HAFF Committee Report

APPENDIX III

DISSENTING OPINION

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

 

NDP Minority Report on the Eggleton Inquiry

 

The Procedure and House Affairs Committee was mandated to investigate the question of privilege raised on January 31, 2002 concerning the charge against the Minister of National Defence in making misleading statements in the House. Over a period of two weeks the committee heard testimony from the Minister as well as various witnesses including the senior staff in his department.

The committee had a responsibility to make a decision on this question of contempt of the Minister of National Defence as thoroughly as possible. The committee was limited in its investigation because the Liberal majority on the committee stopped the appearance of further witnesses beyond the preliminary list. The Liberal majority refused to allow the Minister to return to the committee to defend himself against further conflicting testimony given in the committee between himself and his senior staff. This was a short sighted and partisan attempt to protect the Minister. In the committee the Minister stated:

..(On January 25) to prepare for the cabinet meeting on the following Tuesday (January29) I determined that further discussions with officials were necessary, both to get a better understanding about the mission that I had been advised about the previous Monday, but also to talk about the whole question of detainees and government policy in that respect. So I began a series of meetings and conversation by telephone everybody from the Chief of Defence staff to the deputy chief of the defence, the deputy minister and the Judge advocate General who is the chief legal adviser and most knowledgeable person on this subject in our department.

This testimony by the Minister at the committee was contradicted by statements of his staff at committee meetings on February 21, 2002.

Vic Toews. : All right, and as far as you’re (Maddison) concerned, you provided the minister with all the necessary available information on the taking of the detainees on January 21.

Vice Admiral Maddison: Mr. Chairman, when the minister was be briefed by me on January 21, 2002, I stated to the minister; that a mission had occurred; that it was a very successful mission; that it was done entirely professionally, it was done entirely with the rules of engagement and the direction that our special forces had; that we had captured suspected terrorists, they had been transported and were turned over to American authorities, to their detention facility as was the direction that our people were to follow.

In the testimony from Vice Admiral Maddison, Vice Chief of the Defence staff, the committee learned that the Minister was fully briefed on vital information of the actions of the JTF2 on 3 different occasions; January 21, January 25 and on January 29, 2002. The Vice Chief clearly stated that he passed on all the information on the JTF2 actions completely during the first briefing.(1)

There was a further contradiction by the Chief of Defence staff who was on holidays when the Minister stated that he had contacted him for further briefing information.

Gen Raymond Henault: Mr. Chairman, I can confirm for you that I did not talk to the minister between January 21 and 29 when I met him in the afternoon with the deputy chief of defence staff. I can’t necessarily tell you why he would have said that because I can confirm for you here that that was not the case on my part.

The stifling of the committee’s investigation has only prevented the Minister from clarifying why his testimony contradicted statements from those made by the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff as well as investigating other anomalies in the testimony of witnesses to the committee.

This question of privilege requires some background information on the dates involving the movement of JTF2 troops. It is also important to know that there was a division in the Liberal caucus on its policy on the treatment of captured prisoners handed over to the United States government. The issue of the movement of the JTF2 troop movement was raised the week of January 17, 2002 when the issue of the treatment of captured prisoners from Afghanistan was raised in the Joint Committee of National Defence and Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As a witness, the Minister heard from all members of the committee including his own government members that there was a strong concern for the treatment of prisoners and whether the Americans would follow the Geneva Convention upon the capture of prisoners. As well there was an op-ed piece on January 22, 2002 in the Globe and Mail by Liberal backbencher, John Godfrey on his concern that the treatment of prisoners follow the guidelines under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 1950. It was clear to the Minister that this was a difficult political issue that divided his own party.

Shortly after his appearance at the joint committee hearings the Minister went to Mexico on a ministerial trip. It was on January 21, 2002 while the Minister was in Mexico that he was briefed by the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, Vice Admiral Greg Maddison of the capture of prisoners by the JTF2 troops.(2) As the Procedure and House Affairs Committee has heard in testimony from the Minister’s senior staff, this was a highly significant event. The Deputy Minister of Defence, Vice Admiral Maddison gave a thorough and lengthy report to the Minister on this very important event.

