VZCZCXRO3021
OO RUEHDBU RUEHPW RUEHSL
DE RUEHOT #0944/01 3442100
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O R 102058Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0144
INFO AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE
ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 0003
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000944 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PHUM MOPS AF CA
SUBJECT: CANADA: DEFENCE MINISTER IN HOT SEAT OVER ALLEGED ABUSE OF 
AFGHAN DETAINEES 
 
REF: OTTAWA 940; OTTAWA 890 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary: Canada's opposition parties united on December 
9 and 10 to demand the resignation of National Defence Minister 
Peter MacKay and to institute a public inquiry into allegations 
that the government ignored credible evidence of abuse at least in 
2006 of Afghan detainees transferred by Canadian Forces (CF) to 
Afghan custody.  All three opposition parties alleged that MacKay 
had misled Parliament by repeatedly denying the existence of 
credible proof in at least one case of abuse.  Chief of the Defence 
Staff (CDS) General Walter Natynczyk reversed his own December 8 
testimony to Parliament and, citing newly received information, 
acknowledged on December 9 that an individual turned over by CF to 
Afghan custody in 2006 had been beaten by Afghan interrogators. 
Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears determined to sit tight, 
especially given a noticeable lack of public interest in the issue. 
The more the opposition demands MacKay's resignation, the more 
likely PM Harper will keep MacKay in place.  The government's 
public support remains steady, and still significantly higher than 
the Official Opposition Liberal Party.  However, with three 
separate investigations into the detainee issue now ongoing, or 
pending, the government necessarily remains in damage-control mode, 
and will continue to be dogged by the controversy into 2010, even 
though Parliament's six week holiday recess should cool the waters 
somewhat.  End summary. 
 
 
 
CORRECTING THE RECORD 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U)  On the morning of December 9, CDS General Natynczyk called 
a hastily assembled press conference to correct testimony he had 
provided twenty-four hours earlier to the House of Commons' 
National Defence Committee.  In the course of a briefing on planned 
withdrawal of CF from Afghanistan (ref a), opposition members had 
questioned him about a June 2006 incident in which CF had 
intervened with Afghan police after the beating of a detainee by 
Afghan interrogators. General Natynczyk had told the Committee 
that, in his assessment, the individual had been detained by Afghan 
police and had not been transferred by CF. 
 
 
 
¶3.  (U)  At his press conference the next day, General Natynczyk 
stated that he had that morning received "new information" 
confirming that CF had taken the individual into custody before 
turning him over to the Afghans, although it remained unclear 
whether CF ever officially processed the man as a CF detainee. 
Reading from field notes, he said that CF had photographed the man 
prior to the transfer to ensure that, if Afghan police assaulted 
him "as had happened [with prisoners] in the past," CF would have a 
record of his condition.  The correction contradicted repeated 
assertions by Defence Minister MacKay that there was not "a single, 
solitary proven allegation" of abuse involving a prisoner turned 
over by CF.  General Natyncyzk insisted that he was personally 
responsible for the error in misinforming Parliament, and "I am 
accountable for it today."  He announced that he would convene a 
military board of inquiry to investigate the matter, including why 
the information took so long to reach his office, and would seek a 
report "fast, fast." 
 
 
 
STAYING THE COURSE 
 
 
 
¶4.  (U)  In the later daily parliamentary Question Period and again 
on December 10, all three opposition parties praised the 
"integrity, courage, and honor" of General Natynczyk and the CF but 
questioned the honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity of Minister 
MacKay.  Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff charged that the 
emergence of credible proof of transfer of detainees to abuse "in 
at least one case" and Minister MacKay's "changing story"  had 
undermined public trust in the Minister.  All parties demanded 
MacKay's resignation as well as a public inquiry "to get to the 
bottom of the matter."  They complained that a military board of 
inquiry would be "insufficient."  In response, PM Harper and 
Minister MacKay repeatedly insisted that the government and the CF 
had acted appropriately, that -- where credible evidence of abuse 
existed -- the government had acted, and that "the government is 
 
OTTAWA 00000944  002 OF 003 
 
 
going to stay on course and continue to back our military." 
Minister MacKay insisted that the military board of inquiry should 
be allowed to "do its job" and repeatedly tried to spin the 
opposition demands and questions as a lack of support for the CF. 
 
