Thank you, Chairman.
General Watkin, I think we should be clear, after Mr. MacKenzie's comment. I don't think anyone, certainly from my party, has ever suggested that a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan has tortured somebody, but what we are concerned about is the following. I'll use your words:
The transfer of detainees to a real risk of torture or ill-treatment is contrary to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which is also known as the Law of War or the Law of Armed Conflict.
I will suggest to you that whatever agreement is in place, we understand that the Afghans were looking after these prisoners, well or badly. That obligation doesn't change our obligation not to transfer to a real risk of torture or ill treatment. We have, presumably, a duty to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen. So we are trying to protect (a) Canada's reputation, (b) our soldiers breaking international law, and (c) obviously reduction of torture of whoever happens to be the victim of torture. That is the whole purpose of this.
We do know that the International Committee of the Red Cross, after this, were held out as the people who were monitoring this and said, “We're not telling you guys anything about this; we're only going to tell the state”, in other words, Afghanistan. “We're not going to tell Canada; we're just telling Afghanistan.”
You can answer this for yourself. What I want to know is this. Do you have any responsibility for the Canadian military meeting its legal obligations under this international humanitarian law? In other words, do you have anything to do with the monitoring system, the reporting system, and the enforcement of that provision of international humanitarian law? And if you don't, who does?