Afghanistan Committee on Dec. 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Is everybody all right with that?

Mr. Dosanjh, you have five minutes left.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, could I just finish my response from before I was interrupted?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Yes. The floor is yours, Mr. Minister, but there are five minutes left in this session.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, as all members know--and I would expect Mr. Dosanjh, as a former premier and a former cabinet minister, would know--we receive information from numerous sources, including, of course, reporting sources on the ground, but also our deputy ministers, our assistant deputy ministers, and in the case of a national defence minister, from military leadership. That information is presented to us with a mind for making decisions, making policy, making determinations, assessments of program options, and considerations for final decisions. So just to be clear, this information flows up through various government departments and government officials to a minister for decision.

We receive that advice, advice that has been synthesized, advice that is often drawn from various other sources and then presented to ministers for action. So we see the mission, in this case, through the prism of our senior diplomats and our military leadership, and we act upon that information. That is the way the process has always worked.

In so doing, some of the information that we've heard presented before this committee came from e-mails that were sent in. Again, I expect that members who have served in cabinet posts would know that departments, and even ministers' inboxes, receive thousands upon thousands of e-mails, which are then, as I said, synthesized, processed, and brought forward for decision.

In conclusion, we fully expect to receive the type of advice and information needed to make informed decisions on the ground. I take responsibility as a cabinet minister for those decisions, but they are drawn from various sources within departments, including independent reports that are made available into the Department of Foreign Affairs, for example. I'm sure members would agree that it's the responsible thing to do: to glean information from those various sources before deciding what action should follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, sir.

There are four minutes left.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'll just ask this: Sir, you said that you need specific allegations. International law is very clear. You need circumstantial evidence; you don't need actual knowledge of any specific allegations or actual knowledge of torture. There was substantial knowledge of torture in Afghan jails. Every kid on the ground knew that. All the reports, national or international, knew that. They said that.

Sir, you continue to transfer prisoners to torture in the name of Canada. It is important that you understand, you don't need specific allegations.

You say, sir, that the board of inquiry to investigate treatment of individuals is sufficient. You say the Military Police Complaints Commission is sufficient.

First of all, you've thwarted the Military Police Complaints Commission by obstruction of justice. That's not sufficient. It's a very narrow inquiry. The first inquiry is very narrow. You have frustrated the work of this committee by not providing proper, uncensored disclosure, my friend.

Ultimately, would you agree to look into the fact that you allowed our prisoners to be sent to a potential risk of torture in the face of a compelling body of knowledge about torture, and that that requires a public inquiry to clear the air, restore Canada's reputation in the world, and protect our men and women on the ground?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Dosanjh, I'm just going to remind you and other members of the committee that I want you to address your questions through me, and not directly to the witnesses.

Sir, you have a chance to respond.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will respond to these outrageous allegations that I, or any minister of the government, would knowingly participate or collude in sending anyone off to torture. That is an outrageous, false, inflammatory, and insulting allegation from a fellow minister, from somebody who has served in government and should know better, someone who's also, I might add, a member of the bar, a fellow lawyer, who knows that you act on evidence that's presented to you.

Let me just respond to some of these outrageous allegations.

Referencing the fact that I have personally withheld documents, interfered, or intimidated witnesses is, again, completely without basis, completely without proof. That has been the exercise here, just to throw as much dirt in the direction of the government as possible.

The Military Police Complaints Commission is an arm's-length organization. The chair of that commission made the decision to suspend its hearings. It went to the Federal Court to challenge the fact that the government had been cooperating with it within its mandate. The mandate of that Military Police Complaints Commission was upheld and affirmed by the Federal Court. Again I note, it is an arm's-length body.

With respect to documents, I addressed that earlier. Those documents are vetted by lawyers within government, arm's length from political interference. They're vetted for the purposes specifically of ensuring that we don't disclose information that would endanger the lives of soldiers, that would interfere with operations, that would endanger information we had received from other governments or agencies that do so specifically on the understanding that it will be kept close and not shared.

Those are just a number of the inconsistencies and false allegations presented by the member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you.

That's it for this ten-minute session. We will now go to the Bloc.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I will be sharing my time with Mr. Bachand.

Ministers, you both expressed your good will. However, personally speaking, I feel that ministers had and have the responsibility for knowing—not simply receiving information—and becoming informed.

We have asked questions in the House of Commons repeatedly. I have done so. And with regard to this unsatisfactory arrangement, that you mentioned, in 2006 and until April 30, 2007, I obtained answers that the arrangement was satisfactory. The Honourable Minister O'Connor will recognize his role. He gave that answer, as Mr. MacKay did. Even the Prime Minister on April 30, 2007, said that the arrangement was satisfactory.

