National Defence Committee on June 6th, 2007

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dosanjh.

Minister O'Connor.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I guess the answer is that Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba and there is no war going on there.

These are prisoners who the Americans have transferred from Afghanistan and from wherever else. I don't know where they got all of them, but they've been transferred to Cuba. We are talking about detainees in Afghanistan, in support of the Afghanistan government, who are either held in our facility very temporarily or in government facilities.

So it's quite a different matter.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I should also respond to the preamble. Mr. Dosanjh has repeated this fallacy a number of times. The request that was made for a report from the Department of Foreign Affairs was not a specific request for Afghanistan. It was a world report, and thereby was not available. A world report on detention does not exist. When specifics were requested and provided, then in fact the Department of Foreign Affairs did turn over the report, as they have previously.

These reports--as the honourable member would know, being a member of the previous government--go back to the year 2002. They are handled, treated, disclosed, and redacted in exactly the same fashion as they have been since 2002, and by members of the department, not at the political level. You've had testimony before the ethics commission that indicates that this is in fact the case. There was never any political interference or a hands-on approach taken with respect to redaction.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Minister MacKay.

We'll move to the opposition again.

Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we are participating in a “Save Gordon” operation today. I see everyone sitting around this table, but in reality, no one is questioning the Afghanistan mission nor the extraordinary contribution of our men and women. However, we can see that the government's incompetence and the way they have behaved in managing this crisis, which is of its own making, raises questions.

We are here today at the request of the Standing Committee on National Defence, particularly because there have been problems. Mr. O'Connor, your department is carrying out an inquiry on two detainees who, according to allegations, have been victims of brutality.

I will go straight to the point. You talked about transfers. When we work alongside the Afghan National Army, during its operations, there is a difference between the word “transfer” and the word “handover”. That means, for example, that if we detain someone, arrest them

on the spot, on the field. During the operation, you have what you call an “it depends” concept, meaning that the person can just hand over that person to the Afghan National Army.

If so, how can we be sure that the agreement will apply there, and how can we be respectful of the Geneva Convention when we know, from an article in The Globe and Mail, that at least two individuals disappeared at that time? How can we protect our troops if we cannot even apply those kinds of agreements on those issues?

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Minister O'Connor.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member just referred to the Geneva Convention. We of course maintain a high standard. We have our troops following the Geneva Convention.

Just to explain the process, in a combined operation involving Canadian Forces and any number of choices, but let's pick the Afghan National Forces here, the Canadian Forces will not transfer any detainees taken by Canadian units, including those taken by the OMLT, who are the advisers, or transfer any to Afghan forces or any other forces. During combined operations, the Afghan forces retain responsibility for their detainees taken by their personnel, and we retain responsibility for our detainees. We process our own people.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Minister, does that mean that in this kind of operation, right away there will no longer be people that we will immediately transfer to the Afghan authorities? If we immediately hand over a person that we have just arrested to the Afghan authorities, that person is no longer our responsibility. That is why I am making the distinction between the transfer of detainees, for which there is a process under the agreement, and an operation in the field, where you have simply arrested a person and said:

“Your problem now.” Do we have such a thing as “your problem now”, and those agreements won't apply?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I'm reading from the standing rules followed by our Canadian Forces there, and there is no reference to any handover. If we take somebody and arrest them, they are processed by us. If other forces who are with us at the time take people, they process them. There's an example today in Afghanistan, where we have a Portuguese company with us in our battle group, and if they were to take detainees—and I'm not aware if they have or not—in this case they would process them through us, because they do not have an ability to handle detainees. So we would handle them through the Canadian system, and then we would hand them on with proper due process to the Afghan authorities.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Minister, by what you have said, you have in a certain way confirmed that there is a double process. You have operations that allow for transfers and others where we say—

You yourself were a general and you have experienced missions. During an operation, we can directly hand over a future detainee to the Afghan forces, but this person will be an Afghan detainee, he will not be a detainee transferred by a Canadian. That is why there is a difference between a handover and a transfer.

How can you assure us that when there is a handover—First of all, there will be no record. Without a record, there will be no paper trail. If there is no paper trail, we cannot carry out any monitoring or visits. How can we then be assured that, regardless of the situation,

in a combined operation, no matter what, you won't have any handover?

