officers to continue their consultations and to establish whether there is a problem. So far the allegations have not been substantiated.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence described stories of torture as rumours while the Prime Minister, yesterday and today, spoke of serious allegations, and therefore risks. Under the Geneva convention, the transfer of prisoners is prohibited in situations where there is torture, and even in cases where there is a risk of mistreatment.
    In light of these serious allegations, does the Prime Minister realize that he may be asking the troops to break the law and that he is shirking his responsibilities by not respecting the Geneva convention?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces take their responsibilities seriously. That is why we have a new arrangement and that is why they continue to consult the Afghan authorities to ensure that we are assuming our responsibilities. The allegation that the Canadian Forces are shirking their major responsibilities is irresponsible. The Leader of the Bloc Québécois has no evidence of that.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence declared that he had received personal assurances from the representative of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission that all mistreatment of transferred prisoners would be reported to Canada. That same representative also said that he does not have enough staff and that he himself had been refused access to the prisons. That means there is a problem.
    In light of all of these disturbing facts, how can the Prime Minister justify his inaction? Is he aware that the Geneva Convention has been violated and that he is endorsing this treatment of prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, our military officials in the Kandahar area are in regular contact with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission representatives there. They have not raised any issues of abuse. We have offered them all the support with respect to resources or access to the Afghan system if they need it from us.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada said that Canadian prisons in Afghanistan were out of the question.
    If Canada cannot have prisons in Afghanistan, and if it cannot transfer prisoners to Afghan prisons where they will be tortured in violation of the Geneva Convention, what is the Prime Minister planning to do to solve this problem once and for all?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement with the Afghan government. We also have an arrangement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. The way we will operate is we will enforce these arrangements. We will make certain that the Afghans do their part as we do our part.
[Translation]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canada is not well served by a Minister of National Defence who does not have a proper understanding of the Geneva convention, a minister who will say anything to hide his incompetence, a minister who is now asking our troops to continue transferring detainees to torturers or so-called torturers. That is not acceptable.
    When will the Prime Minister put an end to this farce, stop the transfers and fire the minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces are operating and consulting with their Afghan counterparts. They are honouring their commitments and constantly consulting with their counterparts to ensure that we fulfill our obligations.
    Allegations to the effect that we are not living up to our responsibilities are only being made by the Taliban. I do not accept these unfounded Taliban allegations.
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence misled the House again yesterday. He claimed that these allegations were simply rumours and that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission would be responsible for the situation. Now we learn that the head of that commission is barred from going to the prisons.
    What more does it take for the Prime Minister to issue an instruction to his incompetent Minister of National Defence that the transfers should stop now pending the truth? Why will he not stand up and make that instruction today?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Very simply, Mr. Speaker, as I have repeated several times, our forces, the Government of Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs are in constant touch with their Afghan counterparts on these very issues. We do not have evidence that what the hon. member alleges is true.
    To suggest the Canadian Forces would deliberately violate the Geneva convention and to make that suggestion solely based on the allegations of the Taliban is the height of irresponsibility.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): 
    How low can one go, Mr. Speaker?
[Translation]
    Since late 2004 and early 2005, a special team established by Canada's Department of National Defence has been directly advising President Karzai in order to put in place a governance and development monitoring structure in Afghanistan. Sixteen Canadian Forces officers are helping the Afghan government to establish the rule of law. This is far from being a military operation.
    Can the minister confirm that this strategic advisory team—Operation ARGUS—that reports directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff was aware of the situation of the Taliban prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the strategic advisory team in Kabul advised the government on organization. It has explained to the various departments how it gets projects accomplished, how it achieves goals.
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, we will come back to that.
[English]
    There is more evidence that the defence minister is incompetent. We had to learn about the treatment of 30 detainees through the media and not through the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, as the minister assured us we would.
    I again look the minister straight in the eyes. Will the minister admit that he learned about allegations of torture through the media and that his arrangement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is a sham? When will the Minister of National Defence realize that the only way to protect our reputation in the world is to resign?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is in regular contact with our people. If it needs any assistance, we will provide that assistance. To date, it has not asked for any assistance.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, for nearly a year, the Minister of National Defence has misled this House about the role of the Red Cross, insisting that it was responsible for supervising the treatment of detainees transferred to the Afghan authorities.
    When the international Red Cross publicly corrected the minister, he was forced to apologize to this House.
    Could the minister tell Canadians what immediate steps he is taking to verify that detainees captured by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and transferred to Afghan authorities are being properly treated?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, our government has asked a number of officials to contact the various elements of the Afghan government that have to do with detainees to confirm whether there is any truth to the rumours and allegations that are in the media and they will report back to us. If there is any foundation for this, we will be dealing with the Afghan government to ensure that they are corrected.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the minister has repeatedly said that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which has publicly admitted to only having seven staff members and no capacity to monitor prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, is looking after things.
    Once again, the defence minister is either greatly misinformed or is simply misleading this House. The minister was not aware of the role of the Red Cross. He was not aware of the inability of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to do its job. Now he says that he is unable to answer questions about the abuse of detainees.
    Does the Minister of National Defence still have the confidence of the Prime Minister?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:   
    Order, please. The hon. the Minister of National Defence now has the floor to answer the question he was asked. We will have a little order so the member for Kitchener Centre at least can hear the answer.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, both the leaders of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in Kabul and in Kandahar have confirmed that they can do what we have asked them to do. Our people are in constant contact with them and they have not asked for any help. They are on sort of a regular basis meeting with them but they have not asked for any help because they believe they can do what they have been tasked to do.
 
More from 24 April 2007:

Afghanistan​
 
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has been careless with the facts and incompetent when it comes to defending the government's murky foreign policy positions and responding to Canadians' concerns.
    Whether it is the treatment of detainees or the scope and length of Canada's current Afghan mission, in terms of clarity, the government continues to mislead Canadians.
    Last summer, Parliament voted to extend the combat mission to February 2009. Will the Prime Minister respect the results of today's upcoming vote--

The Speaker: 
    The hon. Minister of National Defence.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, our military commitment is to the end of February 2009.

[Translation]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians want straight answers to questions about Canada's international reputation and our troops' involvement in southern Afghanistan.
    When will Canadians finally see a clear plan to end the combat mission?
    Does the Prime Minister plan to wait until it is too late to withdraw our troops from southern Afghanistan before making a decision?
[English]

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, I will be as clear as I can. Our military commitment at the moment is to the end of February 2009.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, the government pressed Parliament into extending the Afghan mission to February 2009. Our motion before the House simply confirms that commitment. However, we know that the government is getting ready to vote against the motion today.
    Why is the government refusing to provide clarity to Canadians and to our troops on an end date for the combat role in Afghanistan?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, we are providing clarity. We support our troops and we support them in their mission and we will provide whatever they need to accomplish their mission.
    Again, the military mission at the moment is committed to the end of February 2009.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, among other things, the Minister of National Defence keeps insisting that the government will pull our troops out in February 2009.
    If this is true, when does he plan on informing our NATO allies that this is the case so they have the time they may need to prepare for the end of our combat role in Afghanistan?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, our military commitment at this moment is to the end of February 2009. I do not know how many times I can say that but I will keep saying it as long as they keep asking.
 
