Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

The Harper test for calling a commission of inquiry

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 2:18pm - 214 Comments

Prime Minister Harper’s most prominent decision to call a commission of inquiry came in late 2007 when he set about to create a commission to investigate Karlheinz Schreiber’s allegations about Brian Mulroney. Here’s the text of that announcement. I’ve bold-faced the parts that seem germane in regard to Richard Colvin’s new letter.

On Friday I announced that I would be appointing an independent and impartial third party to review what course of actions may be appropriate given Mr. Schreiber’s new sworn allegations. These allegations remain unproven and untested in a court of law and arose in a private lawsuit. There are, however, now issues that go beyond the private interests of the parties in the lawsuit.

Many have called for a public inquiry, including, most recently, Mr. Mulroney.

Given the conflicting information and allegations (including what appears to be some conflicting information under oath) and the extended time period over which the events referred to in various documents and allegations surrounding this matter have occurred, I have decided to ask the third party to advise the government on appropriate terms of reference for a public inquiry.

If in reviewing material, the independent party finds any prima facie evidence of criminal action he or she will identify this and advise how this should be handled and what impact, if any, it should have on the nature and timing of the inquiry.

A public inquiry is a major step and one that should only be taken when it addresses Canadians’ interest, not those of the various parties, whether Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Mulroney or political parties. That is why it is important that we engage the necessary independent expertise and take the time to ensure that the terms of reference meet that test.

This decision set a bar. If the prime minister strikes commissions of inquiry only when Brian Mulroney requests them, he should say so. If resolving Colvin’s allegations is not in the public interest, the prime minister should explain why not. If the proper response to unproven allegations is no longer to seek proof or disproof, the prime minister should tell us why that is no longer his response. If Richard Colvin, who remains a salaried and trusted public servant, is less credible than Karlheinz Schreiber, who was the subject of concerted extradition efforts by the German government at the time he made his allegations, the prime minister should explain why Colvin’s credibility is so limited, and why he continues to be entrusted with serious responsibilities on behalf of the Canadian federal state.

Tags: Karlheinz Schreiber, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

AT1

Great ! Let's have an inquiry. But let the terms of the inquiry extend back to to 2002.

Canuckistanian

let's have it include airbus this time ;-)

kcm

Maybe they could reconvene the Warren commission while they're about it.:)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Ignatieff has already said in the House that he has no trouble supporting a public inquiry that follows the detainee timeline from 2002. So, your condition has been met AT1. The Conservatives still refuse though, because they likely know the information they've been hiding incriminates them a lot more then anything coming out between 2002 – 2005.

James Halifax

Actually Scott, the backroom folks of the Liberal Party have probably already assured Iggy that this would be ok as the documents indicating this abuse didn't start simply because Harper was elected….have already been destroyed.

As for incriminating anyone……that is only applicable to those who wielded the whips or cables…what have you. We can't control what a National Government does with its own citizens for 100% of the time. Eventually, they'll have to sort themselves out. We're there to kill the Taliban…..not cater to them. The solution is simple……CAnadian soldiers should take no prisoners…..let the Afghan army do it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

"Simple" is a good word for that.

James Halifax

Actually, Paul. "Realistic" is the word for that.

Simple…..would be sitting in the safety of Canada writing about a war in a foreign country, knowing that you would never have to face the same danger as the soldiers fighting it.

But please Paul…..share with us the dangers of being a writer in Canada. I'm sure it will be just as thrilling as your commentary.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I didn't spot you during my two trips to Afghanistan, James. I assume you were outside the wire, armed only with a paring knife and your indomitable spirit?But now you've got me doing the same absurd chest-bucking that some of my more excitable colleagues like to indulge in. Are you saying nobody in Canada can apply their judgment to anything done in their name abroad? That's…simple.
James Halifax

Be careful of the chest-bucking, Paul, you don't want to damage the clasps on your man-ssiere. A clarifying question though…..when you were in Afghanistan, how many Taliban did you run across? Did they shoot at you, or did they hold fire after they realized you were a member of the Canadian media……one of the guys telling THEIR stories? One would be curious however, to ask if you have ever posed a question to the Liberals about what they knew when they were in charge. After all…..these transfers BEGAN under their watch. Or are you just the incurious type?

Different note, Paul. I think everyone should be able to apply their judgement as they see fit, just as I believe that anyone who sees holes in that respective judgement, or the complete lack of judgement ; has a right to point it out.

