HAFF Committee Report

APPENDIX II

DISSENTING OPINION

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS

 

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS DISSENTING OPINION

 

Following the tabling by the government majority of a report that whitewashes the Minister of Defence in connection with his contradictory statements in the House regarding the capture of Afghani prisoners by Canadian troops, the Bloc Québécois must produce this dissenting opinion.

The Committee’s terms of reference

First, it is important to review briefly the order of reference that the House gave the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. At the outset, let us recall that the events which led the Committee to study this issue are acknowledged both by the members of the committee an equally by the Speaker of the House. In fact, all agree that, on January 29 and 30, 2002, the Minister of Defence made contradictory remarks regarding the date he learned of the arrest of Afghani prisoners. This is what gave rise to consideration of the following motion tabled by the Member for Portage-Lisgar:

"That the charge against the Minister of National Defence of making misleading statements in the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs."

In his decision granting the question of privilege raised by Mr. Pallister, the Speaker pointed out that:

"Furthermore, in this case, as hon. members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism." (p.2)

and citing from the Marleau-Montpetit :

 

"I refer hon. members to Marleau and Montpetit at page 67: There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties..." (p.4)

In his evidence, the Clerk of the House, Mr. William Corbett, mentioned that, according to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, in order to establish whether a statement constitutes contempt of Parliament, it must be established that the Member knew, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect and that in making it the Member intended to mislead the House. We believe this requirement makes it impossible ever to prove contempt of Parliament when a misleading statement is made in the House. Under these circumstances, intent to mislead the House could only be proven by an admission from the person who made the statement. We agree that making a false statement in the knowledge that it is false presupposes the intent to mislead.

We believe the questions before the committee are the following:

1 - Did the Minister of Defence mislead the House, and

2 - Does the fact of having misled the House constitute a contempt of Parliament which must be sanctioned by the House?

It is in light of these two questions that we examined the range of evidence heard by committee over the past few weeks.

 

Chronology of events:

The evidence heard in committee enables us to establish the following chronology of events surrounding the issue, specifically the events concerning the Minister of National Defence.

On January 20, 2002, JTF2 troops captured Afghani prisoners and handed them over to the American armed forces. In the evening, General Henault was informed, by telephone, by the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff of the success of the mission and the handing-over of the prisoners to the American forces. According to the General’s testimony, the information given by the Vice Admiral was clear and virtually the same as that given to the Minister of Defence the following day.

On January 21, VAdm. Maddison, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, gave the information over the telephone to the Minister of National Defence, then in Mexico City. According to the evidence of VAdm. Maddison, this briefing session was clear, "crystal clear" to use his expression, with the Minister not asking for any additional information, and the information conveyed relating to the fact that Canadian troops had taken prisoners, that they had been handed over to the Americans, that there had been no loss of life among the Canadian troops and that the mission had been a success. General Henault, Chief of the Defence Staff, gave similar evidence, and reiterated the clarity of the briefing concerning the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops.

On January 22, VAdm. Maddison held a briefing session with the Deputy Minister of National Defence, Jim Judd, who was then the only civilian, other than the Minister of Defence, to know about the situation. Moreover, according to the evidence, he obtained confirmation on January 22 that the Globe and Mail photograph was connected to the capture of prisoners by Canadian troops.

On January 25, the Minister of National Defence returned to Ottawa and met with VAdm. Maddison for the daily briefing. He then informed him of the connection with the photograph published on the front page of the Globe and Mail on January 22, 2002 and the capture of Afghani prisoners. According to the evidence given by VAdm. Maddison, and by General Henault, the Minister did not ask afterward for any additional information concerning the capture of Afghani prisoners by JTF2 personnel.

On January 28, the Prime Minister declared publicly that Canadian troops had not taken any prisoners and that the question was a hypothetical one. In the evening, the House held a "take-note" on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan. Questions concerning the status of detainees were put to the Minister of Defence. He referred to the capture of prisoners by Canadian soldiers in the future tense as if it were hypothetical.