The vote:

Afghanistan   
    The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion.
The Speaker:   
    Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 19, 2007, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Bourassa relating to the business of supply.
[Translation]
    (The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alghabra
André
Asselin
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Barbot
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bevilacqua
Bigras
Blais
Bonin
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Byrne
Cannis
Cardin
Carrier
Chan
Coderre
Cotler
Crête
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cuzner
D'Amours
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Duceppe
Eyking
Faille
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godfrey
Graham
Gravel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Ignatieff
Jennings
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Karygiannis
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lavallée
LeBlanc
Lee
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
MacAulay
Malhi
Malo
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Matthews
McCallum
McGuinty
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Merasty
Minna
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Neville
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Peterson
Plamondon
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Scarpaleggia
Sgro
Silva
Simard
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Thibault (West Nova)
Tonks
Turner
Valley
Vincent
Wappel
Wilfert
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 134
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Angus
Arthur
Baird
Batters
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Benoit
Bernier
Bevington
Black
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blaney
Boucher
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrie
Casey
Casson
Charlton
Chong
Chow
Christopherson
Clement
Comartin
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cummins
Davidson
Davies
Day
Del Mastro
Dewar
Doyle
Dykstra
Emerson
Epp
Fast
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Godin
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Julian
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Layton
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Manning
Mark
Marston
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Mayes
McDonough
Menzies
Merrifield
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nash
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Paradis
Petit
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Priddy
Rajotte
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Savoie
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Siksay
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
Stanton
Stoffer
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Trost
Tweed
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Verner
Wallace
Warawa
Warkentin
Wasylycia-Leis
Watson
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 150
PAIRED
Members
Bellavance
Bezan
Devolin
Finley
Lalonde
Picard
Total: -- 6
The Speaker:   
    I declare the motion lost.

 
From 25 April 2007:
Afghanistan    
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):  
   Mr. Speaker, the government was told by its own officials that Afghan detainees face a high risk of torture and extrajudicial executions. However, yesterday the Prime Minister told this House that he had no evidence at all to support these allegations.
   Why did the Prime Minister hide from Canadians the fact that he had received this damning report?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should know that annual reports on governance, democratic development and human rights have been prepared by our embassy in Afghanistan since 2002. They document general concerns and the various actions that the government and its officials are taking to deal with those concerns.
   We have no evidence of the specific allegations that appeared this week in the The Globe and Mail but, obviously, as I have indicated, we take any such allegations seriously. Officials are working with their Afghan counterparts and, I am told, receiving full cooperation in getting facts.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):    
   I have some questions, Mr. Speaker.
   Who told foreign affairs officials to release only positive sections of this report? Who told them to black out those sections that warned about these potential abuses? Who told officials to deny the very existence of this report on human rights issues in Afghanistan? Was it the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence or the Prime Minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, I wondered how long it would be until we got the conspiracy theories going but here is the reality.
    The Leader of the Opposition, who is a former minister of the Crown, knows the process. The process is very simple. When it comes to access to information, these decisions are made by government lawyers. They do not consult politicians or ministers. They act according to the law and their decisions can always be appealed through the Information Commissioner.
   I have to note that the previous government received reports since 2002 and some of these problems had no policy on detainees until January 2006.
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):  
   Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has repeatedly told this House that the government had no information about any abuse Afghan detainees might have been subjected to. We now have proof that this was not true.
   The Prime Minister no longer has any choice. Will he finally fire his Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, as I have just said and have said on many occasions this week, we have heard these allegations. We always take these allegations seriously. That is not the same thing as assuming that every allegation made by the Taliban is true. We are, however, consulting with our partners in Afghanistan and, so far, we have had full cooperation in finding the facts.
[English]
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  
   Mr. Speaker, first, there is no proof that these detainees were Taliban and, second, it is impossible to believe the government did not know.
   We now have a report by officials warning the Conservative government of torture, abuse and murder in those prisons. After first denying the existence of the report, the document was released with disturbing sentences blacked out.
   Who among the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs saw the report and, above all, who ordered the cover-up?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered the question on the process. I suppose the deputy leader of the Liberal Party who has not been in government does not understand the access to information process.
   As the member knows, this is a general report prepared for the last five years on some of the challenges in Afghanistan and some of the actions taken. I want to quote another section of the report which also said:
--judges and prosecutors are being trained, more defendants are receiving legal representation, courthouses and prisons are being built or refurbished and the capacity of the permanent justice institutions has been enhanced.
   We are not under any illusion about the big challenges in Afghanistan but progress is being made.
[Translation]
 Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):  
   Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has told us repeatedly that the Afghan commission could deal with this issue, but the commission itself admits that it cannot do so. He has told us that the government had no evidence of abuse, but we now know that he had an internal report confirming such abuse. This is a scary tale of incompetence and deceit.
   When will the Prime Minister assume his responsibilities and dismiss his disgraced minister?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, military leaders in Afghanistan are constantly in contact with their counterparts and with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. So far, they have not indicated to us that they have encountered these problems. Of course, we made it clear that we are there to help to any extent necessary.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  
   Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said he did not have any evidence to substantiate the allegations that Afghan prisoners have been tortured. The Minister of National Defence told us a number of times that everything was going very well, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs said he had confidence in the Minister of National Defence.
   This morning we learn that a report prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs confirms that executions and torture are commonplace in Afghanistan. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville, special advisor on the Middle East, suggested in a press release that this was part of Afghan culture.
   How can the Prime Minister minimize such things and be so irresponsible?
   
