HAFF Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

1120

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Pratt

The Chair

M. Saada

The Chair

1125

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Regan

The Chair

Mr. Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mr. Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Regan

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

1130

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

1135

1140

1145

1150

1155

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Toews

1200

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Toews

Mr. Pallister

1205

Mr. Toews

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

1210

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

1215

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ)

1220

M. Pallister

Mr. Pierre Brien

Mr. Brian Pallister

M. Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

1225

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1230

The Chair

M. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

M. Harvard

Mr. Jacques Saada

1235

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Paul Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Harvard

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1240

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

1245

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

M. Pallister

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

M. Pallister

Mr. Yvon Godin

M. Pallister

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pratt

1250

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

M. Pallister

The Chair

M. Saada

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pratt

Mr. Pallister

1255

Mr. Pratt

Mr. Pallister

Mr. David Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Toews

The Chair

Mr. Pratt

Mr. Peter Adams

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

1300

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

1305

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1310

Mr. Toews

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1315

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

1320

Mr. Pallister

Ms. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

1325

Ms. Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

M. Brien

M. Pallister

1330

The Chair

M. Brien

M. Pallister

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

M. Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1335

M. Pallister

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1340

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 044

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1120)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we'll begin. This is the 44th meeting of this committee. The order of the day is pursuant to the order of reference from the House of Thursday, February 7, 2002, consideration of the question of privilege raised on January 31, 2002, by the Member for Portage--Lisgar concerning the charge against the Minister of National Defence of making misleading statements in the House.

As chair, I feel obliged to make a few statements and also to give you some idea of the procedures that have been agreed to by all five parties.

As you know, the Speaker of the House has ruled the matter before us to be a prima facie question of privilege. In Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, the author, Joseph Maingot, who will be one of our witnesses, gives the following definition of prima facie:

“A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House.”

As you know, the debate in the House of Commons took place the week before last. So far, all we know is that according to the Speaker of the House, it looks as though we're dealing with contempt or a breach of privilege. Our job is to substantiate or invalidate this preliminary ruling, firstly by establishing the facts surrounding the matter, and secondly by recommending if need be that the House take action.

The committee must deal with the question referred to us: “That the charge against the Minister of National Defence of making misleading statements in the House of Commons be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”

As you know, the committee is neither a court of law nor a commission of inquiry with a broad-ranging mandate. Furthermore, the question is not whether the minister could or should have acted differently. It is whether or not in acting the way he did he misled the House of Commons.

I know that members understand this, but I also know that sometimes it's easy to lose sight of what it is we're supposed to do. I want to assure all members of the committee that I will try my best to keep you on track as to what our specific mandate is.

Starting from the motion referred to us, we must establish whether we are in the presence of either contempt or breach of privilege and report our findings and our recommendations back to the House of Commons.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You said that the Speaker said it was either a point of privilege or contempt. I'm looking at his ruling, and I do not see him saying that there. Could you help me with that?

The Chair: My point is that all we know is that it's one or the other.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.): You said that the issue was whether the minister did or did not mislead the House. I think that you are omitting an extremely important element, which is “intentionally.”

The Chair: Yes, indeed.

Á (1125)

[English]

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order. After we hand these questions to you, what will you be doing with them?

The Chair: I will read them all. I might comment as to whether or not they're relevant. Otherwise, they'll go to Commodore Thiffault. If I think some of them are not relevant, I will tell him that I think that. But he may still respond if he wishes.

Mr. Vic Toews: So the questions we provide to you go directly to the officer.

The Chair: They come to me, and I look at them, Vic, in the way I've described. By the way, if I were to make any comment on your question, you would be the first to know.

Mr. Vic Toews: I was just wondering whether you were going to be sharing those questions with the other side first.

The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee. If you would like me to table them at tomorrow's meeting or this evening's meeting, I'd be glad to do that. That's quite normal.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, it may be that many of the questions on the various lists that are submitted will be the same. It seems rather pointless to ask Mr. Thiffault to answer the same questions over and over. I wonder if members would agree that in that case you would eliminate the surplus ones or perhaps make a combined list. I don't know how to do it.

The Chair: Before I respond, I'll turn to Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say that when I look at the questions that will be asked, I do not really disagree with the fact that very similar questions can be lumped together, but I do not believe that it is up to this committee to decide whether a question is valid or not. It is up to him to answer the question or not. I have never seen a situation in which the chair refused to allow a question to a witness on the pretext that it was not valid. Normally, we ask the question, and it is up to the witness to respond. I also think that the questions that we are going to be sending should be the same as if he were appearing here before us.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, in questions here, you will see that I will interrupt if they're not relevant and timely. I do that in a normal way. But I will respond to these two things in a moment.

I have Jay Hill next and then Jacques Saada. .

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR): Mr. Chairman, my intervention, if I can call it that, concerns the sound system. We're experiencing the same problem we had before. With all due respect, you're blowing our ear drums out, and then when we listen to translation, we're constantly trying to regulate the volume control in order to hear the proceedings. I notice that some of the members on the government side are having the same difficulty. I wonder if we can adjust that.

The Chair: How loud is this? Is that okay?

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, just don't get too excited and lean into the microphone.

The Chair: Okay.

Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's fine.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, let me say this, then. I'll look at the questions at 5 o'clock today. I will report to you at this evening's meeting at 7:30. By the way, it's not my intention to edit these questions. It would take an inordinate amount of time. I'd have to circulate them and so on. Let me see what they look like. My thoughts might well be reflected in the covering letter to Monsieur Thiffault. I might say to him that I realize that some of them are repetitious, something like that. But I will share that with you at 7:30 this evening.

We agreed that the witnesses should appear separately, not in groups, and you will see from the schedule that is what is happening. They may bring people with them, but they cannot appear with other witnesses. We agreed to that.

We agreed that the hearings will be televised, and you can see that they are being televised.

We agreed that we would rotate the questions between the parties in our usual way, except that in the first round only each party will have ten minutes. The party may use those ten minutes for a single questioner or share their ten minutes between questioners. When we have gotten to the end of the parties, that's to say when we have gotten to the PC/DR, we'll then go back to our usual five minutes for question and answer. I'll repeat this when we have a witness here, because the ten minutes includes the questions and the answers. Are you comfortable with that?

I'd like to, if I could, call Brian Pallister, the member for Portage--Lisgar, as our first witness.

Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to our first witness, I had provided the chair with notice of a motion I'd like to make at the start of the proceedings. I just wonder if you want me to make that now. I believe it has been circulated to all committee members in both official languages.

The Chair: Colleagues, please read the motion that Jay Hill has circulated. I have it in both official languages.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: On this point, Mr. Chairman, it's not clear to me whether all of these documents--for example in relation to the hostage-taking incident in Lima, Peru, in 1996--are relevant to our inquiry today. I think it would be good to have an opportunity to consider this before we actually vote on it. Perhaps we could vote on it tonight or tomorrow rather than now. I move that it be tabled for that purpose.

The Chair: Garry Breitkreuz and then Jay Hill.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance): I think what we need to do is take a look at these documents and then make a decision as to whether they're relevant. Common sense would dictate that it's hard to determine that from looking at a list. Once we get those documents, we can then determine whether they're relevant to what we're doing here.

The Chair: Jay Hill and then David Pratt.

Mr. Jay Hill: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, it's not my intention to take up a whole bunch of the committee's time this morning on this particular issue, but I do believe it's extremely relevant and important, Mr. Chairman, following your charging the committee with what our task is over the next several days or weeks.

Obviously, as Mr. Regan said, the purpose of the Speaker's referral is to substantiate or dismiss the fact that the contradictory or misleading statements made by the minister in the House of Commons were deliberate or intentional. That is the whole purpose of these meetings and this inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, what I am intending to do here is put forward a motion that would provide the committee with additional information in the form of documents that may be relevant.

When we discussed at quite some length in the subcommittee when we were trying to negotiate how this committee and this inquiry, if I can call it that, would be structured, I think we were all in agreement that it was extremely important, if not imperative, in order to get at the truth as to whether those statements were intentional or deliberate, that we ascertain the flow of information. That's the purpose of these documents.

Many of these documents are already in the public purview, Mr. Chairman. Many are referred to in books about the JTF-2 that have been released, one in particular that was authored by Mr. Pugliese. Therefore, it shouldn't be a great task for Department of National Defence to come up with most of these documents. A couple of documents on that list would come from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

As Mr. Breitkreuz said, I think it is imperative that we have all the information. Indeed, some of the other members of the committee may want to add to this list the documents they would like to have for their perusal to see if we can get to how the information was shared between different departments, what went to the minister, and what went to other government departments, including the PCO and PMO.

Thank you.

The Chair: Before I proceed to the list, I want to say that not knowing these documents, obviously I as chair can't determine relevance or irrelevance at the moment. I can't do that.

I would also say that I have five speakers on the list, and we have a witness here who is the principal purpose of our being here today. So for those of you who wish to speak, I would ask you to speak briefly to it.

We have a motion before us. The suggestion I have heard from both sides so far is that we consider this at a later date when the parties have had an opportunity to examine the nature of the individual documents. That's where this is at.

I have David Pratt, Jacques Saada, Joe Jordan, Yvon Godin, and Geoff Regan on the list.

David Pratt. And please be brief.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.

My first comment would simply be that many of these documents may in fact be public but I would suspect that many more may not be public and that they contain classified information that would actually endanger Canadian security were they to be released. I think the committee has to keep that in mind.

I think as well that when we have the CDS before us over the course of the next few days, he will be able to provide information related to the activities of JTF that would be pertinent.

So I also agree that consideration of this motion should be postponed.

The Chair: For the benefit of viewers, CDS is Chief of Defence Staff.

Colleagues, if it's repetitious, I'll cut people off.

I think we should go to our witness.

Next is Jacques Saada and then Joe Jordan, Yvon Godin, and Geoff Regan.

Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, it is extremely important that this whole issue be raised right away, at the outset, before the committee. The negotiations that led to these committee hearings are based on the agreement among all the parties to the effect that the issue to be examined by the committee would be the statements made by the Minister of Defence. Now there is a proposal, using a list of documents... Since I have not read them, I cannot say anything as to their contents. People are trying to do by the back door what we agreed not to do by the front door, particularly with respect to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the report on the briefing note about the hostage-taking in Peru.

I could go into a great deal of detail, but we need this understanding at the outset. All the political parties must understand that we are dealing here with the statements made by the Minister of Defence in the House on January 21 and 28.

[English]

The Chair: Before I go to Jay Hill I'd like to say this. Jay, this is your motion, and we can proceed with it and have this debate and then have a vote. My sense, though, is that so far people from both sides would prefer not to reject it, but to deal with it at a later meeting when they've had time to examine the nature of these documents, as you have. We could deal with that by vote, or in a friendly way you could withdraw it until a later meeting.

I'm going to jump the list, Joe, if I might, and I'm going to go back to Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just quickly, Mr. Chairman, I think the whole purpose of having these types of documents, even though some of them are well in the past, is that if we are going to get to the truth as to whether the minister intended to deliberately mislead the House, which is the purpose of this committee's meeting, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we have to look at what has happened in the past as to the flow of information. Then we have to make a judgment at some point as to whether it is realistic to believe that the minister did not have similar information in his possession when he made those statements in the House. I don't see how we can do that if we don't understand very clearly how the information flows between the various departments and from the JTF-2. He made the statement that it only goes to him orally. Is that indeed the truth? That's what we're here to find out.

The Chair: I can only repeat, though, Jay, that, for example, I could rule it out of order and say I can't deal with it yet as chair, but we don't want to do these things on technicalities. I don't hear a debate, except perhaps for one colleague on this side, about the fundamental points you're making. I hear a discussion here as to when we deal with this list.

Again I put it to you: would you consider tabling the motion in order that we will return to it at a future meeting when the parties have had an opportunity to look at it?

I'll go to Vic Toews briefly on this point.

Mr. Vic Toews: On this point, on the tabling issue, clearly the issue of classified documents is a concern to me, and that should be referred to DND.

The Chair: Again, if I might say, Vic, that is debating not the issue before us; it's debating the substance of this thing.

Mr. Vic Toews: All I'm saying is that, in the interim, give this list to DND. They might have some comments that may change the nature of the discussions that we will have once this is brought back from tabling.

Secondly, in respect of what Mr. Hill is raising--that is, the flow of information--I think it's important that we do find out the flow of information, if someone can give us that information now.

The Chair: Vic, with due respect, I understand all that, but as chair, I don't know what these things represent. I don't know whether they deal with that. We're discussing how we now, while we have a witness here, deal with this matter.

Mr. Vic Toews: And I agree. I think it should be tabled, but in the interim, I don't want to waste time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Okay. Joe Jordan, then Jay Hill.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair--

The Chair: Je m'excuse, Yvon. That's right. If I'm going to go back to the list, I have Joe Jordan, Yvon Godin, and then, if I might, I'm going to go to Jay Hill again.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.): If I could make a suggestion, Mr. Chair, I think the argument about whether this information is relevant or not can be significantly narrowed once we hear from Mr. Pallister in terms of the identification of the facts and then once we hear from the minister, because what we have now are two conflicting statements in the House, which the minister is going to explain. So I would suggest that we table this until after the minister's--

The Chair: Okay now, let's stick with the tabling of it. We don't need this general debate here.