On January 29, the Minister of National Defence stated during Question Period that he had been informed of the capture of prisoners by Canadian soldiers on January 25.

On January 30, during Question Period, the Minister stated that he was made aware of the capture of prisoners within 24 hours of the event, that is to say, on January 21, but that he had waited until his return to obtain additional information about the events.

Conclusion:

The sequence of events shows us that the Minister of Defence gave two different versions regarding the date he learned of the capture of prisoners by Canadian troops. But contrary to the interpretation reached by the Liberal majority on the committee, the statements of both VAdm. Maddison and General Henault are evidence of the fact that the briefing on January 21 was clear, that the Minister of National Defence had had all the information necessary to be fully aware of the situation and that at no time thereafter did the Minister ask for any additional information about the capture of prisoners. According to the evidence heard, primarily from the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, the Minister had all the information necessary by January 21 and was well aware of the situation at that time.

In light of the evidence heard, we think it implausible that the Minister of Defence simply made a mistake with the dates in his statements. In making contradictory statements, we contend that he misled the House. We also believe this constitutes contempt of Parliament given the significance of the issue, that is, the extent of Canadian Armed Forces involvement in the actions on the ground and considering that a broad debate on the issue was going on in the media, among Canadians and at the international level. The Minister knew what he was saying in the House. In light of the seriousness of his contempt of Parliament, the Minister should be relieved of his duties.

In addition, giving credence to the theory put forward by the Liberal majority on the committee that the mistake was due to the Minister’s confusion over the telephone and regarding his understanding of the events raises serious doubts as to his competence.

Further considerations

We note that, since the middle of January, a debate had been going on both in Canadian and American public opinion and within the Liberal caucus on the status of the prisoners taken in Afghanistan. The debate concerned American compliance with the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners. The Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and on Defence sat jointly on January 17 and 18, 2002 and addressed this matter. At the time, the Government of Canada was calling the matter hypothetical, since no prisoners had been captured by Canadian troops. Government spokespersons, with the Departments of National Defence and Foreign Affairs in the lead, said they had received assurance the Americans were honouring the Geneva Convention. The debate on this question reached even larger proportions when dissent appeared within the American government itself. On the evening of January 28, 2002, in the course of a take-note debate in the House on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan, the Minister of National Defence was questioned several times on the status of the prisoners. His answer to each of these questions was in the future tense, as if the capture of prisoners by Canadian soldiers was a hypothetical event and not real, as he had known it to be since January 21. The context may appear to have motivated the Minister to not make the information public. However, the mandate of the present committee is not to establish what motivated the Minister but to find out whether he misled the House.

We were also told on a number of occasions that the Minister of Defence was the only civilian included in the chain of command. However, as we mentioned earlier, the Deputy Minister of Defence, Mr. Judd, had been informed on January 22. The written testimony of Commodore Thiffault also indicated that the Department of Foreign Affairs attaché at the Tampa Bay command centre, Ms. Wendy Gilmour, had been aware of the capture on January 25. Strangely, this written testimony based on questions sent a week in advance was changed two days after it was received in Committee, the day following the appearance by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mel Cappe.

In this regard, we cannot ignore the testimony of the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mel Cappe, either. According to the testimony of the Minister of Defence, his executive assistant, Mr. Young, told him that the matter of the Afghani prisoners would be on the agenda of the January 29 meeting of Cabinet. It is unfortunate that the government majority on the Committee refused to hear Mr. Young as a witness. The Deputy Minister of Defence indicated that the Privy Council sets the agenda for Cabinet meetings. Mr. Cappe said he became aware on January 29 at the same time as the Prime Minister. It seems improbable the government's top official would have absolutely no idea of what subjects were on the agenda for Cabinet meetings. In this case, the Clerk said he was unaware that the Minister was going to address the matter of prisoners taken by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Is such a statement plausible or credible?

 

 

Pierre Brien Michel Guimond

Whip en Chef du Bloc Québécois Whip-adjoint du Bloc Québécois

Député de Témiscamingue Député de Beauport—Montmorency

Côte de Beaupré—Île d’Orléans