Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

'I have not seen those reports'

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:47pm - 56 Comments

The Defence Minister tells Canadian Press he never saw Richard Colvin’s reports on the treatment of detainees in Afghan prisons. CP points out that he was equally unaware of a Foreign Affairs annual report on human reports that also flagged torture.

MacKay, who was foreign minister at the time, insisted Thursday that he knew nothing of the documents. ”I have not seen those reports in either my capacity as minister of National Defence or previously as minister of Foreign Affairs,” he said in a telephone interview from Halifax. ”I can’t speak for other ministers.”

Richard Colvin, who is now an intelligence officer at the Canadian embassy in Washington, wrote in May 2006 that the allegations of torture regarding Afghan prisoners were “serious, imminent and alarming.” He followed it up with another warning in early June 2006, almost a full year before the federal government acknowledged the problem. Colvin said he spoke with prisoners who claimed to have been tortured by their jailers and that inmates showed physical signs of abuse.

… The Foreign Affairs Department produces annual reports on human rights in individual developing countries and the 2006 review on Afghanistan specific flagged that country’s prison system as rife with torture. The following year as MacKay was questioned about it in the House of Commons he denied having read that document as well, despite it having been widely circulated in his own department.

Gordon O’Connor tells Global he too was unaware of Colvin’s reports.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_N M_A_N

    Indeed. Then let him say that, out loud. let him stand and defend the viewpoint, rather than hiding in his warm parliament office, defending himself by claiming ignorance of the issue.

  • William

    I`m not sure how long the " see nothing—say nothing Sgt. Schultz politician "—has been in the works but that`s what we have now whether it`s Obama, Iggy. Mackay etc. Do you know what it`s called when a politician speaks from principle on a controversial subject—-it`s called a gaffe—-and the media and blogs will be all over him for months.

    Jenn, it`s easy for you and I to say we live our life in a principled way but we don`t have to contend with Taliban bombs in Afghanistan or even worse fight for votes against Lizzie May in Central Nova.

    • tobyornottoby

      So you're convinced they are lying, but that's okay?

      • William

        No, I`m convinced you have understood nothing.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      An excellent point, William. That is why it is so important to put those principles into laws or at the very least policy, so that in the emotional heat of the moment, or in the horrifying reality of the situation, the decision doesn't have to be so much *made* as *implemented*. I assume you were kidding about fighting against Lizzie May for votes was worse.

      As to the "gaffe's" I completely agree with you. What is needed is for ALL politicians to stand behind those words. They'd all have to do it at the same time, which is the problem, otherwise we continue on this same dumb cycle of pointing fingers hypocrisy.

      • William

        In 1993 fifty– two well-principled good people came to Ottawa as Reform MP`s. Within weeks they were being called politically naive, racist. woman-haters, homophobic and Chretien referred to them in the House as the turd party. That`s the only time I remember a political party making an effort to act in a true principled manner and Stephen Harper had a front row seat to see the results and I`m sure he said never again.

        The utopia you refer to won`t happen—-the best we can do to keep them honest is to at least change gov`ts frequently—-no more triple majorities for a mediocre PM like Chretien.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

          Oh, I do love it when two people from opposite ends of the spectrum end a discourse at the same place.

          I agree with you, William. We may never even see a single majority again if this is the best they can do.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

    I've seen variations on this comment a lot today. As commenters on a blog post, are we not allowed to discuss things that are of either burning or passing importance to us? Can we only comment when the issue is important to many? Is there a list of approved topics to talk about on any given day, and if so, where is it posted?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

      Rather than condoning the governments record wrt this issue and the "so-what" attitude of others, my comment was actually more of a lament that the issue doesn't seem to attract widespread concern.

      I'm just not optimistic about the probability of rasining interest, although I encourage you to keep up the struggle.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

        Oh, okay, thanks for the explanation.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

          No worries…it seems that my writing has a tendency to be ambiguous.

From Macleans