Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

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

The Commons: 'Will they stop already?'

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 7:57pm - 89 Comments

The Scene. “General Natynczyk said what the government has been saying all along,” the Prime Minister explained en francais with his first opportunity.

Across the way, Gilles Duceppe burst out laughing.

Sixteen times these past few weeks members of this government told the House that not a single proven allegation of abuse suffered by a Canadian-transferred detainee could be found. The Defence Minister, the Transport Minister and the Defence Minister’s parliamentary secretary all testified as such.

Two days ago, the Globe reported otherwise. General Walter Natynczyk insisted that a close reading of the situation in question demonstrated the detainee, later beaten by Afghan authorities, was not so much detained and transferred, as merely questioned. And government ministers insisted on accepting Gen. Natynczyk’s version of events.

Only just before noon today, Gen. Natynczyk summoned the cameras and notepads and announced that he was wrong, that new information indicated the detainee in question was not just questioned, but in fact taken into custody. And so suddenly, it seemed, there was some explaining to do.

Perhaps stumped by the Prime Minister’s first response, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff tried again, this time in English. “Mr. Speaker, when General Natynczyk corrected his account this morning, he did so, he said, in order to restore trust in his office and in his institution,” he said. “The issue here is trust. We cannot trust this government. We cannot trust a word that comes out of the mouth of the minister. When will the Prime Minister fire him and call a full, independent, public inquiry?”

The Prime Minister stood to repeat himself. “Mr. Speaker, the facts of the case in question of course confirm what we have been saying all along,” he said.

Now it was the Liberal side that laughed incredulously, apparently having missed Mr. Harper’s comments in the other language.

“Which is that,” the Prime Minister continued, “when the Canadian Forces see substantive evidence of any case of abuse, they have taken corrective action.”

Indeed. This government has referred previously to “credible evidence” and “credible allegations” and “substantial evidence” and “credible information” and even “credible, sustained information and evidence.” But then John Baird has said that “there has not been a single proven allegation of abuse of a Canadian-transferred prisoner.” And Peter MacKay has said that “there is no credible evidence, none, zero, to suggest that a Taliban prisoner transferred from Canadian Forces was ever abused.” And Laurie Hawn has said that “there has not been a single substantiated allegation of abuse of a Canadian transferred detainee.”

“The issue is whether the government did the right thing,” Mr. Ignatieff ventured with his third opportunity, straining it seemed to properly convey himself to the Prime Minister. “For more than a year, it had credible reports from Canadian diplomats, from Canadian military of abuse of detainees in Afghan prisons. It did nothing. Will it now admit that it made a mistake? There was a year when it did nothing. Will it appoint an independent judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of this affair, and will it fire the Minister of Defence?”

The Prime Minister begged to differ. “The only nothing here is that the opposition has had nothing new to ask about in three years,” he huffed.

Ujjal Dosanjh took a couple turns at shaming the government side. Peter MacKay stood to respond amid a chorus of calls from the Liberal side to resign. Mr. Dosanjh dared the government to call an inquiry. Mr. MacKay pumped his fist and spoke glowingly of the country’s diplomats and soldiers.

The questions persisted. There were groans from all sides and accusations of who was saying what about whom. The Bloc’s Claude Bachand demanded the Prime Minister apologize to the House. Mr. MacKay stood to respond, but was forced back down by louder calls to step aside.

Jack Layton picked up the inquiry. The Prime Minister dismissed his concern. Mr. Layton lost his patience. ”Mr. Speaker, will they stop already?” he begged, proceeding to point and yell and visibly demonstrate his frustration.

Dominic LeBlanc stood to prosecute the case. “Mr. Speaker, with the chief of the defence staff’s revelations this morning, the Conservative story on detainees has now been totally discredited. Every time the Conservatives come up with a new story, the truth comes out and they are forced to create a new falsehood to cover up the untruth of their last falsehood,” he said. “Story after story from the government is untrue. Answer after answer is total fiction. Why does the minister not finally come clean, stand up in the House and tell Canadians the truth?”

“Mr. Speaker, saying it louder with more feigned indignation does not make his question true,” Mr. MacKay demurred.

As the Defence Minister stood to take a question from the Bloc’s Francine Lalonde, a rendition of “Na Na Na, Hey Hey, Goodbye” rose from the furthest reaches of the Liberal benches. Mr. Ignatieff admonished them to cut it out.