   Mr. Speaker, these reports have been prepared annually since 2002. There are many challenges to governance, democracy building and human rights in Afghanistan. This is a general report that also contains the actions taken by the governments in response to these problems. We will continue to work with our departments and agencies to ensure progress.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  
   Mr. Speaker, since April 2006, the Bloc Québécois has asked 36 questions about the fate of the Afghan prisoners. Each time we were told falsehoods—the Red Cross?false; the independent human rights commission? false. Now we are being told about senior officials, but this is being minimized: the report is not important. His so called special advisor on the Middle East says this is part of the culture.
   Does he realize that the reports from these senior officials are causing Canada to violate the Geneva convention? Does he realize the position the Prime Minister is putting Canada in?
    (1430)  
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that the purpose of this report is to minimize the challenges in Afghanistan. On the contrary, this report admits that there are many challenges to governance, democracy building and human rights. Furthermore, there is a report on the actions taken by the ministers, the departments and the officers in response to these problems, and these efforts continue.
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):  
   Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Foreign Affairs told this House that he was looking into this issue and that the allegations of torture had not been confirmed. Yet, we now know that he had a copy of the report in his possession and that it was senior officials from his own department who informed him of the matter.
   How could the minister cover up evidence on Monday concerning the allegations, when we now know that he had received the report from his own senior officials?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, the truth is that I did not have the report in hand. I have since reviewed the report.
   Having said that, of course we take these matters extremely seriously and I communicated that to the ambassador from Afghanistan. We have asked that officials look into these allegations immediately and if in fact this practice is in place that it cease immediately and that they send in officials specifically trained to get to the bottom of this. He has assured me that process is under way.
[Translation]
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):    
   Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit here in this House that he and his fellow ministers deliberately hid the existence of that report? Why did he and his fellow ministers, when asked about this matter, fail to inform the House? Will he admit that he and the other ministers knowingly hid the truth, not only from the public, but also here in this House?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, that is patently false. These reports are received, reviewed and redacted in exactly the same fashion as they have since 2002. The previous government went through the same process.
   There are lawyers and officials in all departments who make these decisions independent of the political branch of government.
   There were no ministers and certainly the Prime Minister was not involved in any redaction and decisions made as to what information was to be redacted in the reports.
[Translation]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  
   Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear: the government knew what was happening to detainees who were transferred. The secret documents are not Taliban documents; they are Department of Foreign Affairs documents published in the Globe and Mail. They confirm that extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are commonplace.
   They know about this. Why does the government not stop transferring detainees to situations where they will face torture?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):    
   Mr. Speaker, Canadian military personnel do not send prisoners into situations where they will face torture or anything like that. The NDP's allegation is unfounded.
[English]
 
Continued....



Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, brushing off these allegations in such a casual manner by the Prime Minister is simply not acceptable and is not in line with the responsibilities that he has as the leader of this country with respect to the Geneva conventions and other matters.
    What he should be doing is firing his incompetent Minister of National Defence. What he should be doing is stopping other ministers or any other officials from blackening out government documents that tell the truth. What he should also be doing is stopping the transfer of prisoners that could be going into torture this very day.
    Will he do it or will he deny his responsibilities?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, these are serious allegations and we treat them seriously.
    A full level of consultation is going on, both from here and on the ground in Afghanistan, to determine the facts and to determine whether there is any basis for any of these allegations.
    At the same time, the leader of the NDP likes to talk about responsibilities but he has no evidence. There is no evidence at all that anyone in the government has the ability to black out reports.
    At the same time, he also accuses the Canadian military of somehow violating the Geneva convention. He does not have proof of that and he should take his responsibilities seriously and not make such accusations.
    (1435) 
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his government knew about the reality of Afghan prisons and they chose to hide the truth from Canadians. It is impossible that he did not know of the foreign affairs report from his own government which states that “extrajudicial executions and torture” are common in Afghanistan.
    Did the foreign affairs minister ever read his own department's report or was he wilfully blind? When, if ever, did he tell the defence minister?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as has been previously stated by the Prime Minister, these reports have not materially changed since 2002. The same practice is in place.
    They are a general report about the situation on the ground with respect to positive and negative situations as they exist. They are used for the purposes of government to adjust their capacity building exercise in Afghanistan with other countries.
    These reports are made available. These reports are done for the purposes of giving Canada the capacity to help Afghanistan in that mission to the best of its ability.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the minister does not know about it? That is unbelievable.
[Translation]
    Canadian diplomats are not the only ones who have sounded the alarm about detainees being tortured by Afghan authorities. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, also considers torture to be a violation of human rights. The Prime Minister and his government chose to ignore Ms. Arbour's comments on the subject.
    Why did the Minister of National Defence choose to act as though the High Commissioner had not said anything, and why is he, even now, transferring prisoners. Will he resign?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, at the heart of all these questions is a suggestion that our military will knowingly hand prisoners over to torture. This is an aspersion on the Canadian Forces. Our Canadian Forces operate at the highest level of conduct and I stand by their actions.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, somebody said once that the first casualty when war comes is the truth. It is very difficult for me to stand here on behalf of Canadians and listen to the gibberish that froths from the mouth of the Minister of National Defence.
    The minority Conservative government has misled the House and Canadians. Why has the defence minister allowed the situation to worsen? Foreign Affairs originally said the report did not exist. Now we know it does.
    Did the Prime Minister's Office order the document erased? When will the Prime Minister erase the Minister of National Defence from his portfolio?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear. No one has denied that reports exist. There was a general application for all reports.
    I just heard something in the House from a former finance minister, who has called the Minister of National Defence a chicken. This is a man who has served his country in uniform for over 30 years.
    The only thing that member has led is an army of carpetbaggers and fundraisers.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
The Speaker:   
    Order, please. The hon. member for Bourassa.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Speaker: Order, please.
[English]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, that comes from somebody who called a member of this House a dog. I am impressed.
[Translation]
    Canadians are involved in every aspect of the Afghan government. Through his strategic advisory team, the minister has a direct connection to President Karzai. He is working with the police, the prison system and the justice system. He has a team of Correctional Service of Canada officers, who are experts in human rights, working on the ground. They can tell him everything he wants to know about the situation in Kandahar. He even has his own intelligence service.
    Why the cover-up? Why does he want to—
The Speaker:   
    The hon. Minister of National Defence.
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as the member previously said, the first casualty in these kinds of games is the truth, and he is the first casualty.
