Evidence of meeting #2 for Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
You're also familiar with the agreement that was eventually put in place in 2007.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Is it your view that it was an improvement on the 2005 agreement?
4 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
Absolutely. It was a significant improvement over the 2005 agreement.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
So the Canadian military was taking steps to address the problem.
4:05 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
Well, we don't what the timeline was in which they took steps. I'm not sure if you're aware of the providence of that, but I first learned of that new agreement when I was standing in the middle of court about to argue a motion for an injunction to stop transfers. The agreement had been signed literally hours before in Kabul and it was faxed to Ottawa. The judge presiding at the time, Justice Kelen, suggested that maybe the new agreement was signed in the face of that court motion, but I'm not sure. I've seen a lot of documents. I haven't seen the history of drafting of that second agreement.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Fair enough.
You mentioned the Military Police Complaints Commission. I know the commission counsel there, who is a former colleague of mine and a very fine lawyer with a long military history. Are you satisfied with the legal process in that proceeding, and do you see a conflict or a duplication between what that commission is doing and what this committee is doing?
4:05 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
I think that's fair to say to a certain extent. If I recall, this standing committee began hearings because the Military Police Complaints Commission in October 2009 was basically stymied. The government had a number of objections in terms of why it couldn't proceed. They brought a motion to quash all summonses of all witnesses. They were taking the position that no witnesses could testify publicly. I don't know if that's still their position. They weren't producing any documents.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
Yes, most things are corrected, so I think there is some aspect of duplication. The Military Police Complaints Commission, however, is still just focused on the military police, whereas I understand this committee is looking at broader issues with other government departments as well.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
March 17th, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Champ.
I just want to touch on one thing. The previous colleague of mine asked whether the Charter of Rights applied, and it turns out that it doesn't in this particular situation. But this doesn't mean, I take it, that the prisoners who are detained by Canadian Forces and passed over are allowed to be denied their rights under the laws of war, their rights under international humanitarian law and these conventions that you mentioned. So the Charter of Rights is a specific Canadian constitutional document that in this case doesn't apply to foreign nationals.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Foreign nationals abroad, yes. But it doesn't do anything to other rights that they have and that Canadian governments are expected to uphold. Am I right about that?
4:05 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
That's correct. There are still Canadian laws that apply in the circumstances.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
And Canadian laws as well. So there are international humanitarian laws of war plus Canadian laws.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
You told us that the justice department lawyers who were dealing with these documents--I don't know how many of them were involved, but I know you used the plural--took up to two years to review documents and redact them using the process that I'll go into in a moment, and I guess you did offer an opinion that it might take a very, very long time for former Justice Iacobucci to undertake the same process with the same documents. He has engaged to undertake this activity and exercise his own judgment. Would it surprise you if Mr. Iacobucci could finish this process in less than two years?
4:05 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
I'm not sure what his other retainers are. If that's all he was doing, yes, perhaps he could do it in less than two years, but again, I'm not sure what he has on his docket.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
In respect to that process, I just want to present to you what we're told the justice department does when they're doing these redactions. Let me preface it by saying it appears that some of the documents that were redacted once, maybe two or three years ago, showed a lot of information that in the most previous redacted versions turned out to be black. In other words, the redactions are getting stronger and stronger, and more and more secrets are being kept from the public. Have you experienced that?
4:05 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Amnesty International
I have to confess, Mr. Harris, I can't think of an example right now off the top of my head. That wouldn't surprise me. That's not uncommon at times, that you get disclosure from different sources within the government. Different government departments will do somewhat different redactions. I can't think of an example off the top of my head in this particular case, but that would not surprise me.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay, well one of them is the document that General Natynczyk referred to back in December of this year. It was redacted a few years ago and now the actual allegations of mistreatment are included in the documents that General Natynczyk--