After still more back-and-forth, claims and counter-claims, Mr. Ignatieff rose again, capping the day with a buffet of questions. “Can the minister tell the House what new information led him to change his story? Will the minister understand that this constant charade of changing his story will not do? Will he further understand that a military inquiry into this matter is insufficient because it does not deal with political responsibility? When will the government do the right thing and appoint a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this?”

Mr. MacKay offered what he could. “Mr. Speaker, the new information was the new information provided by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Walter Natynczyk, this morning, which came from field notes that were made at the time of the incident. So, something that happened almost three years ago, while I was in a different department, that was not known by the Chief of the Defence Staff, is hardly something that I would know,” he said. “What it does prove is that when credible evidence comes forward, Canadian soldiers act meticulously, ethically, marvellously, each and every time. We applaud their efforts. We applaud their courage. They did the right thing.”

More still from Mr. Ignatieff. “Mr. Speaker, again, the issue is whether the minister will bring to the committee, this afternoon, the new information that has made him change his story, once again,” he clarified. “Will he appreciate that this constant changing of stories reduces the trust that Canadians have in this minister’s capacity to tell the House the truth? Will he finally agree that it is more than time to appoint a public inquiry, with a judge, to get to the truth of the matter?”

The Liberals stood to applaud. The Defence Minister stood with both caveats and assurances. “Mr. Speaker, again, General Natynczyk spoke the truth, this morning. He received new information this morning, which he shared with me,” he said. “This information, by the way, was recorded on a battlefield, at a time when soldiers were under extreme stress. There were different versions of what took place, in this instance. All of that was laid out by the General, in his press conference, this morning. He has called for a military board of inquiry, which will occur. That will allow the facts to be disclosed. As is always the case, we have been forthright, we have been straightforward, and we will continue to do so.”

Never mind anything you’ve heard to the contrary.

The Stats. Afghanistan, 23 questions. Foreign affairs, four questions. The environment, three questions. Taxation, two questions. Employment, the Olympics, labour, Aboriginals, the RCMP and consumer safety, one question each.

Peter MacKay, 16 answers. Stephen Harper, eight answers. Bev Oda, three answers. Mark Warawa and Jim Flaherty, two answers each. Diane Finley, Vic Toews, James Moore, Rona Ambrose, Chuck Strahl, Peter Van Loan and Leona Aglukkaq, one answer each.

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

    It's plausible.

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

    Crit, fine by me you cheeky devil. I understand the CBC will be releasing a poll tomorrow to the effect that Canadians overwhelmingly don't believe the Cons on this issue. A tongue-lashing, if you will.

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

    Hello? Listening to one source only? As a senior DFAIT official told me today, it would be the equivalent of listening only to Colvin and not taking into account other info available to the government.

  • Shawn

    Seems to me that Ignatieff is handling things quite credibly. Any sense that this will help him politically?

    • The realist

      Over time no doubt it will if he plays it smart. It already has. The latest Ekos poll shows the conservatives down from 40 percent in sept to 35 percent now. The liberals are holding at 26% which is their core vote. From the liberal point of view Harper has gone from majority territory to a weakened minority (35% translates into 135-140 seats because of the concentration of conservative support in alberta).

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

    Maybe so. But it does have the benefit of being true, though.

    I really do wonder how sincere the Liberals are when they call for a public inquiry.

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

    Well, presumably someone was briefing him, and presumably, until this morning, that person would have had the same information as the General.

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

    Credible. Truthy. Maybe It'll play to the base.
    So anyway, as long as the Liberals are calling for an inquiry, maybe the Conservative will do it , \”because the Liberals did it\”

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

      One Liberal here in Ottawa told me that they aren't worried about calling for an inquiry because they don't expect the Conservatives to cave. Hence it's seen as political upside for them.

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

    What do you mean, TwoYen? They listened to one source–the generals who didn't get all the information they should have from the soldiers on the ground. That is not in dispute at this time. Who else did they listen to, who also didn't have the full information? I don't suggest they only listen to Colvin, either, but maybe if they'd taken his reports into consideration (along with G&M, Amnesty, etc. etc.), they could have got the generals to dig a little deeper than the non-digging they apparently did.