    The military's strategic advisory team in Kabul is a team that advises on how to organize government and how to achieve objectives. It does not get involved in the justice system.
    The other suspicion or suggestion the member is making is about cover-ups, and a cover-up means that the military is somehow involved in not identifying abuses. I reject this completely.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr.  Speaker, while the Minister of National Defence had a damning report from the Department of External Affairs that talked about torture, summary executions and arbitrary detentions, the Minister of National Defence continued to spew rhetoric about trusting completely the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Now we are told that no one saw this report. The Minister of Foreign Affairs did not see it. The Prime Minister did not see it. The Minister of National Defence did not see it. That is a bit much.
    If they did not see it, how could they have censored it?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated very clearly, these reports have been done in the same form and fashion. They have been reviewed and redacted in the same way since 2002.
    The interesting point to make with all the chatter coming from the members opposite is that when the Liberals were in government they had no policy on detainees until one month before they left office.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is not the only one who does not know what is going on and who is attempting to mislead this House. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister himself are misleading this House.
    Does the minister still have enough of a conscience to realize that by remaining silent, when he had such a report in his hands, he lost the little credibility he had left? The minister knows what a code of honour is. Will he respect his code of honour and immediately tender his resignation?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, these reports clearly state that there are positive and obviously negative areas within the Afghanistan capacity to deal with not only detainees but areas of development and areas of security.
    That has been the case since 2002 when this reporting process was put in place. We use those reports, as did the previous government, to determine how we can assist in the building of capacity in Afghanistan. That has not changed.
    What will change is that we will be accountable. We will speak directly with Afghan authorities to see that the positive changes that have to take place do in fact occur.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, with today's disclosures we have proof that Canada violated the Geneva convention. The Prime Minister must face the facts: this report was not written by the Taliban but by senior officials at Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs.
    Does the Prime Minister intend to announce the only possible solution in these circumstances, which is to immediately stop transferring prisoners to the Afghan authorities?
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, what simplistic thinking to suggest somehow that Canada is in violation of international obligations or the Geneva convention. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    We are taking action. We are working directly and collaboratively with Afghan authorities to see that this situation is remedied. We will do so based on actual factual information in our possession, not on allegations made by the Taliban and not on allegations made by the Bloc Québécois.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, there are limits. In light of this report, Canada is clearly violating the Geneva convention, not only because there is torture but also because there is the risk of torture.
    The Prime Minister has two options: either he defends the indefensible by violating the Geneva convention, or he shows responsibility and some humility by admitting that he was wrong and stops right now the transfer of prisoners.
[English]
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the report says no such thing.
    I have spoken directly with Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada. I have advised him of our concerns with respect to those sections of the report. I have indicated to him that we expect word back from them as to the facts they have. We indicated quite clearly what we expect, that if any practice such as alleged is taking place, it cease immediately and changes be made to remedy that.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, international law, including the Geneva convention, expressly prohibits the transfer of detainees into situations of torture and inhumane treatment. There is clear evidence of such torture and inhumane treatment. Indeed, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has not only corroborated these allegations but has acknowledged that it cannot monitor, let alone protect, the detainees.
    Will the Canadian government abide by its international obligations and cease and desist from these transfers, in the interests also of protecting our own soldiers, of protecting the integrity of our mission and of protecting--
The Speaker:   
    The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, obviously it is in everyone's interest that the Afghan government comply with its international obligations, with its own law, and with all obligations as they pertain to human rights. That is exactly what the Canadian government and in fact all NATO allies are attempting to do in working with the Afghan government to build the capacity, both in prisons and with respect to their Afghan national army and policing.
    That does not happen overnight. That member, more than anyone, should know that the strides and progress that have been made in Afghanistan are extraordinary.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, international law not only prohibits the transfer of detainees to conditions of torture, but requires that the government take all necessary measures to protect detainees already transferred or to have them returned into our protective custody.
    Since it is clear that those already transferred have been tortured and since the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has acknowledged that it cannot protect them, will the government secure their protection, or will it continue to be soft on compliance with international law, soft on detainee protection, and soft on protecting the rights of our own Canadian soldiers?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:   
    Order. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor. A question has been asked and he has the right to respond.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, members of the Canadian military are in constant communication with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and with their other counterparts in Afghanistan to assure themselves that the allegations the hon. member makes are not the case. We do that at other levels, at the level of corrections, and also at the level of foreign affairs.
    Any suggestion that the hon. member or other members have that the Canadian military is deliberately violating the Geneva convention is false and without any foundation.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government claims not to have known about the abuse of detainees, dismissing them as Taliban rumours, but foreign affairs knew, Madam Justice Louise Arbour knew, the Afghan government knew, and Corrections Canada, with officials on the ground, knew. Even the Prime Minister's floor-crossing personal adviser to Afghanistan knew.
    How is it that the only people claiming ignorance sit on the Conservative frontbench?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as a member of the previous government, the hon. member would know that these reports are routinely returned to officials. These reports are used for the basis of determining what progress needs to be made, what areas are lacking, and how to go about building that capacity. These reports are done to gauge the advancements that are made in human rights and to find the shortcomings and then address them.
    We have spoken directly with the Afghan government about this situation. We intend to have a full report back to us.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has a history of misleading the House.
    The government refuses to ensure international law is respected and it is putting Canada's international reputation at risk. When will the government admit that once again it has misled Canadians on the issue of Afghan detainees? When will the Prime Minister fire his incompetent Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the mission, this government, like the previous government I would expect, has regularly raised concerns about capacity building and human rights issues. We continue to do that.
    Reports such as this are used generally to make policy. The specific allegations here are being examined closely. They will be looked into in Afghanistan. They will be gauged for future consideration. This is an attempt by the government to point out its own shortcomings.
    When we examine the fact that those members did not have an agreement in place on the transfer of detainees, they are trying to detract from their own shortcomings.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, 30 years after the immoral war in Vietnam, Canada must make a moral choice to give refuge to people who refuse to be accomplices in the American war in Iraq. I have the honour to table a petition with a thousand signatures of people in my region who are calling on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to review its policy on war objectors and allow them to obtain refugee status in Canada.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Broadcasting Act ​

