Afghanistan Committee on April 21st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoffmann.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, ambassadors.

I'm going to follow up on what my colleague, Bob Rae, started asking you. I'm going to set out the international legal standard in domestic and international law.

First of all, if there is a substantial risk of torture, my understanding is that you cannot transfer your legal responsibility for the detainees just because you think that Afghans may be doing a good job or a better job than before; you can't absolve yourself of that responsibility.

Secondly, you cannot transfer the detainees if there is a substantial risk of torture.

Thirdly, you say that you all knew there was torture but you took steps to deal with it. So there's no question of having no knowledge; you have actual knowledge. In any event, even if you didn't have actual knowledge, there is enough information widely known about torture that it would be deemed knowledge. Furthermore, we have a positive duty as Canadians to determine the extent of torture. If there continues to be a substantial risk of torture, we have an obligation to prevent transfers and not transfer.

Now, that's what I understand the international law and domestic law to be. There's a question that I have specifically for all three of you. Do you believe that we as a country and you as ambassadors have met that test under these circumstances, in view of what the U.S. State Department wrote, their report, in view of our own reports, and in view of what's happening before the British courts, where there are allegations about NDS torture? And there's the Colvin evidence, the Anderson evidence, and the Malgarai evidence. There's the Gosselin evidence of eight allegations of abuse that he investigated; he didn't know what happened to them.

All of that evidence has been in the public domain. In the context of that, can you tell me whether you believe that we as a country and you as ambassadors have met that test?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dosanjh.

A question of definition of evidence compared to allegation, but....

Mr. Lalani.

[Arif Lalani]

Let me start, if I may.

I do believe it. I wouldn't be here if I didn't.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure how I'd discuss with you the difference I see as a layperson between evidence and reporting. But let me say to you that in my mind--and I am the person on the ground who was responsible during my time there for the very clear objectives that you have set out--there was a difference to me between people making reports and accusations and allegations and finding out what the evidence was.

The best way for us to have evidence, to have confidence, was monitoring. During the time I was there, that is what we focused on. That was one of my key priorities. It was through the monitoring regime that we were able, in fact, to have the level of confidence that--I agree with you--you think we should have.

So yes, and it is obviously a difficult issue. I don't think that because perhaps we might have answered calmly that you should misunderstand how seriously and how personally we took that responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Sproule.

[David Sproule]

Thank you, Mr. Dosanjh.

First of all, we never transferred any detainees that were captured by Canadian armed forces if there was any suggestion that there was a substantial risk of torture. We never did. We were confident that there was not; otherwise, we would not have transferred.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

So you met the test...?

[David Sproule]

So we met and we exceeded our international obligations.

Let me just add.... This comes from our discussions with people in the field, human rights organizations, and international organizations involved. Canada's standards and the regime we put in place exceeded our obligations and were over and above those put in place by other countries. We're very proud of those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Hoffmann, did you want to respond to that as well?

[His Excellency Ron Hoffmann]

Yes, just very briefly. It is a unique honour and privilege to be sent abroad as the ambassador for one's country, and I think to be an ambassador for Canada is an especially proud honour. In Afghanistan or anywhere, including the countries I'm responsible for now, we know that we're upholding to the highest possible degree Canadian values and Canadian obligations in the world. That role was not diminished in any way in Afghanistan. The conditions were much more difficult.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

I--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Dosanjh, your time is up.

We'll come back to the government side.

Mr. Abbott, please.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Gentlemen, who are you? The reason I'm asking the question is that I would like to explore the issue of the equivalency of testimony. In 45 seconds--because I have only five minutes--could each of you tell us your background, who you are, and what your credentials are for the kinds of statements that you just finished making to Mr. Dosanjh? Boast about yourselves.

[His Excellency Ron Hoffmann]

Happily. I went to Afghanistan in August 2007, having had a reasonable association with the set of issues before I got there. I was the Honourable John Manley's senior departmental assistant when 9/11 happened and we had our first deployment. I was senior departmental assistant for the Honourable Bill Graham as we deepened our role in Afghanistan. Then I became director of defence and security policy responsible for Canada's NATO relations.

Afghanistan was a factor in my professional life for many years before I was sent in. I believe that's probably one reason I was sent there.

But I think the biggest issue is that I was the ambassador for Canada, who spoke for the government and was accountable to the Government of Canada and to Parliament for, as I said earlier, the highest standards of conduct.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but we're on this tight timeframe.

Mr. Lalani, we need your credentials in 45 seconds.

[Arif Lalani]

Thank you.

I'm an immigrant to Canada. I fled a war and a coup d'état in Africa in 1971. I was raised and educated in Canada and am very proud to be serving my country in whatever capacity.

I've worked on the Middle East peace process before. I worked on the Bosnia reconstruction effort, which at the time was our largest military and civilian operation in the late 1990s. I served on the United Nations Security Council when we were last on the Security Council. I've been ambassador to Jordan and Iraq. So I'm very familiar with the conflict situation in which we all find ourselves in Afghanistan.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Sproule.

[David Sproule]

Mr. Abbott, I've served six assignments abroad. I've been an ambassador three times; I have 28 years in the foreign service. I'm a lawyer by profession, specializing in international law, including international humanitarian law.

I have served in countries where the human rights situation leaves something to be desired, so I have some point of reference in discussions of human rights and international humanitarian law.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The point I'm making, and I think it was Mr. Lalani who made the distinction—I apologize, I can't recall—is on the difference between evidence and reporting.

In these hearings, there has been, in my judgment, a lack of respect for the testimony that has come from experts, from people with the background you have and the credentials you have. There's been a lack of respect for that testimony and an exaltation of the reporting of people who do not have the credentials and the background. I think this is a very, very important thing to point out.

I also point out that every general we've had here, everybody who has been involved in military service, has made the statement that they would never obey an unlawful order. The point is that we are well served by gentlemen like you, by the entire foreign affairs department, by the armed forces, and by all the people who have dedicated themselves. I think they deserve an awful lot better in terms of respect. I thank you for being here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

You do have another minute, but maybe we'll swing over to the Bloc Québécois and come back.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lalani, I showed you a document earlier and you identified your signature. You explained why the distribution list was shortened. I understand. Some people think you censored the document. Is that correct?

[Arif Lalani]

If you're talking about the black marks on the document, I think those are redactions that are done by officials who redacted the documents. That's not me.

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

So you did not—

[Arif Lalani]

No, it was not me.

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

But you remember that document.