Beyond The Commons

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

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The Commons: Shrug and dismiss

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:01pm - 126 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister stood and shrugged and declared that the military and the government had conducted themselves properly. Michael Ignatieff asked a second question. The Prime Minister rose and shrugged once more, suggesting the Liberal leader was without evidence of wrongdoing by the Canadian Forces.

In the face of futility, Mr. Ignatieff switched to English for a third try. “Mr. Speaker, there are no allegations against Canadian Forces. It is the conduct of the government that is in question,” he attempted to clarify for the umpteenth time. “The government has withheld evidence, it has intimidated witnesses, it has censored documents. This morning it even tried to prevent Parliament from debating the issue. The Prime Minister is responsible for this conduct. He is responsible for a year of wilful blindness. What does he have to hide?”

The Prime Minister stood here to declare the matter closed. “Mr. Speaker, the reason the leader of the opposition now tries to say he does not point the finger at the Canadian Forces and diplomats is, of course, because they have always respected their obligations. These people have been operating in extremely difficult conditions in Afghanistan. Whenever they have been faced with difficulties, they have taken the appropriate action,” he explained. “Systems have been changed two, three, four years ago. This issue has long since been dealt with.”

The government would seem to no longer be interested in trying to explain itself.

Ujjal Dosanjh stood to suggest it was impossible to believe that the abuse of a detainee in the summer of 2006 was confirmed only this week. Peter MacKay rose and confirmed his support for the men and women of our armed forces.

Gilles Duceppe narrowed to the specifics of the field notes apparently only discovered this week that confirmed for General Walter Natynczyk that an individual taken into custody by Canadians had subsequently been abused by Afghan authorities. The Bloc leader referred directly to that report’s most intriguing words—”as has happened in the past.”

The Prime Minister stood and dismissed the concern.

Mr. Duceppe went red in the face, leaned forward, gripped the desk in front of him and castigated Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister rose and asserted his pride in the military.

The Bloc’s Claude Bachand stood and suggested that an internal military investigation was not sufficient, that a full public inquiry was necessary. Mr. MacKay seized on this as a demonstration of disloyalty. “That again really portrays something quite obvious,” he said. “We support the forces, their success and the success of our country. He cannot say the same.”

Jack Layton asserted his indignation. “Mr. Speaker,” he ventured, “Canadians are tired of this nonsense.” The Prime Minister yelled and swiped his hand and asserted his patriotism.

The day went in this way. Moaning and groaning on all sides, unnecessary declarations, reassuring ovations and calls for resignation.

Marlene Jennings raised the previous declarations of the Defence Minister, wondered how many more cases of abuse were as yet unrevealed and demanded a public inquiry. Mr. MacKay invoked “the hard work, the blood, sweat and tears, and sacrifice of the Canadian Forces and our diplomatic corps.”

Mark Holland rose to press further in his particularly insistent way. “Mr. Speaker, the defence minister, on November 23, said, ‘There has never been a single proven allegation of abuse involving a prisoner transferred by the Canadian Forces, not one.’ In one Question Period alone, the minister repeated this line no less than five times. There was no ambiguity, no uncertainty, just an unqualified statement dismissing disturbing allegations of torture, a statement we now know was false,” Mr. Holland reported. “Why did the Defence Minister fail to ensure he was speaking the truth before answering in this House? Why was it left to the Chief of Defence Staff to uncover the minister’s falsehood?”

“Mr. Speaker, at 9:30, when the Chief of Defence Staff called to share this new information with me, that is of course what happened,” Mr. MacKay explained. “We accept his version of the truth.”

Mr. Holland tried again. Mr. MacKay expressed his intent to support the Canadian troops.

The Bloc’s Pierre Paquette attempted to quote from Abraham Lincoln. Mr. MacKay rose to suggest the words actually belonged to P.T. Barnum, then seemed to imply some comparison between himself and Mr. Lincoln. “I will tell him what Honest Abe did do, he tried to unify a nation,” Mr. MacKay declared. “He tried to bring people together during a time of war. That is what great Canadians do. They get behind their forces, they back them, they give them the necessary resources. They give them the necessary support that they need when they are doing difficult work. The honourable member continues to play cheap politics, continues to use wedge politics. We will support our forces. We will see our country succeed with no help from him.”

Mr. Paquette stood and suggested that Mr. MacKay might have more in common with Richard Nixon.

Two more questions from Liberal Judy Foote, two more statements of the government’s faith in the military. Then it was Marcel Proulx who rose to table the afternoon’s 22nd and 23rd questions on this topic. With his supplemental, he referred the Defence Minister to the section commander’s field notes on which this week has turned, wrapping a multitude of questions into one.

