Thank you.
I will make my statement in English but I am obviously ready to answer any questions in French.
Let me start with some context.
On February 1, 2006, I was given command of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, based here in Ottawa, as its very first commander, and I became responsible to the CDS for all Canadian military operations overseas, including, of course, the mission in Afghanistan. I held these responsibilities for almost three and a half years. Over that timeframe, more than 24,000 men and women served under my command on 28 different missions around the globe.
I had a staff in my headquarters back here in Ottawa of more than 200 very capable civilian and military people. Many of these folks were Afghanistan veterans, and all, I can assure you, were completely devoted to listening to and supporting our people in the field, whether they were from the Canadian Forces, Foreign Affairs, CIDA, or wherever else.
I have just retired after 36 years of serving my country to what I consider to be the best of my ability, much of that in quite demanding appointments. I consider it an incredible honour to have been trusted with responsibility for some of the CF's most important, difficult, and dangerous endeavours--not just in Afghanistan, as you heard from General Hillier, but also at sea, with some very dynamic maritime security and counter-piracy missions that presented their own unique set of challenges.
I was reminded pretty starkly of the seriousness of my responsibilities, and of just what's at stake in Afghanistan, each and every time my phone rang in the middle of the night, as it did way too often, with Dave Fraser or others on the line with the sad details of another tough incident. Equally sobering and humbling for me, but always inspiring, were the many trips to Trenton with General Hillier or General Natynczyk to meet personally with the families of the fallen in the darkest hours of their lives.
I took my responsibility for the lives of our people and for mission success very much to heart. From the minute I became responsible for these challenges in February 2006, I can say that the entire chain of command understood the detainee policy to be a tough and highly sensitive issue, for all of the reasons you understand today. It was my job to take that policy, along with any military guidance from the CDS, and to see to it that it was implemented as diligently as possible, of course in full compliance with international law by our commanders in the field. That's what I believe I did. And yes, from time to time, as General Hillier says, I was a pain in the ass.
With the full clarity of hindsight, it's easy to say now that the policy developed in December 2005 was not perfect. But based on what we understood at the time, I believe the policy was consistent with Canada's obligations and reflective of the situation on the ground.
In early 2006, the task force in Afghanistan worked closely with a very small number of DFAIT personnel available and, through them, with others to build a framework for detainee transfers that had not really existed prior to that time. General Fraser can give you a lot more detail on that, but from my perspective, in those early days, at every level, we were dealing with a level of complexity and ambiguity and at a pace that truly defied description. General Fraser had more decisions to make in five minutes over there--I saw him in action--than most normal people back in Canada make in a day or a week or a month.
Especially in those early days, with CEFCOM having just been created and the task force in Afghanistan literally getting their baptism of fire, there were no perfect solutions to be had in any of the hundreds of issues we collectively dealt with. We were at war, and sometimes it just wasn't very pretty.
All of this is to say that between February of 2006 and the spring of 2007, people on the ground built the detainee transfer framework in the midst of many other challenges and, in so doing, discovered and raised any number of issues that had to be worked. You heard some evidence of that last week.
By early 2007, I can say that at many levels, as we came to understand more clearly the capacity of agencies on the ground to monitor human rights in particular, we began to form a view that perhaps more needed to be done. By March of 2007, I can tell you--and you can ask others about this, of course--that a DFAIT-led interdepartmental process was fully engaged in looking at the detainee issue.
As we all know, in early May 2007 the government announced changes to the detainee transfer arrangement. With this new arrangement, Canadian civilian officials assumed responsibility for monitoring the status of our detainees rather than leaving that strictly to mandated independent agencies.
To take that one step further, beginning in June 2007, once DFAIT actually did begin monitoring, I believe a handful of complaints of abuse were received over a period of time, all of which were taken seriously and led to follow-up between our governments. None of the allegations were proven. But in November 2007, we received a report of physical evidence of torture during a monitoring visit. That clearly gave us substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk that our detainees would be in danger of torture and we stopped transferring, as you heard from General Hillier.
Almost three months later, after that great deal of work and further enhancements to whole-of-government practices on the ground, I was given an assessment in late January 2008, signed by Mr. David Mulroney on behalf of the departments involved, stating he believed “a context once again exists in which it could be appropriate to resume detainee transfers.” That was in late January 2008. But General Laroche on the ground wasn't completely satisfied at that point, because he needed to see evidence that these new measures were working. And it wasn't until a month later, after we had received that assessment, that he made the judgment to go forward and resume transferring detainees to Afghan authorities.