    The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): 
    The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion.
*  *  *
    And the Clerk having announced the result of the vote:

Mr. Mark Warawa: 
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I thought we were calling the vote for those opposed so I voted twice. I vote in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Colin Carrie: 
    Mr. Speaker, I would also like to register my vote as opposed.

Mr. Brian Jean: 
    Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but for five seconds I was confused, as the Liberals have been about Afghanistan for five years. I wish to register my vote in opposition as well.
----------------------------------------------------------
 
From 26 April 2007:

Privilege ​
 
Ministers' Responses Regarding Afghanistan   
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, this morning I gave the appropriate notice to the Speaker with regard to a matter of a question of a breach of privilege in relation to the whole matter of Afghanistan and more specifically with regard to Afghan detainees.
    There can be no question about the confusion of the House in this matter. I believe there appears to be some indication that the misinformation to the House may have been deliberate and in fact has breached my privileges and those of other members of Parliament.
    I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Marleau and Montpetit at page 66, in which it refers to the issues of privilege and contempt. It states:
    Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions;....
    I also had an opportunity to look at Erskine May, at page 144, which repeats much the same information and guide for members. It does say, though, that “the Members or its officers” must be free “from improper obstruction or...interference with the performance of their respective functions”.
    There can be no question about the issue of Afghanistan, the recent deaths of nine of our soldiers and the allegations with regard to the torture, coercive interrogation and in fact execution of Canadian prisoners turned over to Afghan authorities. Yesterday in question period there were 23 questions posed in the House with regard to this matter.
    The Prime Minister answered 10 of those questions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered 11 of those questions, and the Minister of National Defence, who is the principal responsible for this matter, answered only two questions. In fact, I noted in Hansard--I will not quote it, but members and the Chair can certainly look at the responses given--it was basically deny, deny, deny from all those who provided answers to the questions of parliamentarians.
    When Parliament is told that all is well, there is no cause for concern and there is no evidence of problems with detainees, members of Parliament must take that at its face. We operate here on the premise of the presumption of honesty. That involves not only what is said, but it also must, I argue, relate to what is not said.
    Mr. Speaker, you will know that within an hour of the end of question period the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs had before it the Minister of National Defence. I was not there. I did observe on news reports, but it is also reported in a print publication, and I would like to read into the record what transpired. The article states:
    The Minister of National Defence yesterday announced Canada had struck a new deal to monitor Afghan detainees, but the existence of the arrangement appeared to catch the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Chief of the Defence staff [Mr. Hillier] by surprise.
    It goes on to say:
    [The defence minister] made what appeared to be an improvised announcement of the new detainee-monitoring deal after intense questioning at the Commons foreign affairs committee.
    It states that he said at committee:
    Within the last few days we have basically made an arrangement with the government in the Kandahar province so that we can have access to our detainees. So henceforth, our military, but it can be anybody, can have access to our detainees.
    This is not information that was disclosed to Parliament during direct questioning in question period just an hour before.
    In fact, the Prime Minister, in answering 10 questions, and the foreign affairs minister, in answering 11 questions, made no mention and gave no indication, but simply continued to deny that the allegations were true and that there was any problem.
    I believe that the House, I as a member of Parliament and all members of Parliament in fact have had their privileges breached. When questions are asked directly of the government on matters of national importance to all Canadians, Parliament is entitled to receive information directly.
    What should happen?
    Not only did the minister make some detailed disclosures within committee, but then after the committee meeting when he was chased down the halls and was cornered in an elevator, he gave another account of details with regard to this apparent deal.
    There is a contradiction. There is an apparent cover-up. It may, in fact, as far as I can see, involve dishonesty. It may involve contempt. It may involve incompetence. It also may be all three.
    It is my view that we need to have this matter fully aired and that Parliament should be advised of what was the truth. Parliament was not given the full information. It was deny, deny, deny, when in fact the Prime Minister must have known. The foreign affairs minister must have known. The Chief of the Defence Staff must have known.
    But it seems, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Defence is alleging that he is the only one who knew of this deal. He said it was several days ago. I take him at his word. If it was several days ago, he has had the opportunity all week to make that representation to Parliament to allay the fears of Canadians and to represent the best interests of the Canadian military.
    Mr. Speaker, if you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I am prepared to make the necessary motion.
The Deputy Speaker:   
    The government may wish to respond now, or if it did not have notice of the motion it may wish to respond at another time. The Chair is prepared to reserve judgment. It is up to the government.
 
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):   
    Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me in response to my hon. colleague. I would make a couple of points.
    Number one, we will be making a response to the hon. member's contention of breach of privilege, but I would suggest it is unfortunate that the hon. member did not give adequate notice so we could have had the appropriate ministers on hand to respond today.
    However, I also want to point out to the House and to anyone who may be watching that in response to the hon. member's allegations that the Prime Minister answered 10 questions, the Minister of Foreign Affairs answered 11 questions, and the Minister of National Defence answered only two out of the 23 questions posed by the official opposition, the report in question was a report issued to the Department of Foreign Affairs. So it is only appropriate that the minister responsible for foreign affairs take the majority of the questions.
    The member is trying to imply by his line of questioning that the Minister of National Defence should have been the one standing up and fielding these questions when in fact the very report he is alluding to was a report given to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
    I would suggest that what we have here, quite frankly, is the hon. member playing petty politics with an issue far too important to the lives of our Canadian troops and to the lives of Canadians in general to play this type of partisan politics game in this House.
    We will be responding in due course, but I would suggest to the member opposite that the next time he tries to promote his own partisan politics on an issue of such importance, he do so in a manner that is a little more respectful.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, in brief, I wish to join this debate to support the member for Mississauga South. The Bloc Québécois also has the impression that parliamentary privilege has been breached by the attitude of the Minister of National Defence, who could not have been in the dark about what was happening in Afghan prisons. A report prepared by senior officials at Foreign Affairs and International Trade has been available since 2006. Therefore, it is a question either of incompetence—and in my opinion, of breach of parliamentary privilege—or of hiding the truth. The latter seems more plausible to me.
    This morning in Le Devoir, a journalist spoke of the collective duplicity of the government. For example, after the Bloc Québécois asked 40 questions on what happened to Afghan detainees, we were given the impossible answer that it was all rumours and allegations, even though this report actually does exist.
    The proof that the government and the Minister of National Defence acknowledge that we were right to ask these questions is that we were told yesterday that a verbal agreement with the Afghan authorities on the treatment of Afghan detainees was made between 3 and 4 o'clock.
    Therefore I am also joining the debate and saying that the Minister of National Defence breached parliamentary privilege and therefore I am asking the Speaker to call him to order.
[English]
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports the position that the privileges of the House have indeed been challenged by the behaviour of the minister.
[Translation]
    The situation with respect to the transfer of detainees has now turned into a circus. We must call on the government to deal with this situation.
[English]
    When we have a situation where questions are asked on a specific topic in the House of Commons and only two or three hours later, down the hall in a committee room, we have a minister giving information that is clearly contrary to what happened in the House, every Canadian and every parliamentarian needs to be asking what is going on.
    We support the challenge put before the government to respond. We believe that the privileges of not only the House, but of Canadians, are being violated here. We support the call for such a ruling.
The Deputy Speaker:   
    The government has given notice of its intention to respond at a later date. In any event, the Chair would have taken the question of privilege under advisement and come back with a ruling later, so that is what we will do.
    I thank hon. members for their interventions. We will proceed now to orders of the day.

 
More from 26 April 2007:
Business of Supply   
Opposition Motion—Afghanistan ​
 
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP)   
   
moved:
Whereas,
    (1) all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces;
    (2) the government has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan can not be won militarily;
    (3) the current counter-insurgency mission is not the right mission for Canada;
    (4) the government has neither defined what ‘victory’ would be, nor developed an exit strategy from this counter-insurgency mission;

The entire debate can be seen here:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2874604
therefore this House condemns this government and calls for it to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan; and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and re-double its commitment to reconstruction and development.

 
More from 26 April:

Defence Science​
 

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, today I stand to recognize the 60th anniversary of defence science in Canada.
    In April 1947, the Defence Research Board was established as a single civilian research body within National Defence. The Defence Research Board evolved to become Defence R&D Canada, the research and development agency of the Department of National Defence.
    After 60 years, the work of Defence R&D Canada continues to ensure the safety of our soldiers and the security of our nation.
    Canadians directly benefit from the defence science and technology.
    Our defence scientists created the “Bombsniffer”, used to chemically sniff out hidden explosives. They invented the “Franks Flying Suit”, the world's first anti-gravity suit to prevent pilot blackouts. In 1985, Canadian defence scientists were at the forefront of an incredible technology when they were the first to open an Internet gateway in Canada.
    Today I am proud to pay tribute to the 60th anniversary of defence science in Canada.
 