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Very quickly, Mr. O'Connor.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

There aren't two processes; there's one process, and when Canadians capture an individual, they record all of that individual's details. The normal process is that the individuals go back to Kandahar to our holding facility, where they are medically inspected, etc., and are then handed on to the proper Afghan authorities. We don't hand them over to the Afghan army; we hand them over to the proper security forces.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Over to the Bloc Québécois now, for 10 minutes

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Bachand.

Welcome. I have to tell you at the outset that for me, it is extremely disturbing that there seems to be no concern at all for the people that have already been transferred to the forces that in English we call the NDS, the National Directorate of Security, or the Afghan police, who are not known for being gentle, and may have mistreated or tortured people who have been in their custody. There seems to be absolutely no concern for these people. They have been completely forgotten.

I congratulate the newspapers and the journalists for the work that they have done. They help us to see things clearly and to defend the interests of Quebeckers and of Canadians. Mr. Attaran, a university professor, explains this absence of concern in this way:

Canada is well aware that there are serious problems with detainees, and that it could be accused of war crimes—That is why it does not want to know.

That is my first question.

I have another question. This lack of concern, despite the investigations and the embassy staff's report, was only discovered once again thanks to the work of journalists and to our questions. This famous report, which at first they refused to disclose, and which was then censored, was sent in part to a newspaper in its original version.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted a motion to have these diplomats, this embassy staff, testify, and yesterday we received three names and the confirmation that we will be able to hear from these people next week, by videoconference.

Will you allow them to testify?

I will stop here.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Just before the response, Mr. Bachand, do you want to ask your question now?

Okay, go ahead, and then we'll get to the response from the ministers.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

First of all, I would like to come back to the possibility of carrying out joint operations. I don't believe that it is possible. We had the agreement studied by specialists, and they say that there is a legislative gap. It is obvious that if the Canadian army arrests any Taliban during an operation, the agreement will cover that situation. If it is an Afghan-only operation, it obviously would not come under our system, but if it is a joint operation with the Afghan army, things are not so clear. If a Canadian officer arrests a Taliban and hands him over to an Afghan group on the spot, we will lose sight of that detainee. I believe that that constitutes a legal void. I believe that that situation must be rectified because it exposes the Canadian government and its soldiers to potential prosecutions before the international courts. Within the framework of a joint operation, all detainees must be treated in the same fashion.

Furthermore, have you considered the possibility—and I raised this issue with NATO—of establishing prison facilities that would be jointly managed by NATO and the Afghans? I think that would completely eliminate the risk of torture, because there would be a common administration and we could see what was happening there every day. Torture does not only happen in the field of operations, but also in the prisons. I want to know if Canada has asked NATO if it would be possible to set up such a system.

As far as the famous state secrecy is concerned, I am often told that certain things cannot be revealed to me, because otherwise they would have to kill me. I am wondering why security clearances in Canada are more stringent than those in the United States of America. We have the list of the 759 prisoners, we know what their citizenship is, where they were born and their date of birth. How is it that Americans can get this information whereas it is impossible for us? I feel that this matter goes too far. Normally, I accuse the Canadian government of being in bed with George W. Bush. On the other hand, in this case, you are going even further than him by not allowing us to see these lists.

Mr. Chairman, it is important for parliamentarians to be able to get as much informations as possible because they are accountable to their constituents. I cannot accept being told that it is impossible to disclose something as simple to us as this list of detainees.

I will leave you the remaining time to answer.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

We have four minutes left for responses.

Mr. O'Connor, are you going to start?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'll perhaps respond.

I will first of all answer Ms. Lalonde's question. I will speak English, for the sake of clarity.

With respect to war crimes and these allegations, Mr. Chair, I want to put it on the record that no one—no one—has been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that a Canadian soldier, diplomat, or aid worker, or otherwise, has ever been complicit or directly involved in anything remotely resembling war crimes. I find that type of allegation and that type of torqued rhetorical characterization as completely offensive to not only soldiers but also the entire mission that's going on in defence of the people of Afghanistan. So let's put that aside.

With respect to the question Madame Lalonde posed on retroactivity, of our efforts to protect detainees, let's not forget, as Mr. Day quite rightly pointed out, that the detainees here in question are suspected Taliban terrorists. Having said that, they are of course, like a prisoner in Canada, like the worst offenders in Canada, entitled to due process and entitled to be treated, until such time as due process has been completed, to a presumption of innocence and protection in compliance with humanitarian law and international conventions.

