Laurie Hawn

[Afghanistan, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this was not a Canadian-transferred detainee. This was a person taken control of by the Afghan authorities.

If anybody should apologize, it should be that member, who has called senior officers of the Canadian Forces legally flimsy, negligent, liars, war criminals, and morally weak. I think if anybody should apologize, it is that hon. member.

[Afghanistan, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this story is about two and a half years old. It was discussed in the House two and a half years ago. It is not a story about transferring detainees to the prison system; it is a story about a mission in the field.

The patrol was with the Afghan forces. The Afghans took control of the individual. They proceeded to abuse him. Canadian soldiers stepped in and did the right thing, and we should be proud of that.

What it points out is that everyone, from the Prime Minister to the soldier in the field, is doing the right job and will continue to do that.

[Afghanistan, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from one individual, Mr. Colvin, who had a point of view. We have heard from three top Canadian generals. We have heard from the top diplomat in charge of that whole operation. We have heard from three very senior public officials who were deeply involved with that operation. All the evidence from their side points to the fact that there has not been a single substantiated allegation of abuse of a Canadian transferred detainee.

The government has acted responsibly. The Canadian military has acted responsibly. It is time to stop dragging the military through the mud and support it.

[Afghanistan, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we stopped transfers on a number of occasions. One time we suspended them and three other times we paused them. There were times when the Afghans stopped taking transfers, too, for reasons like religious holidays, lack of information or confusing information on detainees' personal information.

We have been collaborating very closely with the Afghan authorities. The new arrangement has been working very well since 2007. We made those changes when we received credible evidence of concerns from the field. We have acted responsibly at all levels and we will continue to do that.

[Afghanistan, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the decision to transfer detainees to Afghan custody was made by our commanders on the ground. They make them on very specific reasons: if there is clear evidence that those people have been involved in activities against our soldiers, against Afghan civilians and if there is clear evidence of gunshot residue, being caught in the act and so on. Once they are transferred to the Afghans, it is up to the Afghans to prosecute them as they see fit within their organization and their justice system. We are working very closely with the Afghan system to increase its capacity to do that effectively.

[Afghanistan, December 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our first priority is protecting our men and women in uniform and the people they are trying to serve. We simply cannot release information that will endanger our troops and our relations with our allies and international organizations.

Redactions are done by non-partisan civil servants, public servants, who operate within the rules, the same rules that were applied after September 11, the same rules that were applied by the previous government, for the same good reasons: protecting our troops, protecting the people we are there to work with and protecting the organizations we depend on to give us information.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is quoting from the generals is the situation in 2006 when we were operating under an agreement with the government of Afghanistan that relied on the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to do the monitoring for us. What the generals said was absolutely correct. We were abiding by the arrangement that was in place at the time, that we were following in good faith, that the Liberals had entered into in good faith. It is as simple as that.

With respect to Mr. Colvin coming to the committee, all he was being reminded of was the fact that he would need to stick within the law, that he could not break the law in testifying before a committee in public. It was as simple as that.

With respect to the documents, I will remind him again that the members are getting the documents precisely as they have requested. On December 2, they will be there. They should stand by for the actual date.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the committee asked for the documents around 5 p.m. on Wednesday. It asked for them to be provided by December 2. At 8 p.m. that evening, the documents were requested, almost immediately. December 2 is not here yet; it is tomorrow. I know I can assure the hon. member that the documents will be available tomorrow.

Yes, they are going to be redacted. We have asked for as little redaction as possible, but the simple fact is Canada relies on information from a wide variety of organizations around the world. They have very confidential sources and they have confidential methods of operating from time to time to protect their sources, to protect their ability to provide us with the information that we need to get the job done. We need to protect Canadians doing the job and we need to protect the people who Canadians are trying to help.

We are providing the documentation as the committee has requested.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary East.

The motion tabled by the member for Ottawa Centre is one that we simply cannot support. This government clearly takes the issue of detainee transfers as well as respect for the rule of law very seriously. Our proper conduct has been instrumental in establishing the strong reputation that Canada enjoys today. Indeed, that reputation has been strengthened by the quality of the work we have been doing in Afghanistan. Providing a good example to our allies and to Afghans is a fundamental part of our mission there, particularly when it comes to promotion and protection of human rights.

