VZCZCXRO3283
OO RUEHDBU RUEHPW RUEHSL
DE RUEHOT #0980/01 3561935
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 221934Z DEC 09
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0187
INFO ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000980 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM MARR AF CA
SUBJECT: CANADIAN FORCES' INVESTIGATION FINDS AFGHAN DETAINEE 
ALLEGATIONS "UNFOUNDED" 
 
REF: OTTAWA 890; OTTAWA 906; OTTAWA 944 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  On December 21, the Canadian Forces National 
Investigation Service (CFNIS) -- the independent investigative arm 
of the Canadian Forces Military Police (CFMP) -- cleared the 
Canadian Forces (CF) of almost all allegations of mistreatment of 
Afghan detainees while in CF custody between 2006 and 2009. 
Despite the Christmas parliamentary recess, the opposition parties 
nonetheless appear determined to flex their muscles against the 
minority government and not to let the detainee controversy lag. 
Opposition members of the House of Commons Special Committee on 
Canada's Mission in Afghanistan (AFGH) met unofficially (without 
government members) on December 22 in Ottawa to hear testimony from 
a retired diplomat and an NGO representative.  Speculation grows 
that the government may prorogue (temporarily suspend) Parliament 
until March to cool off the debate and to halt the committee's 
investigation.  End summary. 
 
 
 
ABUSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CANADIAN FORCES "UNFOUNDED" 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Late on December 21, the Canadian Forces Military Police 
(CFMP) announced the results of Canadian Forces National 
Investigation Service's (CFNIS) investigations into allegations of 
mistreatment of Afghan detainees in CF custody between 2006 and 
¶2009.  In all investigations completed to date, the CFNIS found 
allegations of mistreatment by CF members "unfounded" and commented 
that CF members had "acted appropriately when interacting with the 
detainees."  The CFMP documented each complaint with a separate 
occurrence report.  Examples of the allegations received by the 
CFMP included complaints from detainees of forced adoption of a new 
religion and not being afforded the time to go to the washroom or 
perform ablutions for religious rituals. 
 
 
 
¶3. (U) The CFMP filed one occurrence report in 2006, and two in 
¶2007.  In all three cases, the CFNIS determined that the 
allegations were unfounded.  The Military Police Complaints 
Commission (MPCC) and a Board of Inquiry conducted separate 
investigations into one of the 2007 incidents.  Both bodies 
supported the findings that allegations of mistreatment by CF were 
unfounded, although the MPCC continues to address the conduct of 
the CFMP as part of a separate investigation.  The CFMP initiated 
six occurrence reports in 2008.  CFNIS found the allegations 
unfounded in five of the six cases; one investigation is ongoing. 
With respect to the ongoing investigation, CFNIS cleared CF members 
regarding mistreatment of detainees, but continues to examine other 
remaining allegations.  In 2009, the CFMP filed three occurrence 
reports.  In all three cases, CFNIS determined that the allegations 
were unfounded.     The CFMP statement announcing these findings 
underscored that the CFMP "takes allegations of alleged detainee 
mistreatment and abuse seriously and investigates to determine the 
facts, analyze the evidence and, if warranted, lay appropriate 
charges." 
 
 
 
¶4.  (U)  Separately, court martial proceedings will begin on 
January 25 against a CF captain accused of killing a severely 
wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan's Helmand province in 
October 2008.  The enemy combatant's wounds were reportedly judged 
too severe to treat on the battlefield.  Captain Robert Semrau 
faces charges of second degree murder in the case.  Semrau is the 
first Canadian soldier to face charges in relation to the death of 
an alleged enemy fighter in Afghanistan. 
 
