Canadian Afghan detainee issue

[1] The allegations were first sparked by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who claimed that full versions of government documents proved Canada had willful knowledge that torture would occur before handing detainees to Afghan authorities.

[3] The allegations have led to a showdown in the House of Commons of Canada, as opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) had called for the releasing of relevant documents in full and unredacted form, claiming parliamentary privilege to see them.

Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan began in 2002 with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a coalition of soldiers from 42 countries, which was tasked as a counterinsurgency effort in response to the 11 September attacks.

[11] It maintained that it had no role in monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement, and that following long-established operating procedure, the Red Cross would not reveal to any foreign government any abuses it might find in Afghan prisons.

[7] The first allegations of detainee abuse came in early February 2007, when University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran produced documents he had received through an access-to-information request showing that three prisoners in the custody of Canadian military police were brought in by their Afghan interrogator for treatment of similar injuries to the head and upper body, all on the same day.

[14] In April 2007, The Globe and Mail published interviews with 30 men who claimed they were "beaten, starved, frozen and choked after they were handed over to Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security" by CF members.

[15] It also revealed that it had received a censored report by the Canadian government on human rights in Afghanistan through an access to information request, and it contained "negative references to acts such as torture, abuse, and extra judicial killings [that] were blacked out without an explanation".

[17] This would be reaffirmed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, stating that there was "no evidence that access is blocked to the prisons", and that Afghan authorities had agreed to "formalize that agreement so there is no potential misunderstanding".

[21] Allegations regarding the treatment of Afghan detainees resurfaced in November 2009 via parliamentary testimony by Richard Colvin, the second highest-ranked member of Canada's diplomatic service in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007.

"There has not been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred Taliban prisoner by Canadian forces", Defence Minister Peter MacKay said in the House of Commons, with his parliamentary secretary suggesting Colvin was not credible.

[24] On 8 December 2009, General Walter Natynczyk testified before a parliamentary committee that one particular detainee that was abused on 14 June 2006 by Afghan police was never in CF custody.

A written statement by the Afghan government denied the 'systematic' nature of torture and claimed the report was exaggerated, although it admitted to deficiencies due to a lack of training and resources.

The report also suggested that detainees handed over by the CF received different treatment, with one case citing a man who stated everyone was treated badly unless they were handled by Canadians.

MPs in the House of Commons voted 146 to 129 in favour of a motion to set one up, but the Prime Minister has refused to consider it, stating that "the government of Canada has taken all necessary actions in all instances where there is proof of abuse of Afghan prisoners".

[34] The second investigation was launched on 26 February 2007, following a joint complaint between Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, alleging CF military police transferred detainees while there was enough evidence to suggest they would be tortured on at least 18 occasions.

[35] The investigation was moved to a public hearing process on 12 March 2008, mainly due to "delays and difficulties in obtaining relevant documents and information from government authorities".

[37] Opposition MPs in the House of Commons began calling for all documents the government possessed regarding the detainee issue to be made public since Richard Colvin's testimony in November 2009.

[38] "There's a mandatory obligation on public officials to ensure that when information is released that it is in compliance with the Canada Evidence Act [to avoid security risks]", according to Minister of Defence Peter MacKay.

[39] On 10 December 2009, the House of Commons passed a motion requiring the release of unredacted documents concerning the Afghan detainees to the committee hearing the issue.

Critics repeated that the government was violating the Constitution of Canada and will be in contempt of Parliament if it continued to refuse to release uncensored documents regarding the Afghan detainee issue.

However, University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran pointed out that Iacobucci was not a sitting judge and therefore had no power except to give lawyer advice to Nicholson.

[52] On 18 March, the three opposition parties united in a bid to force the government to let them look at uncensored documents on the Afghan detainees affair or face parliamentary contempt proceedings.

Specifically, they called on the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, Peter Milliken to rule that the government violated collective parliamentary privilege #5 in refusing to hand over uncensored documents on the transfer of Afghan detainees.

[53] MPs have claimed that the request from Parliament was based on "340 years of bedrock constitutional history",[54][55] and that there are systems in place to decide what is and is not appropriate to release to the public.

[50] Referring to those "systems", Reg Whitaker noted that members of the "Military Police Complaints Commission, whose investigation of the Afghan detainee issue actually led to the calling of the parliamentary inquiry ... are [already] fully security cleared [to see the unredacted documents]".

[40] The Speaker first asked for comments from government and opposition MPs on the matter, including Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson, Derek Lee, Jack Harris, Tom Lukiwski, and Jim Abbott.

Based on the documents that were released, MP Stéphane Dion implied that they were cause for concern, and "The likelihood is very high" that a detainee was abused while in the custody of Afghan authorities.

The notes also state "CSIS officers have been serving alongside the Canadian Forces" while armed, and affirms that agents had no role in determining whether prisoners should be transferred to Afghan authorities.

[72] The move was prompted by a United Nations report, published a few days later, which described "a compelling pattern and practice of systematic torture and ill-treatment" at a number of facilities run by the NDS and Afghan police.