Keep up the writing though, Paul. I'm sure one day someone will read what you have written and enjoy it almost as much as you do.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Gee, if I didnt know any better, I'd think you were an anonymous Liberal insider or something James, for you to be making a ridiculous statement like the first paragraph.

James Halifax

Actually Scott, it is simple observation. I've seen the LIberal Party in action…..seen and heard it's members in action……it's not a stretch to imagine them destroying evidence.

After all…they have been caught stealing from us….been involved in organized crime (or with those connected to it; Hello "Made Man") tax evasion, favouritism, nepotism……

Admit is Scott……you have no problem supporting crooks and thugs, as long as they are your crooks and thugs. Give me Harper any day……he may be cold, calculating, or both, but ask yourself honestly; If you were carrying your life savings around at a political convention, and lost it while making your way through the crowd….wouldn't you secretly being thinking, "Dammit….I wish this was a Conservative Convention"…
Anon Liberal

"…it's not a stretch to imagine them destroying evidence"
————-

Oh good, well at least we know now we're dealing with your imagination.
Jan

In a word – no.

MBToday

Sir calling a commission will accomplish what? Letting the Canadian electorate know that this regime can walk and chew gun at the same time??? That it actually use the powers of government to do government things like presenting bills that have the backing of the majority of the house of parliament & set policies (whether you agree or disagree with them) for the whole of the country, appoint needed panel members to the immigration panel, the parole boards? A call a commission to look into who knew what and when on this torture thing? That would too much governing and responsible thing to do. NO NO that would take too mush fun away. More fun throwing dirt and mud on people who just want answers! I mean calling a commission would just get in way of spin-messaging that this regime prefers. Seriously why not call a commission? There would be a lot things the previous Chretien-Martin government might not like to come out but I guess the present regime has more to hide? Beside this regime like to hide like hiding behind the men and women of our armed forces who seem to be only one that a sense of honour and some common sense!
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Judges in Canada send prisoners to jail. We don't hold the judges accountable for what happens to the prisoners afterward – that responsibility lies with prison staff, and ultimately the Minister responsible.

Likewise, soldiers were not given the job of monitoring prisoners or collecting information about their treatment. That responsibility lay elsewhere.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Uh, nobody was given the job – that was the whole point of revising the 2005 transfer policy. And, believe it or not, the criminal investigation and the Military Police Complaints Commission hearings are both into activities by soldiers.

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

“Canada’s detainee practices in my view alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.”

I don't buy it, just like I don't buy Colvin's claim that almost every detainee was most likely tortured. It's not based on any kind of evidence, it's just one guy's opinion about what he thinks is likely to be true. Show me a Canadian soldier on the ground who backs this up.

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

"We then photographed the individual, prior to handing him over, to ensure, that if the Afghan National Police did assault him, as has happened in the past, that we would have a visual record of his condition."

alsandor

biff dithered: "Perhaps it is because what is important to a small circle of Ottawa political insiders, partisan leftists, and their cohorts in the media,

is not necessarily what is important to everyday Canadians. "

As an "everyday Canadians" (tm applied for) may I say you could not be more wrong. The government's actions and their blatant disregard of human rights (unless it can buy them votes) is MOST troubling. In fact, it should trouble even such stalwarts as yourself, because who knows when your time will come.

And it doesn't do any good blaming the Liberals. When Harper accepted the reigns of power, he automatically became responsible for everything that had been done before him. He cannot absolve himself of that responsibility except by resigning his position as Prime Minister, or lose the next election.

ahm

You know what? I'm a leftist, but I'm also an everyday Canadian. This myth that I don't count because of my politics is frustrating. I pay taxes, I get double-doubles at Tim Horton's, I don't understand Quebecois pop culture, and I read the news about politics. This is important to me, not because I fly a Liberal flag, but because I believe the government did something wrong and is attempting to cover it up. Let's remember this, that it was the government of the day in 2006, the present government of the day, and even the government of the day when we went to war, that are responsible. They should be held accountable, and that is the responsibility of the Opposition, Parliamentary committees, the fifth estate, and citizens. Giving them a pass because their ties are red or blue is the behaviour of children on playgrounds.

James Halifax

ok ahm — ed?

Were you concerned about Taliban detainees when the Liberals were in power? As for the Government doing something wrong and then trying to cover it up….I read it a different way. I read it as the NEW Conservative Government trying to protect Canada's reputation and protecting our soldiers from issues that may arise due to the PREVIOUS Liberal Government's screw-ups. If anyone on this board truly believes the garbage coming from the likes of Ujal Dosanjh, the NDP, or the BLOC with regards to this issue must have already put their sense of reality on hold. Because in effect what you are saying is this; The TALIBAN prisoners captured on the battlefield were all treated with dignity and respect when Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were Prime Minister, however, when Stephen Harper was elected…….the AFGHAN Government and Police Forces decided it was time to start the torture.

