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

'Anything less will fail to provide Parliament and Canadians with the answers they are entitled to'

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, March 8, 2010 10:32am - 192 Comments

Michael Ignatieff sends an open letter to the Prime Minister.

Dear Prime Minister:

Your government’s decision to appoint Justice Iacobucci is an overdue admission that action must be taken to get to the bottom of the Afghan detainee scandal.

Justice Iacobucci’s reputation is beyond reproach and his record of public service speaks for itself. The problem lies not with Justice Iacobucci but with the job you have given him to carry out. We do not know what his mandate or deadline will be, and we do not know whether or how he will report to Parliament and the Canadian people.

Further, Justice Iacobucci will not be empowered to do his job adequately, unless the government gives him the mandate to hold a full public inquiry.

The Afghan detainee scandal is about much more than the government’s refusal to hand over to Parliament and the Canadian people the documents they need in order to get to the bottom of this sorry affair. It is about the government’s handling of the detainee issue from the beginning.

That is why on December 1, 2009, the House of Commons called for a full public inquiry, into the transfer of detainees in Canadian custody to Afghan authorities from 2001 to the present, in accordance with Part 1 of the Inquiries Act. Anything less will fail to provide Parliament and Canadians with the answers they are entitled to.

Under the process you have proposed, Justice Iacobucci could review documents provided to him by the government, but he would have no way of getting at the complete picture or even of knowing which documents should be made public.

A public inquiry would give him the power to demand materials from the government, to call witnesses and to subpoena testimony. An inquiry could establish the facts and make recommendations for the future.

Detainee transfer is sure to remain an issue of importance for future Canadian missions overseas, and it is vital that Parliament and Canadians learn from the mistakes of the past in order to prevent them from happening again.

Accordingly, I am writing to urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to appoint a full public inquiry, in accordance with Part 1 of the Inquiries Act, to report to Parliament and Canadians, in a timely manner, on the transfer of detainees in Canadian custody from 2001 to the present.

The reputation of Canada and of our proud serving men and women demands nothing less.

Sincerely,

Michael Ignatieff
Leader of the Official Opposition

Tags: Afghanistan, detainees, Frank Iacobucci, Justice Iacobucci, Michael Ignatieff, Richard Colvin, Stephen Harper, torture, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Then what are you being, since at no point did I state otherwise. lol. Next.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So, we preserve Parliamentary democracy by going fast? Don't quite understand that one.

Also, I don't quite agree with your logic that the alternative to MacKay's selective release is full disclosure. Again, is there not a genuine issue of national security here?

Governments selectively release documents all the time. It doesn't mean we remove "top secret" or "confidential" from every file in return.

Ted

If you thought national security was Harper's concern, then he would have released these documents to the MPCC. But he didn't.

As we have seen from some documents that were initially released in redacted form and then subsequently released in unredacted form, they have been censoring information which makes them look bad but doesn't have a security concern.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Doesn't Harper's release of these documents to Iacobucci explicitly show that he's addressing any issues related to national security? You seem more intent on personally characterizing events instead of getting to the facts. As I've suggested before, many of these attacks seem politically motivated. Iggy admits as much in the letter by wanting to put all of Harper's actions under judicial scrutiny.

In fact, I have yet to see any reason for a full public inquiry here — unless, of course, you're of the opinion that Harper is up to no good all the time, which many on here seem to actually believe.

Let's deal with the documents first, then take it from there. No?

Again, I don't quite understand the rush. These are rather old allegations. Unless, of courses, trying to keep a wannabee scandal alive is the sole purpose.

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

Dennis, you are asking us to trust that Harper will release every document to Iacubucci–who has no way of knowing what documents exist any more than the rest of us. But if you are handed a couple of boxes of papers and are told, "that's all of it," how can you tell there are two boxes missing?

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

No it means that if the government wants to claim the documents were redeacted for national security reasons then it ought not to disclose them to Canadian Press (or retired generals, or political operatives in the PMO or Christie Blatchford) especially since it is currently refusing to provide those documents to a much more legitimated forum.