Yvon Godin, and then Jay Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, we are barely getting started; this is our first day. I think that these hearings are going to be long if we keep going like this and if the government members block all our requests. We are here to find out the truth and to carry out the responsibility we have been given. Each of us wants to contribute something so that we can understand what has happened and identify the real problem. The government wants to play at trying to protect the minister, but I do not believe that that is the committee's role.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's enough.

Colleagues, and Jay Hill, if you're here, I can either proceed now and put the motion, but my sense is it will be defeated, or it could be withdrawn and it could be tabled, and we could deal with it at a later date.

By the way, I don't hear people around here questioning the relevance of the line of reasoning behind the motion, and that sort of thing. We're dealing with how we deal with it at the moment. The parties want to look at the relevance of these documents so they can deal with it more effectively at a later date.

Are you willing to table and we'll come back to it, or do you want to proceed with the motion?

Á (1130)

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I guess I'm concerned about a number of things, Mr. Chairman. One, if it's tabled, when would it be tabled, and two, when would it come back up?

The other point that I would make in reference to the fact that some of these may be classified or that DND or Foreign Affairs may decide that part of it is too sensitive to release, they can make that decision and white out as they do with Access to Information requests. There's nothing in this request for this information that prevents them from doing that.

The Chair: Right. And how the thing is handled by the parties, how they deal with it, is not my business, okay?

We will appear, if it's tabled, Jay, with this document again. Are you willing to table it?

As to the timing, I would have thought a couple of days or something of that sort. I'm looking around at colleagues for any suggestions.

Jacques Saada, if it's on that issue....

Mr. Jacques Saada: Of course it is.

[Translation]

In my view, it is difficult to decide on a motion without having had the time to look at it. Under the rules of this committee, I think that notice of at least 24 hours is required so that everyone is treated equally.

[English]

The Chair: I suggested a couple of days, but I'm the committee's hands. We'll have a straw vote.

An hon. member: Tabled.

The Chair: Tabled, but how long? We want to know roughly; give me a figure.

An hon. member: Forty-eight hours.

The Chair: Forty-eight hours, Jay?

An hon. member: After the minister....

The Chair: After the minister, I hear.

Mr. Jay Hill: With all due respect, I would request that this be considered formal notification and that I would have the right, depending on how things unfold, to bring it back before the committee after the passage of 24 hours.

The Chair: Colleagues, Jay Hill has withdrawn his motion on a friendly basis. He has another motion in its place, that the motion be tabled for 24 hours.

Right?

Mr. Jay Hill: Indeed, Mr. Chairman. I may decide to wait even longer than that, in fairness to everyone, but I would like to have that option.

I'll bring it back at that time.

The Chair: Very good. Agreed, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Brian Pallister, we apologize for this. We appreciate your taking the time to be here.

I understand you have a presentation of roughly twenty or so minutes, but we are in many ways in your hands.

A voice: He has one minute left.

The Chair: My colleague says you have one minute left.

I also understand, Brian, that you have videotape. I would advise colleagues of this, and that when Brian so indicates they get themselves, if they can't see it already, in a position to be able to look at the video monitors.

Yvon, do you want to say something before we go to the witness? No? Okay. I was making sure we didn't miss you.

Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage--Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

In my testimony today I'll demonstrate that the contradictory statements made by the Minister of National Defence in the House of Commons on January 29 and 30 were made with the intent to mislead Parliament and Canadians. I will describe the context of the minister's deception as it applies to the nature and extent of his offence. Finally, I will make a case for strong punitive measures against the minister.

I want to make it clear that this matter is about integrity of information. It is not about whether it was right or wrong for the military to hand over captured terrorists to the Americans. Canada's military has acted properly in this respect.

The case before the committee is very clear. The Minister of Defence has made statements in the House of Commons that are utterly irreconcilable.

On January 17, 2002, the Minister of Defence appeared before a joint meeting of the standing committees on defence and foreign affairs. He was questioned by several Liberal members of Parliament on the issue of the handling of prisoners taken by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. In his responses he stated that the government's policy on the handling of prisoners was “still under examination and will be finalized shortly”.

The minister was briefed on the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops on the morning of Monday, January 21 of this year. A photograph of Canadian troops taking prisoners was published in the Globe and Mail on January 22 of this year. The Canadian soldiers, resplendent in their green camouflage uniforms, are misidentified as Americans.

The minister became aware of this photograph on Friday, January 25. I wish to table the photograph. The minister did not mention the matter during a cabinet meeting on the morning of January 25, the day he alleges he found out about the photograph. He also did not mention the taking of prisoners by Canadians during the Liberal caucus meeting, which lasted throughout January 26 and 27.

On the evening of January 28 the minister participated several times in a “take note” debate in the House of Commons that concerned the Afghanistan mission. He addressed the prisoners issue on several occasions. He failed each time to mention the events of January 21, of which he was completely aware.

After a cabinet meeting on the morning of Tuesday, January 29, the defence minister revealed to reporters that Canadian JTF-2 forces had taken three prisoners in Afghanistan on January 21, citing the photo that had appeared in the Globe and Mail the previous week. The minister pointed out that the soldiers depicted were Canadian. He said “We just became aware of that. I knew about it as of last Friday.” That would be January 25.

Under intense questioning, the minister stated: “They told me that our people had been involved. When I saw this photo on Friday, I asked if those were Canadian soldiers and I was told yes.”

Later the same day, during question period, the minister contradicted that statement, saying he was not sure on Friday whether or not Canadians were involved in the handling of prisoners.

Here is a video clip of that statement.

[Video Presentation]

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

Á (1135)

In that video clip, the minister reversed his earlier statement that he knew on Friday that Canadians had handled Afghani prisoners. Now, after question period, speaking to reporters, Mr. Eggleton reverted to his original story, saying that:

“The first I was aware that Canadians were actually escorting or had possession of detainees was when I saw this photograph on Saturday or Friday.”

And during question period the following day, Wednesday, January 30, the minister was asked about the issue six times before disclosing the truth. MP Elsie Wayne revealed that the minister receives daily operational briefings and she asked him directly about the content of his briefing on the morning of January 21. Only then did the minister admit that he knew of the prisoners within hours of their capture. Here is a video clip of that exchange.

[Video Presentation]

Mr. Brian Pallister: That video clip clearly shows that by his own admission the minister had misled the House about the date on which he first knew that Canadians had taken prisoners.

Following question period, the minister told reporters: “I knew that our troops were involved in a prisoner-taking matter on Monday.” That would be January 21. “I was advised of that. The chain of command has always kept me informed”

I apologize for not having copies of this text here. The translators should have them ready--or have they been distributed? Thank you very much. That was a last-minute translation job. A full text of those statements is detailed in a chronology that is attached to copies of your report in the appendix 1.

The minister's deception was clearly intentional. The questions put to the minister by members of Parliament in the House of Commons and by reporters on January 29 and 30 were very clear. The minister concealed the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops until he became aware that photographic evidence of the event had been published. He then falsely told the House of Commons that he had first learned of the event when he saw the photograph. This fabrication was repeated outside the House and it conflicted in every way with what he admitted the next day to be the truth.

The minister must have known that the matter was important enough to tell the Prime Minister and cabinet, given the debate on the issue then raging among Canadians, in Parliament, in committee, and within the Liberal caucus. The minister's concealment and his deception were deliberate. The only sensible explanation of the sequence of false statements by the minister is that he felt compelled to lie to cover up his previous concealment of information.

The minister deliberately concealed the incident about which he was briefed on Monday for eight days. When he was presented with photographic evidence of the incident it became obvious that he could not feasibly continue to deny that it had taken place. In order to avoid admitting that he had concealed the matter from Monday until Friday he claimed that he had just learned of the event upon seeing the photo. The minister was forced to change his story again when Elsie Wayne, a member of Parliament, confronted him with knowledge that he receives daily operational briefings.

In summary, the defence minister's initial concealment of information started him down the slippery slope toward deception and ultimately toward lies. The minister has tried to excuse his dishonesty as confusion and incompetence. The evidence indicates he's guilty of all three.

Through his deception the minister has put the interests of his political party ahead of the interests of Canadians. The issue of how our troops should handle Afghani prisoners has been the subject of heated debate, not only within the Liberal caucus, but throughout the Canadian public.

Á (1140)

During the weekend before the minister learned that Canadians had taken prisoners, there were over 40 articles on the issue published in 28 different daily newspapers across Canada. There was also extensive television and radio coverage of the issue.

Last week the Canadian Alliance had the Library of Parliament conduct an Internet search for stories on the prisoner issue. The number of articles found just between January 17 and 31 surpassed the library's search capacity of 200 articles. More than 200 stories had appeared in the news media about the handling of prisoners. The fact that Liberal backbenchers were leading the charge was hot news across the country.

The minister was made aware on several occasions in the House of Commons and in committee that the handling of prisoners was an important and divisive issue. He was presented with many opportunities to explain the government's policies on the matter and to reveal the events of January 21. He chose not to do so.

During the period surrounding the minister's misleading statements in the House of Commons, several Liberal members of Parliament publicly expressed strong opposition to the transfer of prisoners to U.S. authorities. Liberal MPs Marlene Jennings, David Price, Bernard Patry, and John Godfrey openly and harshly criticized the notion of handing Afghan prisoners to the United States when they questioned the minister during the joint meeting of the foreign affairs and national defence committees on January 17. The following video clip of the committee's proceedings illustrates how divisive this issue was within the Liberal caucus.

[Video Presentation]

Mr. Brian Pallister: That's just one example of several heated questions of the minister by Liberal backbenchers and other members of the House of Commons as well on the specific issue of prisoners.

Divisions in the Liberal caucus over the handling of prisoners were further manifested during the take-note debate on the Afghanistan mission in the House of Commons on January 28 when Liberal members of Parliament John Godfrey, Jim Karygiannis, Clifford Lincoln, John Bryden, Irwin Cotler, Paul Szabo, and Larry Bagnell expressed opposition to the turning over of prisoners to American authorities.

I've attached in appendix 2 several comments by Liberal and opposition members of Parliament on the prisoners issue. A total of 15 Liberal backbenchers were publicly opposed to the transfer of prisoners to United States troops. Many other Liberal members of Parliament doubtless shared those feelings, but chose not to express them publicly. The minister was made aware of that dissent on several occasions in committee and in the House.

The prospect of fomenting further dissent within the caucus presented an enormous disincentive for the minister to reveal the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops, because it made real what was then thought to be a hypothetical issue.

The existence of numerous divisions within his caucus would have further discouraged the minister from revealing the transfer of prisoners. Such divisions include the rules governing the enlistment of new members of the Liberal Party, the lack of female representation in cabinet, the government's new immigration laws, the health minister's support for a private sector role within the medicare system, the cabinet shuffle, which rendered backbench Liberal MPs more likely to criticize the government, and the feeling among backbackbenchers that the Prime Minister was trying to silence them.

Á (1145)

These issues are further elaborated in appendix 3. No minister would wish to add fuel to the dissent within his own caucus by revealing yet another controversial event such as the transfer of prisoners from Canadian to U.S. control.

The Minister of Defence was given many opportunities to tell the truth about the taking of prisoners, but he refused to do so. He had compelling reasons to deceive Canadians about the activities of our troops in Afghanistan, most notably to stave off caucus turmoil. Had he revealed that Canadian troops had turned prisoners over to U.S. troops in Afghanistan before the Liberal caucus retreat on January 26 to 27, it would have exacerbated already chaotic divisions within the caucus. The evidence suggests that faced with this prospect, the minister chose deception and dishonesty over openness and accountability.

In considering the case before this committee, it is important to understand that Mr. Eggleton deceived not only opposition MPs, but all of Parliament, including his own Liberal caucus, cabinet, and the Prime Minister. Most importantly, he deceived Canadians, which is unjustifiable under any circumstances. Canadians have strong feelings about the implications of turning prisoners over to U.S. troops, with respect to Canadian sovereignty, international law, and human rights. For the minister to deceive Canadians about the role played by Canadian troops and the rules under which they are operating strikes at the very heart of democratic accountability.

The minister's deceit also undermined the integrity and utility of parliamentary debate. A week after Mr. Eggleton became aware that Canadians had taken prisoners and turned them over to U.S. troops, Parliament debated the implications of Canada's combat role. The issue of how to treat prisoners was central to that debate. The minister was questioned repeatedly on the matter, but he concealed the truth throughout the debate.

The Somalia commission, which examined the badly mismanaged military deployment, concluded that:

“The quintessential condition for control of the military and all aspects of national defence is a vigilant Parliament. Given this reality, Parliament must exercise greater diligence in critically monitoring the terms agreed to, or set by, the government for the employment of the Canadian Forces overseas, and safeguarding members of the armed forces from unreasonable risks; it must also monitor the operations of commanders and troops in the field.”