Sorry boys…..that makes about as much sense as Stephane Dion reciting Shakespeare.

Wascally Wabbit

This whole thing hinges on two points or argument – legal and practical!
Legally, Canada is a signatory of the Geneva Convention – in fact a major architect of it. Soldiers in the field, and their chain of command – are drilled endlessly about it – either explicitly – or via the Rules of Engagement THAT ARE WRITTEN BY THEIR POLITICAL MASTERS.
The Cretien / Martin governments got us into this war and carried it on. It wasn't until 2006 that they sent a team including Richard Colvin to look at some of these issues. Mr. Colvin and others provided information back up their respective chains of command alaerting them to the fact that we could be rsking being in breach of the Geneva Convention. That information was conveniently ignored – at some point in the chain of command. Now we risk legal consequences – possibly at the International court in Brussels – because of those decisions – the inquiry may well become moot – if someone outside of Harpers control decides to act.
More to follow…
Wascally Wabbit

On the practical side – I was listening to Gen. McCrystal yesterday commenting on his military assessment of his task for NATO over the next year. he commented on the Canadian approach of embedding with locals – in an attempt to win hearts and minds as an approach that seems to be moving in the right direction. No-one among the military types present in that Defence Institute speech asked the flip question – how much damage do you think have been done to the winning of hearts and minds by Canadian forces handing over folks that they picked up – NOT NECESSARILY Combatants (the 3 Afghanis who were photographed happens to be driving by) – knowing that they may be routinely tortured.
Whichever way you look at it – Harper – his various Defence Ministers AND Gen. Hillier – all had it wrong!
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

The only assertions I've made are that a) you don't much about polling, and b) your comments ramble and make little sense (thus the humour in your pseudonym).

I'm more than comfortable with both assertions.
Mulletaur

Excerpt from the interview last night by Susan Ormiston of General Stanley McChrystal on the CBC :

Ormiston : As the commander of all the NATO forces, what would be your advice going forward in terms of handling detainees ?

General McChrystal : Your credibility is the on the line, and so every time you have an allegation of mistreatment or any kind of inappropriate action you've got to investigate it and take the appropriate action to that. It's important inside your force but it's also appropriate for your credibility outside.

So, just to review: the head of NATO forces in Afghanistan says that every time you have an allegation of detainee mistreatment you must investigate and take appropriate action. That does not mean that you need proof beyond reasonable doubt that torture has taken place as Peter McKay and the Harper Conservative government have never ceased to repeat.

What McChrystal is in effect saying here is that our counterinsurgency strategy has been put at risk because the Harper Conservative government did not investigate allegations of torture and mistreatment. It's not as if there were only allegations, we now know thanks to a soldier's field notes that there was evidence as well. Note that McChrystal does not say credible allegations, he simply says allegations, again totally contradicting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the Harper Conservative government with respect to the torture and mistreatment of Canadian detainees in Afghanistan. We need an inquiry so that we can make sure that we do not put our soldiers at risk for nothing by doing things that are counterproductive for any future counterinsurgency strategy.

orval

There is plenty to show that Canada took seriously the risk of abuse of detainees, hence the December 2005 and 2006 agreements. David Mulroney and Colleen Swords from DFAIT set out in their testimony the efforts Canada made to improve the situation and mitigate the risk. In other words, Canada recognized that detainee treatment was an element in winning Afghan support for nation-building. In fact, Yesterday General McChrystal praised the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan for being "unique' in how they integrate nation-building, community support and security (military force to defeat the Taliban).

The issue is Colvin's claim without evidence that all detainees turned over by Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities in 2006 were knowingly tortured and thus our soldiers committed war crimes. Now is his rebuttal he says that Hillier/Gauthier/Mulroney/Swords have lied in their testimony. I understand General Gauthier has responded to this slur. I am waiting to hear what General (ret'd) Hillier will say.

Mulletaur

That's pretty charged language for somebody who pretends to want the truth. But you don't really want the truth, do you orval ? You just want to continue to smear Colvin in accordance with the talking points of your ConBot masters. You truly are pathetic.