“Mr. Speaker, the document made public yesterday by Gen. Natynczyk revealed an essential element, though it was not new,” Mr. Proulx said, the House going noticeably quiet. “In November 2007, this document was included in a 1,200-page bundle presented in Federal Court by the Department of National Defence. At the time, the date of the document was censored, along with the sections dealing with the mistreatment of detainees. It was perhaps new to Gen. Natynczyk, but clearly, it was not new to the government. Why did they hide the truth?”

The Defence Minister stood with what would be his 16th and final answer of the day.

“The member is suggesting by implication that the military somehow did something wrong and that they somehow did not do the right thing,” he opined. “That is what is so despicable. I ask them to slip out of their comfy shoes, pull on some combat boots and walk outside the wire with some of those men and women.”

This was the parting shot, perhaps intended as the afternoon’s climax, the culmination of these past few weeks before the House falls silent on the occasion of Christmas.

And yet, an end to the questions seems about as far away as it has ever been.

The Stats. Afghanistan, 23 questions. The environment, four questions. The economy, finance and banking, two questions each. Human rights, crime, pensions, mining and Aboriginals, one question each.

Peter MacKay, 16 answers. Stephen Harper, eight answers. Jim Flaherty, five answers. Mark Warawa, four answers. Bev Oda, Stockwell Day, Chuck Strahl and John Baird, one answer each.

More by Aaron Wherry

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

You enjoy seeing them used as political props by desperate Ministers? That give you the warm fuzzies?
http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

You enjoy seeing them used as political props by desperate opposition members and pundits? That makes you feel all wonderfully self-righteous?

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

bravo!

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

Do you even read Wherry's QP reports? The Opposition has unrelentingly said that they are not even addressing CF behaviour, they are only criticising the lack of action on the part of the Government from 2006-2007.

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

I watch QP live and make my own judgements.

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

Ah, retirement.

http://kinnyscomments.blogspot.com/ Paul MacPhail

Your whole statement is an oxymoron. You sound like Michael Ignatieff: on the one hand, you support our troops who did everything right, on the other hand you want the Conservatives to pay for covering up for the military because the military did everything wrong! Remember, it's not Members of Parliament getting blown up over there, it's Canadian Forces military personnel. If a crime was commited over there, it would have to be by the Canadian Forces, not the Member of Parliament from Whereverville. The Canadian Forces have been in Afghanistan since 2001; how could you critcize the current government for a lack of action during 2006-2007 when the planning should have long since been done? I thought I was sick for all the H1N1 BS, but this latest smear attempt is even more pathetic.

kcm

'You sound like Michael Ignatieff: on the one hand, you support our troops who did everything right, on the other hand you want the Conservatives to pay for covering up for the military because the military did everything wrong"

Nice bit of sophism.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Your very words are a smear on the CF. They follow orders. Do you dispute that? The Government sets policy. Do you dispute that? The Government, not the CF, had to decide what to do after it received reports on torture in Afghan prisons. Do you dispute that? The Government did nothing. It is the Government that is to blame, not the CF as you and your darlings on the front bench shamelessly and thanklessly allege.

http://kinnyscomments.blogspot.com/ Paul MacPhail

Of course I don't dispute that the Government sets policy. I also don't dispute that the Government had to decide what to do after it received reports on torture in Afghan prisons. I do dispute your assumption that the Government did nothing – they did, shortly after taking office. If you want to blame a government, you should take a lesson from our world-class snipers and direct your aim in the proper direction: the Liberal Governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. You can call me shameless when you understand the meaning of the word.
[youtube tiFvo9UeTE4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiFvo9UeTE4 youtube]

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

the opposition has put on the table that goes back to the Liberal days Paul, the CPC are the only folk playing chicken.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Thank you, I am perfectly well aware that we have the best snipers in the world. In spite of the Harper Government's best efforts to play down the efforts of our regiments in Afghanistan, I am even familiar with the Battle of Panjwai, the success of which (apart from stopping a huge and unexpected Taliban offensive in its tracks) is one reason why the CF was taking so many prisoners in the first place. May I recommend for your edification Col. Ian Hope's book Dancing with the Dushman, or the more journalistic Contact Charlie.

