And then this happened

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 5:01 PM - 0 Comments

After QP today, the Bloc’s Andre Bellavance rose to ask that Conservative MP Jim Hillyer apologize to the House for his gestures several weeks ago during a vote on the long-gun registry. Mr. Hillyer duly stood and clarified his gestures had nothing to do with the Montreal Massacre, but that he was “sorry, not just that this has been misinterpreted but misrepresented to be at all associated with the tragic events at École Polytechnique 22 years ago.”

The NDP’s Francoise Boivin and Bob Rae rose to add their remarks, both referencing the Speaker’s ruling yesterday. Then Gordon O’Connor, the government whip, stood and apologized. And then Mr. Hillyer stood again.

With everyone in the House seemingly dissatisfied with the situation, the Speaker declared the matter closed.

Here’s a transcript. Continue…

Who gets to support the troops

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 1:30 PM - 0 Comments

After Question Period yesterday, the House proceeded to the traditional messages on the occasion of Remembrance Day (the House is due to be on break next week). Veteran Affairs Minister Steven Blaney spoke for the government, Peter Stoffer for the NDP and Sean Casey for the Liberals.

Louis Plamondon then rose to offer remarks on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, but was denied the unanimous consent of the House he needed to do so as the member of a party that does not have the sufficient number of MPs to be recognized in the House as an official party. Bob Rae suggested it was the Conservatives who had objected. Conservative backbencher Stephen Woodworth stood to object to Mr. Rae’s version of events. Government whip Gordon O’Connor then stood to explain.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders say, in response to a minister’s statement, that only members of recognized parties can make statements. The Bloc is not a recognized party.

Thus were the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May prevented from offering remarks.

‘I didn’t know all of the specifics’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM - 3 Comments

However much Peter MacKay supports the troops, he apparently wasn’t much involved in one of the Harper government’s most significant moves in regards to the war in Afghanistan.

“The Savage War,” by Canadian Press defence writer and Afghanistan correspondent Murray Brewster, paints a portrait of a PMO keen to preserve its tenuous grip on minority power and desperate to control the message amid dwindling public support for the war.

MacKay, who took over Defence from Gordon O’Connor in August 2007, was blindsided by the Harper government’s decision later that year to set up a blue-ribbon panel to review the mission headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, Brewster writes. ”It wasn’t discussed with the broader cabinet, no,” the minister says in the interview. “I didn’t know all of the specifics.”

Marlene Jennings is sorry

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 10:08 AM - 59 Comments

An apology, of sorts, offered after Question Period yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of question period, I allowed my emotions to take over the calm, studied aspect of my personality that I am usually able to exhibit. The Minister of National Defence, responding to a question, in his typical fashion was going down to the lowest common denominator … In the heat and the anger at listening to the Minister of National Defence make his comments, I called him a “slime”. I wish to unreservedly withdraw my remarks calling the minister a slime and offer him my sincere apology for having called him a slime. It was unparliamentary. I apologize unreservedly.

John Baird, the government House leader, pronounced his disappointment with this and noted that the various House leaders have been making some effort to enforce calm on the proceedings. Indeed, there have been noticeable attempts at shushing of late—most notably on the part of Gordon O’Connor, the old general and now government whip, who will periodically rise from his seat and walk over to the spot of a heckler to have a brief word with the offender.

The negotiations (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 12:41 PM - 16 Comments

The Prime Minister’s Office has sent out its version of events.

It was a productive first meeting. We hope to meet again as early as possible next week. Ministers Hill and Nicholson went to the first meeting with a spirit of openness in order to reach a compromise while respecting the government’s legal obligations.

Apparently government whip Gordon O’Connor was also present. Reference to the “government’s legal obligations” is perhaps relevant to this discussion.

Don't hold your breath

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM - 58 Comments

Anonymous senior Conservatives are apparently agitating for Helena Guergis to be swiftly dispatched to the furthest reaches of the government backbenches. Make of this what you will.