Question Period, Part I:
ORAL QUESTIONS   
[Translation]
Afghanistan   
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a parliamentary committee, less than one hour after question period, the Minister of National Defence proclaimed that he had made an agreement giving our military access to Afghan detainees.
    Later, he was a little more forthcoming in an elevator, and even later still in a press release.
    Was the Prime Minister aware of this agreement before his Minister of National Defence announced it in such an impromptu and confused manner, and is this a verbal or written agreement?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I have said several times this week that the Leader of the Opposition should get his facts straight before speaking.
    Canadian government officials consulted their counterparts in the Afghan government. The latter did not block access to prisons, as claimed by the Leader of the Opposition. That is a false and irresponsible allegation. He should apologize to the Canadian military.
[English]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, it is even more confusing than ever. I would laugh if it were not that the lives of human beings are at stake.
    The Minister of National Defence said that “our military can have access to our detainees”, but the Chief of the Defence Staff, not aware of the so-called agreement, said, “That's not our area of expertise”. He said, “It wouldn't be soldiers” who would monitor the detainee situation.
    Who is right? The minister or the general? And if there is an agreement, why will the Prime Minister not show it to Canadians right now?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, once again, I suggest to the Leader of the Oppositionthat he have the facts before making allegations against the Canadian military.
    The truth of the matter is that we have consulted with the government of Afghanistan over the past several days. We have found no evidence there is any access blocked to the prisons. In fact, not only are Afghan authorities agreeing to access to the prisons, they actually agree that they will formalize that agreement so there is no potential misunderstanding.
    These allegations were made recklessly. They were made without information. The Leader of the Opposition should apologize to the Canadian military.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
      [Table of Contents]
The Speaker: 
    Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff--
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:   
    Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. We have to be able to hear the next question.
Hon. Stéphane Dion:   
    Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff was not aware of the deal. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was not aware of the deal. When caught off guard, he said. “Having just heard about it myself, do I think it's a good idea? Sure”.
    Now the Prime Minister is saying that we do not need a deal because we always have access to the situation of the detainees. It would be a joke if it were not so serious.
    My question for the Prime Minister is this. Does he still have confidence in his Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, who I do not have confidence in is the Leader of the Opposition.
    We will conclude a formal agreement so that we never again face these kinds of baseless accusations.
    The fact of the matter is this. The real problem is the willingness of the leader of the Liberal Party and his colleagues to believe, to repeat and to exaggerate any charge against the Canadian military as they fight these fanatics and killers who are called the Taliban. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Prime Minister believes the allegations are baseless if he has not investigated them at all.
    The defence minister said yesterday that they had reached an access agreement with the government in Kandahar province. Then he released a statement saying the arrangement was actually with NDS, the intelligence police accused of torture in the foreign affairs report released last week.
    Now we have two conflicting stories, plus an improvised arrangement with an outfit known to practise the torture we are trying to prevent. I know the Prime Minister hates to admit when he is wrong, but this farce has gone on long enough--
The Speaker:   
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
      [Table of Contents]
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, as I said, this government would take the time to get the facts. Public security has consulted with its counterparts in the Afghan prison system. National defence has done similarly. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been in touch with the Afghan government and other Afghan agencies. I gather today that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission held a press conference in Kabul to correct the record on some of these matters.
    The only person wrong is the deputy leader when he made allegations that we could not get access and nobody could get access to prisons in Afghanistan. That is false, and rather than repeat it, he should withdraw it.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, I cannot withdraw the allegation because the issue is whether the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has the capacity to investigate these abuses, and it is plain, in fact, that it does not.
[Translation]
    Yesterday, the Prime Minister rose in the House and stated that none of his ministers was responsible for the decision made by officials, first, to lie about the existence of a damning report by Foreign Affairs, and then, to censor the content.
    Why is the Prime Minister refusing to take responsibility for these misleading statements and this cover-up?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, all the member of the Liberal Party of Canada has come up with are difficulties and allegations.
[English]
    I also have to address this. Once again, we have these random allegations about the fact that reports may be covered up or not released or blacked out by ministers. If that member is making an allegation against me or any member of this government that we have interfered in the access to information process, the member should have the guts to make it outside or withdraw it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:   
    Order, please. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Continuing with question period.
[English]
    If the hon. President of the Treasury Board and the House leader for the official opposition wish to continue their dialogue, I would invite them to do that outside so we can proceed with question period.
[Translation]
    The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte Marie now has the floor.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe:   
    Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. No one here is criticizing the Canadian troops. Those being criticized are the Prime Minister and his ministers, especially the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is our duty to criticize them because they are causing confusion. That is what is happening.
    We have ministers who do not read briefs as important as the summary of troop activity in Afghanistan in 2006. Yesterday we were told there was a new verbal agreement.
    My question is for the Prime Minister. Is there an agreement or not? If so, can we see it?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, this government alone is supporting the Canadian Forces. This government alone is giving the Canadian Forces new equipment, contrary to the wishes of the opposition and the Bloc Québécois.This government alone is supporting the mission in Afghanistan when our troops are in danger. This government alone is supporting and defending the Canadian Forces.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, and it is this Prime Minister who is not answering the questions. It is this Prime Minister who is doing everything to discredit Canadian troops. It is this Prime Minister who is a pale imitation of George Bush.
    I say to him that, if there is an agreement, then he should table it. If there is one, then that proves there was not one before and that he was in violation of the Geneva convention. That is what the Minister of National Defence did yesterday. I hope he realizes that.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the separatists are claiming to be the real defenders of the Canadian Forces. After making such a statement, they then accuse our military of breaking the Geneva convention.
[English]
    The separatists get up and accuse our military of breaking the Geneva convention and the Liberals applaud. Shameful.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the Prime Minister. The Bloc Québécois is not accusing Canadian soldiers of violating the Geneva convention. We are accusing the government because of all its confusion. We are accusing the Prime Minister and the other two ministers of misleading the House. They are the ones we are accusing of violating the Geneva convention. We are not accusing anyone else.
    The Minister of National Defence acknowledged the agreement with the Red Cross and looked the chair of the Afghanistan independent commission straight in the eye. Then, yesterday, sometime between three and four in the afternoon, he picked up the phone, called over there and, presto, a new deal. This can mean only one thing: previous agreements were worthless. Why are we waiting to ask—
The Speaker:   
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, our troops in Afghanistan are doing very difficult work in dangerous conditions. I reject any suggestion that our troops are violating our international agreements. On the contrary, our troops from Quebec—the Van Doos—and from the rest of Canada are Canadian heroes.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that he is defending the indefensible, that his Minister of National Defence completely discredited himself and that, by defending his discredited minister, he is discrediting himself? Is he aware that with this supposed new verbal agreement, he is admitting that Canada violated the Geneva convention?
    Can the Prime Minister not see that there is already plenty of evidence and that he should ask for the Minister of National Defence's resignation today?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, once again, the member is making irresponsible allegations. The facts indicate that, contrary to what the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties are saying, Afghan authorities have not blocked access to prisons. The only ones discredited by these allegations are the opposition parties and the member.
[English]


more...


