Afghanistan Committee on May 12th, 2010

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Were you aware of them?

[William Graham]

We were only aware that there were other agreements being negotiated at the time.

My recollection, actually, is that when we were discussing this matter in the House of Commons in November, in the take note debate, Mr. Blaikie raised the matter of detainees. He gave me a copy of the Danish agreement, I believe, and I took that to the authorities and said, “Are we getting as much as the Danes?”

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. The U.K. agreement was signed in April of 2005.

You mentioned that you have great respect for Human Rights Watch. They have told us that, in their view, diplomatic assurances that there will be no abuse are not sufficient—in fact, are never sufficient—and there should be monitoring. Yet the Canadian agreement that you okayed in 2005 did not provide for monitoring.

How do you respond to Human Rights Watch?

[William Graham]

I respond by saying that we believed at the time the two provisions for monitoring that were put in the agreement—namely, the Red Cross, on the one hand, and the human rights commission of Afghanistan—were monitoring procedures that would satisfy our responsibilities in international law; that this was the best that we were going to get from the Government of Afghanistan of the day; and that we had to get this agreement signed.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Fair enough.

Can I ask you another question? Do you believe that any Canadian prisoners transferred to the Afghan authorities have ever been abused since that agreement was signed in 2005?

[William Graham]

I really couldn't speak to that. That's pure....

I would really say, sir, that if we're talking here about--

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I just want to know what your belief is.

[William Graham]

No, we're talking about criminal responsibility of individuals for acts, and as a cautious lawyer, I would suggest that one should allow tribunals that were established for that purpose to establish those facts.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. Fair enough.

I'll defer to Mr. Abbott.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have about three minutes.

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

Mr. Graham, we've already had two people speak of the high regard they have for you. Certainly you and I had some good times in the House as political opponents, and I have the highest regard for you.

The reason I make that reference is the fact that I want to ask a tough question, and it is not done flippantly.

Opposition members and other people who have appeared, as well as commentators, have said that the government violated its international obligations under the Geneva Conventions and humanitarian law. Essentially, they are accusing government ministers past—yourself—and present of being war criminals.

I don't suggest--

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

That is a ridiculous comment, Mr. Chairman. No such accusation has come from an opposition member. I've never heard of any such--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Just continue, Mr. Abbott.

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

I believe it's my five minutes, and I'm not going to get into an argument with Mr. Rae.

The fact is that the term “war criminals” has been bandied around in these hearings. I would like to have your comment, please.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Nobody has ever used the term. You've used it.

[William Graham]

It is a tough question, because you really have to know the circumstances.

I certainly have not heard of any accusations of war criminal behaviour of anybody, and the calling of bad faith, by members of the House. I will tell you, though, that, frankly, the Internet being what it is, and people being what they are, people have stopped me on the street and said “What were you doing? Are you a war criminal?”

That's the way people talk. That's the type of language we're living in today. I mean, we were accused of it in Vancouver by a group of young students; being in Afghanistan, we were war criminals. People throw these terms around. I said, “Are you saying we should be before the Rome Tribunal? Can you give me a date in a court of law?”

But people don't give you a date in a court of law; they just use the allegation.

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

But as an experienced member of the government, a former foreign affairs minister and defence minister, help us understand the relationship between the army and the people who are carrying out the orders of the government. Is there any space between them?

In other words, we had a general here who very aggressively said, all right, if there's a war criminal here, I'm the guy, because the buck stops here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

[William Graham]

Very quickly, I don't know about that, but I can tell you one thing I was impressed by when I was Minister of National Defence was the quality of legal services within the ministry. There are hundreds and hundreds of lawyers there who actually go out there.

As one of the former field commanders in Afghanistan told me, if they're going to attack a village and somebody asks, “Is that a proportionate response in accordance with the Geneva responsibility and the international humanitarian obligations of Canada?”, they're advised by lawyers in the field on operations. Those young lawyers risk their lives along with the other soldiers to try to give the best advice they can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

[William Graham]

So this is very difficult, but that's what they're trying to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Monsieur Bachand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Graham, is it true that the Liberal government in 2005 was afraid of causing a controversy similar to the one at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib? In other words, you did not want the situation in the Afghan prisons to become like the one in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib. Is that a true statement?

[William Graham]

No, I believe that... Obviously, there are differences between the two situations. All I can say is that when we were negotiating our agreement, since there had previously been problems with detainee transfers to the American authorities, as you had said in the House when I was there, we felt that while we were in Afghanistan, the best solution to our problems was to deal with the Afghans.

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

Is it true that you had three options: to operate according to the “take and keep” principle, which you discarded; to turn detainees over to the United States; or to work with the Afghans and the local system? From what you are saying, you chose the last option. Is that correct?