Keep in mind that, if memory serves, no minister in the Harper government has been outright fired or banished. Michael Chong resigned as minister of intergovernmental affairs in opposition to the Quebecois motion. Maxime Bernier resigned after misplacing his briefs. Various ministers perceived to be underperforming (Gordon O’Connor, Rona Ambrose, Lisa Raitt) have been moved to less-prominent portfolios, but only in the context of a cabinet shuffle. No one, if I recall correctly, has ever been outright and unambiguously fired.

Dearest Gordon

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 1:01 PM - 54 Comments

Again harkening to simpler times, the Liberal issue another open letter: this one from opposition whip Rodger Cuzner to government whip Gordon O’Connor, laying out all the Liberals have been doing while Parliament was on break and all the government should be prepared to do when business resumes.

Spring is no time to be consulting with Canadians

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 7:54 PM - 63 Comments

The government side feels the House of Commons is not presently scheduled to sit for a sufficient amount of time.

Facing an outpouring of anger and criticism over prorogation, the Conservatives are cancelling March break on Parliament Hill and one other off week scheduled for mid-April…

Government Whip Gordon O’Connor sent an email to Tory MPs and senators today, telling everyone to change their schedules (i.e. cancel any vacation plans) to ensure they’re in town… Mr. O’Connor writes: “Our position is clear: there is no reason for the House of Commons to take constituency breaks during these weeks. Quite frankly we would be surprised if the Opposition disagreed.”

What the ministers were told

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 21, 2009 at 1:03 AM - 71 Comments

The head of the International Red Cross is reported to have met with Peter MacKay, Gordon O’Connor and Stockwell Day in the fall of 2006.

Officially, the Red Cross would only say the talks focused on topics including Afghanistan, humanitarian law in modern conflicts and co-operation with Canada. Unofficially, sources in Geneva said the international agency, whose functions include monitoring the treatment of prisoners, was growing frustrated over Canada’s tardy notification of its handover of captured suspected Taliban to Afghan authorities. The delay could often be as much as 34 days, making it difficult to track the detainees.

The apology precedent

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM - 10 Comments

It was suggested during QP yesterday that some sort of apology to the House might now be in order. Here, for the sake of comparison, is the statement Gordon O’Connor, Peter MacKay’s predecessor as minister of national defence, made in the House on Mar. 19, 2007, after it was confirmed that statements he had made were not accurate. Continue…

The ministers

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 6:19 PM - 1 Comment

Coverage of today’s special committee on Afghanistan hearings from the Globe, CTV, Canwest, the Star and the CBC.

The Colvin encyclopedia

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM - 25 Comments

A collection of documents, testimony and news reports related to Richard Colvin and Canada’s handling of Afghan detainees. The Colvin encyclopedia is updated as events warrant.

Continue…

The Commons: And so we arrive at satire

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 6:20 PM - 39 Comments

The Scene. Bob Rae stood first, with what sounded like a reference to a particularly demented game of Clue.

“We were told yesterday at the Afghanistan committee that a braided electric cable, which is undoubtedly an instrument of torture, was found in the office of the director of investigations at the National Directorate of Security,” he reviewed. “I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence, would he not agree with us that a discovery like that points to a systemic problem rather than simply a single instance with respect to a discovery of that kind?”

As Mr. Rae spoke, there was some discussion on the Conservative side as to who should answer. Since the Liberal critic had requested the Minister of Defence, it was apparently decided that the Transport Minister would rise. Mr. Baird duly rose to list all the times Canadian officials have searched Afghan prisons without finding anything like a braided electric cable.

“In other words, in 2007 alone, we visited the prison on 33 occasions, the National Directorate of Security on 12, and the Afghan National Police Detention Centre on two, for a total of 47 visits,” Mr. Baird explained. “These were usually unannounced and there was nothing discovered.”

“Au contraire,” Mr. Rae said, reminding the Transport Minister of the braided electric cable to which he had referred just seconds earlier.

The Transport Minister rebuffed this too. Over then to Ujjal Dosanjh, the increasingly frustrated Liberal defence critic.

Continue…

One version of events

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM - 18 Comments

Because everything is easier to follow in timeline form, the Liberals have put one together on torture concerns in Afghanistan.