Mr. Chair, the efforts by Canadian officials, now that this new enhanced agreement is in place, does include an effort to cooperate with Afghan authorities to locate and to query Afghan officials as to the treatment and well-being of detainees who were turned over to Afghan officials. Again, I underscore that the actual holding and detention of these individuals is in the Afghan authority.

We are there, obviously, to try to support them in every way in building capacity and also in making sure they're meeting international standards in the best possible fashion, and we'll continue to do that. That's what this enhanced agreement was very much aimed at doing.

With respect to her further questions about employees from the Department of Foreign Affairs, we've had testimony from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I want to refer to a comment from Ms. Jocelyne Sabourin, who appeared before a committee regarding allegations around a report, a redaction. I'm quoting from her testimony:

With regard to being directly told by a minister's office to redact, I am not aware of such a practice. We

—meaning her department—

are at arm's length, and it doesn't happen.

She went on to say:

The redactions are done with the involvement of the program area. In my office, I'm the delegated authority. At the end of the day, I'm the one making the decisions on disclosure. The minister's office is not involved in any of the review.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. O'Connor.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Yes, just quickly, you had two questions.

The first one has to do with combined operations. As I said earlier, Canadians handle their detainee system, and other countries handle theirs, even in the combined operation. When it comes to Afghan forces with us, normally we have an operational mentoring team with each company. Our standing orders are that, if a member of our mentoring team picks up a detainee or captures an individual, they are processed through the Canadian system, not the Afghan system. So if a Canadian captures somebody, it goes through the Canadian system.

Your second part is about Guantanamo. Again, you'll find my numbers may be a little off, but there are about 20,000 Americans in Afghanistan, in different forces, and they, I assume, are taking detainees. I have no idea how many they are or where they are, but they're not going to Guantanamo--or I don't think they're going to Guantanamo. So they're not reporting what's going on in Afghanistan because there are current operations going on there, and neither are any other countries that are in NATO. So we are following operational security.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.

We will now move to the New Democratic Party, for 10 minutes.

Ms. Black and Ms. McDonough.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

We will share our time.

I want to respond to the concluding remarks Minister Day made, because I was the first member of Parliament to raise the issue of detainee transfers in the House of Commons, the very first day Parliament sat last year. I want to clearly put out that no one in my party or, in my estimation, in any opposition party made any kind of aspersion or comment about Canadian Forces personnel on this issue. What we were questioning was your government's commitment to human rights. And we were questioning the inadequacy of the agreement that was signed on detainee transfers. Never once were we questioning the role of the Canadian Forces. I just want that on the record.

During the whole discussion and the questions—I'm responding to what you said, Minister—in relation to how this whole issue has been handled, we've had instances when we've been informed by ministers in the House--misinformed by ministers in the House--about the role of the International Committee of the Red Cross. We've been misinformed about the role of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the resources they have to do their job. Clearly, our questions at all times were on the role of the government and on the government's handling of human rights.

We've had a board of inquiry into detainees, and there's been a report from them saying that detainees whom Canadians have taken have gone missing; they can't find them. I want to ask Minister O'Connor this: Of the detainees Canadians have taken in Afghanistan, do you know where they all are now? Can you tell us the status of the detainees taken by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan?

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Black. Just to remind you, let's continue to make sure that both questions and answers are through the chair.

Madam McDonough, do you want to pose your question at this time?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say that in your opening statements today, Ministers, you once again cited the security of women and children and the protection of human rights as the principal focus of Canada's efforts in Afghanistan. Yet, during the recent visit to Afghanistan by the Prime Minister, he remained dead silent—dumb as an oyster, as we would say in Atlantic Canada—while the leading human rights campaigner for Afghan women and children, an outspoken advocate for bringing warlords to trial for human rights abuses, was arbitrarily suspended from the Afghan Parliament. For what? For criticizing the ineffectiveness and corruption that is rampant in that body.

Why was the Prime Minister and your entire government absolutely silent on Malalai Joya's suspension? If the Canadian government doesn't support this proven champion of Afghan human rights, why would the people of Afghanistan believe that Canada's mission in their country will protect their human rights?

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

There are a number of questions. I think the first one posed was to Minister Day.