The motion before us today gives us an opportunity to step back and take stock of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and the good work done there by Canadian Forces.

In 2001, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Canada sent a small number of special operation forces to assist in the ousting of the Taliban regime and to disrupt terrorist activities. This initial contribution was supplemented by a more substantial force of conventional forces in early 2002. They participated with distinction in combat alongside Americans and other allies during Operation Anaconda, a significant allied victory against the Taliban.

Once the Taliban had been overthrown, our troops returned to Afghanistan and helped foster safety and stability in and around Kabul.

Our military presence in the capital, known as Op Athena, laid the groundwork for reconstruction and for the establishment of the democratic process.

In the winter of 2005-06, our forces shifted to Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan. Within a very short time of their arrival, they encountered fierce resistance and a deadly insurgency. Throughout, they have fought and worked extremely hard under very difficult conditions to help the people of Afghanistan.

We are there today to help usher in the return of peace and stability, after more than 30 years of strife, to protect civilians, to tend for a fledgling democracy, to help entrench the rule of law and to assist in the enshrining of human rights for men and women, boys and girls.

Admittedly there have been setbacks. There has been frustration. Progress has sometimes been slower than we would like, but there has been progress.

We sometimes forget that all but a few of Afghanistan's 34 provinces enjoy relative peace and security. Areas under the watchful care of our NATO allies are seeing prosperity. After years, in fact decades of strife and fear, Afghans are beginning to go about their business.

Canada is in Kandahar so that southern Afghanistan will be able to enjoy the same security as other parts of the country. We are there to reinforce the legitimacy of the government of Afghanistan. We are there to help the Afghan military and institutions take root and grow so they can take care of themselves. It is a great responsibility and very tough job.

However, we are there in the south, in the crux, in the place where the battle will be won or lost because Canadian troops are among the best trained, best equipped and most able in the world. They understand why we are there. They understand what is at stake for them, for Canada and, most important, for Afghans and for Afghanistan.

I have been privileged to shake their hands as they board the plane on their way there and I have shaken their hands when they returned home. I have been able to visit them in theatre a number of times. I have spoken with them and seen both their devotion and the results of their work.

Nearly two years ago, I spoke to the House about a young girl I met while in Afghanistan. She was able to drink clean water and go to school. She had access to health care and had prospects of a brighter future, all this because Canada's presence in her country made it so. I cannot forget her and others like her.

Nor do our men and women in uniform forget. They care deeply about Afghans and Afghanistan. They are able to see the progress. They see it every day, the hope in individual's lives. That progress, that hope is possible because of the dedication and professionalism of the Canadian Forces.

I want to speak to that professionalism. Canada has a first rate military. That is no secret. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk, has worked closely with officers from many countries, including the United States and Great Britain and still he is found of saying, “The CF doesn't take a back seat to anybody”. He knows of what he speaks and so do our NATO allies that recognize the quality of our armed forces.

Our officers are university educated. Our forces are thoroughly trained. Part of that training, especially pre-deployment training, covers international humanitarian law as well as the proper handling and treatment of detainees. The CF has done its job well in this regard too.

The Judge Advocate General, Brigadier-General Watkin, testified recently before the Special Committee on Afghanistan and spoke of the rigorous legal foundation upon which detainee transfers to Afghan authorities was based. Allow me to quote him. He said:

—members of the Canadian Forces have demonstrated tremendous professionalism in their handling and treatment of detainees. Respect for the rule of law is an essential aspect of Canadian Forces operations. Fostering respect for the rule of law is a key reason why we are in Afghanistan.

The Canadian Forces are being held to a high standard of conduct with regard to those they detain. They are meeting that standard.

In May of 2006, a Canadian Forces board of inquiry found our military's conduct with regard to detainees to be above reproach. Nevertheless, allegations have arisen which claim our soldiers acted irresponsibly in transferring those they detained.

In the last month, several high-ranking officials have testified before committees, asserting that detainee transfers were paused when their continuation threatened to breach international humanitarian law.