Parliament cannot exercise that vigilance when it is misled or lied to. If such behaviour as that exercised by Mr. Eggleton is allowed to stand unchallenged, there can be no meaningful debate in Parliament on any issue.

On February 1, in ruling on my question of privilege, the Speaker of the House of Commons said, and I quote, “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.”

The government is and must remain responsible to Parliament. This principle has already been seriously eroded by the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office. Question period is perhaps the best tool available to Parliament for making ministers accountable. If ministers are allowed to give false or misleading answers in question period, then Parliament will cease to function altogether.

In assessing the nature and gravity of the defence minister's offence, and for the purpose of deciding on appropriate punitive action, this committee must determine whether the minister was alone in his deception. When Minister Eggleton falsely told the House of Commons, immediately after the January 29 cabinet meeting, that he had first learned of the taking of prisoners on January 25, every cabinet member remained silent. That means that either they were complicit in Minister Eggleton's deception or they too were misled by him.

For the sake of our troops, whose welfare depends on effective command and control, I would prefer to believe that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who leads the government's security committee, knew about the taking of prisoners immediately after it happened. I would prefer to believe that the mechanisms of command and control, although concealed from Parliament and Canadians, functioned, and functioned smoothly.

However, the government insists that this was not the case. The government maintains that the defence minister withheld important information and misled his own cabinet, as well as Parliament, for eight days. Such deception severely undermines the ability of cabinet to manage the combat operations in Afghanistan.

In referring this matter to this committee, the Speaker said:

“Integrity of information is of paramount importance, since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism.”

Á (1150)

The minister's own statement to the House seems to confirm that he misled cabinet as well as the House. He said, and I quote:

“Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday, January 25. It required further examination to determine whether in fact it was Canadians involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect”

Now, if Mr. Eggleton told cabinet the truth about when he first learned that Canadian troops had taken prisoners, then cabinet as a whole conspired to mislead the House of Commons. If Mr. Eggleton told cabinet the same lie he told Parliament, then his colleagues are innocent, but he is guilty of undermining not only the government's responsibility to Parliament, but also the ability of cabinet to exercise command and control over a military operation. It is imperative that this committee find out which is the actual case in order to ensure that all culpable parties are dealt with appropriately.

The essence of our parliamentary system is the accountability of the government to the House of Commons. The only way I, as a member of the House, can do my job in ensuring that accountability is to seek information from the government. The most effective way I can do that is through my right to ask questions of ministers on the floor of the House of Commons in question period. However, that right is of little use to me and my fellow members if the answers I receive are less than honest and factually incorrect.

I appreciate that certain matters of state need to remain confidential, but if a minister of the crown is asked a question by me, I expect him or her to be fully honest, either by providing me with accurate and truthful information or advising me in the House that because of the nature of the information, he or she is not able to provide it to me. At least then I and the House know where we stand, and at least then we are not misled. This is absolutely fundamental if I and you are to do our jobs properly.

Question period is the supreme opportunity for me to do this, but if I am misled by a minister in that higher purpose, then I have become effectively crippled, as have you, as have all members of Parliament. To quote a former Speaker of the House, James Jerome:

“If I, as a member of Parliament, am misled by a minister, then the heart of my function, and that of the House, is undermined. It is even worse when a minister misleads me, not by mere inadvertence, but by deliberate calculation.”

I have demonstrated to you today that the Minister of Defence deliberately misled the House of Commons. My testimony has refuted the minister's attempts to excuse his deceit as confusion. All evidence indicates that the minister placed personal and party interests ahead of the interests of Canadians, and ahead of our national security.

I believe that most members of Parliament sought public office to defend the truth and to engage in meaningful, informed debate on issues of importance to Canadians. The Minister of Defence has flouted the rules that make such debate possible. The Minister of Defence has lied to Parliament and he has lied to all Canadians. Strong action must be taken to defend the effectiveness of Parliament and the collective integrity of its members. Strong action must be taken to assure Canadians that the government is competent and accountable to them. Canadians may already regard the quality and honesty of parliamentary deliberation with some cynicism, but we must not ask them to tolerate the defence minister's flagrant deceit.

I offer my encouragement to the committee in its deliberations.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Brian. We appreciate that, and we appreciate the care you've taken with the presentation, including the translations.

Brian, let me explain to you--because I think the committee understands it--how we're going to proceed. This is a little different from what we normally do.

On the first round we will go through the opposition parties from the Canadian Alliance to the PC/DR. Each party will have ten minutes. The ten minutes includes your answers. The parties can use one questioner or they can split their time. It would be useful to the chair, by the way, if you gave me some indication that you were going to split your time, because otherwise it will get a bit confusing.

Brian, the other thing--and I know you will do this, but the members of the committee often do not--the chair is here, and we normally address our remarks through the chair.

[Translation]

The chair is here with us.

[English]

I would be grateful if you and my colleagues would do that.

The list I have at the moment is Garry Breitkreuz, Vic Toews, Geoff Regan, Paul Macklin, and Pierre Brien.

Garry Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Toews.

I just want to clarify why we're here and one of the reasons this committee exists. One of the most important mandates of this committee is to ensure members of Parliament can work effectively in the House of Commons, and ensure their privileges are not violated.

So my question for you, Mr. Pallister, is this. You seem to have made very much of the fact that the defence minister was less than fully honest and candid when asked in the House when he first became aware of the facts in this case. So how do you specifically consider this a breach of your privileges as an MP, and of the House generally? Can you briefly explain that to us?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well, I think my experience in my life has taught me that any organization will not function effectively, Mr. Chair, if the organization in question is absent the truth in its deliberations, regardless of its nature, whether it be a community committee or a government. The fact is, if we can't deal in a straightforward and honest manner with one another, we're in grave difficulty to function effectively as an organization.

Certainly the Speaker, in his ruling, has cited the need for straightforward and honest behaviour by all members in debate. And I think in ruling there's a prima facie case for this particular deliberation you have undertaken the Speaker has made it very clear in his instructions to us that we must value that truthfulness, and more than that, we must stand together and enforce it in our House.

The Chair: Vic Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I believe the witness has in fact made a convincing case in respect of the minister deliberately misleading the House. He has pointed out the contradictions. He has pointed out the opportunities to correct those contradictions, which were not followed through. The focus, I think.... What I'm looking for from the witness, perhaps in his review of the evidence and his knowledge of the case, is why the minister would have intentionally misled the House.

Trying to determine whether someone has intentionally misled is of course very difficult. We can't get into the mind of anyone, other than through examination of the facts we have available to us.

Mr. Pallister has talked about the motivation this minister would have to keep this issue off the agenda, out of the Liberal caucus retreat on January 26 and 27. Now he's made a case in part that this would be perhaps one of the motivations. My question to the witness is whether he sees this as the only motivation. Does he see this, in his review of the evidence, as sufficient motivation for the minister to deliberately deceive Parliament and the colleagues he works with?

Â (1200)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you for the question.

I think it would be up to the committee to determine whether the minister's rationale for misleading the House is defensible or not. That will be up to the committee.

The facts I presented to you are that he chose not to reveal the truth for an eight-day period. The minister himself has admitted that. I'm not giving you information you don't already have. You know the minister made a choice not to reveal information over an eight-day period concerning the handing over of prisoners by Canadian JTF-2 troops.

Now, the question would be, of course, was he justified in hiding that information? That would be the question you have to examine--I expect one of several. My evidence to you is designed in such a way as to make the case that the minister was not justified. It is my personal opinion he was not justified. He had to make a choice between revealing the information and not revealing it. Surely this was not done on the basis of absent thought. He must have thought about whether or not he should reveal the information.

He will have to make a case to you that he was justified in misleading not only the House of Commons but also his cabinet colleagues and his caucus colleagues in not releasing that information.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

Just in that respect, then, I guess what I'm searching for.... Perhaps this will come from some of the other witnesses, and maybe the question is premature, but I think it's important that we are able to determine how the flow of information occurs, Mr. Chair, from the military to the political arm. Of course, in a democracy like ours, where Parliament is supreme, it is ultimately cabinet that makes these kinds of decisions.

Were you able to uncover any material that would indicate that flow of information? Do you see that flow being somehow relevant to the determination of the issue you are bringing forward here today?

The Chair: Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: In terms of the flow of information, Mr. Chairman, you have other witnesses who will speak to that on the basis of their personal experience with the inner operations of the House of Commons and the various other aspects of our Parliament. But the fact remains that the minister had to make a decision. He had to make a decision as to whether to conceal the information or to make it available. He chose to mislead. He chose to deceive, and he did so. And the graphic evidence of that of course isn't just from the question period on the Tuesday, and then the conflicting statements on the Wednesday; he chose to deceive the night before. He chose to deceive at the take-note debate by not revealing information in his possession. He also chose to deceive the previous week, prior to your Liberal Party caucus retreat, where he knew this issue was uppermost in the minds of many of his colleagues on the government side of the House.

It would seem pretty logical to me that a minister might not want this information to be made available before the weekend, but you'll have to evaluate whether his need for secrecy outweighed that consideration, Mr. Chairman. I can only tell you that this is not the only example of this kind of behaviour exhibited by the minister. As well in terms of--

Â (1205)

Mr. Vic Toews: I don't want to get into other behaviour. We want to focus on this behaviour.

Mr. Pallister, even if information is secret, the option for a minister is not to mislead Parliament or cabinet or his caucus. The option then is to stand up, is it not, and to say I'm sorry, but this information is classified and I can't share it with you. We hear the Solicitor General saying this all the time. Isn't it equally applicable to the defence minister?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Again, you would have to ask the minister for the reasons and the rationale for his deceit. The fact remains that I'm here today to instruct you as to the nature of this deceit itself, and to give you evidence as to why this deceit may have occurred. That is precisely what I've done.

But again, this is not the first time on this issue. Just as an example, when asked about the JTF-2 units and the rules of engagement, the minister gave conflicting answers in sequential periods of time. He repeated that the status of prisoners must be determined prior to handing them over to U.S. authorities. On January 17 he said, “We want to get the rules all finalized. That's what the lawyers and the justice department people are working on.” January 17, in the context of this, is the day the committee first met and his colleagues asked him this question. He clearly stated that the rules hadn't been finalized.

On February 5, when asked about the handling of prisoners taken just after that January 17 statement, the minister said, “The policy was fully followed. It is a policy that has been in place for a great number of years”.

Now, either it was in the development and discussion stages when he went before a committee, when he went before a caucus, or it wasn't. If it was a finalized policy in place for years, why not say so at the outset? Probably a good reason not to make public that it was clear is because it would have enflamed his colleagues; but it was clear, and the minister deceived us in the House of Commons.

The Chair: Here is the order: Geoff Regan, then Paul Macklin, Pierre Brien, Michel Guimond, Jacques Saada, Tony Tirabassi, and Yvon Godin.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pallister, we're here today of course to consider the order of reference from the House, which is to look at the two misleading statements that you refer to in your motion of privilege. I'm trying to understand your theory of this case, the one you've presented this morning on the intent question. You've suggested that it was clear, that it was deliberate. But it seems to me that the first statement in the House on Tuesday, January 29, was made after it was already known to the public. It had come out that noon in a press conference that the Canadians had taken prisoners.

So the question is why does this fit with your theory? If he's trying to hide the fact that Canadian troops have taken prisoners, why would he say on Tuesday that he learned about it on Friday, and then change it on Wednesday and say wait a minute, I actually learned about it on Monday, January 21? How does this fit with your theory that he wants to hide the fact that there were Canadians who took prisoners?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well, first of all, you're going to the day he made the announcement that he had learned the previous Friday. You're asking me how does the fact he announced that he knew on the following Tuesday support my proposition that the minister deceived. Is this the question you're asking?

Mr. Geoff Regan: In your motion in the House, you have brought this and tied this to the issue of the two statements of January 29 and 30 in question period. Those are the statements we are here looking at. The question is how we clear the air about the fact that these two statements don't jibe. We're trying to figure that out.

I'm not clear how your theory helps us yet. It seems to me that if it's public information that the Canadians have taken prisoners, before the minister even makes the first statement we're here to examine, then how is he trying to hide it when the question arises whether he learned on the previous Friday or Monday? I don't see that.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: His statements claim that he first learned of the taking of prisoners the previous Friday. His statement the subsequent day said that he first learned of the taking of prisoners the previous Monday. Clearly there is a factual inaccuracy in those two statements.

You'll have to evaluate the merits of the minister's defence as to why he portrayed his knowledge as being somewhat less on the Tuesday than it was on the Wednesday. I've advanced to you that very likely he had tried in his earlier failure to make this information public.... In his earlier failure to volunteer the information, for example, during the take-note debate, he had demonstrated a quality of deception.

I have made the case that he has deceived his colleagues and the House in his earlier missed opportunities where he could have advanced this information and chose not to. When he subsequently on the Tuesday made the statement that he learned the previous Friday, perhaps he wanted to make the case that the picture he saw on Friday was the first opportunity he had to learn about it. That would give him a defensive argument as to why he didn't raise the issue with his caucus colleagues on the weekend: he hadn't had time to look into it.