If, on the other hand, they were redeacted for political reasons, then cough 'em up.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So now Iggy, Jack, and Gilles are a more "legitimate forum" for these documents than Iacobucci, are they? Funny the kind of logic some people use. Is it because of the very partisanship and ideological blinders that you all say Harper is guilty of? lol. Irony is something, ain't she.

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

How did you get Iggy, Jack, and Gilles out of Canadian Press, retired generals, political operatives in the PMO and Christie Blatchford?

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

It could be a debating technique closely related to this one.

Ted

Who says it has accomplished what they desired, Anon? Who says that the order has been in any way rescinded?

If the order was rescinded without getting those unredacted documents either before the Parliamentary Committee or an independent judge as part of a parliamentary inquiry, then I would agree with you.

This is but one thing: a response to Harper's latest tactic, in which Ignatieff has rejected Harper's tactic and reiterated his demands.

Anon ABC

Ted, the P.O. was to give the documents to the House/Committee, not a Judge. It was passed by the House because Harper refused a public inquiry requested by all opposition parties, remember? Therefore, if Iggy now wants to agree to pass them over to Iacobucci, even on Iggy's terms (highly unlikely), the P.O. has failed to accomplish what it set out to do, no?

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

"Maureen is an excellent conservative: she's making us look at something other than the issue at hand."

I think you and I have very different definitions of conservatism.
Ted

Iggy's terms are a full inquiry with subpoena powers, so no, if Harper complies with Iggy's terms the order will have accomplished what it set out to accomplish.

If Harper does not call an inquiry and suffers no consequences, or comes back with something equally weak and that is accepted, then I agree, Ignatieff will have backed down and accepted Harper's rejection of Parliamentary supremacy.

And I accept that at this stage it is reasonable to doubt or be concerned about or wonder if Ignatieff will follow through, given his back-downs before. But that is speculation, you have to admit.

All we have here is a rejection of Harper's offer and a reiteration of the demand for a full public inquiry. Not sure how this response, on its face, can be challenged in this way. Especially when it seems the NDP is taking the same position.
Ted

"the terms of reference are going to be key"

Absolutely.

We can speculate what Ignatieff will do next – and he hasn't earned any benefits of the doubt – but what he has done here I think is very responsible: there is a need for the truth to come out, the opposition thinks a full independent public inquiry is the best way, Harper has blocked every attempt at the truth and accountability, for the first time he's "milimetred" in the direction of accountability, Iggy (and it seems the NDP) has rejected that as not enough. Are there other options the opposition will consider?

Maybe, but pushing the House Order without giving ear to any proposal Harper puts forward would be equally dangerous for the opposition. The order presents a national constitutional crisis in the making – to act reasonably and be seen to be acting reasonably beforehand will have a significant impact on how or if that crisis plays out.
Ted

Dennis:

Harper has lost all claim to any bona fide on this given his prior responses to every reasonable measure of accountability at every stage. It started a long time ago with Harper's refusal to deal with the documents. We are well past that. He made it about his government and accountability and Parliament.

The release of the documents to Iacobucci doesn't do anything as far as I can see because we don't know what he is being asked. We don't know his mandate.

As far as justifying a justicial inquiry, I can understand someone saying "on balance, I still think an inquiry would be more damaging than beneficial", but at this stage with all we know – both about what happened over there, and about the many many official Harper positions that have been thrown out because of subsequently released or discovered information – I don't see how anyone could genuinely they see no reason for an inquiry.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So, in other words, you're the arbiter of what's reasonable, and Harper's failure to comply to it means that he can't do anything to pursue his opinion on this. Wow, that's quite diverse view you have of democracy, isn't it.

Regarding Iacobucci, I find it fascinating how everyone thinks that this guy is now a dupe; that he'd take a job that's bound to make him into some kind of patsy. Hey, he can preside over the highest court of the land, but he can't handle Harper? Fascinating.

Anon ABC

As I understand it, the NDP has stated that they will wait until the 19th and then bring the contempt motion if the documents are not produced. Will they follow through or backpedal ignominiously? We shall see. There is no such deadline in Iggy's letter. No mention even of the order that Harper has failed to comply with. Therefore, I am unable to see, I have to admit, how you can be of the view that the NDP is taking the same position.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

"Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Hey, that's a heck of a way to show that you're in this for democracy's sake."