On January 22, 2002 a photo of JTF2 in action appeared in the Globe and Mail. At the time it was not known that these were Canadian troops. The Minister was informed by Vice Admiral Maddison of this fact on January 25, 2002.(3) The Globe and Mail picture represented some important facts about decisions that were made on Canadian military and foreign policy. The photo gave proof of a strategic decision of cooperation with the American government without guarantees of the treatment of prisoners.(4) The Minister withheld information on the identity of the troops in the photo until Tuesday, January 29, 2002 in a media scrum and not in the House of Commons.(5) The Minister showed a lack of respect of Parliament by not first and foremost addressing this important new information to fellow Parliamentarians in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity.

Joseph Maingot, a witness to the committee on February 26 and a well-known expert on Parliamentary Procedure, defined the question of contempt. He stated that in the Speaker’s ruling:

"(The Speaker’s) concern was that there were conflicting statements, but they were conflicting statements on a very serious matter of government policy.

It's correct because it is incumbent upon the members to decide what is in their view contempt. By all of what you've heard contempt can be you felt a person intentionally misled or the conflicting statements were such that really reflected on the integrity of the House, the dignity of the House.

By this reasoning the Defence Minister was in contempt because not only did he make misleading statements in the House of Commons but also he marred the dignity of the House by not correcting the record of the facts, as he knew them in the chamber at the earliest opportunity. The Minister waited until he was asked a direct question on the matter before correcting his conflicting statements.(6) Although the Minister did make a statement in the House the following day on January 31, 2002 he did not apologize to the House for making conflicting statements.(7) This goes beyond "a goof" as Liberal committee member Ms. Parrish claimed on March 14, 2002 at the committee.

After the appearance of Vice-Admiral Maddison at the committee on February 21, 2002, Minister defended himself as not being slow witted and that it did not take him three briefings before it "clicked". He stated to the media that he got it the first time. The Minister admits that he was well briefed on January 21, 2002 by the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff. Yet he contradicted himself at committee by saying that he needed further information on the issue of the JTF2 before he could tell the Prime Minister and the cabinet. It also proves that the Minister was well aware when he was in the House of Commons the week of January 28 to the 31, 2002 that he did not pass on this information to Members of Parliament when asked direct questions in the House of Commons. The committee as a whole has a responsibility to uphold a high standard of behaviour and respect for the House of Commons and its rules. Again, the Minister’s lack of action to correct the record at the earliest opportunity in the House was unacceptable behaviour for a Member of Parliament and Minister of the Crown.

The Canadian Armed Force needs strong responsible leadership in the form of a Minister of National Defence. By misleading the House of Commons on the movements of the JTF2, Minister of National Defence belittled the concerns and interests of the entire military force who are defending our country’s interests in battle and in peacekeeping assignments. These men and women deserve a leader that can be trusted to pass on all vital information regarding our troops. This Minister made misleading remarks in the House of Commons and showed contempt for the House of Commons by not immediately correcting the record in the chamber as has been done by Ministers in the past when they have misspoke themselves in Parliament.(8) It is up to the committee to uphold the dignity and standards that are followed in the House of Commons at a high but obtainable level of decorum and dignity. Throughout Parliament’s history Members of Parliament have show their reverence to this institution by first and foremost correcting the record of what they have said in the House of Commons. The committee has a responsibility to uphold the tradition of Parliament and to not let our collective values erode.

The battles in Afghanistan have been escalating over the past few weeks. The Canadian Forces need a Minister that will provide leadership and will be able to make tough decisions on the movement of our men and women troops. The New Democratic Party strongly recommends that based on the evidence against the Minister that the committee report back to the House of Commons that the Defence Minister be held in contempt.

---

(1) Hansard, January 30, 2002, Question Period

(2) Committee evidence 46, February 19, 2002, Witness, Minister of National Defence, Hon. Art Eggleton

(3) Committee evidence 47, February 21, 2002 Witness, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Vice-admiral Greg Maddison

(4) Committee evidence 52, February 25, 2002 Witness: Jim Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister Foreign Affairs. It was not until February 7, 2002 the President of the US issued a statement to abide by the principles of the Geneva Convention. The Canadian government accepted it.

(5) Committee evidence 47, February 21, 2002 Witness: Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison.

(6) Committee evidence 46, February 19, 2002, Witness, Minister of National Defence, Hon. Art Eggleton

(7) Hansard, January 31, 2002

(8) Hansard, February 7, 2001, Herb Gray stood in the House of Commons and corrected a statement he had made earlier in Question Period regarding documents sent to Russian authorities regarding a Russian diplomat accused of drunk driving and manslaughter.