Meanwhile, while no one, I think, would dispute that the Martin government was very much to blame for the original detainee transfer agreement signed by Hillier in late 2005, your chronology is quite messed up. Colvin reported in May 2006 that prisoners detained by the CF were being tortured by their Afghan jailers; in June, the Afghan IHRC said much the same thing. Meanwhile, for a whole year, O'Connor maintained that the Red Cross was guaranteeing that prisoners detained by the CF were not tortured — an entirely untrue reassurance for which he later apologised. It was not until May 2007, a year after reports of torture had begun, that a new detainee transfer agreement was even signed. While the Martin government is to blame for the first agreement, this whole firestorm concerns the fact that it took a whole year for the Harper government to pay attention to a serious and systematic problem. Indeed, it is still in denial, though that is transparently just an evasion tactic.

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

I think that's not going to be acceptable unless Tinsley (the commissioner) gets reinstated as the commissioner. (The Conservatives did not extend his mandate which expires momentarily, I believe.) Otherwise, I wouldn't have any faith in whomever the Conservatives appoint in his place. Tinsley has been trying to run this investigation for years now, it isn't his fault he's been so stymied at every turn that his mandate ran out.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Would a Military Police Commission have the mandate to investigate political interference in military decisions?

Probably not. The investigation should start at the top, with the politicians who call the shots for the military.

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

I'm not sure about that. The Military Police Commission does have on its website a case where a complainant asked the Military Police to investigate a Member of Parliament. The Provost Marshal (maybe) declined the request because a) the RCMP investigates Members of Parliament, b) this case had already been investigated, and c) it was a frivolous action. (The MPCC eventually upheld the Provost Marshall but did not like the frivolous bit, or something like that)

So I'm not sure if they can't, as opposed to won't.

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

I don't think it's going to get worse at all. I think the issue will evaporate, just as all the Opposition's previous causes du jour (like H1N1) have evaporated. The LPC is plumbing the lowest levels of popular support in Canadian history, precisely because their strategies rely almost entirely on hyperbole and shameless innuendo. To hear a Liberal tell the tale, you'd never know that it was a Liberal government that originally decided in 2005 to transfer prisoners to the barbaric Afghan penal sytem, rather than to the relatively civilized and humane American detainee system.

Fortunately, the current government fixed this Liberal mess in 2007. The only question is whether they should have acted sooner, back in 2006.

kcm

Give it up CR. The liberals may be scrapping bottom but public opinion is clearly behind the opposition.
The liberals put the agreement in in 05 alright, which by the way the new con govt defended, presumeably because the Abu Ghraib horror show was starting to break in 04. So your attempt to fight fire with fire aint working at all. Your whole post is basically con talking points…not like you at all. When this finally breaks i doubt the liberals will be covered in glory at all. But lying to and misleading parliament has to be addressed…let the chips fall where they may.I suspect that this will be a learning experience for many of us.
Gayle

"Fortunately, the current government fixed this Liberal mess in 2007."

Unfortunately, that was about 18 months after they learned about it.

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

political interference in military decisions?

Can you show a single example of political interference in military decisions regarding detainees?
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

That's tough to do while the investigations are being stonewalled.

Hey, there might be nothing at all. But there's smoke here and we need an open investigation with the government's willing participation.

Jlee

This is all very nice. Let me summarize this. 1. Canadian soldiers detained some afghanis and handed them over to the afghan police. 2. At least one of those afghanis were beaten (ok tortured) by the afghan policeman. 3. Conservatives says they didn’t know of a single proven case of torture before they stopped the transfer. 4. Opposition parties claim the soldiers received orders from Peter Mackay or someone in the chain of command to ignore the beatings. 5. Opposition also claims that the conservatives are now covering up this explicit order to ignore the evidence of beatings/torture.

So are we talking 1 person? 3? 10? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

I’m actually quite upset that in a time when we are still reeling from global economic crisis, my taxes is funding this kind of silliness.

What about our own prisoners in our own prisons who are beaten by their fellow inmates?

What about the other afghanis who were also beaten/tortured by the afghan police? Do they matter?

What about the ordinary afghans who went to vote and are beaten by talibans? Do they matter?

What about schools in Afghanistan who were destroyed by talibans because they accepted girls? Do they matter?

The answer is no. They don’t because talking about them does nothing to embarras those lying conniving cheating fascists running the Canadian government today. That’s it!

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I agree.

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

I actually agree with you on this. I support an open investigation into this issue, because I think there's no other way it can possibly be resolved. Here's a fearless prediction, though: three months from now, the detainee issue will be as dead as the dodo, because just like H1N1, there's no "there" there.

The evidence will probably show that Canadian-transferred detainees were the luckiest detainees of all, because they were generally spared from Afghan police brutality due to our monitoring system.

http://kinnyscomments.blogspot.com/ Paul MacPhail

I don't support any further investigation into this. As for committees, the only time a committee reaches an ethical and intelligent decision is when there are only three people on the committee, with one abstaining and one out sick. We can't turn back time; what we can do is move forward doing things right, and nobody has argued that this problem hasn't been corrected so what good can come out of dwelling on it?