On the Wednesday, however, Mr. Chair, he did contradict himself, and I think that's....

Â (1210)

The Chair: Geoff Regan, about one minute.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I think it's a bit of a stretch. But let me go on to the question of January 17, of the meeting of the foreign affairs committee. I take it that you've read the entire transcript of that meeting. Is that correct?

Mr. Brian Pallister: I have viewed it on videotape and I have excerpts here.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Good. Then, for instance, you know that the co-chair said this:

“With the recent announcement of the deployment of Canadian troops, the members of the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, it was felt appropriate that this matter be dealt with by a sitting of this joint committee as quickly as possible; hence our meeting today.”

They were in the context in that meeting, as you know, of talking about the deployment of the Princess Pats, not about the JTF-2. In fact later on the minister in his comments refers to, “This being so, the United States came back to us in early November with a request to be ready to deploy our infantry battalion”.

He goes on later:

“I indicated to the Minister of Defence of the United Kingdom that we had the infantry battalion, which we had offered back in October, available for this kind of mission. He came back to me and said that rather than that, would we consider 200 engineers now and consider the infantry battalion at a later date.”

And at the bottom he says:

“And we go on at that point in time to replace them--not to take the command, they would have the command, but to replace their infantry battalion.”

On the next page:

“Of course the request for 200 engineers at this point in time would have meant pulling together the engineers from many different units, including the 3rd Battalion of the PPCLI later. But they made a specific request for these forces and a specific request for our Coyote reconnaissance squadron as well, which will be part of the Princess Pats.”

Throughout this meeting, they're talking about the deployment of the Princess Pats. They aren't talking about the JTF-2, which of course ministers aren't supposed to talk about very much, in any event. Do you acknowledge that?

The Chair: Brian, your reply goes into Paul Macklin's time. So you'll be speaking to another questioner when you finish.

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, sir.

I presented that information to demonstrate the fact--the very real fact--that there is strong concern among all parties of the House about the issue, and that the all of the Liberal backbenchers who spoke at that committee spoke specifically concerning the issue about the handing over of prisoners.

Mr. Leger, Mr. Chair, has raised the question as to why I raise the point. I raise the point to demonstrate that the minister had full knowledge that this was a divisive issue of great concern to members of his own party.

I quote from Madam Jennings: “I'm assuming that was part of the mandate that was negotiated, so what position has Canada taken on the issue of anyone we capture during the six months in the theatre of operations in Kandahar?”

I quote from Bernard Patry: “As you stated, those who are taken prisoner under Canadian command will be turned over to U.S. authorities. In your opinion, in so doing, isn't Canada setting a major policy precedent? In point of fact, by turning over prisoners to the Americans when these will not be considered prisoners of war, Canada is indirectly shirking its responsibilities under the Geneva Convention.”

And John Godfrey said: “The more I hear you talk, the more alarmed I get.... At what point are we compromised in our sovereignty, in our value system, in our morality, by saying, 'Well, that's the way they handle prisoners'?”

I raise the point because it is clear, and the minister knew it, that this was a very strong point of division among his colleagues. And it speaks to his motivation to keep the issue secret.

The Chair: Paul Macklin, you have about three and a half minutes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With respect to this matter, of course I'd like to go back and establish clearly, so that we know what's before this committee, what evidence you're relying upon in making the allegations. First of all, if I go back to your chronology, I think it would be rather straightforward that you're referring to the transcript of the January 17 meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Is that transcript attached to this document in appendix 1?

Â (1215)

Mr. Brian Pallister: It's freely available to you, as you well know, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: It is not attached to this?

Mr. Brian Pallister: The transcript is available to all members of the House of Commons, as the chair knows.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: So you're relying upon the original. Okay.

Mr. David Pratt: I have a point of order.

The Chair: David Pratt has a point of order.

Mr. David Pratt: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Is it possible to get a specific reference within the text of the meeting on January 17? I think Mr. Macklin is raising a very important point. If there's no page reference, I think a time reference would be helpful in terms of who the responder was when it was said that the handling of prisoners was “still under examination and will be finalized shortly”.

The Chair: The committee will look into that and we'll follow through on that.

You didn't lose any time. Paul Macklin, go ahead.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Through you, Mr. Chair, we will get a clarification of that evidence upon which we're relying?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: With respect to item two, as I will call it, you say the minister was briefed on the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops on the morning of Monday, January 21, 2002. What evidence are you relying upon in support of that?

Mr. Brian Pallister: The minister's own statements, which it would seem to me are difficult to rely on, I must admit, given his previous history of making misleading statements.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: And the statements you're relying on are attached in appendix 1?

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, they've been quoted frequently in the media, so I think you can get them.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Would you advise us of those specific statements upon which you rely?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Chair, is the member asking me to provide him with evidence of the minister's statement?

The Chair: Brian, he's asking you to provide the committee with it. You can say yes or no.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well, I'm just curious as to what the member is specifically asking, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Oh, by all means, continue then.

Paul Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I'm just wanting to know what you're relying on in that specific briefing. I would like you to provide us, the committee, with the evidence upon which you're basing your comment.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Chair, the transcript of the minister's answer in the House of Commons, which the committee.... This is a difficult thing for the committee. It's kind of a catch-22. If you want to rely on the minister's answer to the question in the House of Commons as fact--again, I know this is a difficult thing to do--he said he was briefed on this issue. He said this on Wednesday, January 30. If you believe that statement to be true.... The minister made that statement in response to a question in Question Period on January 30. The member can get the information from the transcripts of the House of Commons, if he wishes, or we can--

The Chair: You can comment on that, but there isn't time for a question. Do you want to comment?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: This isn't a question of debate, it's a question of fact. I'd just like to know exactly what it is you're relying upon for that statement within your brief.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The minister's own statement in the House of Commons that he was briefed for first time and knew of the.... I won't use the exact words, Mr. Chairman. I don't pretend to have a photographic memory. I do know that the minister's statements in the House on Wednesday, January 30, were to the effect that he first learned of the handing over of prisoners on the previous Monday. That would be January 21.

The Chair: Jay Hill has a point of order.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just in the interests of clearing this up, on Wednesday, January 30, 2002, the minister admitted in the House--it's contained in Hansard and I'll read the exact quote--“I was first informed about the detention of prisoners and the mission within 24 hours of when it actually occurred”.

The Chair: Jay, that's not a point of order. I heard the reference, but that is not.... We've finished.

Mr. Vic Toews: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Is it a point of order, Vic?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Vic Toews: Anything said in the House of Commons can be taken notice of judicially by any proceeding in committee, in the court, and I just want to make sure that we're not under an obligation to retender.

The Chair: No, we're not.

Seriously, the committee simply needs to know where evidence is coming from. That's all it is. We're not being awkward. It's a question, not some complicated tabling of documents. But we do need to know where the stuff is coming from.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: That's right. That's all my point is. I'm just trying to establish the evidence base.

The Chair: Paul, let's leave it. Okay?

We're going to go now to Pierre Brien, then Michel Guimond, Jacques Saada, and Tony Tirabassi.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Hello, Mr. Pallister.

In your presentation, you showed us that the minister's remarks were at the very least quite confusing, and we have to decide whether there was a malicious intention to mislead the House. You described a context that could have motivated the minister to act the way he did, specifically the internal divisions in the Liberal Party.

There was debate on the international scene about whether the Geneva conventions were being followed and about Canada's position regarding those conventions if prisoners were to be transferred; do you feel that that debate is relevant to the current issue, that is, that a number of people fear that Canada might be in violation of those international agreements and that that may have motivated the minister to not give the information to the public after prisoners were taken?

Â (1220)

[English]

Mr. Brian Pallister: The point would be this, I think. There is very little doubt in my mind, and certainly the committee will have to determine the degree of doubt in theirs, as to whether the minister knew this was the raging national debate it was. There is very little doubt the minister would know this was a very real debate within and among the members of the House of Commons. There's very little doubt of that. I presented you with evidence of the degree of news coverage given to this issue.

The point is that the minister could not logically argue that this issue was of insignificant importance. He could not logically argue that it was one that was trivial or did not matter. It is difficult also, I think, for him to argue that he was unaware this was an issue of extreme division within his own caucus as well. That being said, if he was aware of all those things--the public debate, the general debate among the House of Commons members, the debate within his own caucus about this--surely these are factors he must have considered in weighing whether or not to make the information available. In considering that, I believe he erred on the side of political advantage, and public advantage suffered as a consequence.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien In your opinion, is there any difference between not providing information to the public the week before Parliament resumed and a breach of your parliamentary privilege, stemming from the fact that you were told the opposite of the truth in the House of Commons? There is a distinction between not providing information to the public and actually misleading the House.

Do you make a distinction between the two?

[English]

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I will ask one final question before passing the floor to my colleague.

On January 28, the Prime Minister said to the media that we did not have any prisoners and that we would be told when there were any. That is what the Prime Minister said at that point.

In the context of what was said earlier, where there is a debate in the public and also, visibly, within the Liberal Party, does that statement indicating that the Prime Minister was unaware one week after the taking of prisoners seem credible to you? Or do you think that we need to look into whether the Prime Minister or his entourage had been informed earlier? Depending on whether that information from the Prime Minister is accurate or not, what happened later might be clearer.

The Chair: Mr. Pallister, you have one minute. Then it will be Michel's turn.

[English]

Brian, your answer may flow into the next questioner.

Mr. Brian Pallister: All right.

Personally, I find it unbelievable. I find it incredible. I find I would rather believe the Prime Minister knew and was briefed on the issue. I would rather believe he was competent and informed and the chain of command was intact than believe he was not aware for over a week of something as important as this, of information he was not even made aware of in a general sense, while awaiting some specifics the minister will claim he was in pursuit of. I find that incredible.

I think of the families of our troops in Afghanistan. I think it would be better for their confidence if they believed our Prime Minister was informed but somewhat devious, than that they believe he was totally uninformed of the issue. I certainly hope the committee, in questioning the minister and others, would be able to determine the truth of this issue.

That being said, I fear the truth if the Prime Minister and his colleagues want to continue to claim they were totally unaware of this issue for over a week. I don't think that's a truth Canadians would want to be exposed to.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, you have four minutes and thirty seconds.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pallister, I would like to focus on the underlying reasons that you feel would have led Mr. Eggleton, the Minister of National Defence, to deliberately hide that information.

I want to come back to the whole issue of dissension within the Liberal Party. We know that at that point there was quite a lot of unrest following the Cabinet shuffle that had been announced. There was the whole issue of the undeclared leadership race, all the immigration rules, the health insurance rules, and the whole issue of women's representation in Prime Minister Chrétien's recent shuffle.

I would like your opinion. Can we really link those outside events to Minister Eggleton's decision to deliberately hide these facts? In other words, we know that fires were breaking out on all sides. Do you think that that was the main reason that he deliberately hid the fact that prisoners had been taken? Mr. Harvard, Ms. Bennett, ministers Martin and Rock and member Derek Lee said nothing about the prisoner issue. I know that the members of the two committees that sat jointly talked about it during their sittings on January 17 and January 24 but there are many members of Parliament who said nothing publicly about the prisoner issue.

Â (1225)

[English]

The Chair: Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the issue in and of itself would be rife with the potential to divide the caucus. I think the evidence speaks clearly to that. But I think when you consider the other factors that are at work in the division of a caucus.... And all cabinet ministers want to avoid being at the centre of a divisive caucus debate or a divisive cabinet debate, certainly.

The reality is there were serious divisions in the Liberal caucus in other respects, besides this specific issue. I would give you as evidence a quote from the Ottawa Citizen of January 28: “A bitter dispute over Liberal membership rules has exposed deep divisions among MPs as the party heads toward a leadership showdown...”.

Or, in terms of the lack of female representation in cabinet, there was further acrimony within the Liberal caucus. According to the National Post, February 2: “The prime minister created deep resentment in caucus this week when he scolded Carolyn Bennett, chair of the Liberal women's caucus and a Martin supporter, for criticizing the dearth of women promoted in the recent Cabinet shuffle.”

The Liberal caucus was also divided over the new immigration laws. At the immigration committee meeting that week, Jim Karygiannis, Jerry Pickard, and even the committee chair, Joe Fontana, demanded changes in the laws.

Several Liberal MPs, including John Harvard, John Bryden, and Carolyn Bennett, criticized Anne McLellan publicly for supporting a role for the private sector within the medicare system.

The Chair: Brian, I'll just point out that Michel has only 30 seconds left.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I think he likes my answer, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Liberal member of Parliament Derek Lee acknowledged that in the wake of the cabinet shuffle, backbench Liberal MPs would be more likely to criticize the government. He said “It's always been the case following a cabinet shuffle.”

I think it's just common sense, Mr. Chair, that the minister would know that. And I think it makes good sense that he would understand that not just the issue of the taking of prisoners, but the wealth of other issues here would all conspire to create greater division and foster greater discontent among his colleagues. For that reason, he would have supreme motivation to make sure that a highly acrimonious and divisive debate not occur among his caucus if he could help it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jacques Saada, John Harvard, Yvon Godin, David Pratt, and Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a basic question through you.