  • kcm

    Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse – Wikipedia, the free …
    Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, rape, sodomy, and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib …

    Maybe that had something to do with it Wilson. Why don't you save us and yourself alot of effort…"the liberals did it first and worst" ought to cover it.

  • kcm

    When will Wilson stop obfuscating? Prior to 2005 [not sure exact date] we were under a different command structure…we handed detainees to the Americans. Lord knows if we would not have been better advised to continue with this arrangement…but Abu graib was coming up in 2004…hence the 2005 agreement. [assumed] In any case nohing Wilson says is worth more than a fart in a hurricane.

  • kcm

    Let's see Mackay run anywhere his family name isn't there to hold his hand, and see what happens?

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

    Just to spell it out: it was a riff about perceptions of credibility. Polls suggest that Canadians generally view Harper as a credible PM, while Ignatieff is manifestly not seen as a credible PM (because his approval ratings are below 15%.)

  • Fred – Brandon MB

    The unibrow is beyond redemption.

  • Blues Clair

    Be kind to wilson, it's been a long three weeks for her.

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

    Well, to a point. But the Liberals did put in place the arrangement that began the transfers to the Afghans:

    http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/?p2=/modules/liu/publicati…

    There can be no denying that.

    • Gayle

      No, but that is not the issue. The agreement included safeguards. It was not until the conservatives took over (just a few weeks after the agreement was signed) that it became known those safeguards were not sufficient.

      And then the CPC did nothing for about 18 months or so, all the while telling Canadians that anyone who questioned them must be a Taliban sympathizer.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mike514 Mike514

    I thought the same thing. I think Iggy's doing a pretty good job.

    On the other hand, do Canadians care enough for this to make a dent in public opinion polls?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

      The ekos poll said they have made no gains during this, the ever loving Taliban Jack has made some small gain.

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

    Just a series of gradually modified adjectival variants, refinements, and clarifications of the same excuse over and over and over again.

    Sent from my iPod

  • Kelly

    My bet is Mackay will be shuffled out of Defense after Christmas. Whatever. Canadians aren't paying much attention and could care a less about pissing matches between Cons and Crooks or Foreign Affairs and DND.

    Fortunately, the public isn't as interested in trashing their country as some politicians are to see blood on the floor in the HOC. Canadians know whose side they are on and it isn't with those who aren't in the fight, who prefer to tip already scarce resources towards the enemy at the expense of Canadian soldiers. This was always a no-win scenario and politicians are stupid if they think they can throw baloney at the wall without smearing the whole house with their greasy war crimes accusations.

    Yeah, it's that simple.

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

      Whether it is or not, you've shown someone certainly is.

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

    Did you really send that from your iPod?

    That sentence would have been a lot more credible if you took the time to articulate what the "same excuse" was. Maybe your thumb was sore.

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

    The 'same excuse' is using 'credible' over and and over and over again until it works like The Big Lie. Then you shift the subject, another standard tactic. Shift the blame. \”Oh! Look over there!\” What have you got against iPods?

    Sent from my iPod

  • kcm

    That's true.However one could be forgiven for thinking it was her mission to be here.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Re: credibility, it's interesting in that there is a politician's credibility in one's own eyes ("Do I believe him/her?") and then again that politician's credibility in the voters' eyes ("Do they believe him/her?"). Which is subjective and which is objective? Since one's assessment of a politician's objective credibility is necessarily subjective, but must be considered objective if it is to one's honest assessment of their credibility per se, while the voters' perception must likewise appear to them to be objective but must objectively appear to us as subjective, politicians will either seem subjectively objectively credible or objectively subjectively credible . . . or incredible, of course.

  • burlivespipe

    The "liberals did it too" defence works so well, especially since we know in that alternate reality where Harper is cool and slim and hanging with Sir Paul, when he was PM back in 2002 Canada couldn't have handed over any Afghanis for afghani-style torture, because we had been in Iraq for nearly a year, fighting Harper's war of the willing…

  • kcm

    Funnily enough one conservative told me they were seriously considering caving because they thought the liberals didn't really want an inquiry. Mad as hatters…the whole lot of them!

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

    I have nothing against iPods. I'm really not trying to shift the blame onto your iPod, though it amuses me that you think so.

    I used the word "credible" several times because that was the topic of this tragic digression.

From Macleans