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

Ask Peter MacKay… he's the one using the bucket defense of "There've been no credible allegations of torture, and on any credibile allegations of torture our soldiers pulled the people out, and we changed the agreement anyway"

Had he started with, "There was a problem, we dealt with it, not as fast as we would have liked but verifying these things during a war is difficult" then the issue wouldn't have gotten legs.

So what good can come out of dwelling on it now is perhaps ensuring that our elected MPs don't feel as comfortable lying to the House and the Canadian people as they obviously do currently.

kcm

After 2007…right!
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I agree with your prediction. I'm surprised it has lasted as long as it has already.

Verna Robart

Most Canadians don't think much of a Party that fund raises on the backs of the military either….(Liberals)
Verna Robart

George S. Patton: Famous Military Quotes
No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair. Coalition.
http://kinnyscomments.blogspot.com/ Paul MacPhail

They probably forgot it somewhere, in a Brown paper envelope.
joe in ottawa

Do I really want to take the word of terrorist who want to KILL US?

A true patriot.

Hard choice to make. Believe the terrorist or Harper and his gang? The terrorist is probably more credible than our government. Isnt that a bitch?

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Expressing concern about the treatment of prisoners is one thing.

Making the protection of the Taliban an endless cause celebre, continually parading the grave injustice done to this poor sympathitic group seemingly in more need of protection, than say…the children being blown up by their bombs, the gays being hung at their hands or the women being stoned in their killing circles,

is becoming overtly unseemly. (I dare say there's been tenfold the outrage expressed in this frenzy at a few Taliban being roughed up, than the unspeakable horrors committed by these monsters.)

The problem with getting wrapped up in such a partisan frenzy, is that the next morning, one may wake up with a few regrets.

This lastest scandal chasing incarnation will run its course, as did pooping puffingate, badjoke about poisioninggate, giant ceremonial cheque gate,

but at a far greater price to the credibility of the scandal chasers than the others combined, I suspect.

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

Ply your red herrings elsewhere, biff. This one stinks.

Nobody's called for the protection of the Taliban.
The issue, once again, is:
1. Why did it take a year for the government to act on the reports of torture that were brought forward,
2. Did the government take steps to keep that information from being officially known and hidden from the Canadian public?
3. Why does the government today see fit to lie about what happened then?
http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

I agree biff, plus it doesnt stink at all.

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

I must correct my above post.

I suggested the outrage at the treatment of the Taliban prisoners was tenfold more than the outrage expressed at the Taliban themselves.

It appears to be infinitely more, since there appears to be zero effort to cover the actual evils of this monstous enemy. (my how we've come full circle from the WWII days where the evils of the enemy was commonplace in popular media).

Posts and articles about the poor Taliban – thousands
Posts and articles offering perspective on what the Taliban had done to its captors (and continues to do) – you'll have a tough time finding a mention, let alone anything remotely approaching "balance"
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

The reasons I suspect is because there are sounds that they actually *were* made aware of this unofficially, and then took steps to try and prevent it from being found out officially where they'd actually have to do something about it. And I can even see the reasoning for that, no doubt doing something about it would have been messy, it would have pissed off the war-monger "brownies get what's comin' to them" camp within the party, and the press would have had a field day. It would have been a decidedly uncomfortable situation even if they were doing the exact right thing.

So they tried to hide it — which of course makes it that much worse when it does start to come out.
Hoist by their own petard, as they say.. what we haven't found out yet is just how high a hoisting it is.

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

I agree with this. I wouldn't have been thrilled to build a whole prison if it were my decision and so wouldn't have supported it all that enthusiastically. And once the concept was shot down by all of NATO voting, we had to do something. And the Afghans said they understood and would treat the detainees properly, so maybe they would.

I don't blame the Conservatives for all of that, or even the Liberals. I would have been perfectly satisfied if they'd said, "yes, well when we found out the Afghan's word is as useful as sprinkling salt in the ocean, we began to revise our agreement with them. Perhaps because we were new, and because it is a complex thing, we were slower than expected. We'll do better next time." I genuinely think that's what happened.

Why they had to deny, deny, blame others, ruin honourable people's reputations, put our generals in extremely difficult/embarrassing situations, hide behind national security to cover their own ass, prevent people from doing their job, and now thumb their nose at the supremacy of Parliament, I have no idea.