In the summary given by the Speaker of the House concerning the debate on the question of privilege, it is clearly indicated that the minister admitted that he had indeed misled the House. He added that he regretted having given false information to the House. That is in the Hansard of January 31, on page 8517.

Do we agree on the fact that there is no debate about whether different statements were made? What is at issue here is whether there was any intention to deceive the House. Do we agree on that? I would like the answer to be on the record.

A voice: Yes, that is correct.

Â (1230)

[English]

The Chair: Do we understand each other as to the issue is the question?

Mr. Brian Pallister: The issue of intent to mislead the House is central to your deliberations. That's right. Of course, central to your determination of intent would be motivation, because clearly one's intent can only be measured in the context of a discussion of one's motivations. The facts I'm presenting to you speak to the motivations the minister had.

[Translation]

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I asked a simple question. If I could have a yes or no answer, things will move faster.

The Speaker of the House, in that same text, said as follows:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House.

You can find this at the bottom of page 85-81 in Hansard.

I listened very carefully to the presentation made by my colleague. Here is the situation, Mr. Chairman. I must admit that it is quite an interesting one.

We have a group of Liberal members playing their role as parliamentarians by taking positions that are not necessarily consistent, in contrast to what one might have wanted, that is, a sort of common position. They indicated their position on the prisoner issue, on the role of women in politics, in all these areas that were brought up. By the way, I have to smile when I hear these things because people are always saying that we, the backbenchers, act like sheep and always support what the government wants to do. That contradiction will have to be cleared up later.

But here is the issue. People are saying that the minister, faced with all these challenges and questions and statements of basic principle, decided that if he were to add to the problem, the party, and even the government, would really be in trouble, and so he wondered what he could do to help the government. He suddenly came up with a magic recipe: he decided that he would mislead the House to protect his government and his own MPs. He decided to mislead them in order to protect them better. Who is going to believe that kind of logic?

I began by asking whether we actually agreed that the intention was the key thing. In the overly long answer that I was given, I was told that the intention was important, but also the motivation. So I would like to ask my colleague a question. His full argument centers on his belief that the Minister of Defence wanted to protect the government and its members, and that that is why he misled the House. I would simply ask him where is the evidence for that? I am not asking him for speculation or thoughts about what might have happened, but for evidence. Where is the evidence?

[English]

The Chair: Brian, this answer will go into John Harvard's time.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes.

I would suggest in regard to the reference to sheep, Mr. Speaker, that I think it's been quite justified many times. It would be the obligation of all members of this committee, particularly government members, to demonstrate that they are not, in the context of this discussion. The fact is that no member of this committee is put here to defend the minister. The reality is you're put here to consider his motivations, his intent, and the degree of integrity or lack thereof displayed in his comments.

The member asks, how could one believe? Conversely, how could one believe that a minister of the government conversely would not provide pertinent and relevant information on an issue of international importance to the Prime Minister for eight days? I ask the member who raises the question to explain how that doesn't defy logic, how that doesn't defy belief. Because it does to me defy belief.

In terms of protecting members, it is obvious to me that had the members of the Liberal Party convening in a caucus on the weekend known about this issue it would have been uppermost on the agenda. It would have been one that they would have discussed. But I can't provide evidence of the nature of what those discussions would have been. That would call for me to speculate. I can only state categorically that I believe the discussions would have been very feverish and very potentially divisive. And they would have been discussions that the minister clearly wanted to at the very least postpone. His conduct supports that contention very well.

The Chair: John Harvard, that's four and a half minutes. Carry on--it's your party, to coin a phrase.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): If he wants another question, ask, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a very simple comment, Mr. Chairman.

The member put the motion in the House that led to these hearings. The burden of proof is on him. I would ask him to provide not speculation... In his answer, he used the conditional mood at least three times, and I do not know how many times he said things like “I think” and “incredible.” He has used a lot of emotional terms but no factual vocabulary.

So I would like to ask him the question again, and I expect him to answer it. I am not here to justify whether or not I am defending the minister. Since you are the one who made this motion, I expect you to provide me with factual evidence to justify these things, and not the speculation on which you are basing yourself.

Â (1235)

[English]

The Chair: Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, sir.

I presented the member with facts, and I will continue to do so, at his request. The fact is that the rules governing the enlistment of new members in the Liberal Party are a well-acknowledged source of great division within his--

The Chair: On a point of order, Paul Macklin.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think you should rule on this as not having any relevance to the issue at hand. I think we're trying to deal with misleading statements in the House and facts relating to them. Now we're off looking at party policy.

The Chair: Continue, Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, sir.

The fact is, of course, the member asked for facts, and I'll give him facts. The fact is the government's immigration laws are a hot source of division. The fact is that the caucus is divided on a number of issues that speak to motive.

The motive of the member is what this committee is charged with discussing and examining. By its very nature, intent and motive are intangible issues, difficult to evaluate. If it is the purpose of the member, in asking the question, to try to separate any discussion of motive or intent from your deliberations, then I suggest he is functioning more as a defender of the minister's conduct than an investigator into it.

I would ask the member to understand that a person's motivation, and especially the minister's motivation in his deceit, should be a key part of the deliberation of this committee.

The Chair: John Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I think the witness, Mr. Pallister, is mixing two issues that are not related. Remember what we're here for. We're here to examine two apparent on-their-face statements given by the minister in the House. Now, somehow or other, Mr. Pallister wants to bring in the issue--what he calls an issue anyway--of the Liberal caucus.

You have to remember that his appearance before the Liberal caucus was before anything that occurred in the House of Commons. These statements that were given were in the House. That happened after the Liberal caucus meeting. Right, Mr. Pallister?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, that's quite correct--

Mr. John Harvard: So--

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Chair, he asked me a question and I'd like to answer it.

Mr. John Harvard: Let me finish.

The Chair: He has 20 seconds.

Mr. John Harvard: What he chose to say or not say at the Liberal caucus meeting, regardless of all the issues you've raised, has nothing to do with the investigation before this committee.

The Chair: Next is Yvon Godin, and then we'll go back.

John Harvard, as long as your party wishes, I can leave you on the list and you can share your time any way you wish. Okay?

Mr. Brian Pallister: The member, of course, is wrong in his assertion that this committee can only consider events that began with the minister's first erroneous statement. If the committee wants to get to the bottom of this--if that's the purpose of this committee--they cannot begin history on the Tuesday he made the first lie. They must look at the relevant factors that led up to that statement.

The Chair: I did not rule against your line of reasoning. We'll carry on.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, I would first like to thank the witness for introducing this motion to the House of Commons.

I would also like to make the following comment: we are not just trying to find out whether the minister said something different in the House on one day than he said on another day, and to determine when the events took place. I think that we are all aware of that. We are not here for that; we are here to find out whether he misled the House and whether he did so intentionally because there may have been problems elsewhere. That is what we have to clarify. We should be able to carry out our little investigation for that purpose, Mr. Chairman.

Let us focus on the joint meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the National Defence Committee on January 17. There were people there with credibility on the government side, such as Marlene Jennings, who said:

...I'm assuming that was part of the mandate that was negotiated, so what position has Canada taken on the issue of anyone we capture during the six months in the theater of operations in Kandahar? Will we be using the Geneva Convention?

That means that there were already Liberal MPs who were wondering about that.

If we are not going to be using the Geneva Convention, in the sense of designating them prisoners of war, what legislative framework will we be using?

I would like to make those comments in order to repeat them in French and also to emphasize my point. John Godfrey, a Liberal member, said:

The more I hear you talk, the more alarmed I get... At what point are we compromised in our sovereignty, in our value system, in our morality--

The leader of the New Democratic Party, Alexa McDonough, stated:

...I'd like to know whether the Canadian troops have been directed that they are to operate exclusively within the terms of the Geneva Convention as it relates to the handling of prisoners and whether, if that is not the case, they have been directed to withdraw... I would like to know specifically how many prisoners Canadian Forces have taken in the month they have been in that commando role in Afghanistan, and to whom they have turned over those prisoners.

The reason I am making these comments on our witness' document, Mr. Chairman... Steve Mahoney, a Liberal usually recognized for defending his party—I often see him in the House—said:

I believe that you are going to hear speeches like that at caucus. Do not let the situation bring us to the point where we give up our independence.

There was even a discussion about what was going to happen at Liberal caucus, at that meeting on the 17th.

Mr. Michel Guimond: The chair of the Ontario caucus.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, it was the Ontario caucus. So the minister was aware of all the concerns on the Liberal side.

Carol Bennet said, when talking about the so-called laws of Canadian sovereignty: “That is the most important issue.”

John Harvard said that Eggleton and Manley seemed “a little bit too inclined to please the Americans.”

Mr. Chairman, here is my question. Does the witness not feel that the Minister of Defence had everything to hide, since he did not have control over the Canadian troops, since they are under American control? We have lost our sovereignty. He had everything to hide because there had already been debate in the House of Commons. That is one of the reasons that I am now prepared to say that he is trying to cover up for the Prime Minister by saying that the PM knew about it only eight days later. I also find that it is illogical that our Prime Minister here in Canada would not be aware of the fact that our Canadian army had taken prisoners, when everyone was concerned about that. Everyone has been worrying about what will happen to the prisoners. Will they be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Everyone is concerned, and a minister sits there not telling us the truth; he changes his story. And the Prime Minister finds out about things eight days later. Is the problem not that he knew within 24 hours and withheld the information from his colleagues, even Liberals, and the House, and that he misled the House intentionally? That is the evidence in this story before us.

Â (1240)

[English]

The Chair: Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: It's clear from the facts of the case that the minister must have known this was an issue of public debate. I would hope no member of the committee would dispute that. It is also clear from the facts that the minister must have known this was an issue of great concern to his colleagues, and certainly to all members. That, I would hope, the minister would not claim to be anything but the truth.

It is also a fact that the minister knew, or must have known, that there were many other contributing factors dividing his caucus on a number of other fronts. That would be a fact I doubt the minister would deny.

These facts, gathered together, would make the case, I think rather strongly, that the minister might well make the conscious decision to not make public information that otherwise--and this is up to the committee to determine--may well have been made public. It certainly would have been made available to his cabinet colleagues in due course, but perhaps a little sooner than eight days later.

Someone has asked the question of me, how do you think the government would react if Canadian troops were taken prisoner? If Canadian troops were taken prisoner, would it be solely in the hands of the defence minister to guard that information and to make sure such information was closely kept to him and him alone? Or would it take in fact eight days for the Prime Minister to learn about it, as it took eight days for him to learn about the taking of prisoners and handing them over? Would it take eight days, if Canadians were taken prisoner in Afghanistan, for the Prime Minister of Canada to know about it?

You have to examine this. You're going to have to deliberate on the degree of support and the degree of credence you give to the arguments that it is justifiable--or logical--to believe that a Minister of Defence in this country would keep a secret from not only his colleagues, the members of the House of Commons, but also from his own caucus, and his cabinet members, and his Prime Minister--information of this nature--for an eight-day period.

Â (1245)

The Chair: We have a point of order from Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been very generous in terms of the latitude we have allowed to this testimony in the interest of arriving at some facts. But this member either does or should know that points of privilege have nothing to do with ministers. They have to do with the rights and privileges of all of us as MPs. The actions of the minister are not the focus of this point of privilege. They never have been. It's completely out of line to make those kinds of statements.

The Chair: I hear you, I hear you.

As somebody said earlier, we're trying to get into somebody's mind, and I do understand that. Brian Pallister, if I can say this to you, I understand why you're doing it, but try to be careful how you do it.

Yvon Godin has the floor.

[Translation]

Yvon, you have two and a half minutes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When the minister spoke in the House, he said that he had informed the Prime Minister eight days after the Canadian troops had taken prisoners. We would have liked to have someone from the Prime Minister's Office or the Prime Minister himself appear before this committee. All of this relates to the credibility of the minister and the date on which the Prime Minister was informed, because those issues have been raised.

My question is again directed to the witness, Mr. Pallister. Do you not think that once again the government is interfering in trying to prevent someone from the PMO from appearing before us to tell us when the information was given, and is this not another element that speaks to credibility?

[English]

The Chair: Brian, you've got a minute.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm not sure, in the translation, Mr. Chair, if I got exactly the gist of the member's question. I will repeat what I believe to be the question, in the hopes that I don't--

The Chair: You have 50 seconds.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay, thank you, sir.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, it's not fair to translation if he's got 50 seconds to answer my question.

The Chair: No, it's part of his answer.

Go ahead.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I believe the member is wanting to ask the question in terms of the Prime Minister's Office and what would the possible connotations be of the Prime Minister's Office not knowing the information--

Mr. Yvon Godin: And why are they not brought here so we could question them?

Mr. Brian Pallister: I can't comment on that, of course; the committee member knows that. But I can raise an issue I believe needs to be examined by your committee, and that I will do.

I think you have to consider what the Minister of Defence--

Mr. Yvon Godin: Do you think it's important that they be brought here to the committee?