 
 
 
"NO ONE TURNED A BLIND EYE" 
 
 
 
¶5.  (U)  Minister MacKay made a previously scheduled appearance 
before the House of Commons' Special Committee on Canada's Mission 
in Afghanistan (AFGH) later the same day, along with  Foreign 
Minister Lawrence Cannon and former Defence Minister Gordon 
O'Connor (now Chief Government Whip).  In his prepared statement, 
Minister MacKay underscored that "no one ever turned a blind eye" 
to abuse and that the Government of Canada "has never been 
complicit in torture or any violation of international law by 
willfully allowing detainees taken by the CF to be exposed to 
abuse."  O'Connor testified that he had visited Afghanistan on four 
occasions in 2006 and 2007, including visits to Afghan prisons, and 
insisted that "at no time" did anyone inform him of abuse of 
detainees transferred by CF.  Opposition members had only limited 
opportunity to grill the ministers, since mandatory votes in the 
House of Commons twice cut the meeting short, prompting opposition 
members to allege that the government wanted to hamper their 
investigation.   Minister Cannon highlighted C$7.7 million in 
assistance to Afghan correctional reform since the Conservatives 
took office in 2006, as well as another new grant of C$21 for rule 
of law projects in Afghanistan. 
 
 
 
THREE DETAINEE PROBES 
 
¶6.  (U)  The AFGH probe is one of three investigations already in 
process, or pending, into the Afghan detainee controversy. 
Opposition MPs (who outnumber government members on the AFGH) may 
try to force the AFGH to continue to sit through Parliament's 
holiday recess, which begins December 11.  (The House of Commons 
will not return in session until January 25.)  The Military Police 
Complaints Commission (MPCC) has conducted an ongoing investigation 
since 2007 into complaints by two human rights groups, which allege 
that Canada has handed over prisoners in Afghanistan to certain 
torture in violation of international law.  CDS Natynczyk will 
separately convene a military board of inquiry into the 2006 
detainee transfer incident. 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT REMAINS STEADY 
 
 
 
¶7.  (U)  According to a new EKOS poll, 83% of respondents believe 
that the government was aware there was a strong possibility that 
prisoners turned over to Afghan custody would be tortured.  This 
finding was constant across all gender, age groups, and regions. 
However, the results also suggested that many Canadians remain 
undecided on the government's handling of the controversy:  41% 
were satisfied with the government's level of transparency and 
disclosure regarding the alleged torture of prisoners, while only 
24% were dissatisfied.  Thirty-five percent had no opinion. 
Nationally, Conservative support dipped slightly to 35.6% (from 
36.9%) in a late November EKOS poll.  The Conservative decline did 
not result in higher support for the Liberals, who slipped to 26.5% 
(from 27.1%), while the New Democratic Party (NDP) rose slightly to 
16.7% (from 15.3%). 
 
 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Comment:  General Natynczyk's somewhat confusing 
corrective to the detainee narrative has circumscribed the 
government's ability to contain the controversy, which so far 
centers around only one report of a specific allegation thatt 
Afghan authorities, after a joint operation with the CF,  beat one 
Taliban suspect with shoes.  As in the case of post-2011 Canadian 
plans for Afghanistan (reftels), public interest is extremely 
limited, and confidence levels in the PM and the Conservatives 
remain relatively high.  PM Harper is unlikely to throw Minister 
MacKay to the opposition wolves, and their "demands" for his 
dismissal probably ensure that MacKay will keep his job, at least 
 
OTTAWA 00000944  003 OF 003 
 
 
for now.  Absent more "smoking guns" of specific abuses, the 
government is also unlikely to call a public inquiry, which have 
historically taken a corrosive toll on the popularity of sitting 
governments.  The Parliamentary recess affords the Conservatives a 
chance to get back on track and reformulate the government's 
strategy, which has yet to address the central political issue -- 
of what the government knew and when - in this affair. 
JACOBSON