National Defence Committee on June 6th, 2007

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now move into the second round. I want to remind all committee members that the second round is now a five-minute round, so keep your questions and your answers concise and we'll get as many in as possible.

We'll move to the official opposition. Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Martin.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin and I will put our questions first, and then we'd like the answers from the ministers.

I just want to say, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that there's no loyalty test in terms of our troops. Everyone in this room supports our troops, and any suggestion otherwise is totally unacceptable.

We've heard from the Minister of Defence with regard to the use of the rationale of operational security. I'm not sure how this differs from World War II, when we saw on newsreels all the time, and also in Vietnam, each week, the lists of the number of captured or killed. However, given that the minister has used this continually, I'd like to ask the minister this, through you, Mr. Chairman. In the case of Amnesty International and other cases that have been brought forth with respect to the detainee issue, and particularly the case that was brought forth by Colleen Swords, who makes the determination in these cases that the government officials cannot provide essential evidence? Is this yet another case of ministers who don't want to take responsibility?

I'll turn it over to Mr. Martin.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Martin.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ministers, again, I echo my colleague's comments. Nobody in this House does not support our troops. Everybody considers our troops to be working at the highest ethical standards under extremely difficult circumstances. We are very, very proud and very, very thankful for all that they're doing in Afghanistan and around the world.

Now, this issue came to light a few weeks ago. The Afghan government said they were going to have a complete and full investigation; however, we have not heard anything about this investigation. So I'd like to know whether or not you can tell us when the final report of this investigation is going to be completed, and if you will allow the final investigative report to be given to this committee in an unedited fashion.

My second question is this: has the monitoring of the Afghan prison systems that were allowed in the new agreement started, and are Canadians involved in that?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Wilfert's question was about some specific trial that I'm not familiar with. However, he brought up the issue of operational security. I can tell you that we, within the political process, do not interfere in operational security, and I doubt when your government was in power whether you did also. Either the police authorities or the security authorities or the military authorities declare issues operational security to protect their military operations—in this case it's Afghanistan—and we, as politicians, do not interfere in that process.

With respect to the actual trial, I don't know what trial you're talking about.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. MacKay.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

To respond to Mr. Martin's question about whether we have now begun a new and more detailed process as a result of the enhanced arrangement, the answer is yes. I'm aware, based on the most recent information, which was just this afternoon, from our Afghanistan Ambassador, Arif Lalani, that there have in fact been five visits to detention facilities since the signing of the supplementary agreement, and that officials during those visits have stressed the importance of a full and unrestricted private visit, which was to take place and did take place.

They made it clear that these provisions of visits were also to be extended to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross. Officials have also underscored the need during those visits to treat detainees humanely and to live up to the expectations with respect to international conventions and their own domestic law.

Afghan authorities, based on that information, have given assurances that they will, which is of course also the spirit and intent of the enhanced agreement that was signed on behalf of Afghanistan by their defence minister, General Wardak, and our ambassador to Canada.

Mr. Chair, that process is now well under way. It will evolve, of course, and we expect that we will have more information available to us based on that increased access. As a result, I suggest there will be greater oversight and greater input from Canada on the human rights situation inside those facilities where detainees turned over by Canadian military officials will be held.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Minister MacKay.

We'll move to the government side, to Mr. Hawn, for five minutes.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ministers.

Today is the 63rd anniversary of the D-Day invasion in 1944, an historic day that was the start of liberating a people who had been held captive by an evil regime for a long time. As part of a great alliance then, Canada set an example for other nations on how to conduct an effective and ethical military operation while helping local populations get back on their feet. When I spent last Christmas outside the wire with the troops in Afghanistan and we travelled in convoy through the villages, I saw the same thing: Canadian troops conducting an effective and ethical military operation to the demonstrated approval of the local population. The images of children giving us thumbs-up as we passed and people getting along with what for them was a normal life are still clear.

Minister Verner, can you comment on the example that Canada is setting for other countries today, 63 years after D-Day, on how to get a tough but necessary job done while respecting the people we're there to help, combatant and non-combatant alike?

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn.

Minister Verner.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think that the best answer that could be given to your question, dear colleague, is once again to cite the partners we are working with in Afghanistan, who are respected and very well known. Allow me to mention a few who have been there for a long time. Some were even there before we got involved in Afghanistan.

I am thinking amongst others of Nigel Fisher, the head of UNICEF Canada, who said that thanks to renewed efforts in immunization, deaths attributable to disease, for example measles, have fallen dramatically.