Mr. Brian Pallister: I think it's important that you get to the bottom of this, and in whatever way possible, because I think it's in the best interest of all members, regardless of political party, that you do.

But I do think it's important that you consider what the Minister of Defence told cabinet on the Tuesday morning, January 29. If in fact he told cabinet he first learned of the taking of prisoners the previous Monday, and then went out into the House of Commons and said he did not know until the following Friday, then he and his cabinet members are complicit in a lie.

If, however, he lied to the cabinet members and told them he first became aware of this on the Friday before, then he lied to his cabinet members, and I think that would show you the degree of deceit evident in the minister's conduct.

The Chair: David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I was drawn to Mr. Pallister's comments in the early part of his statement where he says:

“On January 17th, 2002, the Minister of Defence appeared before a joint meeting of the Standing Committees on Defence and Foreign Affairs. He was questioned by several Liberal Members of Parliament on the issue of the handling of prisoners taken by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. In his responses, he stated that the government's policy on the handling of prisoners was 'still under examination, and will be finalized shortly'.”

That statement stuck out like a bit of a sore thumb for me, Mr. Chair, because that's certainly not my recollection of what the minister was speaking about, and I was in the chair of that joint committee at the time. In fact, what the minister had said, in response to a question from Mr. Price, was that with respect to any prisoners:

“The Canadian troops are instructed to follow international and Canadian law. International law is determined with respect to prisoners in the Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. But there is also, of course, the question, at times, of whether these are prisoners of war or unlawful combatants.”

It's clear, then, that the policy had in fact been set. What Mr. Pallister quoted from, with respect to his statement, was a statement by Mr. Eggleton in response to Mr. Patry. And even in the question from Mr. Patry, Mr. Patry says: “As you stated, those who are taken prisoners under Canadian command will be turned over to U.S. authorities.”

Mr. Eggleton responded in this way: “I have told you what would be the intent with respect to prisoners, since we will not have detention facilities, but we will still have obligations under international law. With respect to any further policy issues, those matters are still under examination and will be finalized shortly.”

It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that perhaps Mr. Pallister has taken the minister's comments out of context in this regard, because some of these further policy issues, as we know, were issues like the classification of prisoners, whether or not they were illegal combatants or soldiers, whether or not these prisoners should be dealt with by military tribunals, and the investigations that were going to be conducted by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

What hangs on this, Mr. Chair? If the matter had not been decided, if it was still a matter of some discussion, if there was a policy void in that area, then perhaps Mr. Pallister's case might hold some water. But in fact there was no policy void. The policy had been set with respect to the transferring of prisoners.

I would like to get Mr. Pallister's comments with respect to what I would suggest is taking the minister's comments completely out of context.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

On January 17, after that committee, the minister was asked by reporters about the government's rules regarding the handing over of prisoners to U.S. troops. He replied, and I quote, “We want to get them all finalized, and that's what the lawyers and the justice department people are working on”.

On February 5, when he was asked about the handling of prisoners taken on January 21--that would be on the Tuesday after lie number one--

An hon. member: Order, order.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --the minister said, and I quote from the transcript of the House of Commons--

Some hon. members: Order.

The Chair: Just a minute, Brian.

I've been reasonable. Just keep your vocabulary reasonable.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Do you prefer euphemisms, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Not exactly euphemisms. There are different ways of saying the same thing. We use them in the House of Commons.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No matter how we sugarcoat it, Mr. Chairman--

An hon member: A point of order.

The Chair: Quiet.

This is a House of Commons committee, so just keep your language reasonable. And that applies to the members on this side, as well.

Go ahead.

Mr. Brian Pallister: And I'm simply confirming what the minister has already admitted in the House of Commons, Mr. Chairman, so that's clear to members.

An hon member: Order.

Mr. Brian Pallister: This is a quote now from the minister himself: “The policy was fully followed--”

The Chair: A point of order, Brian.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: The minister never admitted to lying in the House. I believe it is absolutely imperative to correct what has been put on record here.

[English]

The Chair: That's done.

Brian, you see what happens if you use certain types of vocabulary.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, I see now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: And it comes out of the time for your answer.

Go ahead.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The quote, again, from the House of Commons, and which is available on Hansard if the members would like to pursue this, says: “The policy was fully followed. It is a policy that has been in place for a great number of years.” That's the line now that the member has taken and that's the line the minister has taken now. But there's ample evidence to support the contention that there was not a clearly delineated policy. And it was certainly not made clear at the committee meeting where he spoke on January 17. It was certainly not made clear at the take-note debate on Monday, January 21, where there was ample opportunity for the minister to make it clear, but he did not make it clear in questions and comments to his own colleagues. So to suggest somehow that the rules were always clear and they were always absolute and there was no doubt about it--

An hon. member: What we're looking for is the evidence.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --when the evidence contradicts, that I think shows the member's willingness to defend the minister, rather than get to the bottom of the issue.

The Chair: David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief here, but it seems to me the member has absolutely no information, no evidence about deviation from the policy with respect to the taking of prisoners. It's very clear, in terms of what the minister said at committee and the further policy issues that he referred to later on in his committee appearance, what the implications are in terms of the policy issues there. I don't know what evidence the member has to offer in this regard, but I would ask him again if he could provide us with solid evidence about some deviation from the policy.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I believe I have done so, sir, and I can continue to do it, if he would like, again.

The minister, in response to reporters on January 17 after his committee meeting, said “We want to get them all finalized. That's what the lawyers and the justice department people are working on.” That is not a comment made by someone who is trying to clarify rules; that is a comment made by someone who is trying to make the case that the rules are not clear. Certainly that is the case, and there is the evidence for the member.

Â (1255)

Mr. David Pratt: The member is quoting things we don't have copies of, obviously. He could be referring to the rules of engagement there. He could be referring to details with respect to DND policy of following--

Mr. Brian Pallister: I will endeavour to get the information for the member.

Mr. David Pratt: --the prisoners through the process with respect to the Geneva Convention. There are a lot of different issues--

The Chair: David, I heard the witness say he will provide us with the sources. That will be provided to the committee.

A point of order, Vic, briefly.

Mr. Vic Toews: I've tried to listen to that answer twice now. It's been interrupted twice, and I think that's a very relevant answer. He's saying that--

The Chair: Okay. That's not a point of order. That's for me to rule on.

David Pratt, it is your time and you have two and a half minutes.

Mr. David Pratt: I have no further questions.

Mr. Peter Adams: You have no further questions, so I'll go to Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll take the two and a half minutes and then I'll keep my place on the list.

Mr. Pallister, I want to thank you for coming here, because to start out these proceedings I think it's very important that we get a clear statement of the chronological facts, and I think you've provided that. But on this question of privilege--and you would certainly know, with your experience in the legislature--there are two broad categories: there are the individual rights of members, which we all enjoy and you enjoy now as a parliamentarian, but what we're talking about here are the collective rights of the House, the collective rights of the House not to be confronted with two conflicting statements.

You have your theories as to why that took place, as do the 300 other MPs, so I don't want to place too much or too little value on your theories about why that happened. But your focus on the central piece here is the intent--was it deliberate, was it not? And I think we all know that's what this is going to hinge on. So prior to hearing from the minister, it's kind of difficult to get past that argument.

However, I do have one question, and I want to table the original motion you made in the House. Your responsibility, representing all MPs, was to make the case. The original motion in the House and the Speaker's reference frames, in a sense, what we are to look at here. The original motion had the word “knowingly” in it. You took it out. I'm just wondering why you took it out, because if you've got evidence that it was “knowingly”, the place to make that case was in the House in front of the Speaker, not here today in front of this committee. We're not making the decision. It's going back to the House for this decision.

I'm a bit confused, and would like to be enlightened as to why you pulled the word “knowingly” out of the original motion.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to table a copy of that original motion.

The Chair: Okay.

Brian Pallister, you have a minute.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

I was instructed by people with far more experience than I do of the inner workings of Parliament that if I were to make those changes there might be a better chance that my motion would be passed. That's why I did it.

The Chair: Jay Hill and then back to Joe Jordan.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I must remark at the outset of my comments that I'm not sure how well this operation bodes for getting at the truth. At any rate, I want to frame my comments and questions around two main themes this afternoon.

First of all, thank you, Mr. Pallister, on behalf of all members of Parliament from all parties for bringing forward your question of privilege and appearing today to present basically the chronological facts of the events as they occurred--what we're looking at.

We've heard a lot of talk already at this initial meeting about intent. I think what this committee's work will come down to is what I would term the “believability” factor. Insofar as that goes, I would certainly agree with what you're saying, in the sense that if we're going to limit our investigation of what led up to the contradictory and misleading statements made by the minister on January 29 and 30, if we're going to limit our investigation into those statements from that date onward, we're not going to get at whether he really intended to mislead the House or not. So I agree with that, and I think I made that point previously.

What it really comes down to, as I say, is believability. I wonder if in your research for your presentation here today you looked at other examples of when ministers inadvertently made a mistaken statement in the House, and how they corrected it. It seems to me--and I've been a member of Parliament now for over eight years--there have been many, many instances when a minister...and some of them are much quicker on their feet in this regard. I'm thinking of one of our colleagues who's no longer in the House of Commons, Herb Gray. I saw on a number of occasions that if he made a mistake, he returned to the House and admitted it. Obviously all of us are human. We can make a mistake.

In this particular case what I think is so glaring is that the minister did not do that. He had the opportunity to do that, to realize in retrospect that he'd provided the House with misleading statements, yet he chose not to until he was basically trapped in questioning during question period. That, to me, would obviously bring into play this believability factor. I wonder if you'd comment on that, because it really gets to the crux of why I think we're here.

· (1300)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes. Thank you.

This is the challenge for the committee, and it's not an easy challenge. It is to attempt to determine when secrecy--the protection of information--became devious. That is the fundamental challenge the members all face, to determine when the minister, in weighing the factors pro and con for releasing the information, in considering all the relevant details around if he did or didn't release the information, came to be at odds with what your decision on when the right and judicious time to release the information would have been.

The minister obviously weighed these factors, and he erred on the side of keeping the information to himself for a lot longer than I think many of you might have decided on. What you have to ascertain is whether his motives were legitimate and honourable motives. This is very relevant, of course, to your consideration of the reasons behind his conflicting statements of fact in the House.

Mr. Chair, this is very relevant, because if in fact he was devious--not simply secretive--then of course the magnitude of his deceit grows greater in your minds. The consequences of his acts will have greater consideration by you.

The Chair: Mr. Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: The evidence on the face of it would clearly indicate that the minister had many opportunities, as other ministers have had, to return to the House and correct his statements, but chose not to. That's where we get into this whole issue of believability.

My other question deals with Mr. Pallister's faith in the process, in bringing this forward. As members for a number of years, we've seen instances where these types of issues have been brought before the House, looking back even before my time as a member of Parliament. I'm thinking back to an issue that was called the Sinclair Stevens affair. I'm reminded of the outrage that was exhibited at that time by some members of Parliament who are now ministers in cabinet. I wonder where the corresponding outrage is in this particular instance.

In that sense, I wonder if Mr. Pallister has done research into precedents and how difficult it is--this is really where we'll be going over the next number of days and potentially weeks--for a committee such as this to come to the conclusion that the deception was deliberate; that the intent was to mislead and provide erroneous information to the House and therefore to Canadians. Have you or your staff done the research necessary on precedents to this type of investigation, and how difficult it was to prove that in the past?

· (1305)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you for the question.

Again, I'm not here as a parliamentary expert, but I know there are very few precedents for the type of process you're engaged in. I don't think being part of this process is something that makes any of us very happy. There is a great degree of sadness in even having to be part of this process, and an even greater degree of sadness that this process has to take place.

I had many mixed emotions about having to rise in the House of Commons to make a point of privilege on this. In the nine years I have served my constituents, this is the first time I have raised a point of privilege, which is very often raised frivolously or as a delay tactic in the House. I have not raised one before, and I did not raise this one lightly. But I raised it because I believed it to be important. I believe the exercise of true judgment hinges on truth itself. I believe it is essential that we conduct ourselves at all times in the House of Commons in a truthful way when dealing with any issue, regardless of its magnitude. That has not been the case. That is why I raised the point of privilege.

The Chair: You have just more than two minutes, Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: My last question follows the line of questioning we've just explored. I hope the committee will operate fully in this manner, because I agree with the witness that this should not be a partisan issue.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jay Hill: There, for all to witness, is the reaction: outright laughter and disdain. That is the problem here. It should not be a partisan issue when a minister admits to misleading the Canadian people in the House of Commons. That should not be partisan, regardless of what party he happens to represent during elections. He's a minister of the crown and should be held accountable to the people of the country.

The reaction I just saw across the way does not bode well. It actually reinforces some of the comments Mr. Pallister has made here today about whether we should decide, here and now, if our role is to take a partisan position and defend the minister through our lines of questioning.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I raised this when we were discussing the very way we would parcel out questioning. If it gets down to partisan, obviously the government, with their superiority on this committee, as they do on all standing committees, will have the advantage of being able to wrap this up early or use up a lot of time attacking witnesses, instead of trying to get at the truth. I don't think that will serve democracy, Parliament, and our country very bloody well.