Behind the detainees issue: the 2006 Kandahar surprise

By John Geddes - Thursday, November 26, 2009 at 4:15 PM - 1 Comment

The Richard Colvin controversy raises broader historical questions about why Canada was so ill-prepared for combat in Kandahar—and the need to take all those detainees—in the first place. This is admittedly a matter of recent history, not current news, but I find it intriguing.

Continue…

When first we practiced to deceive

By Andrew Coyne - Monday, November 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM - 75 Comments

The Star’s Rosie DiManno reminds us of a rather salient point:

… Few of those clawing at their faces today in angst and shame over who-knew-what-when-generated hysteria with regard to mistreatment of Afghan detainees have paused to recall how this mess originated.

It’s because Canada picked Afghans over Americans as front-line allies…

Given the toxic view of American forces – no matter that the horrific mistreatment of Iraqi detainees was, at least in terms of supporting evidence, limited to specific rogue units in one notorious facility – it was clearly decided, by who knows whom, Canada could not put detainees in such soiled hands, despite the U.S. being this country’s closest nation-friend.

Someone bought into the dubious premise that the entire American military was not to be trusted and that Afghan wardens, Afghan guards, Afghan officials, were preferable partners in the disposition of detainees, although the only remotely up-to-Western-par prison facility was at the American base in Bagram.

And who was that someone? A Globe editorial reminds us:

In hindsight, the Liberal government of Paul Martin may have been naive in taking the initiative to press for the transfer of detainees to the Afghan authorities, rather than continuing to hand them over to the armed forces of the United States. At the time, Canada was worried by the prospect that Afghans captured by Canadian soldiers might end up in the limbo – or worse – of Guantanamo, Cuba. The government of Afghanistan, having been recently democratically elected, appeared to be a more promising and appropriate recipient for Afghan citizens.

Oops. But can you blame them? Remember the brouhaha over that photo, splashed across the front page of the Globe and Mail, of Canadian JTF2 commandoes shepherding Afghan prisoners for transfer to the Americans? That was in early 2002, when Jean Chretien was prime minister and Art Eggleton was the minister in charge of offering up confused, misleading answers to Parliament — a post later occupied by Gordon O’Connor and now by Peter MacKay.

So the tangled web goes back a ways. As A. Columnist wrote at the time:

But let’s remember why this was an issue in the first place. Mr. Eggleton’s startling revelation, that members of the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit had captured several enemy fighters nearly two weeks ago, was only newsworthy because it contradicted the Prime Minister, who had been saying publicly that no prisoners had as yet been taken. The Prime Minister had said this in order to make the point that the question of what should be done with any prisoners our forces might happen to come across — whether they should be handed over to the American forces, or to some other body — was “hypothetical,” and that as such he was not obliged to take a position on it.

And the reason the Prime Minister took refuge in this non-answer was because he did not wish to confront critics within his own party, who have worked themselves up into a state over the Terrible Wrong that would be committed if Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were to be delivered into the hands of the Americans…

What they said (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 11:40 PM - 3 Comments

On April 23, 2007, the Globe reported what it had learned from interviews with 30 detainees. Two days later, the paper revealed what the Foreign Affairs department’s own reporting disclosed about torture in Afghanistan. After the premature announcement of a new transfer agreement that week, a new deal was signed on May 3.

Understandably, the issue dominated Question Period during this time—dozens of questions asked between April 23 and May 7 as new stories and allegations came to light. Herein, a selection of questions and answers during that period. Continue…

What they said (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 8:45 PM - 4 Comments

In the first few months of 2007, the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan was discussed during 14 sessions of Question Period: February 6, February 12, February 13, February 21, February 27, March 1, March 2, March 19, March 20, March 21, March 22, March 23, March 26 and March 29. It was on the morning of March 19, that Gordon O’Connor apologized to the House for misleading it about the monitoring of detainees by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Herein, a collection of some of the relevant exchanges during this period. Continue…

What they said

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 7:42 PM - 2 Comments

Richard Colvin testified that he and his colleagues in the field began informing Ottawa about the treatment of detainees in May 2006. He left Afghanistan in October 2007 and most of his testimony covered events in between.