Harper is not on trial. He's a public servant with a duty to be accountable to the public. So far he has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid accountability.

Nobody called him a "criminal" but he is currently in defiance of a Parliamentary motion, which puts him offside vis a vis the law. He can correct that at any time but has so far refused to do so.

wilson

Harper's first priority is the Nation,
not answering to a Liberal party bent on replacing him.

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

Harper's first priority is himself. Not answering to fawning lickspittle like yourself.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Actually, someone did suggest that he was a criminal by specifically accusing him of ignoring laws. I suggest you try to keep up with the thread. Thanks.

Patchouli

common man: I live in SK. There are loads of wonderful, caring, respectful and intelligent people in this province. Truck loads.

However, none of them hang out at SDA. Read the blog for a few days; you'll see what I mean. They come within a hair's breadth of out and out racism at SDA. They had the endorsement of the SaskParty government, until they wrote that drug addicts should have to share needles so they would die sooner. The SDA gang were called "right wing extremists" in the SK Legislature and the premier pulled his endorsement off the site.

And when Ralph retires, there may be no Liberal-held seats here, as in Alberta. Ralph transcends Liberalism for his constituents.

common man

I just don`t like that you categorize folks that hang out at SDA as racists etc. From what I`ve read there today, I can see why they don`t vote Liberal but it seems you are implying that all Westerners that vote CPC are somehow inferior because they are lacking in Liberalism.

Some Torontonians may read the Star and watch and listen to the CBC and vote in Liberal MP`s and I may disagree with them but we would never refer to them as gun-hatin, injun-lovin, urban, TO vegetarian, communists.

Also I`ve noticed that Westerners are most likely to display their patriotism; that might help to explain the " quick to fight back " attitude of the SDA crowd when they feel somebody has wronged their country.

Jan

How is supporting a government that is thumbing it's nose at parliament being a patriot?

FVerhoeven

"There are loads of wonderful, caring, respectful and intelligent people"

I agree. I am one. And I am a Harper supporter. And I am still a wonderful, caring, respectful and intelligent person. You see, wonders do happen!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Fred_Moro Fred_Moro

No I'm not.

And bud, try not to take everything so personal and seriously, it was a joke. Just relax a little, drink decaf.
Ted

As noted below, you have this backwards.

In 2008, the people spoke and said we want a Conservative government in a minority Parliament. It is not up to the opposition to force an election in order to hold Harper accountable; it is up to Harper to be accountable to the Parliament we voted in.

Mike514

Doesn't that beg the obvious question, if Harper refuses to be accountable to parliament, isn't it the opposition's duty to boot him out?

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

Realistically it is not quite as simple as saying it is the duty of the opposition to boot Harper out, but they would certainly be within their right to do so.

Seems that Harper has some options and obligations as well, though, and it is a bit of a balancing act to determine which of those two parties is doing a better (or worse) job of meeting their competing obligations.

wilson

Harper will NEVER call a public inquiry on the detainee issue.

The Judge will make public his report,
Harper said so today.

That WILL be good enough for Canadians,
but if it is not good enough for the Opps,
Harper will make ANY motion on the issue a vote of confidence.
Ted

You've got my words right there, Dennis. No need to put different words in my mouth. I've given you reasons for why Harper has lost the trust of Canadians on this issue; I've not said he can't do "anything". I friggin' hate it when people twist my words around like that.

Regarding Iacobucci, it completely baffles me how you can claim anyone is questioning him when the process and his mandate are being questions and when Ignatieff says "Justice Iacobucci’s reputation is beyond reproach and his record of public service speaks for itself."

If you have given up on trying to have a reasonable discussion, then, instead of making stuff up that bears no relation to reality, just stop having the discussion.

As I am doing. Starting right now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"The Afghan detainee scandal is about much more than the government’s refusal to hand over to Parliament and the Canadian people the documents they need in order to get to the bottom of this sorry affair. It is about the government’s handling of the detainee issue from the beginning."

No no no and no!! This here is about the supremacy of Parliament, full stop. For this government to defy a direct order from Parliament flies in the face of democracy and simply CANNOT be allowed to stand.

This government MUST submit to the House and turn over the requested documents.