 
Question Period, Part II:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, let us just consider what is taking place right here, right now. We are watching policy being made on the fly having to do with international law and Canada's responsibilities in that regard.
    Yesterday the Minister of National Defence said there was an agreement. There was no agreement. He misled Canadians, crystal clear, after having said for ages that we did not need one. Now the Prime Minister is saying we do not have one now, we have had access all along and we are going to get an agreement anyway.
    Have we used the access? Have we used it? Have we fulfilled our responsibilities, and when is he going to fire--
The Speaker:   
    The hon. Minister of Public Safety.
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker--
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:   
    Order. The Minister of Public Safety has the floor; however enthusiastic or otherwise members may be, he has been recognized and we will hear him.
Hon. Stockwell Day:   
    Mr. Speaker, they are always intent on wanting to hear false allegations, but when it comes to hearing the truth, they try to shout it down.
    I can tell the House that for a considerable period of time now, our own Correctional Service Canada has had corrections officers working in Kandahar. As a matter of fact, I talked with one of them two days ago. Fifteen times already she has had access to the prison facility in Kandahar. She has full access. She also made a visit yesterday to the detention facility. Improvements are being made. It is difficult, but it is moving. It is difficult, but improvements are being made.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, why was this information, these so-called facts, not brought up in this House before? What is going on here? Are we seeing fabrication on the fly? Are we seeing serious policy making? Are we seeing responsible government? The fact is, no. We are seeing day by day a patchwork quilt of inventions and fabrications.
    Canadians want some responsibility here. When is the Prime Minister going to first of all make the decision to stop transferring detainees? That has to happen. And when is he going to fire his Minister of National Defence who cannot even answer the questions?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I said repeatedly to the leader of the NDP and others in the House this week that the allegations they were making did not accord with the facts as we understood them. I undertook that we would consult over the next few days to see what the facts are. I can tell him that the allegation that there is no access to the Afghan prisons turns out to be completely false, and I understand the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has denied other things today that were reported about it.
    The question is why the leader of the NDP does not simply withdraw the allegation rather than continuing to bash the mission and the Canadian military.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, everybody is trying to understand the new story of the government. It is not the Red Cross any more; it is not the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan any more; it is us, it is Canada, Canadians monitoring to protect the detainees to be sure that their rights are respected according to the Geneva convention. It is Canadians doing that but it is not soldiers since the general said it is not soldiers. So who is doing it? Is the Prime Minister able to guarantee that these detainees are indeed being treated according to the Geneva convention?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I will spell it out for the Leader of the Opposition. For four years, in spite of repeated reports about these kinds of concerns in Afghanistan, the previous Liberal government had no policy on detainees whatsoever. In the dying days of that administration an agreement was signed. We have since improved that agreement and we are working with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission on that agreement.
    We have subsequently received additional information and willingness from the Afghan authorities to open any prison to any branch of the Canadian government through a formal agreement. We will pursue such a formal agreement.
    I wish the Leader of the Opposition, rather than continuing to justify the accusation, would just withdraw it.
Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government claims it had no knowledge of detainee abuse and yet we now know that foreign affairs knew, the Afghan government knew, and Correctional Service Canada knew. The defence minister continued his strategy until he panicked and pulled out his so-called new arrangement out of the air yesterday.
    Does the minister honestly think Canadians are buying any of this? Why should Canadians trust anything the government tells them about this mission?
The Speaker:   
    The hon. minister of state.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Speaker: Order. I know sometimes ministers rising in the House are greeted with great enthusiasm, but we have to have some order. The hon. minister of state has the floor.
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the opposition members have been making false accusations all week. Rather than continue to repeat these false accusations, they should simply apologize.
    We confirmed for the opposition that there was no blockage to access to the detainees. We also had conversations with the Afghan authorities who have offered to proceed with a formal agreement. We will have the Department of Foreign Affairs proceed with drafting that formal agreement.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the original Canada-Afghanistan agreement included a prohibition against the transfer of detainees into situations of inhumane treatment and torture. There is evidence including from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission that detainees have in fact been tortured in a culture of impunity.
    Is the government continuing to transfer prisoners in violation of international law? Is the government seeking to have the return of detainees transferred in conformity with international law? Why should we trust any unseen agreement with those implicated in the torture itself?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, we are asking why they put so much trust in false allegations.
    We want to be sure that whatever act the prisoners may have committed, they are extended their human rights. In all the visits our Correctional Service officers have done, they have not actually seen the evidence.
    There is something the opposition should be aware of. The Taliban are like the al-Qaeda. Taliban members train with them and use the same manual procedures. Members of the Taliban have been told, trained and instructed to lie if asked about being tortured. As a matter of fact, they are told directly to say they were tortured even if they were not. That makes it difficult, but we want all prisoners' rights protected.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the government has said that it takes its responsibilities under international law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seriously.
    Why then has the government in Federal Court moved to dismiss an action by Amnesty International to determine Canada's obligations under international law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why has the government sought to claim that the plaintiffs do not have standing before the court?
    The government should not say that it cannot answer the question because the matter is before the courts. Why is the government trying to remove the matter from being judged by the courts?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, now that they have been exposed as believing false allegations, they are trying to backtrack.
    We are concerned about prisoners' rights everywhere. When British soldiers were captured by a regime that tortured and killed Zahra Kazemi, we heard nothing from the opposition about those prisoners. We hear nothing about the prisoners in Cuba and concern about what happens to them in prisons there.
    The Taliban are the most serious killers in the 21st century. All we hear on the Taliban question is the suggestion a little while ago from the Leader of the Opposition to build a Guantanamo north here in Canada and to bring them here. Why? Why do they get that kind of attention?
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, even the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the government representative responsible for signing treaties, was surprised yesterday to hear that there was a new verbal agreement on the treatment of prisoners. This same minister said yesterday that he had not read the report from his senior officials on the torture carried out in Afghan prisons.
    Does the minister think this is a normal state of affairs? Does he plan on finally assuming his responsibilities?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, last February, I was very proud when I said goodbye to two of our federal prison system officials who are now in Afghanistan. The official I spoke to two days ago said that he had been to the prison at least 15 times. This is not an easy job, but the officials are present.
    We take the rights of prisoners and the human rights of all people very seriously, and we will continue to use this prison system.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, the problem is that none of Canada's agreements contain the right to access at any time throughout a prisoner's detention. That is what is missing, and that is what I was asking the Minister of National Defence yesterday.
    Did he read the agreements? Why did he not ensure access at any time? The 15 times the minister is talking about took place after a request was made for access at any time.
    Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs plan on assuming his responsibilities and ensuring that there is a real agreement that upholds the rights of soldiers and prisoners?
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I wonder why opposition members did not read the information that I and others were putting out about corrections officers going to Afghanistan. We put that out a long time ago. They were never interested in that. They never wanted to talk to our corrections officers. They never wanted to heed the very laudable reports that even prisoners gave about how they were treated by Canadian soldiers. But when somebody makes a false allegation with nothing to back it up, those members are so quick to believe it.
    We have been putting the information out there about our corrections officers visiting those prisons. Opposition members have never asked one question about that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot guarantee that this verbal agreement his colleague is talking about will turn into a written agreement that he can table here in this House.
    Can the minister assure us that this agreement will lead to compliance with the Geneva convention, which Canada has signed, and that he will make sure it applies throughout Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Helena Guergis (Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) (Sport), CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, yes. In fact, to assure there are no such reckless, false accusations going forward, foreign affairs officials will proceed in drafting a formal agreement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):   
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence claims to have reached an agreement recently with the authorities in Kandahar to allow Canadian emissaries to visit Afghan detainees and make sure they are being well treated.
    How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to make sure that all the prisons, even the ones outside Kandahar, can be visited, so that Canada does not violate the Geneva convention?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, our intent is clear. We are going to continue doing what we have been doing for a long time. Yesterday, federal corrections officials and Foreign Affairs officials were in the Kandahar detention facility—not in the prison itself—and again received an open invitation to visit anytime to make sure no one is being tortured—we hope—in these places.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Chief of Defence Staff and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were unaware of a new agreement that would give access to prisoners transferred by the Canadian Forces. Now we know why: there was no agreement.
    Now, we are being told that there will be an agreement, but when? When will we have details about this new agreement? What will the government do to make sure these prisoners are being well treated?
[English]
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the millions of viewers who are glued to their television sets right now cannot see the panic on the opposition side as those members are backpedalling, changing notes and changing questionnaires because they realize that they have been caught.
    They have been caught for leaking false allegations and for not coming to us and asking what the real situation is. Time and again we have confirmed what we have been saying. They have been caught red-handed in believing false allegations about our brave and dedicated troops.
    We will continue the process of respecting prisoners' rights and ensuring their rights are respected, regardless of false allegations from the opposition.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, we want to talk about panic. First it was the Red Cross, then it was the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, then it was some other body and then last night we heard we would have a new agreement. I have heard that Correctional Service Canada will be involved.
    Will Correctional Service Canada be the body charged with monitoring full time the conditions of detainees? When will we see this agreement?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, it is common in debate, when someone raises his or her voice in panic and just fires out a bunch of questions, that the person has lost the issue. That is what we are seeing across the way.
    As I have already indicated, Correctional Service Canada has been involved for some period of time. We have let people know that but they have never been interested in asking what our Correctional Service officers are observing there.
    A supposed or purported Taliban prisoner, they will believe right away, but dedicated Correctional Service officers who actually are putting their lives on the line even going to Afghanistan and some of those areas, they will not listen to and will not believe. We believe in our dedicated people.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, prison officials in Kandahar, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, distinguished Canadian, Louise Arbour, and the government's own highly censored foreign affairs report have all warned that detainees in Afghan prisons are routinely tortured and abused, contrary to the Geneva convention.
    In the so-called inspections by Correctional Service Canada, have all the detainees under Canada's responsibility been accounted for per date, yes or no?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, only yesterday our Correctional Service people and the foreign affairs individuals who went into the National Directorate of Security facility, which is where detainees are usually held for a month to two months, asked that question and the registry was shown to them. We do not know for how many years or whether it was always intact but there is a registry of all the names and our officials were allowed to inspect those names.
    Medical officers visit that facility once a week. Family members are notified when their relatives are in there.
    In terms of that particular facility, yes, they saw the registry yesterday.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, the registry is one thing, the people are something else.
    The minister cannot say how many detainees Canada is responsible for nor can he say who they are, where they are or what condition they are in.
    He has repeatedly given false information, as has the Minister of National Defence who, yesterday, claimed to have some new agreement that we know today is not true.
    Will the Prime Minister support our courageous forces in Afghanistan by picking, from any number of his more talented backbenchers, a new defence minister to be a leader that our troops can finally respect?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, these are serious matters so it is hard not to find it a bit humourous when the member gets up with his first question thinking he has us on the registry and then, when I say that the individuals saw the registry yesterday, he says that the registry is not important.
    The individuals also saw the people who were detained. Now he is saying that we are lying and I hope he apologizes for that.
    We saw those people. We are concerned about those people. Two of the individuals talked to our officials about their treatment and our officers raised the issue of their being in leg irons. We do not think they should be in leg irons.
 