Herein, in the first of three posts covering relevant public comments made during Question Period, a collection of QP exchanges from April 5, 2006 to October 2, 2006. Continue…

The standard of proof

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM - 12 Comments

In QP this morning, John Baird explained, in part, the government’s unwillingness to put its faith in Mr. Colvin’s testimony as follows.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that in his testimony before the committee earlier this week Mr. Colvin confirmed that he never witnessed abuse firsthand.

It is unclear whether this consideration equally imperils some or all of this 2005 report of the U.S. State Department, this 2008 report of the State Department, the 2007 reporting of the Globe’s Graeme Smith, this government’s own 2006 overview of the human rights situation in Afghanistan, or this 2009 report of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

It’s also unclear whether the government believed Mr. Colvin to have firsthand knowledge of abuse when, as the Defence Minister explained yesterday, the government revised its detainee transfer agreement because of “concerns that were being expressed by Colvin and others.”

Keeping in mind that it is equally unclear to what degree Mr. Colvin’s concerns were taken into account given that Gordon O’Connor, the defence minister at the time, said yesterday that he did not read any of Mr. Colvin’s reports.

The Colvin Affair: Who knew what when?

By Andrew Coyne - Friday, November 20, 2009 at 2:06 PM - 178 Comments

I confess to some bafflement at the government’s handling of the Afghan prisoner story: a story that would be more of a crisis if Canadian forces were still handing over captured prisoners to the Afghan government without insisting on adequate safeguards and outside supervision. But everyone agrees, I think, that that is no longer the case.

It was the case in 2006-07, when a previous prisoner transfer agreement was in force, and Richard Colvin was writing all those memos warning his superiors of what he was hearing about conditions in the Afghan jails. And presumably it was the case before then, when the Liberals, who negotiated that earlier agreement, were in power. But the agreement was changed in 2007, by the Tories. So you’d think that would be the Tory story: We fixed the problem.

Granted, it’s a scandal if anyone was tortured on our watch at any time, the more so if, as Colvin alleges, senior government officials knew about it, and did nothing. But it’s much less of a scandal if, once apprised of it, they acted to stop it, albeit after much delay. Afghanistan is a chaotic place, and it’s conceivable that it would have taken some time to investigate the charges and verify their accuracy.

So why is the government investing so much energy in impugning Colvin’s credibility? It’s one thing to say, as I think we must, that his evidence is less than bullet-proof: he was told that torture was going on, by sources he considers credible, but has no direct knowledge of it; he told David Mulroney, the deputy minister responsible for the Afghanistan Task Force, and Michel Gauthier, the head of Canadian forces in Afghanistan, of his concerns, and believes that Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, and Margaret Bloodworth, the Prime Minister’s national security adviser, also knew; and so on. Colvin is credible, but he is not omniscient. He has levelled some very serious charges at a number of people — essentially, that they knowingly acquiesced in torture — and it’s critical that they be given a chance to respond. (A public inquiry? I don’t think we’re at that stage yet. The Commons Special Committee on Afghanistan, before whom Colvin testified, seems the more appropriate forum.)

But it’s another thing altogether to imply that Colvin is some sort of whack job or stooge of the Taliban. As others have pointed out, his sterling career track — he’s now a senior intelligence officer at the Canadian embassy in Washington — hardly bespeaks eccentricity or incompetence. And if, as the government maintains, there was no reason to believe what he was saying was true — on a balance of probabilities, at least — then why did the government eventually change its practice? If no one in government even knew there was a problem, how could anyone have given the orders to fix it?

Whatever the truth or falsehood of Colvin’s reports, it is scarcely credible that they would not have been passed up to the highest levels: not just in the bureaucracy, but the cabinet as well. If the Minister of National Defence at the time, Gordon O’Connor, did not know, he surely should have; if bureaucrats insulated him from that knowledge, to preserve “plausible deniability,” that is a mark against him as much as them, for not establishing as an inviolable rule that he should be kept abreast of all such sensitive matters.