I am thinking of Chris Alexander, who is a UN mission representative in Afghanistan, who recently said:

If progress has been made in Afghanistan, it is because the country has had the advantage of benefiting from exceptional people in the field […] (the Canadians who served in Afghanistan were not only outstanding representatives of their country, but also the best to come to Afghanistan's assistance.

There is also professor Barnett Rubin, who said that Canada is “one of the best donors in terms of the way it gives assistance”.

Mr. Gordon Smith, of the University of Victoria, said:

I have been impressed over the last year and a half by the degree to which we have been able to comprehensively increase our development aid to Afghanistan, particularly that centred on the Kandahar region.

In short, a whole series of well-known people who work in Afghanistan believe that we have to help this country emerge from several decades of war. These people all link our military presence in Afghanistan with our ability to help the country and help the people to rebuild.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you very much.

Last fall, the defence committee had a presentation by the Senlis Council. It was full of, I suspect, deliberate misrepresentation about alleged mass starvation within an hour of Kandahar. Minister Verner, can you comment specifically on the level of food aid and agricultural aid development, like farm irrigation in Kandahar province, which I suspect bears no resemblance to the Senlis report at all?

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Hawn.

Minister Verner.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, colleagues, for giving me the opportunity to revisit this issue.

We are in Afghanistan because we really want to help the population, we really care about meeting their needs.

Are there still challenges to meet in Afghanistan? Absolutely. That is why we must stay there. That is why in terms of development, among other things, we will be there until 2011.

One thing is clear: we all want to help. Officials from my department met with representatives of the Senlis Council last week. We asked them a certain number of very specific questions in order to find out where the camps and people were; we wanted to go and help, because according to their allegations, these people were dying of hunger.

I know that other organizations working in the field asked the same questions, because they are concerned about helping people who are in need. I have to say that we are still waiting for answers. That is what I can tell you for now.

In the meantime, I can tell you that the director of the World Food Program clearly stated that thanks to Canadian aid, they were able to provide 10,000 metric tons of food to people in need last year. We expect to double that assistance this year, to bring it to 20,000 metric tons.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

We'll go over to the Bloc Québécois and then back to the government.

Five minutes, go ahead.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Allow me to remind everyone that today's briefing deals with the treatment of detainees by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. That is the real issue. We have heard all kinds of other considerations that, as far as I am concerned, make me think that we have completely wasted our time.

However, in a desperate attempt to get a real answer to the questions we are asking, I would ask Mr. O'Connor if, yes or no, he knows what happened to the prisoners that were captured by Canadian soldiers. Where are they now?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Just before Minister O'Connor answers that question, I'll say that I don't consider it a waste of our time to be talking about women's rights in Afghanistan or the development and the assistance that has been provided to the people of Afghanistan by the Canadian government. I hardly consider that a waste of time.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

The subject of today's meeting is indeed—I have the sheet in front me—the people detained by the Canadian Forces. We have been trying to get answers for months in the House. We did not get them. We asked for this session with the primary goal of getting these answers.

This is not the time to water down the debate and to make sure that we get no more answers today than we have gotten in the past.

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. O'Connor, do you want to respond to the question?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

As I said in my opening comments, the Department of National Defence has certain responsibilities with respect to detainees, and that is from initially capturing them, processing them, etc., and making sure they're medically fit, etc., and they're handed over to the proper authorities. The Department of National Defence does not monitor what happens to detainees once they go into the Afghan system.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

How can you assure us that these people are not being tortured?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

There is an agreement, an extended agreement, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has just spoken about and I'm going to have him talk about the monitoring process. But Defence doesn't do monitoring; it captures and processes.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the system that is in place under this enhanced arrangement has a clause aimed directly at the subject of notification on any change in the material status of the detainee. It reads:

The Government of Canada will be notified prior to the initiation of proceedings involving persons transferred by the Canadian Forces and prior to the release of the detainee. The Government of Canada will also be notified of any material change of circumstances regarding the detainee including any instance of alleged improper treatment.

And I underscore the word “alleged” here, Mr. Chair, because just as the detainees themselves are entitled to due process from time of detention to determination, I would suggest as well that the Afghan authorities, at whom these allegations are aimed, are also entitled to the presumption of innocence when it comes to any investigations that are ongoing. If there has been improper treatment towards a detainee and it's proved and is borne out, then appropriate action would be taken by the Afghanistan government and we would support them in that regard.

The training that's taking place inside prisons, this improved access, including private access to examine detainees and to hear about these allegations, I would suggest is going to do a lot to raise the standard of professionalism inside their penal institutions.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I might add, Chairman, in response to the question--

[The Co-Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead, Mr. Day.