Afghanistan Committee on Nov. 4th, 2009

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, in terms of an illegal act committed in theatre, wherever that theatre is, what would be the procedure to communicate that concern to government?

[BGen Kenneth W. Watkin]

In general terms, keeping away from the specifics of this case, illegal acts can come to the attention of the chain of command in any variety of ways. The police may in fact learn of it on their own and commence an investigation. The chain of command may become aware and ask for an investigation. They may become aware of an incident and ask for legal advice as to what is the appropriate way to investigate anything that might arise. And depending upon the issue and depending upon the facts, there may be a recommendation of a police investigation or there may be a recommendation of a board of inquiry or other unit investigation. Where it's transferred to the military police, they may do an investigative assessment to see whether it is something that would fall into what they would investigate.

The process that's in place in the military is not that much different with respect to what might occur in the civilian side, particularly with respect to the role of the police and the role of prosecutors.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

But ultimately that information has to wind up on the desk of the political masters in order for them to be able, from a policy standpoint, to make a decision as to whether we stay with what we have or whether we should make changes.

[BGen Kenneth W. Watkin]

The key question would be, sir, with respect to what we're talking about. With respect to the criminal side—and I just want to highlight this—as in the civilian justice system, there is a separation from a political aspect, and that's why there are independent actors in the system. That of course is the same in the military justice system.

So in terms of whether we're talking about policy or whether we're talking about action that is criminal, I think it's important to highlight the two....

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm not sure whether it helps to be a lawyer or a fisherman at the moment. I'm not much on the fishing side, but I would suggest that in order for us to get the answers we need, Mr. Walsh.... Just a quick comment; you don't necessarily have to respond.

Parliament is supposed to be supreme. The question is where that fits in, in terms of what it is members of Parliament want to ask to get answers to legitimate questions.

I appreciate your position, General. But Mr. Walsh, it's obvious frustration will develop here, if it hasn't already, because of the fact that answers are not coming for whatever reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Walsh, I'm afraid I'm going to have to move on. The time is up, but could you respond to that in written form to the committee?

[Rob Walsh]

You have the right to ask any questions. You have the right to get your questions answered. What you can do about someone not answering your questions is when the trouble begins, and there isn't that much you can do about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, and then to the NDP.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to pick up on something Mr. Wilfert was talking about, about transfers and who starts and stops agreements and so on. This is not information that's been withheld. It's been disclosed time after time after time in question period, about who has the authority to start or stop transfers, and that is the commander on the ground, based on the situation at the time and whatever case he's looking at, and based on advice from other people such as DFAIT, the Corrections Canada folks who are there, local police, and so on.

General, I guess I'm not even asking you a question. I'm just pointing out that the authority for starting and stopping transfers rests with the commander in the field. Is that correct?

[BGen Kenneth W. Watkin]

That is correct, sir.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

And when it comes to starting transfers again.... Obviously the commander will stop it if he has concerns, whether it's as a result of allegations or whether it's any other concern that decreases his comfort level. When his comfort level is back up because those concerns have been addressed in whatever way, then he will give the authority to start transfers again. Obviously that information is passed up the chain of command. Is that a fair statement?

[BGen Kenneth W. Watkin]

It's a fair statement in terms of the reporting. There is a reporting chain within the military in terms of advising on what is done. The commander will make a decision, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, based on the information from DFAIT and other government departments and other information he may have available.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Now with respect to agreements, as you said, the agreement that was signed in 2005 was based on international humanitarian law and so on.

There were concerns expressed that may or may not have been legitimate, but they piqued people's attention, so that in 2007 the government decided to take what I would suggest was the prudent step of looking at the agreement and making it tighter, having it cover more things, which was not necessarily in response to any specific conviction or proof—because there never was any—but it was simply a prudent thing to do based on legitimate concerns. But it was basically more pre-emptive than anything else, to say, “Look, there may be things going on here that we would not be comfortable with”--or there may have been allegations, and allegations are cheap and easy--“but we should do something to tighten up the agreement.” And that's in fact what was done in 2007. Is that not true?

[BGen Kenneth W. Watkin]

It is a fact that in May 2007 additional obligations were added to the agreement, a reinforcement, for instance, of access. That is a fact.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

That agreement holds today, and has been abided by, as far as we know, by the Afghans. We are working with them all the time. If something comes up, it is dealt with, but it is based on that agreement. If that agreement becomes insufficient, it would probably be reasonable to suggest that we look at that agreement again and try to improve it again.

[BGen Kenneth W. Watkin]

Mr. Hawn, I can't speculate--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I know, but it's kind of logical, because that's the reason it happened in 2007 and 2005, so if we needed to do it again, obviously we'd look at it again.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Not at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

You have one minute.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Abbott, quickly.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

General, in 30 seconds, it seems to me that what we've arrived at here is the difference between what the committee has a right to do and certainly, according to the instruction of Mr. Walsh, to ask what the government is doing and what is their position versus actually overseeing, making comment on, or doing an inquiry of what the military is actually doing.

It's a ridiculous question, I suppose, but is there any brief way for you to be able to describe to us how this committee can make that distinction? What are the questions that would lead us to the unanswerable versus the ones that are the responsibility of the committee?

[BGen Kenneth W. Watkin]

Sir, that would be way outside my line of--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

Mr. Harris.