All of this is to say that both policy and practices on the ground evolved continually, especially as whole-of-government capacity in theatre grew. That's no different from any other aspect of this enormously complex mission. As our understanding of the realities of southern Afghanistan grew, week by week and month by month, the whole-of-government team and the military within it learned and adapted constantly. There was no moss growing on anyone in theatre or anywhere else on this issue, I can assure you.
In CEFCOM, to give you a home perspective on this, and not a complete Ottawa perspective but the perspective of my headquarters, I personally was briefed on detainee matters every single day. It was built right into the structure of my daily briefing. I had designated individuals on my staff, a legal adviser, a military police adviser, a civilian policy adviser, and operations staff officers who very clearly understood that the detainee issue to be a hot-button issue and one to be watched extremely closely, among the many other important things they were doing. And these very professional and honest people were plugged into a larger network of folks in theatre, in National Defence Headquarters, and more so in other government departments, all of whom worked together and did their best to deliver sensible solutions to less than clear problems and issues.
I am certain that our commanders and people on the ground were equally attentive to the issue. Before each troop rotation after the first, I personally spoke with a hundred or so top leaders of each task force, and among the many issues discussed prior to their deployment, I explicitly highlighted detainees as one of three critically important issues all must pay careful attention to. To do otherwise could lead to strategic failure. It was that much of a concern to us.
Many people from different agencies had to be involved in this at all levels Our soldiers are neither human rights experts nor human rights monitors, and it would be wrong to give them that responsibility. The military chain of command's role was to ensure that in our detainee handling, processing and transfer activities, our soldiers' actions were consistent with international law and with national policy. In everything that we did, commanders were directly supported by legal advisers and plugged into the entire network of people in government with the expertise to watch this. I would not want you to think that I personally, notwithstanding General Hillier's comments about me, dealt with each and every detainee issue personally. Of course I didn't, but I certainly take full responsibility for any of the actions of my staff as well as those under my command, including the people in theatre. They understood what they had to do and they did it well, and they had my full support.
With the time I have remaining, I will now shift to the allegations heard last week and repeated so many times since then. Obviously I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on behalf of the command I was responsible for. I find myself in a bit of an awkward box, as I can't reasonably address the issues at hand without reference to Mr. Colvin and his testimony. I'm not shooting the messenger. I barely know the man, and my focus will be on what I know in relation to what was alleged last week and what is stated in the related affidavit filed with the Military Police Complaints Commission.
I'd like to address just two of the most sweeping and important aspects of the evidence you heard last week. They were both addressed to some degree by General Hillier, but I'll be more specific, as is my nature.
The first big question seems to be when and how were we in Ottawa first warned of the risk of torture, the assertion being that for some 18 months, we “knew about the very high risk of torture” and continued to order our people to transfer detainees. This is a serious assertion, in fact, one that could suggest serious illegal activity. Believe me, from the outset we in the military chain of command have understood our legal liability in these matters with a very personal sense of clarity.
Beginning with what I know, to the very best of my recollection, the very first time any sort of allegation of torture was raised to me in my capacity as commander CEFCOM was in early April 2007. It did not come from field reporting. Rather, I and others were given a heads-up through military public affairs staff that a Globe and Mail journalist was working on a story, and he gave us some advance notice that he was working on the story. The story was published on April 23, 2007, and that it would be of great interest was the message I received, and of course it certainly was.
The first report from the field with a specific warning of possible abuse of a detainee transferred by Canada came to us on June 4, 2007, from Kandahar. A day later, a similar report came from Mr. Colvin in Kabul. Both of these reports resulted from the first of DFAIT's monitoring visits under the revised detainee arrangement. I believe these became public knowledge some time ago.
To be clear and precise about this, last week's evidence states categorically that the very high risk of torture in Afghan prisons was first made known to senior members of the Canadian Forces in May 2006 and repeatedly thereafter. In fact, I and others received such warnings in a substantial way for the first time more than a year later than that.
You heard last week that many reports were sent to CEFCOM and elsewhere. I've looked at them closely just in the past few days, and what they say is obviously key. I believe all the reports identified as sent to my headquarters were, in fact, received. I can't say that I saw all them or even any of them, quite frankly, but if they were important enough, my staff would certainly have briefed me. They understood. In any event, I take full responsibility for having received them.
l want to refer specifically to these reports in relation to what you heard last week. l can say to you directly that, contrary to assertions, there is no mention of the risk of torture or suspected torture anywhere in the May 26, 2006 report, nor is there in any of the other reports from 2006 listed in Mr. Colvin's sworn affidavit, namely those of June 2, 2006, August 28, 2006, September 19, 2006, or indeed September 28, 2006. The word “torture” in itself does appear once in the December 4, 2006, report, but this report could not reasonably be interpreted to be a warning of torture, nor does Mr. Colvin's affidavit suggest that it did.
