Foreign Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Seema Patel]

I think the U.S. can influence Pakistan greatly, and does influence Pakistan greatly. What I mean to say is I don't think it's likely to do so in the near term. I don't think it's likely to change its current stance toward the Pakistan government or its current portfolio extensively.

Canada and some of these other countries can serve as honest brokers. On the diplomatic front in Iran, Afghanistan, and the U.S., there is a lot of political controversy about the U.S.'s actual interest and role, so it would be good to see more neutral parties take that role. I realize that smaller players do have a difficult time influencing policy, especially in a place as contentious as Pakistan, but it's about restructuring the dialogue and debate about the actual problems.

In my opinion, the tribal areas of Pakistan face exactly the same problems as the tribal areas in Afghanistan. There are disenfranchised populations that don't feel connected to the Islamabad government, just as there are disenfranchised populations that don't feel connected to the Kabul government. These are places that are not being administered by a state, where there is very little law and order coming from state institutions and where there is a population that has not seen the benefits of having a government--security, development, and reconstruction benefits.

These are all things that Canada realizes are critical and does well in countries post-conflict. I think it's time to push those ideas to the Musharraf government, that response militarily is not enough, that there needs to be a broader response to the tribal areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Eyking and then Mr. Patry, but we must hurry.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I have just a short question. It was alluded to that Canada is doing more than its share in a very unstable region of the country, and when the question was put forward on withdrawal of troops, you pretty well said it would be the wrong thing to do immediately, but you alluded to a rotation that would maybe somehow see our NATO partners doing more in the south or alleviating pressure from us. You mentioned a rotation. How would you see that unfolding?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Before you answer, maybe Mr. Patry could ask his question.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I just want to say, in the beginning, you didn't answer. I had two questions. This is in regard to Mr. Dosanjh's question. You didn't answer. You say we need to push Pakistan. It's fine to push Pakistan, but Pakistan alone is not enough, because the only friend of Pakistan in the area is the Taliban, and it's much easier for Pakistan to deal with one leader of the Taliban area than to deal with all the civil society there.

We need to involve India and the surrounding countries. If you don't get India and all the surrounding countries involved, I don't think we're going to go anywhere; we're not going to pressure Pakistan. As far as the United States is concerned, giving the okay to India to get nuclear weapons and things like that, it's a geopolitical solution that we need to face there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Patel.

[Seema Patel]

Yes, I think regional partnership is going to be critical for long-term stability in Afghanistan. The players who are involved there need to realize that there's more to benefit from stability there than there is to having pull within the Kabul government. But in our report I tried to stay very conscious of what's actually possible in the next year or two.

I realize that a number of fronts can be made in the long term, but in the short term there needs to be some sort of change in Pakistan's policies and their capability to protect and administer their own tribal areas, and I think that's going to be the near-term challenge. The diplomatic front in the regional countries I think is critical. It was during Bonn, and it should be for the long term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Eyking had the question in regard to the rotation, the military rotation of NATO and Canada.

[Seema Patel]

I don't recall talking about rotation, but maybe I did throw it out there. The U.K. and the Canadian soldiers are the most effective ones in the country, in my opinion. There are other NATO countries there that can assist and support, but in this counter-insurgency type of operation, followed up with good R and D and the type of R and D that needs to happen in the country, the Canadians and the U.K. are the best at it. That's why I'm very happy to see that they are in those toughest areas in those southern provinces. They need to get the support from other countries so that they're not taking all the hits long term, but it is a debate to be had within NATO. It's not something I can speak to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for spending this hour with us. I wish we had more time, to be quite frank. If you have other thoughts or any things that you may want to submit to our committee, we would certainly welcome them. You can send them to us in writing or you can send us information.

A number of times you talked about your yearly report and the difference in how the government was accepted the first year compared to the second year, in your second report. I'm not certain if those reports are on the web, if they're available, or if we have them, but information like that would be appreciated.

So thank you for coming.