 
 
KEEPING UP THE PRESSURE 
 
 
 
¶5.   (U)  Members from the Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and 
Bloc Quebecois on the House of Commons' Special Committee on 
Canada's Mission in Afghanistan (AFGH) met informally (without 
members from the ruling Conservative Party) in Ottawa on December 
22 to continue hearings into the Afghan detainee issue (reftels). 
The House of Commons had adjourned on December 10, until January 
25, but individual committees may continue to meet during recess at 
the written request of at least four committee members.  Opposition 
 
OTTAWA 00000980  002 OF 002 
 
 
members had previously tried to convene the AFGH on December 15, 
but all Conservative members skipped the meeting, depriving it of a 
quorum.  Committee rules allow meetings to function without a 
quorum with as few as three (out of a total 12) members, but at 
least one government member must be present to make a meeting 
official.   Under House of Commons rules, in these unofficial 
committee meetings, proceedings are not recorded or transcribed, 
members cannot exercise any of the powers of the committee (e.g. to 
order or subpoena documents or witnesses), are not bound by regular 
committee rules and practices, and are not entitled to any of the 
privileges (such as immunity from prosecution for libel) associated 
with formal parliamentary proceedings.  In contrast, when 
parliament is prorogued, all Committee functions -- formal and 
informal -- terminate. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (U) Liberal Vice Chair Byron Wilfert chaired the December 22 
informal AFGH meeting, while accusing the government of "thwarting" 
the House of Commons' resolution of March 2008 to provide 
parliamentary oversight over Canada's Afghan mission.  The informal 
AFGH meeting heard from two witnesses: civil rights lawyer Paul 
Champ (who represents Amnesty International Canada and the British 
Columbia Liberties Association -- BCLA) and Gar Pardy, a retired 
diplomat and former head of consular affairs at the Department of 
Foreign Affairs).  (Amnesty International Canada and BCLA's 2007 
complaint to the MCPP of alleged abuse of detainees and a separate 
suit before the Federal Court to halt detainee transfers had 
spurred the original debate on detainees; Pardy coordinated the 
signatures of more than 100 former Canadian diplomats on a recent 
public letter condemning the government's treatment of diplomat 
Richard Colvin, who testified before the AFGH earlier this month.) 
Prior to the meeting, Champ promised to urge the committee members 
to move the detainee investigation away from the "hyper partisan 
process" on Parliament Hill to an independent commission that could 
provide guidance for a clear military policy on detainee transfers 
procedures in any war theatre. 
 
 
 
CONSERVATIVES WON'T PLAY BALL 
 
 
 
¶7.  (U)  On December 21, Conservative MP Laurie Hawn (parliamentary 
secretary for national defence) notified the AFGH committee clerk 
in a letter that Conservative members would not attend the December 
22 meeting.  Hawn argued that "only the most serious of 
emergencies" should interfere with time spent with family over the 
holidays and "there is presently nothing urgent needing study on 
the subject of Taleban [sic] prisoners."  Hawn insisted that 
Canada's improved, post-2007 detainee transfer policy "remains the 
"gold standard of our NATO allies." 
 
 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Comment:  The tactical skirmishes over AFGH hearings are 
an opportunity for the opposition to flex its muscles against the 
minority government, but the detainee debate is still largely 
confined to Parliament Hill and media circles.  Opposition tactics 
- and Conservative hardball against them -- are feeding increasing 
speculation that the government may prorogue Parliament (as it did 
one year ago to avoid losing a confidence vote) to try to lower the 
temperature on detainees and to head off a January confrontation 
over detainee documents.  In year-end interviews (taped but not yet 
aired), PM Stephen Harper reportedly did not rule out prorogation, 
while pledging to bring forward a federal budget in March (not in 
January, as in 2009).  The clear CFNIS findings that allegations of 
mistreatment of Afghan detainees by CF were unfounded were good 
news for the CF in the midst of the detainee controversy, but are a 
bit of a red herring, since the allegations of mistreatment have 
been against Afghan authorities, not the CF, in cases where the CF 
had transferred detainees to Afghan security forces.  All political 
parties have taken pains to underscore that the conduct of the CF 
is not at issue in the detainee controversy. 
BREESE