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.

The Commons: And so Stephen Harper finds himself in agreement with the Toronto Star

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 28, 2009 at 6:18 PM - 25 Comments

The Scene. Relaxing in the moments before Question Period, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper looked across the aisle and nodded at each other—the Prime Minister no doubt recognizing the man opposite as the guy in all those bootlegged VHS tapes he’s been watching.

A short while later, Chuck Strahl, the Indian Affairs Minister, strolled across the aisle and engaged the leader of the opposition in what seemed a friendly conversation. Though the substance of the discussion was unclear, by all appearances Mr. Strahl understood clearly the words that were coming out of Mr. Ignatieff’s mouth.

As demonstrations of bipartisan collegiality, these were heartening scenes. As demonstrations of human ability, they were important clarifiers. Indeed, if these moments are any example, let there be no question that government and opposition do acknowledge and, at least passably, comprehend each other, whatever misconceptions today’s asking of questions and airing of accusations may have left you with. Continue…

The Commons: Starring Charlie Angus

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM - 7 Comments

The Scene. Charlie Angus is either the best kind of politician or the worst kind of politician. Or possibly both.

He’s either a man deeply committed to his constituents or a man determined to make a spectacle of himself. Or possibly—having realized that the former sometimes requires you to do the latter—both.

The NDP member of Parliament for Timmins-James Bay was once part of a punk-rock band and regularly dresses as if he wishes he still were. Today it was a black suit, navy blue shirt and silver tie. In full rhetorical flight, his voice is often a high-pitched twang—owing perhaps to both his punk roots and his current gig as the frontman of Grievous Angels, an alt-country band.

In the House he has become a restless advocate for Aboriginal issues and for much of the last year he has pestered the government to build a new school in Attawapiskat, a remote community located near James Bay in Northern Ontario. Students there have been taught in portables for the past eight years, their previous school closed in 2000 on account of a diesel fuel leak underneath the building.

This week, Angus announced a new development in the case—a series of government documents that, he claimed, seem to imply political considerations in the management of such school projects. Continue…

The Commons: Behold, the majesty of ways and means

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM - 16 Comments

At the conclusion of Question Period, the House proceeded with the pro forma. The tabling of documents, the presentation of petitions, the notice of motions for the production of papers, requests for emergency debates.

Liberal Mauril Bélanger got up and asked that the House move post-haste to discussion of the capital’s public transit strike. The Speaker agreed with the gravity of the situation, but noted that the weather outside was dreadful, a snow storm adding to the already icy hell that is Ottawa. In the interests then of everyone getting home safe—public transit obviously not being an option—the debate would be held Thursday.

Business moved then to Ways and Means Motion No. 1, resuming adjourned debate of the government’s budgetary policy. Up first, the leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, the honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Most identifiable members of the government side had long since left. Bev Oda sat alone along the front bench, working through some paper work.

“Canada’s ship of state has entered some very rough and turbulent water and the captain’s steering through this storm has been erratic,” Michael Ignatieff said, barely restraining himself from breaking into that timeless sea shanty about the drunken sailor. “He misjudged, he misled, he misguided. At first he failed to act and then he acted irresponsibly. Now finally, he recognizes that we are in real danger. Finally, he is taking some measures to head for safety, but it has been a long time coming.”

Continue…

Ted Menzies will not be silenced

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, January 18, 2009 at 7:29 PM - 4 Comments

The lo-fi, but immensely helpful, HowdTheyVote.ca appears to have been updated through the current sitting of Parliament.

The most verbose member of parliament (aside from Speaker Peter Milliken) during fall’s abbreviated session? Ted Menzies, who, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, has already managed an impressive 10,361 words.

Paul Szabo, Paul Crete and Jack Layton were the most talkative members of the Liberal, Bloc and New Democrat sides respectively.

Gordon O’Connor (chief government whip) and Rona Ambrose (Minister of Labour) have so far gotten by on a combined 122 words. Thirty-eight MPs, including Michael Ignatieff, have so far yet to speak.

The Commons: A cold and miserable day

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM - 44 Comments

The Prime Minister arrived promptly at 9:30am. Stepping out of the car, he waved to the reporters assembled 70 metres away and then strode through the back door of Rideau Hall. His staff followed behind.

Half a dozen news trucks idled in the Governor-General’s driveway. A dozen television cameras lined up by the fountain, aimed at her front door. Madame Jean’s staff had set out coffee and, though lukewarm, it eventually became necessary.

Thus, the wait began. Two and a half hours of chilly anticipation.

***

So how did we get here? The answer depends on your perspective. Continue…

The Commons: Our government's weight issues

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 5:40 PM - 9 Comments

The Scene. Stephane Dion rose first, up with a downer of an announcement.

“Mr. Speaker,” he lamented, “tomorrow will be a sad day for Canadians.”

How so exactly? Because, Mr. Dion explained, tomorrow the government will reveal its intentions for our increasingly dizzy and frequently dizzying economy. And with that, Mr. Dion warned, the government will make clear its plans to set the country back no less than twenty years. “Au temps Mulroney,” he cried.

Happy news no doubt for the mysterious German arms dealers among us.

Perhaps missing the Liberal leader’s point, Ted Menzies jumped up quick in celebration. “Thank goodness,” he said, “it was the Conservatives that won the election!”

Here, at least, was a sentiment no doubt shared by some on the Liberal side. Indeed, if there is a good time to be in opposition it is surely in these moments of profound economic chaos. All the more so when the government side is only managing to forcefully remind the citizenry how unable they are to impose order on the global financial system. Continue…

The Commons: ‘Unacceptable, extreme, odious’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 6:09 PM - 0 Comments

But enough about the government, what shall we do with Roméo Dallaire?

The Scene. Making use of her allotted time before Question Period, Marlene Jennings chose to publicly enunciate all the ways in which Roméo Dallaire and Jason Kenney are quite unlike each other.

“Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire holds the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit, Ordre national du Québec, the Meritorious Service Cross and the Canadian Forces’ decorations,” she began. “The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism does not.”

“General Dallaire graduated with a bachelor of science from Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean and was commissioned into the Canadian armed forces. The Secretary of State did not earn a degree and did not serve in the Canadian armed forces.

“General Dallaire has a school named after him in Winnipeg and a street named after him in Calgary. The Secretary of State does not.

“General Dallaire holds the Pearson Peace Medal. The Secretary of State does not.

“General Dallaire is an officer in the highest American military decoration for foreigners, the Legion of Merit of the United States. The Secretary of State is not.”

And so on.

“You’re defending him!? You’re defending that?!” cried John Baird as Jennings spoke. “You’re defending those comments?!” Continue…