Claims have recently emerged alleging inappropriate Canadian action or inaction with regard to detainee transfers. The Government of Canada believes these allegations to be groundless, however, because of our belief in due process, these allegations are indeed being investigated.

The government is co-operating with the Military Police Complaints Commission. We have made available hundreds of documents to help the MPCC in its work, and have only taken issue with the MPCC when it has attempted to operate outside its jurisdiction. The Federal Court recently ruled that the MPCC was indeed going beyond its mandate in respect to some aspects of its public hearing.

The government is also co-operating with the special committee on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

Calls for a public inquiry are unreasonable. Not one but two separate investigations are currently ongoing in the form of the MPCC, once it reconvenes at the chair's discretion, and a special committee on our mission in Afghanistan. A public inquiry would lead to a triplication of effort and a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars. Calls for such an inquiry also show a lack of trust in the work done to date by our forces, other government departments and international organizations, which are currently looking at the allegations surrounding detainee transfers.

For these reasons, we cannot support the motion.

I want to go on to talk a bit more about the mission.

For about four years, from 2001-02 until 2006, it was under the leadership of the Liberal Party. For the last four years, it has been under the leadership of the Conservative government. Both governments, I know we have and I know the Liberals did, operated in good faith as well.

The fact is we transitioned into government in early 2006 as we transitioned the mission to the south in early 2006, from Kabul to Kandahar. It was a very different kettle of fish. We got into the middle of Operation Medusa in the fall of 2006. It was a very heavy-duty operation. We lost 12 Canadian soldiers in that operation. Our priorities at that time were clearly to protect Canadian soldiers, while they were getting the job done, to protect Afghan civilians, and to ensure proper treatment of Afghan prisoners.

The arrangement we had in place at the time was being followed in good faith. In fact, the member for Vancouver South, on April 10, 2006, in a take note debate, said that he had the opportunity to look at the agreement. He agreed that it was an important agreement and one that was quite good in many respects.

The involvement of the International Committee of the Red Cross as an independent third party is very important. It can then follow the prisoners and ensure they are treated well, et cetera. In that event, we found out later that even though we were operating in good faith under that agreement, which it entered into and I am sure in good faith, that this was not the case.

Mr. Colvin now enters the picture with some memos in 2006, which I have not seen. People have been waving them around, getting them from wherever, I do not know, but, as has been testified by others, those memos were about process, not about allegations of torture or abuse.

There was a flurry of documents from Mr. Colvin in 2007, about the same time as the Globe and Mail article came out by Graeme Smith, so he was not saying anything new at that point. In fact, we were already acting, because it was not only Mr. Colvin, who was alone for a long time, but we were also getting corroborating concerns from other sources, principally the military and others.

His allegations that all detainees were tortured has been clearly refuted. It is simply not true. That they were capturing innocents is simply not true. General Hillier, whom the Liberal opposition has characterized as morally weak and legally flimsy, along with General Gauthier, who was also accused of being a war criminal, have made it very clear that Canadians have been abiding by our responsibilities to the letter. We have been following procedures. We brought in a new arrangement that made it a lot more effective. That arrangement continues today.

We have made tremendous progress in developing the Afghan prison system and the judicial system, in training them, equipping them and in bettering their infrastructure. Simply put, we are not at the point where it is “he said, she said” any more. We are at the point where it is “he said and everybody else says”.

I do not question Mr. Colvin's sincerity. I do not question his honesty. We do question his evidence because it is clearly refuted by many others. A public inquiry would be a complete waste of time and money. There are investigations going on now.

Maybe, just maybe, there is no blame to be laid on anybody for anything. Maybe, just maybe, everybody, Liberals, Conservatives after them and certainly the military were doing the very best they could under very difficult circumstances, and doing a hell of a job.

It is easy to look back four years and twelve thousand kilometres away and pick nits, and that is what we are doing.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for my hon. colleague. He mentioned that was had heard at committee were personal attacks against people of the highest credibility and character. I wonder if he would comment on the comments from across the floor, that the generals were morally weak and legally flimsy, and that General Gauthier could be characterized as a war criminal.