Iggy better not back down on this one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I don't understand. If Parliament submitted a request for Harper to kill himself, would he be obligated to do that, too? Some of you here make it seem that a majority of Parliamentarians can force the government to do whatever the heck it wants.

However, in the end, it can force its will on Harper and pass a motion of non-confidence, right?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Some of you here make it seem that a majority of Parliamentarians can force the government to do whatever the heck it wants. "

With all due respect, Dennis, it sounds to me that you need some remedial education on the subject. The answer to this question is an absolute and categorical yes. In a parliamentary system, it is the people and by extension the MPs who form Parliament that have supremacy, not the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister ANSWERS to Parliament. Not the other way around!

This is what happens when you live next door to the Americans and watch too much West Wing.

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

but PolJunkie he already has, or so it seems. he makes clear in the letter that he is willing let the demand for docs slide if Iacobucci's mandate is broadened.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

I almost punched my laptop when I read it. The man infuriates me! This is what they dumped Stephane Dion for?!?!?

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

I meant more legitimate than the Minister Says So Rule, but yes, elected members of parliament have a more legitimate purpose in deciding national security than a former judge. It isn't about their personal credibility, it's about their role, and as elected leaders, they have the duty to oversee this very question while Judge Iacobucci does not.

If you want to get into personal credibility I seem to remember that a certain Minimum Minister has handled these documents. After that the MPCC or the Afghanistan Committee look like Knights Templar.
Patchouli

Then you'll just have to go on being a better person than I am.

Seriously, don't you find it ironic that you chastize me for generalizing…and then go on to generalize about westerners and patriotism?

But then, you've set yourself up as the "common man" which most assuredly attempts to imply something. You're more of a common scold, actually.

Enjoy your superiority, and skip my comments next time. I know I'll skip yours.

common man

Hey Pat, I think Westerners do display their patriotism more so then the rest of the country. watch them sing the anthem at any Hockey game in Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver. I`m sure there is some historical or geographical reason why. I don`t know how you managed to find any negativie irony in my patriotism comment.

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

Iggy better not back down on this one.

It will spell the end of Iggydom.
kcm

Twaddle…read up on constitutional democracy before you spout off about democracy. Coaltions are not illegal…neither would Harper's earlier attempt.
kcm

"Oh, and why do some of you have to pretend to be smarter than others? This seems to be a leftist trait. If you're so smart, why not show it with facts and argumentation, instead of taunts and inanities?"

You just don't get self irony do you?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Well, I just don't think this issue is on the public's radar for it to be do or die for Iggy. However, his esteem among politicos in Ottawa is a different story, of course. In the end, does that matter even?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Well, I just don't think this issue is on the public's radar for it to be do or die for Iggy"

Isn't that what people said about prorogation? Let the record show that Canadians aren't as apathetic as some may think.

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

Eminently, I believe, though for reasons I don't quite understand. It's the difference between everyone assuming you're a dead duck and not. If the media, the Opposition, his caucus, and the Little Shop all lost respect for Harper simultaneously, no amount of public support would maintain him; or rather that support would not last very long.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Yes, assuming it's allowed to do so.

But don't you think there is more than one way in which the Government should, at least routinely, be held accountable? The obligation to tell the truth in QP is one such instance; the obligation to produce subpoena'd documents is another: without those obligations, QP and Parliamentary committees (respectively) are emasculated and the principle of quotidian accountability is hung out to dry.
Ted

Funny the kind of logic some people use indeed.

Tobyornotoby is talking about the MPCC that Harper worked very hard to try to prevent from doing its job, including threatening witnesses, not complying with document orders, fighting it in court. Iggy, Jack and Gilles are not a "forum"; a special commission established for just this very purpose – the MPCC – is and so is a special Afghanistan committee that needed to get involved in this issue because Harper wouldn't let the MPCC do its job.