Thank you.

The Chair: Next will be Joe Jordan, then Cheryl Gallant.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pallister, I don't think you need to apologize for bringing this point of privilege forward, and I hope we haven't put you in a position where you feel you need to. I use the analogy of a golf tournament. Everyone who plays in the tournament has a responsibility to make sure everyone else follows the rules. I just want to clear the record there. I think we're getting into problems with the subsequent theories you've presented. I want to make this case. In no way are we saying you were wrong to bring this forward.

There were two statements before the House that could not be reconciled, and we need to further discuss this. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that there is a certain amount of frustration and of.... You speak to motivation and intent. I don't think any of us can sit here and divorce ourselves from this, but we certainly have to try.

In reference to the comments of the previous speaker in terms of a minister of the crown, I just want to read into the record, Mr. Chair, a quote concerning privilege. It says that privilege concerns a member as a member, not as a minister, party leader, whip or parliamentary secretary. “Therefore, allegations of misjudgment, or mismanagement, or maladministration on the part of a minister in the performance of his ministerial duties do not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege.” That's a direct quote from Joseph Maingot, an opposition-proposed witness who we're going to hear from. So if we're going to talk about the issue, we owe it to the other members of the House to at least be informed as to what the parameters of our discussion should be.

As to prejudgment, I find the personal attacks on this side rather disconcerting, because we're defending the minister. When Mr. Toews starts off his questions by saying I think you've made a good case and I'm convinced it was deliberate, we're getting into speculation; we haven't even heard from the minister yet.

You have your views. I've yet to see a scrap of physical evidence to support them, other than circumstantial evidence, and I'm not dismissing this. You've provided us with a theory. But let's be very clear: the allegations you're making that the minister lied--call it what you want--that the Prime Minister lied, that perhaps all of the cabinet members are a bunch of liars--liars, liars, pants on fire--I mean, this is getting absolutely ridiculous. You do have certain rights as an individual member to make those statements, but I would just suggest that the onus is not on the minister to defend his actions, as you have suggested. Certainly he has to do this, but let's not reverse the onus here. If you were making a charge that this member deliberately misled the House, I hope the evidence we're going to hear is more substantive than what I've heard today.

It's an interesting story. I read spy novels. I might even say this has been a little entertaining. But at the end of the day, I have to see something, not just things that have been formulated, and phrases like “it's only logical that he would do this”; or “he must have assumed this”; or “based on this, he must have done that”. Surely to goodness the rules of this place would dictate that we have to answer to a little bit higher authority than this kind of speculation. It's going to weave its way in here, but we have to be very careful when we start referring to people as liars. What we've heard today is that the minister has deliberately misled the House--lied. Mr. Toews has confirmed that he holds this view as well.

· (1310)

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, we have decided not to use the word “lie”. Okay?

Go ahead.

Mr. Vic Toews: On a point of order, I want that member to look at the transcript as to what I said--

Mr. Joe Jordan: Absolutely, I will, sir. I will, sir.

The Chair: This is a point of order. Leave it to the witness to respond.

Go ahead.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I will, sir, because I was shocked when I heard it.

The Chair: But we're not using the word “lie” or “liar” in here, Joe. Go ahead.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Anyway, I think we've got to be very, very careful. You are currently protected, as we are, under parliamentary privilege. We can say what we want here. We also have an interest to defend, and that's another member of the House. His actions have been referred to this committee. I won't apologize for defending the interests of an individual member, just as I don't think you need to apologize for bringing the charge. I think we have to get those ground rules clear.

Mr. Pallister, on one of the many occasions when you were scrummed on this issue, you were asked specifically, “It's a pretty serious charge that the Prime Minister is lying”--it's in the text, Mr. Chair--

The Chair: That's acceptable.

Mr. Joe Jordan: --“What evidence do you have?” And your reply was:

“I have the evidence of his record as a person who values political manipulation and deception very, very highly, as a person who is an astute political strategist and of the fact that he has not a political bone in his body. I cannot believe and I would not want the troops and their families to believe that the Prime Minister was totally unaware...”, and on and on and on.

I would just like to say, in all sincerity, I don't think you've got the goods to make that statement. I don't think what you're saying there--and I'm not a lawyer, and that's not an apology, but as I said to you before, I watched the entire O.J. trial--is going to get you far.

If your testimony is going to be any different from any other member's random theories about what's transpired here, I'd like to see some evidence. I'd like to see some facts. Mr. Pratt has already pointed out the problem when facts are taken out of context. That's why we're harping on this. It's not a criticism of you bringing this forward; it's a question why your theory is any more valuable than mine. At this point, I think we've probably.... This has run its course.

You have provided us with a chronological sequence of events--

Mr. Brian Pallister: I believe the member would like to speak without me having the opportunity to respond.

The Chair: That is his privilege. It's his time.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Now you're implying motive again, and you're wrong.

The Chair: Joe, there are four minutes left.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, I know that.

So there's the danger, Mr. Pallister, of your assuming that you can read minds, because that's not my intention at all. I've sat here and listened to this, and I'm uncomfortable with where we now are. I'm trying--

· (1315)

Mr. Brian Pallister: You don't like the information I presented, Mr. Jordan. You're uncomfortable with the information I presented, sir, but the fact remains that I presented you with factual information. You may be uncomfortable with the facts, Mr. Jordan, but the fact remains--

Mr. Joe Jordan: You're making my point, sir. Keep it up, keep it up, Kreskin. Keep it up.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --that you have a responsibility to deal with more than simply the task of defending your own colleague, sir.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, order, please?

The Chair: He was replying to your comments, Mr. Jordan.

Go ahead, Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: My point is this. I'm uncomfortable--

Mr. Brian Pallister: I know you are, sir.

Mr. Joe Jordan: --with the fact that as an MP I have a responsibility, as do you, to protect the other members of this House. This is not an individual point of privilege; it's a collective point of privilege we're investigating here. Therefore your theories are no more valuable than my theories.

We have heard your testimony--

Mr. Brian Pallister: What is your theory, then, sir?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm going to wait until I hear from the minister before I formulate my theory, sir.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Good, and that's what I've asked you to do, sir.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You have not. You have painted--

The Chair: The chair is here. Speak to the chair, for starters. He has the floor.

Go ahead.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, this witness has painted a very succinct theory, which he has backed up with circumstantial evidence, that's dragged everybody but the Pope into this conspiracy of his.

What I'm suggesting is that, Mr. Pallister, you have been extremely valuable to this committee in presenting the facts and the chronological events. What I'm suggesting is that your value is somewhat diminished when you get into the speculative theories based on the kind of evidence you produce when you're not covered by parliamentary privilege, out talking in a scrum. That's pretty thin gruel, to be making some of the statements you've been making.

The Chair: Okay, Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, sir.

Speaking of thin gruel, you'll enjoy, I'm sure, listening to the rationale of the Minister of National Defence as he explains to the members of this committee why it was that he deceived his colleagues for eight days on an issue of national importance. If you do not understand that your role here is to ask for facts--and that is what I have given you--then you do not understand your fundamental role.

To quote Speaker Jerome again, “If the essence of Parliament is accountability, then surely the essence of accountability is the question period in the Canadian House of Commons”.

The member did not provide accurate and honest information in question period in the House of Commons. That is the fact. And the fact, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it or distract from the fact, is that. And that jeopardizes the ability of all members of Parliament to do their job.

You lectured me for some time, sir, on my intent. My intent is clear here today. It is to provide you with an opportunity to consider thoughtfully the motivations that would have been at work in the mind of the Minister of Defence. I understand fully that you must ask the Minister of Defence what motivations were at work. You will have to decide whether you weigh his arguments as fully as you weigh mine. That is your choice.

The Chair: Speak through the chair.

Mr. Brian Pallister: But to dispute my testimony here today.... I hope, sir, that you as vigorously oppose the testimony by the Minister of National Defence when he speaks to you about his rationale. Each of us is entitled to speculate on intent--you are quite right--but my opportunity here today was to provide you with facts, and I have done that.

The Chair: It's Cheryl Gallant. And if I can say, colleagues, that's the end of the first round. We're going now to five minutes. I know, as we have all worked on the committee, it gets to be very difficult. I have no intention of closing the meeting down unnecessarily.

Cheryl, it's five minutes, and then I'll see who else is interested in responding.

Brian, that's for your information too.

Cheryl Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, whether the motivation was covering up caucus issues or covering up the foreign policy-making on the fly, or covering up something else for that matter, we'll find that out from the minister.

I'd like to get back to the issue at hand, and that is whether or not the minister deliberately made the conflicting statements. In his questions, Mr. Regan made the argument that it just doesn't make sense for the minister to say something knowingly conflicting in the House after he was just outside making a statement that's public knowledge. We go back to the night before during the debate. When questioned by Mr. Godfrey, he states that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said they would never be treated as prisoners of war, while Secretary of State Colin Powell said they must be treated as prisoners of war. I would like to know where the minister comes down on this one.

Mr. Eggleton said that Canadians will treat people in our care as detainees in accordance with the provisions of the third Geneva Convention, and that means treating them as prisoners of war until such other determination is made. But he already knew. He himself admitted on January 30 that the minister was advised of our troops' participation in operations involving Al-Qaeda detainees. Why would he talk about the treatment of the detainees in the future? On one day he is saying that it's hypothetical--the minister himself--and then a few days later he admits that he knew at the time he made that statement.

Getting back to whether or not this is even an issue, I'd like to know this first of all from Mr. Pallister. What evidence do you have to support the fact that this is even an issue? Were there a number of articles in newspapers? Can you quantify it, very quickly, please?

· (1320)

Mr. Brian Pallister: Certainly we know. We did an Internet search through the Library of Parliament on the issue of taking prisoners. We found they have a maximum on the number of stories they can record on their mechanism, and between the date of the committee meeting on January 17 and the end of the month the maximum was hit. It was at 200. So there were more than 200 different stories in the media relating to this issue. Yes, we have evidence--certainly there's compelling evidence--to support the contention that this was an issue of national concern.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Given that there is a pattern of leading the House to believe things that aren't necessarily true with respect to JTF-2.... For example, it wasn't until he was asked point-blank in the House whether or not JTF-2 had even left Canada, when all along he had led Canadians to believe that the JTF-2 were already over there. It was only then that he admitted no, they're still in Canada. So we do have a pattern of making conflicting statements.

Mr. Pallister, I understand in your evidence you're saying that only when external circumstances--for example photographs in the Globe and Mail--compelled him to tell the truth or to disclose the truth did he tell the truth. Is that a fair summary of what you're saying? Only when he is compelled to do so by external factors does he come forth with the truth.

Mr. Brian Pallister: This gets into the realm of speculation. I admit that. I think the minister will have to respond to that question before the committee.

I would like to take the opportunity to respond to an earlier accusation that I'm a “liar, liar, pants on fire” kind of a guy.

The Chair: We did agree we wouldn't use that word except in quotations.

Mr. Brian Pallister: And I won't use that word either. But I would like to reference one thing. What I said in fact--and this is for the benefit of Mr. Jordan and his comments--what I did reference for Mr. Jordan's benefit and for the committee's benefit was the importance of understanding what the minister actually said to cabinet on the Tuesday morning. The reason I reference that was I did that as a question to the committee, not as a conclusion, because I do not know what the minister said to the cabinet on the morning of Tuesday, January 29.

I do know that he later said he had given cabinet the full disclosure on the issue of taking prisoners. He had told them the information. But in question period that day he claimed he first learned of the taking of prisoners the previous Friday. We know that the next day he changed that story and said it was the previous Monday. We're aware of that. My point in raising this is simply to ask the members of the committee to consider the importance of that--the importance of knowing whether in fact the minister misled cabinet or whether he told them the truth. I am not drawing conclusions as to the guilt or innocence of any cabinet member. I'm simply saying that's an important issue for the committee to address. They need to get to the bottom of that. And I think it's an important enough issue that the committee should not trivialize it.

The Chair: Okay. It's Marlene Catterall, Pierre Brien, then Yvon Godin. And then, colleagues--each five minutes--I'm going to draw it to a conclusion, first because of question period, and second because of the staff who are here.

Okay, Marlene Catterall--and I hope you keep it--

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.): First, I have to briefly disagree with our witness that he has drawn no conclusions. His presentation to us verbally, in writing, and in media scrums comes to the very definite conclusion that the minister lied--that's the word he used--and that he did so deliberately.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I should point out, Mr. Chairman, if I may--

The Chair: Marlene, just a minute.

Brian Pallister.

· (1325)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, no, that was a statement, not a question.

The Chair: He's the witness. He's entitled.

Very briefly, though, Brian.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes. Very briefly, I wasn't aware that the members were here to consider the validity or non-validity of my statements.

The Chair: Okay, you can include that in your reply.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The member said he had come to no conclusions. He has. In fact, he's stated them in writing and verbally.

