Afghanistan Committee on May 12th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. MacKenzie, did you have a quick question?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes.

[William Graham]

This is getting a little bit like Chinese water torture.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Well, you're doing a very good job.

[William Graham]

Do I have any prisoner's rights here?

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

We won't transfer you anywhere.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

You were never one of my professors, so we don't have to....

I thought at one point you said that you were defeated in 2006. My recollection was that you stepped down. And I'm not so sure about your replacement, but--

[William Graham]

I'm very proud of my replacement. He's a great member.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

--he's not a bad guy.

What I'd like to ask you about, though, is the following. There has been a great deal of discussion, both here and in the House, about redacted documents. When you were the minister, did you do the redaction of the documents yourself?

[William Graham]

No, no. Sometimes I would receive very sensitive documents--for example, that were classified. Unless I said, “Look, I have to see that”, they would be redacted. So they'd be redacted at the level of the security officials.

I don't recall ever challenging it, because I don't think I ever had a case where I had to say “Look, I want to know what the actual circumstances of this are.”

Anything that was redacted was usually of an operational nature, where knowledge of the operation would have been inimical to national security. Obviously, as a minister, one has a right to the information. I'm sure that if one had insisted.... But the circumstances weren't appropriate at that particular time.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the redaction was done by officials when you were the minister, which is exactly what we would expect, and you wouldn't expect it to be any different today.

[William Graham]

I have no idea what the practice is today.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But it's not directed by the minister; it's done by officials who do it because they follow set policy or procedures.

[William Graham]

Yes, I'm assuming that redaction is done by officials in the department and not by ministerial staff acting under the instructions of the minister. If that were done, I would say that would not in any way be in conformity with what was done or practised when we were there. Anything that was redacted was done by the officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, and then we will wrap up.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've taken about 12 minutes to talk about General Hillier signing a document.

Can I ask you one really simple question, Mr. Graham? Is there any doubt that the 2005 agreement was an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Afghanistan?

[William Graham]

No, but I have to say that the lawyers are clear that it was more an agreement in the form of a memorandum of understanding than a binding legal treaty of that nature; it was not intended to be that, and I don't think any of the other agreements that were entered into were done at the level of international law.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

So it was a government-to-government agreement.

[William Graham]

It was government to government, as I believe I tried to explain.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes, and you did. You're doing a good job.

Even Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch said in her testimony a week or so ago that the reports of recently transferred detainees indicate that conditions have improved. I think that's the story we're hearing.

The 2005 agreement was done in good faith. It turned out that it was not what we thought it was, but changes were made and things improved.

Is it fair to say, using your expression from a minute ago about the “balance” of what we are trying to achieve, that the balance of what Canada is trying to achieve—either under your government or under this government—is to make things better with whatever institution we're dealing with in Afghanistan, whether it's the Afghan National Army, the police, the prison system, the judicial system, or whatever? That's the basis of everything we are trying to achieve, on balance, knowing that some in Afghanistan are going to work better than others and that they're going to stumble and that we're going to pick them up and show them how they could have done better—as your government tried to do, as our government has tried to do, and as the Canadian Forces, DFAIT, CIDA, and everybody else has tried to do all along?

[William Graham]

Yes, sir, I think that's a fair statement.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Nobody is guilty of anything other than doing the very best they could—the very best they could--under very difficult circumstances, in a very difficult place, with very difficult people, with the information they had available at the time.

[William Graham]

That's drawing a very long bow.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!