Talk about bait and switch, with a twist of word and meaning twisting.
http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com EugeneForseyLiberal

I just checked these comments. One thing that needs to be reiterated, given comments by Harper apologists and some of my fellow supposed "Liberals", who accepted the Harperites' premises. The question has been asked: "Do Parliamentarians have a right to any document they want, no matter how sensitive or related to national security?" And the answer is an unequivocal YES! That is the very basis of our system, of any system of democratic governance, necessarily dependent on elected representatives and legislatures. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything. If you oppose that, you are not a democrat. It is always hard for me to tell when people are being naturally obtuse and when they are being cynical mouthpieces. But without citing chapter and verse of history and precedent, I ask you, just think it through. If the people are the rulers, and MPs their representatives, and power exerted in their name, and power circumscribed, controlled and accountable by and to them, then they must be able to have access to any and all documents and witnesses as they deem fit. And that is the law, consequently. Flout that, and you are flouting democracy. Agree or disagree with the Order to produce docs, once it has been issued, it must be obeyed, or we are no longer a democracy. Please forgive me if what I'm about to say seems harsh, but it is, because there is no gentle way to distinguish between anti-democratic sophism and democratic logic: if you do not agree that the people's representatives have the right to any and all documents and witnesses as they see fit, then you are not a democrat. And you deserve the fate democrats reserve for anti-democrats when fighting for their democracy. Nothing personal, but there are only two paths, and those who do not subscribe to democratic values must be defeated. Simple as that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Eugene, I couldn't agree more but it would appear as though the Liberals themselves aren't completely sold on the principle of parliamentary supremacy. We already know what this Prime Minister thinks of Parliament's powers. The problem is that Parliament will indeed become useless if the people cannot rely on the Opposition to bring the Prime Minister to account.

The mechanism is there. Ignatieff can make Harper accountable if he wants to. He would certainly have the backing of the other parties.

So what's keeping him from doing his job?

http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com EugeneForseyLiberal

I'm honestly not being cheeky when I ask: you do realise "in camera" means "in secret", right?
MacLean's Regular

"From smalldeadanimals.com "

….moving on…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Do some of you honestly have nothing better than self-congratulatory taunts? He didn't address my post, neither did you, yet here you both are pretending to be smarter. lol. I honestly can't make this stuff up!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Aren't you still stumped about the process governments use to maintain secret documents? Why do some people need these kinds of inane taunts on here? Are they that afraid that their ideology is at stake or something. Man, no wonder Harper has to always watch his back. Look at what he's up against. Certainly not principled stuff.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Dennis_F (35 minutes ago): "Do some of you honestly have nothing better than self-congratulatory taunts?"

Dennis_F (44 minutes ago): "Then what are you being, since at no point did I state otherwise. lol. Next."

The lack of self-awareness is really fascinating.
Patchouli

What's the point of addressing your post if you don't understand the words we use?

Moreover, there's nothing "self-congratulatory" about my post, or Eugene's for that matter. Maybe you could gloss that word while you're at it.
http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com EugeneForseyLiberal

The word is foolproof, not "full proof". For example, one might say, "the Macleans comment boards were not designed to be foolproof", which is a little double entendre.
Ted

Yes, the job of PM is tough. You have to do what you think is right, do it in the right way, answer to Canadians through their elected representatives, plan for today without burning the future, plan for the future without burning the present. It's tough. And we're still waiting for Harper to show any of this in great degrees.

But if Harper's not up to the job, I know someone who is willing to try.

But you really do have the whole accountability thing backwards. The opposition is held accountable on elections. The government however is meant to be held accountable each day as well as a summary accountability on election night. They don't get to pick and choose for what and when they will be accountable.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Oh, and the opposition has tools at its disposal, especially in a minority, to deal with a PM who you say is acting bigger than Parliament. They can take him down. They can finally back up their accusations with a vote of confidence — IF it's anywhere near as cataclysmic a situation as you suggest. I won't hold my breath.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

and here comes another one. Is this the best you have? Is this what makes some people on here think they're capable of intelligent debate? No wonder the leftist agenda isn't going anywhere these days. You spend most of your time congratulating yourselves for stupidity on here. Be my guest. It just proves my points for me. Thanks!

Oh, and keep clicking on those thumbs up and down logos. I guess you're good at something, right? lol
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I understand perfectly well. You have no intelligent remarks to make. If you do, please point them out.

Oh, and why do some of you have to pretend to be smarter than others? This seems to be a leftist trait. If you're so smart, why not show it with facts and argumentation, instead of taunts and inanities?

Next.