Did you, you and the people around you, see the report by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission? The commission conducted a study on 398 prisoners who were tortured and said that 57 of them came from Kandahar. Do you acknowledge that you had the responsibility to know?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead, Mr. O'Connor.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

When I was Minister of Defence, as I said in my opening comments, each day that I was in my office—which is literally every day—I was briefed on operations and briefed on intelligence. When we had detainees, I was told how many we had, what state or condition they were in, whether they were ready for transfer, etc. I stayed up on all the information I could about Afghanistan.

We talk about the 2005 arrangement, which I believe was signed in December 2005. We took over government on February 6, 2006. We inherited this transfer agreement, and it took us a while to determine what could be improved, if it could be improved. We compared it with other agreements. For quite a while, if you recall, I said in Parliament that the Red Cross would inform us of what was going on.

Eventually the Red Cross, after 10 or 11 months, said that wasn't so, and I apologized. But I advised Parliament on the basis of the information I received at the time. I didn't make it up. I don't have a separate system of intelligence out of my own office; I have to take what my officials tell me.

Once we discovered that the Red Cross was not advising us of the condition of the detainees, we also looked at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. They said that they were doing the job but they were rather fragile. Looking at the Red Cross situation and the human rights situation, we decided that there needed to be an upgrading of this agreement, and it happened late in my mandate. The new agreement came in, the 2007 agreement, whereby we had direct access to the prisons.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I have a short comment. Just to pick up on what Minister O'Connor has said, when this new arrangement came into place after a period of time, some in this committee publicly have said that nothing was going on. I think it has been called a black hole, which is completely untrue. Let me just describe for you what you've already heard from Colleen Swords, who was a senior member at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a public servant.

In early 2006, the Department of Foreign Affairs, as Minister O'Connor has just noted, became aware that the International Committee of the Red Cross had concerns with respect to notification of transfers. Action was taken based on that advice. By October, the Department of Foreign Affairs had commissioned a report from Correctional Service of Canada about capacity, so there were prison visits happening. Canadian officials from Correctional Service of Canada had deployed into the prisons to take a look at what had to happen.

So we were not standing still; we were taking action. By February 2007, the Government of Canada had a number of experts on the ground looking at how to increase the capabilities and capacity of Afghan officials. Mentoring was underway. Correctional Service of Canada offered the training and the mentoring of the police officials and prison officials.

In February 2007 also, an exchange of letters happened, a partnership between the Government of Canada and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. That was being negotiated and concluded in that year as well. It called for a notification when we transferred prisoners within the prison system.

By April of that year, following a Globe and Mail story, Canadian officials were involved in a number of the meetings with Afghan officials and the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. All of this activity led to and culminated with the signing of the new transfer arrangement. There was much activity by many officials and much success in improving the transfer arrangement, which gave greater access to Canadian officials inside their prison system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you, Minister.

Madame Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Were you aware, yes or no, of this study by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission on torture in detention centres from 2005 to 2007?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I was aware of a number of reports that spoke generally of the conditions inside the Afghan prisons. What I had been most interested in and most involved in is the allegations that involved Canadian-transferred detainees. Let's not forget that this is the primary focus of our responsibility. We're all seized with and concerned with the conditions of prisons everywhere, but in Afghanistan our primary responsibility was for detainees we had taken in the field and then turned over. The hundreds of allegations of torture that may exist in other reports are of great concern to us, but our primary focus and responsibility is for Taliban prisoners we had turned over to Afghan authorities. That was where our responsibility lay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand, you have three minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, first, I want to say that I am not satisfied with the way the committee is operating. We have a lot of questions to ask, and the ministers will be leaving us shortly.

Also I invite my journalist friends in the room to come and give us their questions, which I will then put later to the ministers. I hope that the ministers will be able to respond through you, because we don't have the time to do it here, as you can see.

Ms. Lalonde was questioning you on your responsibility to know; I would like to question you about your responsibility as a minister. You haven't talked about that. The Minister of National Defence has only talked about "we need to rely on" our document, "we need to work", "we have the duty to".

Mr. Chair, when I say "we", I'm speaking inclusively by including all government representatives. What about the responsibility of these three ministers as ministers, Mr. Chair?

However, they sometimes decide to intimidate witnesses. I would ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to listen carefully to what Mr. Shawn Barber said to Mr. Colvin:

The Government of Canada does not share the opinion of the legislative clerk on the application of legislation to parliamentary work and we are relying on you in your capacity as a public servant to comply with the interpretation of the Government of Canada.

There is worse:

If the committee members express grounds for concern, those grounds should be provided to the government's legal counsel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Bachand, I apologize.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Fine, I will ask the journalists to re-transmit my message.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

The bells are ringing.

Is there unanimous consent to continue?

The meeting is adjourned.