Evidence of meeting #18 for Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was detainees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
You will probably say that Mr. Colvin was a diplomat that you respected. Wasn’t this document which was copied to you proof enough to refuse to transfer detainees? The Geneva Convention provides for that not only in case of torture but also of risk of torture.
When Mr. Colvin sent you a copy of this letter, it was reason enough to stop transferring detainees. Why didn’t you stop transfers?
4:55 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Well, I think when you're in a country like Afghanistan, with the kind of conflict that's going on there right now, you have to be careful in assuming that everyone who claims to have been tortured has actually been tortured. There can be a real risk that it will become that everyone says that. Therefore, the consequences are based not on fact. So it becomes important to do some investigation as to whether those allegations are, in fact, credible.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I will continue if you do not mind.
In international law, it is not enough to make sure a person is not tortured. If there is a risk of torture, Canada is not allowed to transfer detainees.
4:55 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
What we have done throughout is try to put in place measures and a process to ensure that someone isn't handed over to a substantial risk of torture. I don't think we can decide every time somebody says, “Hey, I've been tortured”, that in fact they have been. What we did was do our best to make sure the Afghan authorities knew what their obligations were and that the people who were detaining them were properly trained, because you can't be there 24 hours a day. Ultimately, we put in place a monitoring mechanism to try to keep track.
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Canada should provide a minimum of follow-up. You say that people who complain about torture can make false allegations but Canada has a responsibility to make sure the allegations are unfounded. Under paragraph 7 and following the improvements brought about by the second arrangement, it was a responsibility. To the best of your knowledge, did Canada make sure that people who complained were not tortured?
4:55 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Again, most of the allegations that came forward came after my intense involvement in the file.
4:55 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
As I understand it, every time there was an allegation, whether it was suggested that it was a Canadian or not, we notified the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the International Committee of the Red Cross and raised it with the Afghan authorities to ensure they would do something about it.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Thank you very much.
Moving over to the government, go ahead, Mr. Kerr.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Thank you very much for being here. Certainly I think you're adding to the story lines as they develop from the various witnesses coming in.
I would like to do a couple of specific things. One is that we've talked generally—we heard a lot of comments back and forth that make it very vague about prisoners and torture—and then we go specifically to what happened to the Canadian transferees. My understanding—this is a general question to whoever—is that we really heard about suggested incidents well into 2007. In other words, when the reports came forward, it was those that possibly involved Canadian authorities. My understanding is that when you heard the reports, the authorities in fact suspended transfer of detainees as soon as they heard the information, and then there was follow-up to find out what went on. That's when we first responded to any suggestions of trouble in terms of Canadian transferees.
If I can start there, is that correct?
5 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I guess any one of us could answer.
The suspension that was done in November was as a consequence of Canada's not having confidence that the Afghan authorities, at that particular time in that prison, were able to meet the standards we felt were necessary. Up until then, any allegations we had either weren't against Canadian transfer detainees—in which case we notified the right authorities and so forth—or on examination were considered not to be very credible, mostly on the basis of physical examination.
The first credible allegation we had against a known Canadian transfer detainee, to my understanding, was in November 2007. Again, I wasn't the lead on the file then. And that's when we suspended transfers.
5 p.m.
Manager, Assessment and Intervention, Correctional Service Canada
Yes, sir.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
I think it's important because a lot of the conversation, a lot of questions, are about general torture that may have taken place in Afghanistan institutions over years of experience and so on, and what your role was. My understanding of this whole issue is that we want to be very clear about what happened with our Canadian military and authorities in terms of their responsibility and their actions. I'm hearing you confirm that happened after the time when we had really understood there were accusations about detainee transfers that came from Canadian authorities. I think it's really important to keep it on the record, that we do that.
The second point I want to go to is backing up, and I think, Ms. Garwood-Filbert, you were talking about the fact that Canada was working hard months before that about dealing with the institutions, and the upgrades, and all that had to take place. Can you talk a bit more about what went into that, both the planning and also the kinds of dollars and infrastructure and what the end result of that was? We tend to gloss over that important point that Canada was trying to improve and upgrade the infrastructure and facilities. I think it's an incredibly important part of what the role was. Considering we hadn't been in the field that long as active military participants, I think the response was very quick. That may be a bias on my part, so I'd like to hear your view on that.
5 p.m.
Manager, Assessment and Intervention, Correctional Service Canada
One of our major roles was to do an assessment on, for the most part, Sarposa Prison and, as I indicated, to a lesser degree with the NDS and ANP detention centres, with regard to infrastructure and training.
The first concrete example we have of this, I guess to a certain degree, is some quick-impact projects that had to do with medical aid, and then there were some longer and more significant projects that came through the global peace and security fund. For the time I was there, that was approved. It was a $1.6 million project that looked at a variety of things. I talked about the issues of health and safety around the septic system and the sewer system, and we had that completely upgraded. We were able to install security towers on the perimeter. We were able to provide security lighting for night-time visuals. We were able to provide secure escort vehicles instead of the prison having to use a taxi service. We were able to provide uniforms. We provided flashlights. We provided officer training. We built a carpentry shop for the prisoners for vocational training. We bought looms for a carpet-weaving program for the prisoners.
We also involved other agencies in order to bring in literacy training for the prisoners and the staff, because a lot of the staff were illiterate. We looked at basic officer training and connecting with the training that was being provided in Kabul and trying to provide similar training in Kandahar. There was just a lot of mentoring and being there, allowing them to ask questions, seeing things, pointing out a different way of maybe going about doing business that would be more consistent with the standards.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Thank you, Mr. Kerr.
We will go over to the official opposition and then back to the government.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Thank you.
Ms. Garwood, I take you back to document 3. If you look at the bottom of document 3, it says, “Drafted: Garwood-Filbert/Davison” and “Approved: Davison”. You may have drafted it in a different form. It's now in an e-mail form. That's what you meant.
5 p.m.
Manager, Assessment and Intervention, Correctional Service Canada
Correct. Typically, the way we went about reporting as DFAIT, as per the agreement--
5 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I understand that. All I want to know is whether this is what you sent, essentially, not in the form but in the content.
5 p.m.
Manager, Assessment and Intervention, Correctional Service Canada
It's not my report, but it's consistent with my report.