Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and the committee members for inviting me, on behalf of Amnesty International, to appear today.
I would like to remind the committee members that I am legal counsel for both Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. I have been representing them with respect to the issue of transfer of detainees in Afghanistan since 2006. I represented both of those organizations in a court challenge that commenced in February 2007 and have also represented both of those organizations before at the Military Police Complaints Commission since February 2007.
I would just like to make some brief comments on two issues, if I may. Obviously, my clients have been closely following the excellent work of the committee and the different witnesses who have been called here and what we understand to be the issues of utmost concern with respect to the detainee transfer controversy.
There are two points we would like to make to the committee right now. First is our concern that there remains a risk of torture in Afghanistan with respect to detainees captured by Canadian Forces and handed over to Afghan authorities. I will provide a few brief comments on that. The second thing is just to provide an update to the committee on the proceedings before the Military Police Complaints Commission. As I recall, this committee started looking into this issue in October 2009 because of concerns about obstruction before the Military Police Complaints Commission, so I thought this might be a good opportunity to provide the committee with an update on the status of that process.
First, with respect to the issue of risk of torture in Afghanistan at present, it appears from our perspective that a lot of the focus over the last four or five months on this issue has been the suggestion that there were problems in Afghanistan in 2006 with the detainee transfer system and that they were fixed in May 2007. The focus has been on why it has taken so long to fix the problem. I would just like to say, on behalf of both Amnesty International and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, that it is our view and our position, based on the evidence available, that there remains a serious and substantial risk of torture for detainees in Canadian Forces custody who are handed over to Afghan authorities.
I would remind members that the second supplementary arrangement that was signed between the Government of Afghanistan and the Government of Canada in May of 2007 allowed Canada to start monitoring detainees. Since that time, however, we have found that once Canadian diplomats started visiting detainees in custody, they began to hear numerous first-hand graphic detailed accounts of abuse and torture. I know there has been some suggestion that these allegations were not credible, but I would just remind the committee that the Federal Court considered these allegations in 2008, and Federal Court Justice Madam Anne Mactavish reviewed those allegations and reports to Canadian diplomats and said this:
These complaints included allegations that detainees were kicked, beaten with electrical cables, given electric shocks, cut, burned, shackled, and made to stand for days at a time with their arms raised over their heads.
Moreover, in some cases, prisoners bore physical signs that were consistent with their allegations of abuse. In addition, Canadian personnel conducting site visits personally observed detainees manifesting signs of mental illness, and in at least two cases, reports of the monitoring visits described detainees as appearing “traumatized”.
That's the information that was being given to Canadian diplomats in 2007. Ultimately, as we know, transfers were suspended in November 2007 for four months because instruments of torture were actually found in the interrogation cell.
We don't know what details Canadian diplomats have been learning since that time. In November 2009 Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay did say publicly that there had been three suspensions in 2009. He said one reason for suspension was that the national directorate of security had refused access to prisons for a period of time, and the other two suspensions were due to further allegations of abuse. There have been no further details on that, and we would be very interested to learn the details of those further allegations or reports of abuse. I would just remind the committee, however, that whenever you hear an allegation of abuse arising from a prison in Afghanistan, really that's a euphemism for torture.
I note that in June 2007, Minister MacKay, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day told the public at that time, to their credit, that there had been new allegations heard from Afghan prisons, and they said then it was allegations of abuse. What we found out a year later, though, is the actual reports had said that these were individuals who were beaten with electrical cables while blindfolded, subjected to electric shocks, and hit on their feet with cables. Another man could not say what happened to him, other than the fact his toenails were missing. So it's our concern that Minister MacKay has said as recently as November 2009 that there have been very recent suspensions, last year. We don't know the details of those reports and we don't know why Canadian Forces deem it safe to transfer detainees in that context.
And finally on that point, I would say we do know and have learned that the British forces in Afghanistan have suspended transfers to Afghan authorities, specifically the national directorate of security. They made that suspension in June 2009. That moratorium on transfers continues today. One big question that's obvious to my clients is if the British forces view it as a risk of torture to transfer detainees, why does Canada deem it to be safe? So that's our concern on the contemporary risk of torture.
The second issue I would like to update the members on is where the Military Police Complaints Commission is at. As you recall, it was adjourned in October 2009 because of lack of disclosure of documents. The then chair Peter Tinsley said it was unfair to the subjects--that is, the military police officers who are the subjects of the complaints--to proceed with the hearings in the absence of full disclosure of those documents. So he adjourned the hearing until those documents can be produced.
I can inform the committee that a number of documents have been produced, both to those subjects and to ourselves. We cannot disclose what these documents contain until they've been introduced into evidence, but there has been a significant amount of disclosure finally from the government. However, there is still a large number of documents that have not yet been disclosed. Just yesterday the Military Police Complaints Commission lead counsellor, Ron Lunau, wrote to the government again asking about where the other documents were that they were waiting for from the Department of National Defence and also from the Department of Foreign Affairs. So there remains an issue over disclosure.
I'd also point out that one of the issues that was live at the time the hearings were adjourned was the concern or allegation that potential witnesses were being intimidated by Department of Justice lawyers. They were being advised and threatened not to appear before the commission and not to cooperate with legal counsel for the commission. I can advise this committee that since that time we have learned from Department of Justice counsel that all of those witnesses are now cooperating with the commission counsel, so that's a positive development.
Secondly, the issue of whether witnesses were intimidated in the past is still a live issue that will be argued at the recommencement of the hearing later this month. The hearings are scheduled to recommence on March 24 for three days of motions. There will be an adjournment for a week and then starting April 5, 2010, there will be six straight weeks of witnesses. We do not have the list of witnesses yet, but we understand the commission is continuing its work in meeting and interviewing potential witnesses, and we look forward to a final list soon.
My final point on that and the final point I'll make with respect to my opening statement is just to inform the committee that there has not been any appointment of a new chair to the Military Police Complaints Commission. The previous chair's appointment--Mr. Peter Tinsley--ended on December 11, 2009. There were statements by the government at that time that there would be a new chair appointed. There has not yet been any new chair appointed.
However, another commission member, Mr. Glenn Stannard, has been appointed acting or interim chair. Initial correspondence that we received from counsel for the commission in January 2009 was that Mr. Stannard would deal with procedural issues with respect to this hearing and that he was looking forward to another chair who had legal training being appointed, because Mr. Stannard is not a lawyer.
Approximately four weeks ago, we were informed that in the absence of any other appointment, Mr. Stannard was now appointing himself to head the commission hearing. So at this stage, we're going forward with Mr. Stannard as not only the acting chair of the commission, but also acting chair of the hearing.
I'll just point out to the members that my clients do not take any objection to Mr. Stannard himself in any way. He is the former chief of police of the city of Windsor. However, we have noted our concern that he does not have legal training per se and it appears that this is going to be a fairly complex legal proceeding. We've already had numerous objections from Department of Justice lawyers on issues concerning jurisdiction, privilege, national security immunity, and so forth, so we have concerns about the efficient operation of the proceeding.
We'd also note that there is no other police complaints body in any province of Canada that does not have a requirement that a lawyer lead it, so we have concerns about that.
That's where it stands. I'll just leave it at that.
That's my opening statement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.