More from Question Period:
Afghanistan   
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):   
    Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister to confirm the new, new, new version of his government.
    The Minister of Public Safety said that, in the last weeks and months I guess, it has been Correctional Service Canada that has protected and ensured that every detainee was monitored regarding their rights under the Geneva convention. It has been done. These are not paper records. These are people who have been protected.
    After all these weeks of our asking questions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, they did not say so because I guess they were not aware of what the security minister was saying.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I committed to the opposition earlier in the week when these allegations were first made that the government would consult with its officials and with its Afghan counterparts and that we would respond with any evidence we received. We are doing that and we have done that today. More is to be learned and I will have further reports for the House.
    What is obvious is that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are making up their QP lineup as they go today.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, we are only trying to follow the contradicting versions of the government.
    The Prime Minister must understand. His security minister not only said, “We have no proof of the allegations”, he also said, “We know that it is false that people have been tortured”. He knows that this is false because they have monitored the situation with Correctional Service Canada. This is his new version.
    Does the Prime Minister confirm this new version?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has totally lost it today.
    However, I just want to say that I said that we were upset about the false allegations and that how very quick they are to believe a Taliban individual but are not prepared to believe the hard-working, dedicated men and women in our military and in our correctional services.
    I want to make it clear. They believe false allegations. We want to ensure prisoners rights are respected. Now they are taking what we have said today and trying to torque it and twist it again into something else. We are there and we are observing. We cannot provide perfect protection, but we--
The Speaker:   
    The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Maxman1
    • Like
  • Article Article
MPs call for Ottawa to cancel military rent hike
2
Replies
34
Views
12K
Good2Golf
Good2Golf
Edward Campbell
    • Wow
    • Like
    • Sad
PAK National Arrested in QC Plotting Attack in NYC
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Haggis
Haggis
daftandbarmy
    • Like
    • Humorous
Climate disasters will be part of defence update as strains grow, minister says
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
43K
kratz
kratz
Blackadder1916
Drone Delivery Canada awarded first contract for Canary drone from Department of National Defence
Replies
6
Views
8K
dimsum
dimsum
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Departmental Results Report 2022-2023
Replies
2
Views
8K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Back
Top