But the more likely proposition is that he did know. And if he knew, it is equally likely that the Prime Minister would have been told. Again, I don’t find that damning in itself: once told, they acted, even if it now appears rather too slowly. What’s indefensible is for ministers to have lied about what they knew, especially to Parliament — or, if they did not know, for officers and bureaucrats to have deliberately kept them in the dark. The more the government attempts to shoot the messenger, the more one suspects one of these will prove to be true.

The Commons: Eighteen attempts to explain the same story

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 8:21 PM - 43 Comments

The Scene. Fewer Conservatives than usual chose to mockingly applaud Bob Rae when he rose to open Question Period this afternoon. Odd that.

“Mr. Speaker, the testimony yesterday of Richard Colvin before the Afghanistan committee showed two clear things,” Mr. Rae began, to groans from the Conservative side at mention of Mr. Colvin’s name.

“First, Mr. Colvin testified that he had information with respect to the mistreatment of prisoners in Afghan prisons and that he gave that information to his superiors. Second, Mr. Colvin testified that he was also told by his superiors to shut up, essentially,” Mr. Rae continued. “Given the importance of these two revelations, the revelations of mistreatment, harsh treatment and even torture and the revelation with respect to a cover-up, would the minister not agree with me and with others that there should indeed be a full public inquiry into what has taken place with respect to the transfer of these detainees?”

Across the aisle, Peter MacKay furrowed his brow, thrust his left hand in his pocket and commenced with the first of his 18 attempts to explain.

“Mr. Speaker, it has been stated here a number of times that there has not been a single, solitary proven allegation of abuse involving a transferred Taliban prisoner by Canadian Forces. Second, with respect to the evidence yesterday, what we know is that when the evidence is put to the test, it simply does not stand up,” he offered. “Mr. Colvin had an opportunity to speak directly to me and other ministers of the government who were in Afghanistan. He did not raise the issue. As well, what is being relied upon here is nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”

That Mr. Colvin’s credibility would be an issue for Mr. MacKay is perhaps confusing, seeing as how Mr. Colvin remains sufficiently fit, at least in this government’s judgment, to serve as the deputy head of intelligence at this country’s embassy in Washington, DC. Mr. Rae took note of this. Continue…

O'Connor's version

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM - 6 Comments

Former defence minister Gordon O’Connor’s exchange with reporters after QP today.

Question: What about the allegations of coverup?  He said that officials like Mr. Mulroney were saying to him do not write reports like this.  Is that – can you say categorically that’s not true?

Hon. Gordon O’Connor: Well, I don’t know if it’s true or not.  I have no idea.

Question: It didn’t come from you?

Hon. Gordon O’Connor:   Well, not from me. I’m the Defence Department.  Mulroney doesn’t work for me or never worked for me.  And I, you know, who says it’s true. That’s just his allegation.

Question: Were you ever apprised of these reports?

Hon. Gordon O’Connor:   No, never.

Continue…

'I have not seen those reports'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 11:47 PM - 56 Comments

The Defence Minister tells Canadian Press he never saw Richard Colvin’s reports on the treatment of detainees in Afghan prisons. CP points out that he was equally unaware of a Foreign Affairs annual report on human reports that also flagged torture.

MacKay, who was foreign minister at the time, insisted Thursday that he knew nothing of the documents. ”I have not seen those reports in either my capacity as minister of National Defence or previously as minister of Foreign Affairs,” he said in a telephone interview from Halifax. ”I can’t speak for other ministers.”

Richard Colvin, who is now an intelligence officer at the Canadian embassy in Washington, wrote in May 2006 that the allegations of torture regarding Afghan prisoners were “serious, imminent and alarming.” He followed it up with another warning in early June 2006, almost a full year before the federal government acknowledged the problem. Colvin said he spoke with prisoners who claimed to have been tortured by their jailers and that inmates showed physical signs of abuse.

… The Foreign Affairs Department produces annual reports on human rights in individual developing countries and the 2006 review on Afghanistan specific flagged that country’s prison system as rife with torture. The following year as MacKay was questioned about it in the House of Commons he denied having read that document as well, despite it having been widely circulated in his own department.

Gordon O’Connor tells Global he too was unaware of Colvin’s reports.