MPs finally get their chance to see sensitive Afghan detainee documents


Advertise with us

OTTAWA - A select group of MPs has finally begun the arduous task of sifting through some 40,000 sensitive Afghan detainee documents.

Read this article for free:


Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe with this special offer:

All-Access Digital Subscription

$4.75 per week*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Pay $19.00 every four weeks. GST will be added to each payment. Subscription can be cancelled anytime.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/07/2010 (4592 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

OTTAWA – A select group of MPs has finally begun the arduous task of sifting through some 40,000 sensitive Afghan detainee documents.

One MP and one alternate from each of the Conservative, Liberal and Bloc Quebecois parties, all sworn to secrecy, began this week to scrutinize the documents — almost seven months after opposition MPs passed a motion demanding access to the potentially explosive material.

However, an independent panel of three eminent jurists, which is supposed to decide which documents can be released publicly, has still not been named.

The documents are related to allegations that detainees were routinely tortured by Afghan authorities after being turned over by Canadian soldiers.

The three federal parties reached an agreement last month on how to provide access to the documents without jeopardizing national security.

The NDP is refusing to take part in the process, having concluded that the agreement falls far short of a historic ruling by House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken. Milliken ruled in May that MPs’ have an unfettered right to see documents and hold the government to account, which trumps all other concerns, including national security.

As part of the tri-partite deal, the select MPs will be able to see most documents and determine if they are relevant to the torture allegations.

The panel of jurists is to determine how — or if — the relevant documents are to be released publicly. It may choose to summarize or censor documents that could imperil national security, international relations or the lives of soldiers in Afghanistan.

As well, the panel is to decide whether the select MPs will be allowed to see documents deemed by the government to constitute legal advice.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale, who helped negotiate the deal, said there has been “a lot of back and forth” among the parties over possible panel members. He said some “very good” names have been suggested.

“The panel is obviously the next critical piece here and I would be hopeful that we would see some action on that within the very next short while,” Goodale said in an interview.

While he’s encouraged by the fact that the scrutiny of documents has begun, Goodale said Liberals will “complain vigorously” if they feel the government is dragging its heels on naming the jurists or otherwise trying to hold up the process.

“We need to watch this carefully because we don’t want there to be any slippage.”

For now, Goodale said the absence of the panel is not a problem. MPs can set aside documents which need a ruling by the panel and accumulate others over which there is no disagreement for eventual tabling in the Commons, likely on a monthly basis.

Bryon Wilfert, the Liberals’ alternate, said he believes the Conservatives have been acting in good faith so far. He suggested the hold-up in naming the panel members may simply reflect the difficulty in finding people willing to give up a chunk of their summer to devote to the task.

A spokesman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson refused to comment on the panel.

But Michael Aubie of the prime minister’s office said the select group of MPs will meet “throughout the summer” and the government looks forward to working with the other parties “in a manner that protects legitimate national security concerns.”

Report Error Submit a Tip


Advertise With Us