Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss the response from the Minister of National Defence to a question I asked him in the House on April 5. I questioned the minister about the agreement that was signed by the chief of defence staff with the government of Afghanistan governing the transfer of prisoners taken by Canadian Forces.

I am concerned about how this agreement was signed and about its provisions. First I want to discuss its signing and then outline legal opinions provided by experts in the field.

Rumours about the signing of the agreement began to circulate earlier this year. Initial attempts by legal experts and NGOs to examine the treaty were stonewalled. It appeared that the government was not comfortable with the contents of the agreement and refused to release it to the Canadian public. However, the government was forced to make the contents of the agreement public on March 30.

Two noted legal experts, Professor Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa, and Professor Michael Byers, director of the Lui Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia, have written formal opinions on the agreement. Canadians who are watching tonight can find copies of these legal opinions on the website of the Polaris Institute at polarisinstitute.org.

I want to say that the concern New Democrats have is that the agreement potentially puts our Canadian Forces at risk. Indeed, the first day the House was convened, I requested an emergency debate on the matter. This agreement places Canadian Forces in a situation where they may be violating the laws of Canada and of the international community.

There are good reasons that we as Canadians follow the Geneva conventions. If our soldiers are detained by a foreign military or taken prisoner in another war, we demand and expect reciprocal treatment for our forces. Furthermore, Canadian Forces could potentially be taken before the International Court. I know that no one in the House would want to see that happen.

The first opinion by Professor Attaran concerns the implications regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter applies to most actions of the Canadian government, including the ability to make international defence agreements. Section 7 of the charter states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

This section has been interpreted by the courts as severely limiting or abolishing the ability of our government to hand over individuals to a foreign government if there is a substantial risk of torture.

The Afghan government does have a documented record of torture. I want to be clear that we are committed to working with the government of Afghanistan to improve the welfare of the Afghan people. Afghanistan is coming out of a quarter century of civil strife and faces enormous challenges. In any state where there is extreme poverty and difficulty maintaining order, there will be the threat of torture.

The opinion of Professor Byers concerns the international dimensions of the agreement. In his opinion he states that the arrangement is clearly a treaty, that it is a written agreement between two countries which places rights and obligations on both parties. This is the dictionary definition and the legal definition of a treaty.

Professor Byers states that the agreement does not provide adequate protections against violations of the 1949 Geneva conventions. Geneva specifies that a number of acts “are and shall remain absolutely prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”. Among the--

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired. I will move to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

7:05 p.m.

South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale B.C.

Conservative

Russ Hiebert ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this question because it gives me another opportunity to highlight the excellent work being done by our Canadian Forces personnel.

I can assure the House that our men and women in uniform are helping the Afghan people bring stability to their country, strengthen governance and reduce poverty. The Afghan government invited us to their country and we are assisting them.

We are conducting UN recognized operations. We are working with 36 other countries in helping Afghanistan. We will not let the Afghans and the international community down. That is not the Canadian way. As the Prime Minister stated in Kandahar, “We don't cut and run”.

The success of this mission is crucial to the international community and it exemplifies Canada's leadership on the world stage. The Canadian Forces are internationally known for their professionalism and their respectful attitude toward civilians. We are in Afghanistan to help Afghans, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The Canadian Forces treat all detainees in accordance with international law and the standards set by the Geneva convention. All Canadian Forces personnel deployed on international operations are provided with pre-deployment training on prisoner of war handling and the treatment of detainees.

On December 18, 2005, the Chief of Staff, on behalf of the Minister of national Defence, signed an arrangement with the government of Afghanistan, regarding the transfer of detainees from the Canadian Forces to the Afghan authorities. Under this agreement, our Canadian Forces transfer all persons detained by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to Afghan authorities. This document is a bilateral arrangement that confirms that both participants will treat detainees in accordance with international law.

The Afghan government is committed to openness and transparency and has given access to its detention facilities to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and other international observers.

If the International Committee of the Red Cross advised us of some problems with transferred detainees, we would discuss the issue with the government of Afghanistan as they are the signatory to this arrangement.

Under international law, Afghanistan is the receiving state and is responsible to treat transferred detainees humanely and to track them.

The member opposite has made comments on the differences between the Dutch arrangement on detainees and our own arrangement. I can assure the hon. member that both the Dutch and the Canadian arrangements with the Afghan government are aimed at the same fundamental objective: assurances that detainees will be treated humanely.

Both governments support the principle that the Afghan authorities have the responsibility for handling detainees captured in their sovereign territory. We signed an arrangement with a sovereign state and, as with every other member of the international community, we expect the Afghanistan government will respect its obligations.

I would like to take the opportunity given to me by the hon. member to stress that Canadian Forces personnel deployed in Afghanistan are doing an exceptional job to help that country get back on its feet, and Canadians can be proud of their efforts.

I am strongly behind our mission in Afghanistan. This mission is the right thing for the Afghani people and it is the right thing for international peace and security.

I can assure the hon. member that, whether in their treatment of detainees or in their overall commitment to the security of Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces are living up to this government's expectations and are also receiving praise from our allies.

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross may watch over detainees who Canada has passed over to the Afghan government. The ICRC does not normally inform other countries when a particular country denies access to its detainees. It does not ensure that there will not be torture or inhumane treatment.

The agreement does not provide the chance for Canadian officials to visit or even receive updates. The government of the Netherlands negotiated an agreement that is much stronger. I do not understand why the government will not redraft the agreement to ensure that Canada is in compliance with our international obligations and the treaties that Canada has signed. It needs to be done, and I urge the government to reconsider.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that our arrangement with the Afghani government is certainly within the bounds of international law. I have no doubt about that whatsoever, but I want to comment further on my hon. colleague's suggestion that the ICRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross, would not have the opportunity to comment on any adverse treatment of detainees. That is its responsibility. It has been mandated with the obligation of tracking these individuals and ensuring that they are kept in a safe and secure environment.

I have every confidence that should an extraordinary circumstance occur we would be informed about it, and we could use our influence with the Afghanistan government to make sure that was corrected, if it were to ever occur in the first place. The reality is that we are talking about hypotheticals. We have no reason to be concerned at this point. I think I will leave it at that.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:12 p.m.)