Again, I can very safely say there is nothing in any of these 2006 reports that caused any of the subject matter experts on my staff or, by extension, me to be alerted either to the fact of torture or a very high risk of torture, nothing. Moreover, there was nothing in these documents that would have caused me to speak with the CDS or for him to speak with our minister. These reports also went to National Defence Headquarters, and I can't speak for what was done within National Defence Headquarters. I personally did not brief General Hillier.
Mr. Colvin told you last week that according to his information, “all Afghans we handed over were tortured”. His reports, which I referred to, say no such thing. I heard those words as a statement of fact for the first time on national television last week.
Thereafter, between April 20, 2007, and the first alert on June 4, 2007, many of the reports received do in fact deal with issues of torture. This was at a time when DFAIT and the rest of us were completely engaged in reviewing our posture, and the reports were provided in a dynamic process between DFAIT in particular and the field.
Given what's at stake here, you can rest assured that l've read all of these many times, both the full classified versions and the recently redacted versions. There is, in my view, little room for interpretation. There was nothing in the reports that caused me or my staff to see in them serious, imminent, or alarming new warnings of torture before the June 2007 reports, and to suggest that senior military officials or commanders ignored these or covered them up is wrong.
The second point I want to address very briefly is the comment in last week's testimony that senior officials in DFAIT and the Canadian Forces did not welcome reports or advice from the field and that at first they were mostly ignored. This criticism is just not supported by the facts. If or when you get the redacted version of the documents—and I sincerely hope you do, and soon—you will actually see helpful and positive responses not just from DFAIT but from my own staff direct to Mr. Colvin, with thanks at the beginning and at the end of the response.
In my own records, held by DND, l know there are actually references to questions that I asked of my staff and direction given to follow up on some of the issues raised in Mr. Colvin's reports. l know for a fact that there was follow-up, just as I know that I personally and those who work for me saw these issues as important. CEFCOM was created for the explicit purpose of being absolutely attentive to those deployed on operations, to make their jobs easier, and to make them look as good as we could.
You could not possibly imagine the crushing load our commanders—fellows like this gentleman on my left—carried on their shoulders on these missions. It was my job to do everything I could to lighten that load, and I think I did. I certainly tried at every opportunity. It's why we existed, and it's what we did 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's why none of us would knowingly have ignored, disregarded, suppressed, covered up, or put a cloak of secrecy over anything that we received from the field, especially on something as important as the detainee issue. I say that as dispassionately as I can. I mean it absolutely sincerely.
l visited Afghanistan every two months when l was in command, so over a three-and-a-half-year period. So did the chief at separate times. On every one of those visits, I met with literally thousands of soldiers and dozens of civilians. l encouraged them to raise anything that was on their mind, and believe me, most were absolutely not shy to let me have it, sometimes with both barrels.
During these visits, to the very best of my recollection, not once did anyone raise with me what Mr. Colvin alleges concerning torture in Afghan jails, until the concerns that surfaced in April and more specifically in June 2007 and beyond. Then, of course, we were going back and forth discussing these things, because it was an issue that we understood to exist to some degree.
I should also add that on these visits, I often spent hours at a time with both of the ambassadors who served during Mr. Colvin's time in Afghanistan. I can assure you, if either they or Mr. Colvin had ever raised this issue with me, I would remember and I would have done something. None of them did.
In closing, this mission in Afghanistan has without question been the most demanding thing I have seen Canada take on in my 36 years of service. In all its complexity, it has been a challenge for us in the military, for Canada as a nation, and for the international community. It has been an honour for me to personally play a part in it.
If I could share one last personal thought with you, last week—and this gets back to the comment made by General Hillier—as we were sitting at home watching television, my wife and I were mortified to hear a member of this committee appear on a national news network, name me and three others by name, and state as fact that we had either been negligent or that we had lied, effectively branding us war criminals on national television. That damage to my reputation is done and I have to accept that as a consequence of being in a position of high command in one of Canada's national institutions, and I do accept that. But what I really ask you to consider is this.
In my headquarters alone, most of the reports would have been seen by as many as a dozen really smart and diligent people whose advice I trust implicitly. In a headquarters running a war for more than three years, they never let me down once. Easily 100 people around this town as well as in theatre must have also seen these reports at the time, and by now I suspect several hundred people across government have read them over, read them again, over and over, very carefully. Many of them are experts in international law and human rights.
I know most of these people, and they're good and honest people, civilian and military alike. They're terrific professionals motivated by a desire to make Canada look good. So with the greatest of respect, I ask each of you to keep that in mind as you draw your conclusions from what you hear and express those to our public. As you well know, our country's reputation is at stake.
I look forward to your questions, and I really appreciate your giving me the time to say what I just said. Thank you.