I understand why the witness before us, as a member of the Canadian Alliance, might be preoccupied with caucus divisions, Mr. Chair, but some of us, as Liberals, tend to regard differences of opinion as just healthy discussion.

I have heard no evidence at all to demonstrate that the minister deliberately misled Parliament. The minister agrees that he misinformed Parliament, that he gave two separate dates, that it was mistaken, that he didn't provide accurate information. That's a little different from intentionally misleading Parliament.

Would our witness please give me one solid piece of evidence of intention on that?

I would like to ask him to comment on this, as well. It was on January 29 that the minister referred to January 25 as when he became informed. It was 24 hours later that he used the date January 21. So it was he himself who actually gave two different dates, not somebody else who said “Oh, no. You actually knew on January 21.”

Had he not, there wouldn't be an issue here. But had he been motivated to deceive, he would have tried to conceal one of those dates. He wouldn't have openly in question period given those two dates. In fact, the very next opportunity he had, which is when our witness raised the issue of privilege, he conceded that he had been wrong. That doesn't sound to me that it indicates intent to mislead.

The Chair: Brian Pallister, you have about a minute and a half.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, sir.

Clearly, it is an attempt to deceive. And what preceded it was an attempt to deceive. All those attempts to deceive earlier failed, so the final pursuit of the minister was to tell the truth--we hope.

The member refers to the Liberal members, and she refers, in a partisan way, to the Canadian Alliance's divisive caucus, or whatever. She says she enjoys a healthy discussion. How can she have a healthy discussion, Mr. Chair, if the information that she'd like to have a healthy discussion over isn't available to her?

Surely this is not an issue I raise without benefit to the members of this caucus. The fact is, if you want to have a healthy discussion on any issue, you need to know the true facts. And the fact is, the caucus didn't have the facts.

So if she'd like to make the argument that this isn't a divisive issue, I've presented facts to the contrary. If she'd like to make the argument that the minister didn't know it was a divisive issue, I've presented facts to the contrary. But if she wants to try to make the argument here that she enjoys a healthy discussion, to use her words, a healthy discussion is not something she's ever going to have in the House of Commons, its committees, or in her caucus in the absence of facts, when the ministers of the government do not present the facts to the members of Parliament.

The Chair: Okay.

Pierre Brien, Yvon Godin, then Joe Jordan, very briefly. And then we're going to conclude, colleagues, if I can.

Pierre.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness who has already, if I am not mistaken, held a government portfolio, how he would have reacted, as a minister, upon hearing the Prime Minister state publicly that no prisoner had been taken, but that a statement to that effect would be made once prisoners were being held, while reiterating that that had not happened. What would a minister be expected to do when he hears his Prime Minister say things that he knows are patently untrue? How would you have reacted?

[English]

Mr. Brian Pallister: I am truly fortunate, in the sense that I have been privileged to serve my constituents in a provincial house, and I have not had this kind of experience in my life. I do not wish it on anyone. I do not believe for a second that any member here is very proud of the necessity for this committee to conduct this investigation.

I think it would be a tremendous disservice to the Canadian people, and certainly to all the members of the House, if we were to attempt in any way, shape, or form to try to narrow the parameters of our investigation or our search for facts, and that includes for motive. The reality is that this is not something I had any experience with provincially whatsoever. When I was a member in a government, there was not a single incident in our cabinet, among our members of cabinet or with our premier, where information like this or a circumstance even similar to this arose. So this is very new to me.

I'll tell you that in my brief time as a member of Parliament, this is the most disturbing sequence of events I have been part of. I know others have been here much longer than I, and I'm sure there may be many things they have experienced that would unsettle them more than this, but not for me. For me, the truth in the dealings of the House of Commons is something that should be sacred and treated as sacred.

· (1330)

The Chair: Pierre Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I want to be sure that I properly understood one of the things you said earlier. You seemed to be saying that the challenge for the committee was to determine whether or not there were motives that caused the minister to not tell the truth and that it might well have been in the national interest to behave in that way. Did you state that it might have been in the country's interest for the minister not to tell the truth?

[English]

Mr. Brian Pallister: Some would argue that the issue of the responsibility of the government to maintain some kind of clear coherence in terms of command and control in Afghanistan is a side issue. But it certainly isn't a side issue to the Speaker, who in ruling on this motion of privilege made the comment that “The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House”.

I think the Speaker made it clear in his ruling that he believes it's very important that we in the House are aware of the facts around cases relevant to our troops in Afghanistan. I think the saddest part of this whole proceeding is that it distracts from the larger issue, which we are all concerned with, of the role of our troops and the safety of our troops in that jurisdiction.

I go on with the Speaker's ruling, and I quote from it. He says, “The integrity of information is of paramount importance, since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism”. These are the Speaker's words. As I've said before, I think there are very legitimate concerns that the command and control mechanism might not be what is needed when a prime minister is not made aware of something like this for eight days.

Again, the member asserts that I'm calling the Prime Minister a liar. That's not at all true. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to do that. I'm not making the case that the Prime Minister knew and didn't make that public. What I am saying--and I want to be clear on this, Mr. Chair--

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote two lines that are extremely relevant, under the circumstances, with respect to... This is not debate. This is a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: No, no, no. We're proceeding.

Brian, you have 40 seconds.

An hon. member: It's the rules of order.

The Chair: No, it's not a point of order.

I've heard enough. We're very late in the day. Let us carry on, as we're doing.

Pierre, you have a few seconds.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Very briefly, I'll just finish and say--

The Chair: If you take the time, Pierre won't have it.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm sorry. I apologize. I'll remember to ask it later.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: This is my last question. As a member of Parliament, what measures are you expecting? If ever we were to conclude that the minister deliberately misled the House, what type of sanction do you think should apply? What are your expectations?

[English]

The Chair: Very briefly, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Chairman, I'm relying on the judgment of my colleagues in the House of Commons who have the important responsibility within this committee to make that recommendation. I will trust in your judgment and I have faith in your judgment. I wish you the best in your deliberations.

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be as brief as possible, as I know we are short of time.

Mr. Jordan has often said that the minister stated that he learned about this in the newspaper and realized that he had made a mistake. Why would he say that?

First of all, I think he might have been surprised by the questions that were put to him in the House of Commons and, after the fact, he might have reacted by realizing that he had just been caught and that he should perhaps have said something. He then referred to the newspaper because he knew he could not change what was written in the media; then someone else might have told him that he could not refer to what was in the paper because he should have known it within 24 hours. Once the truth was out, it took him a day or two to correct himself.

Do you think that type of thing might have happened in the House of Commons?

· (1335)

[English]

Mr. Brian Pallister: It may be again. And of course it's difficult, as all committee members must know, to ascertain facts. Certainly the minister will come and he will speak and you will ask him for his reasons for not disclosing information. You will ask him his reasons, I expect, as to why he would hold this information close to the vest and not share it with his colleagues, or certainly with the Prime Minister. You will ask him these questions and you will ascertain the validity of his answers. I expect that would be an important function of the minister's testimony before you.

Again, I respond to the earlier comments. If you feel somehow hurt by my assertions, I am sorry you feel hurt. But the reality is that the facts of the divisiveness within your caucus are indisputable, and for you to discount my comments on the basis of your desire that that were not so I think is denying your primary responsibility here today.

The fact is that the minister must have considered various realities in making his decision to keep this information secret. To dismiss these realities because they hurt you or they seem to be partisan would be, to my mind, abdicating your responsibilities in considering the reality of what the minister must have considered. He must have considered--this is not speculation, I hope you would agree--the reality of the consequences of his making the information public. That is a fact. That does not call for speculation. He must have considered that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But as a committee, we are here, we're trying to find the facts. You brought a case in front of us. You brought a point of privilege that the House considered was important enough to bring before the committee. It was important enough and the House sent it here and we have a duty to consider it.

Don't you think it would be normal for this committee to bring all witnesses before it to try to find the facts? And some of those witnesses that we need to see, Mr. Chair, will be from the Prime Minister's Office, who tried to put all that puzzle together. I'd like to know how you feel about the Prime Minister's Office representatives, or the Prime Minister himself, coming here to tell us their side of the story about the eight days that we still have doubts about in this country as to whether he knew or not.

The Chair: Brian Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: As I said in my presentation to you, I think the essence of our parliamentary system is accountability. I think it would do the government a great disservice for them to appear to be in any way, shape, or form shirking their responsibilities in terms of that accountability. I think all members know that.

The question of witnesses that you have to weigh is obviously a difficult one. But the reality is that if members of the committee err on the side of narrowing parameters or restricting witnesses to too great a degree, they know, all members of the committee know, that will open up the committee to criticism. The degree of justification of that criticism I don't comment on.

The perspective we have to have here, I believe, is that we are in pursuit of the truth and in pursuit of the best interests of all members of the House, regardless of political party. I would hope that all members could agree that the truth is essential to the conduct of the debates and deliberations of our House and that it cannot be avoided, it cannot be betrayed. If it is, it jeopardizes our ability to work on behalf of the people of the country.

The Chair: Joe Jordan, briefly.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pallister, you quoted the Speaker's ruling, so I'm going to do the same. Speaker Milliken, in his reference to this committee, said, and I'm quoting:

“I am prepared...to accept the minister's assertion he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless, this remains a very difficult situation.”

And I agree with you, it is a difficult situation. He goes on to say:

“I have concluded that the situation before us, where the House is left with two versions of events, is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the honourable member from Portage--Lisgar to move his motion.”

I think that turns the temperature down considerably in terms of the scope and scale of what we're trying to do.

You quote Speaker Jerome, and I'm going to quote Speaker Lamoureux:

“ The makeup of Cabinet and matters surrounding a Member's performance in Cabinet are political questions which are not properly questions of privilege. Other opportunities exist for the discussion and debate of such matters.”

I would suggest to Mr. Godin, if you're interested or if you're concerned about who knew what when, bring it up in the House of Commons at question period. That's not why we're here. We're here to deal specifically with the two conflicting statements, or apparent conflicting statements, that are before the House.

Mr. Pallister, I'm also very comforted by your statement that perhaps we're--

· (1340)

The Chair: Point of order, Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know if you will take it as a point of order, but I know if I bring it to the House of Commons, they're going to say the committee is sitting together and it should come up with the truth. That's what we should do, and this is where we should do it.

The Chair: You've made your point. It's not a point of order.

A point of order from Jacques Saada. I hope it is.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, it is. Could I ask you very respectfully why a point of order coming from someone else was heard, while mine was not heard at all, even when you knew what I was going to say?

The Chair: Jacques, I was constrained by the time. I understand. I do my best here to respond as well as I can. I've done my best to see that this has been a fair hearing.

Joe Jordan, we've said this will be brief and it has to be brief.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It will be.

Mr. Pallister, I want to conclude that I'm comforted by your statement that your assertions make us uncomfortable because you have made the distinction--they are indeed assertions. I think we are going to follow the facts in this committee. We aren't going to follow assertions. At this point it is probably prudent that we hear from the minister. Then we can decide what's relevant and what's not, and take it from there.

The Chair: Okay, Brian, you get the last word.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Certainly I'd like to respond.

Of course we all know that assertions are based on fact sometimes--and mine are. The member used the phrase “turning down the temperature”; I think he revealed himself in referencing that phrase. I believe that, unfortunately, this is his goal here, to somehow turn down the temperature of this debate. But this is not in the best interests of getting to the truth. The reality is that you have to get to the facts. Turning down the temperature speaks to the mood of the discussions. The member reveals himself.

If the attempt here is to undo the damage done by someone who chose secrecy over public interest, then surely we cannot do this if we try to heap up more secrecy on the secrecy we've already witnessed. The fact is that the narrow parameters the member referred to in his comments--he said he would prefer narrower parameters--may serve his goal, but it doesn't serve the goal of the members of the House of Commons. And that is what we have to do now, put the public interest ahead of the political interest here. I encourage all members of the committee to do this.

The Chair: Brian Pallister, we thank you for your presentation today and for your patience.

We have another point of order.

Mr. Jay Hill: A point of order on the process, Mr. Chairman. I believe all of the parties had a chance in the second round except for the PC/DR coalition. I was just wondering if this is going to continue.

The Chair: If I may, colleagues, perhaps we can discuss some of this. To be honest, I thought the ten-minute thing we agreed to was clumsy, but that's the way it is. What I tried to do was complete the ten-minute rounds, and then get whatever we had time left for in the five-minute rounds. I intend to do the same until the committee directs me otherwise.

Colleagues, before you leave I want to draw your attention to the agenda you have, and this applies to the media as well. As I said earlier, it's a work in progress. I have already been informed that Jim Wright of the Department of Foreign Affairs is in Russia on that particular day, so there may be at least one more change to this agenda. We will advise you as quickly as we can. As you can see, we have all the witnesses indicated on it, including the military, the Privy Council, and experts on privilege.

I remind you that by 5 o'clock today you're supposed to have the written questions to the clerk. I will bring these to our meeting this evening. Our next meeting is at 7:30 tonight in this room and our witness is William Corbett, Clerk of the House of Commons.

We adjourn until 7:30 this evening. Thank you very much.