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

It's because they don't believe that the Canadian public can be adult about things. Perhaps because they never were.

So they treat us like children, and then feel justified when we start screaming.

TedTylerEzro

That is pretty much universal among the political class, in my estimation.

Gayle

And do try to remember the agreement contained safeguards to protect prisoners. It was not until the conservatives took over that it was learned those safeguards were insufficient.

Wouldn't it be nice if Harper actually took responsibility for his own actions? You know, be accountable and stuff?
The realist

It is said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Greater scoundrels than Harper and his deceiptful gang of conservative crooks cannot be imagined. I have never been so proud of being a resident of Toronto, a city the majority of whose citizens are and have always been to smart and well educated to believe these con men and women.

old fogey

Toronto residents have been not TO smart but just a bunch of idiots who believe in voting for a corrupt party.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Bartolomeo Bartolomeo

But most Canadians wake up to all this with a,
"tut tut – yawn – pass the cornflakes"

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

Shreddies, and no Tigers isnt on the box. (g)

anon

"But most Canadians wake up to all this with a,
"tut tut – yawn – pass the cornflakes"

Speak for yourself, blowhard.
http://kinnyscomments.blogspot.com/ Paul MacPhail

What's really, really old is people claiming that they support the military and then in the same breath accuse the Government of covering up for the military. How can you say that you support the military, that they did nothing wrong, and then accuse the government of covering up for the military? If the military did nothing wrong, as you say, then what is there to cover up? This is cheap politics, and anyone with a minimum of two brain cells knows it. There's not much point in wasting taxpayers hard-earned dollars to confirm that something went wrong. We all know that the mission that the Liberals sent our Canadian Forces on didn't go the way they planned, but our government has worked hard to fix those problems. Why are so many people trying to revive them?
http://intensedebate.com/people/lyndie lyndie

If and when they do a parliamentary investigation, they had better go back to when the Liebrals were in power. It would be interesting to know what they knew about prisoners being tortured and how many were under their watch. Let's see if they will hand over the paper work on that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Tceh Tceh

MacKay: “The member is suggesting by implication that the military somehow did something wrong and that they somehow did not do the right thing,” he opined. “That is what is so despicable. I ask them to slip out of their comfy shoes, pull on some combat boots and walk outside the wire with some of those men and women.”

This is getting old. Nobody blames the military, the blame lies with their civilian masters, the Harper Conservatives and MacKay in particular who are working 24/7 to cover up their criminal errors. One wonders how long Peter would last outside the wire. Not long I suspect. His behavior and attempts to hide behind our men and women is Afghanistan is despicable.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Why don't you ask the Americans?

And I feel pretty sure you won't know what I'm talking about, which just shows how much you've been paying attention.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Yes. Which is what the Liberals have requested. Not everybody is afraid to have their mistakes examined and perhaps learn from them. It does, however, seem to be a particular failing among Harper supporters.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Unfortunately, it seems you must be just shy of your required minimum.

Otherwise, you'd no doubt have better reading comprehension and realize Tceh was saying that the Harper government is working to cover up their own errors, not those of the military.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Holding the government to account is not going against the troops. I would say a government avoiding accountability by dragging in feigned patriotism is a bigger problem (a fundamental one that goes against the spirit of our system), but then again I don't cheer for either side of the House.
burlivespipe

It's the government that gives orders to the military. It is the government that sets the course that the military follows. It is the government that should stand tall and take responsibility for any issues that occur in the orders given and the course set. A government that refuses to be held accountable, nay to even accept questions upon its actions, is no friend of the military.
Harper's orchestrated deflection of responsibility is in fact forcing the military to be under repute. Just as Harper refused to be accountable on a number of other issues and acted as though it was not in his interest (ie when medicare was being used by US republicans as a pinata), he continues to show that he is no leader and no man. Did Mao misplace a eunich?
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I agree but must point out that Nuremburg set the precedent that following orders is no defense of the law.

The documents reveal to date suggest that when discovering abuse of prisoners transferred, the CF did what they could to remove the prisoners and ensure they were treated better. Therefore, while they may not have solved the problem, they did what they could to ameliorate issues as they arose.

Comparatively, upon discovering abuse of prisoners transferred, it appears our government took over a year to change its policy, redacted documents suggesting that something may have gone awry, and did not fully investigate serious allegations from senior officials.

I'm quite sure there's more to this story. But from what I've seen so far, our Forces have done what they can to deal with a bad situation. Our government has not.
old fogey

Right on man-every war that Canada has participated in has been lead by our politicians into the battle. It is not the soldier who is brave , it is our brave politicians.