We will suspend for two minutes, and then we'll move into the consideration of our draft report, which will be in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Welcome back to meeting number 54 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Moving into committee business, we have a motion brought forward by Mr. Patry:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development asks that the Department of National Defence provide a fulsome monthly table of the number of prisoners captured during our mission to date, how many have been handed over to Afghan authorities, and any records, if available, of their present status. This reporting is to coincide with the appearance of the Canadian officials and diplomats who wrote the report entitled Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights before the Standing Committee.

Mr. Patry, would you speak to your motion?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

It is a straightforward motion. We want to get the numbers, which the Department of National Defence can provide to the committee.

This is very diplomatic wording. We say “and any records, if available, of their present status”. That is to be sure it coincides with the report you mentioned, Afghanistan 2006.

For me, it is a very straightforward motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, I understand my colleague's intention and what he wants here. But he was in the government. The government specifically takes into account section 51 of the Access to Information Act, which clearly states that information may be exempt from release if it could prove injurious to the conduct of Canada's international relations.

Information regarding details and the current status of detainees apprehended by the Canadian Forces is actually due to operational and other requirements, and it is not possible to release that to the public. Its impact could have very serious consequences. Because of that, it becomes pretty difficult for the government to agree to this motion.

I think we would probably—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Notwithstanding the citing of the Access to Information Act, we have international obligations that make it clear we have a responsibility to keep track of detainees and prisoners. All we're asking is for that to be honoured and monitored. It is obvious that we've had a problem because it wasn't being fully honoured and fully monitored.

Second, I totally support the motion, but I wonder if there is a need to make a distinction between detainees and prisoners. When does a detainee become a prisoner, or is there a need to cite both? I have no international legal prowess in this regard, but there may be some kind of distinction between the two.

Maybe, Bernard, you could address that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I would like to add another question.

I went to the Access to Information Act. I haven't checked with the parliamentary secretary or with the government; I just went to it on my own.

The motion says, “that the Department of National Defence provide a fulsome monthly table of the number of prisoners captured during our mission to date”. Is that specific to the Canadian soldiers who have captured prisoners? Are you asking for the NATO numbers? Canada leads NATO in certain areas.

Madam McDonough has asked for the difference between detainees and prisoners. Working together in conjunction with police and other agencies in Afghanistan, there are prisoners taken.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

This is my answer. First of all, with respect to detainees and prisoners, detainees could be detained for a very short period. You are arrested and they determine whether your papers are normal and everything and then you are released. That's what a detainee is. A prisoner is someone who has been transferred to the Afghan authorities and is in prison.

According to what was asked in question period in the past last few weeks, it's all Canadians. They are not coming from NATO. They are not NATO prisoners. They are Canadian detainees. The detainees are being arrested by Canada and then being transferred to the Afghan authorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

On Madam McDonough's point, is there anything else there? I think we're all right.

Next are Mr. Casey, Madame Lalonde, and Mr. Eyking.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

This asks how many prisoners have been handed over to Afghan authorities and if any records are available on their present status. That would mean giving out their names and where they were captured. It seems to me it would give an awful lot of information to the Taliban. This is a war, not a tea party, as somebody said.

Mrs. Patel said this morning that if we provided a schedule for withdrawal it would be a win for the Taliban. I believe if we provide a schedule of prisoners with their names, capture dates, and locations, that would also be a win for the Taliban. So I would vote against this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring.

We have another committee here. I didn't realize this motion was going to take so long.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

This motion really calls for considerable information. You're giving strategic information to the enemy on when, where, who, and why. I would think that a number of these detainees would be held for intelligence reasons. At what point do you give the information and at what point do you not?

Another problem here is the difficulty of having joint operations with other military units and who really has access to the detainees.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Lalonde is next, but we are out of time. This motion is going to need more debate. We don't have another room we can go to next door, so we're going to swing this to Thursday.

Madame Lalonde is next, and then Bernard.

Mr. Eyking and Mr. Goldring, you will have to wait until the next day.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I have a friendly amendment to move. We should add: “and who have been handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian soldiers”, since that appears nowhere.

We've already received information that should not be spread anywhere else but here. In my view, that's not a reason to stop the execution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Can you work on a friendly amendment?