FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Monday February 4, 2002

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. We have a right to know who knew what and when without being accused of embarking on a witch hunt. Ultimately whatever civil servants may or may not have known it is the cabinet minister who has to answer for their behaviour, but we cannot ask that cabinet minister to give account for their behaviour unless we know what it was.

    Did anybody in the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister's Office know about the taking of these prisoners before the Prime Minister was informed at the cabinet meeting on the 29th?

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier we have no information that was the case. However I make the point once again that the answerable person in this case is the Minister of National Defence.

    He has given an answer, a full answer, and we expect that he will be subject to further questions. Perhaps the hon. member will have a few when he appears before the committee.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it begs the question whether the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to know whether anybody had that information. He says he has no information, but is he trying to find out? We would like to know that from him, or is ignorance bliss, Mr. Speaker, when you are trying to cover up something that has happened or when you are trying to manage your own internal dissent?

    It is really the Liberal backbenchers who were the primary object of this cover-up. They did not want the debate to take place in their caucus because they are divided on the behaviour of their own government.

    Hon. John Manley (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tries to make a mountain out of a molehill because the fact is the issue that becomes important to us is how do we deal with anyone who is apprehended in the course of the conflict.

    Only in recent days did the issue arise out of comments made in Washington as to how the United States was making the determination, whether a particular apprehendee is being treated as a prisoner of war or as an unlawful combatant.

    We have made interventions with respect to that with the United States. This does not represent in any way a division either on the part of this caucus or on the part of Canadians about the role that is being played by Canadians in defence of freedom and against terrorism on the ground in Afghanistan.