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

'This should not have happened'

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 11:03pm - 12 Comments

The text of the Prime Minister’s address to a memorial in Toronto this evening for the victims of the Air India bombing is here.

It is not enough to say that the system failed. It did of course. But, this is to sanitize with words a succession of woeful inadequacies that Commissioner Major calls “a cascading series of errors.” No. that is not enough.

Commissioner Major delivered a damning indictment of many things that occurred before and after the fact. Things, ladies and gentlemen, that this Government of Canada cannot defend, has no wish to defend. And, Commissioner Major finds that, to make matters worse, the families of the victims were for years after treated with scant respect or consideration by agencies of the Government of Canada.

These are things for which honour and duty require that the Government of Canada, the government that called this inquiry, now apologize.

Tags: Air India, Stephen Harper, terrorism

More by Aaron Wherry

Lord Kitchener's Own

I've gotta say, I think he knocked that one out of the park.

Well done.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Agreed, LKO. I just read the full text. I would like to think that the remarks took very little effort to prepare.

That it took this long to recognize that Canadians perpetrated this evil upon Canadians, is a shameful betrayal.
Anon 001

Reach out to the ethnic vote in the 905: Check.

Reach out to women with expressions of compassion: Check.

Launch Jason Kenney's (delusional) leadership campaign: Check.

Yet another photo-op: Check.
JamesHalifax

Anon 001

You have got to be a Liberal. Who else would use the corpses of terror victims to score a few political points.

I bet your name is Denis…and your last name rhymes with Oddere.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

About time.

I did find one statement jarring though: "The protection of its citizens is the first obligation of government."

Incorrect, Mr. Harper. The protection of its citizens' freedom is the first obligation of government. Protection of their persons is their business.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Most people seem to forget that there were two Air India planes that were targeted with Canadian bombs that day. Two baggage handlers at Nartia Airport in Tokyo also lost their lives when the bomb went off when the luggage was being transferred from a Canadian Airlines flight to an Air India plane .
Dee

Kudos to Harper for this long-overdue speech and apology. Now it's time for the government to follow through with the Major Report's recommendations.
Mike R

No, Peace, order and good government, includes the protection of citizens in their personal capacity. Hence government expenditures on police, the armed forces, coast guard, lighthouses, fire departments, health inspectors, etc etc. Protection of our neighbours from harm, especially those who cannot protect themselves, is clearly the business of all of us.
Mike R

Yes, had the timing of that bomb been better, from the terrorist's point of view, another two or three hundred would have died. Small mercy that only the poor Japanese baggage handlers were killed by that one. And those who planned the murders are walking freely in Vancouver.
Gaunilon

No, if government had a responsibility to protect citizens from physical harm then it would also have to enforce non-smoking, healthy eating, exercise regimens, safe sex, ban skydiving, etc.

Government protects people from violence (police, armed forces, coast guard) because this is a sine qua non for freedom. Fire departments and health inspectors are something we can agree to pay for as a collective, but they are not necessarily government's responsibility any more than medical care or healthy-behaviour inspectors are.
Mike R

They have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect citizens from harm. Where that line is changes, such as our approach to smoking. Generally we have not taken as many measures to protect citizens from self-harm (although laws against attempting suicide may be the ultimate expression of that principle), but clearly government's obligation has been to protect the Queen's peace – an obligation that is independent of any notions of individual freedom. But dream of your Libertarian idyll if you want. It seems a bit divorced from reality to me.
Gaunilon

"… but clearly government's obligation has been to protect the Queen's peace – an obligation that is independent of any notions of individual freedom. But dream of your Libertarian idyll if you want. It seems a bit divorced from reality to me."

Here's the thing: whether you believe that it is the government's primary responsibility to protect the safety or the freedom of its citizens, the practical result is at first the same….namely keeping the peace as you say. Where the two positions lead to practical differences is when you get to items like self-injury (smoking, seat belts, hard drinking, skydiving, unsafe sex, etc.) or health care (e.g. socialized medicine).

The reality is that Canada protected only her citizens' freedom for nearly the first century of her existence. People lived free, largely peaceful lives. So it is hardly an "idyll".