Just to repeat in the hopes it may penetrate, the head of NATO forces in Afghanistan says that every time you have an allegation of detainee mistreatment you must investigate and take appropriate action. That is not what the Harper Conservative government did – they covered up their knowledge that Afghans detained by Canadian troops and transferred to the Afghan authorities would be tortured. Hillier may yet get his chance to have his say: in the dock in The Hague.

orval

This is where you are wrong. They did. It lead to improved access and info exchange agreements. This whole "scandal" is about what happened in 2006. Nobody is saying that CF detainees are being tortured today.

Again, Colvin is accusing Canadian soldiers of war crimes, accusing commanders of ignoring or condoning breaches of international law, and accusing senior officials in DND and DFAIT of lying. I would be shocked if DND, DFAIT and the Government didn't defend themselves against such spurious allegations.

My belief is that Canadian soldiers and their commanders acted honourably, professionally, legally (in terms of international law) and yes, even heroically, in 2006 unless someone provides evidence to the contrary. Colvin's "concerns" and suppositions are not evidence of crimes.

http://intensedebate.com/people/DerekPearce DerekPearce

How many times must this be said Orval? Repeat after me:

Our soldiers follow orders like good professional troops should. They follow orders. Orders. They are not accused of war crimes. No one is accusing our infantry of war crimes. The military brass and PMO/cabinet is another story. They set the orders. But not the soldiers on the ground.

This never-ending attempt to make it about being unpatriotic and anti-soldier only shows how desperate/weak/lame MacKay, Harper et al. are in their rebuttals of Colvin, and you are insulting everyone's intelligence (including your own) by parroting this line.
orval

There is no attempt to make anybody seem unpatriotic. It is simply stating the obvious. If Afghan detainees were turned over to be tortured, then the Canadian Forces members who did the turning over are responsible.

The Nurnburg Trials confirmed that in international law, "I was obeying orders" is no defence. Today, Canadian Forces members are trained that they are to be and act ethically at all times, and are to refuse to obey illegal orders.

Some people can yell "it's not about the troops!" all they want, but it is about the troops.
Orson Bean

Derek, Orval's got a good point there — the "just following orders" defence ain't supposed to cut it. Do you feel the same way about SS troops who duly followed orders at Auschwitz? That they were innocent and free of culpability and that only their senior overlords were guilty of war crimes?
kcm

I think you're wrong on this one OB. Coyne linked to the relevant law on this earlier on when the story broke. I was under the same misapprehension myself. Apparently i was under orders is ok under certain conditions. Perhaps someone else has the info or the link?

Jan

The second agreement wasn't until the spring of 2007. The critical time period is the first year and a half of Harper's government. During that period, he was busy selling us on the war. Anyone who questioned or criticized the mission was accused of being pro-Taliban and unsupportive of our troops. Questions about detainee abuse in the house were answered with total denial. We now know that wasn't true.

BMACK

Careful now Paul, you really should have cleared this article with LPC HQ because here is what your boss Warren says about enquiries:

"(Public inquiries) become too political and they make people more cynical about democratic institutions and they become these self-mandating, self-financing monstrosities that political people can't limit," he says.
"You got to step back and let it happen and these things just careen around the landscape, crushing reputations and trampling over people's constitutional rights."
Sounds like that is what is happening as a result of Colvin’s serious but unfounded allegations?
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

I know that legally they are not held responsible but MORALLY! I can't imagine our troops be ok just handing the prisioners when they knew it was a fact that they were going to be tortured. I do think it is about the troops too! I agree with crt_reasoning that it will be good to hear from them, what they saw, heard and did!
http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Pooping puffingate, sweatervestgate, black humour at food poisioning gate, didn't eat the wafer gate, giant ceremonial check gate, spent stimulus in own riding gate, now mistreatment of Taliban thugs gate,

All garnered headlines from the usual suspects, all drew rediculous inflammitory rhetoric, every one of them had the same commenters on these threads crying blue murder.

Most importantly in each one there was a firm belief by the partisan leftists that Canadians in general will be mortified, outraged.

Afghanistan is a place where heads are lopped off…children are blown up, an imperfect place to say the least. To expect higher standards of safety and well being and conduct in that context than we place on a defencemen in a hockey game, is folly.

This isn't a university ethics class debate. This is the real world of politics, and if you think the Canadian public is stewing, let alone is going to consider ousting the government that took them through the worst recession in a generation ,for THIS?

Well I've got another 'gate to sell you. I promise it'll be as "shocking!!" as all the others.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Actually, if the soldiers were handing detainees over knowing that they would be tortured, the soldiers would be criminally responsible whether they were ok with it or not.
http://twitter.com/claudlemire @claudlemire

OK.