One of the most
aggravating things about the current state of Canadian journalism
is the spotty
and fragmented way in which events are reported. When
my book detailing the crisis in Canadian
democracy was published very little of what I documented was
actually new. Still, readers told me
frequently that they
had had never heard of many of the shocking events included in
that book. The narrative arc of
accumulating power in
the Prime Minister’s Office was manifest in such random and
erratic news items,
that no one was connecting the dots.
It is happening again with the story of the
issue which
arguably brought down the Harper government for contempt in March
2011. While Bev Oda’s “NOT” played a role,
paramount in several rulings from the former Speaker was the
refusal of the
Harper government to release documentation of the treatment of
Afghan
prisoners. Speaker Milliken’s ruling on
the matter was historic in confirming that the Prime Minister does
not have the
right to keep information from the House of Commons.
Yet,
when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, announced in
late June 2011
that the government was going to do just that, the issue appeared
to die with
nary a whimper.
To refresh
memories, we go back to the brave diplomat Richard Colvin who
was subpoenaed to testify to a House of Commons committee back in
November
2009. His evidence was that, “Our
detainee practices (were) unCanadian, counterproductive and
probably illegal.”
He detailed that Canadian forces detained a much larger group of
Afghans than
our allies, (detaining six times more civilians than the British
and twenty
times more than the Dutch) with no way to track where these
people went or how
they were treated. His evidence was that
Canadians would take into custody taxi drivers or street vendors
and hand them
over to Afghan forces for questioning.
It was his belief that the probability was high that many
of these
detainees were subject to torture, or even death.
Colvin
was subjected to personal attacks by the
government and lambasted as a Taliban dupe. The House of Commons
asked (through
Liberal MP John MacKay) for the release of all documents so that
Colvin’s
allegations could be examined. On the grounds of national
security, the prime
minister refused. The stand-off led to
Milliken’s
clear ruling in April 2010 that, prima
facie, the government was in contempt.
Milliken gave both sides the opportunity to negotiate a
compromise. The result was the creation
of the Panel of
Arbiters, based on a Memorandum of Understanding (June 15, 2010)
signed by the
Prime Minister, the former Leader of the Official Opposition
(Michael
Ignatieff) and the former head of the Bloc Quebecois (Gilles
Duceppe). The NDP refused to
participate. The panel was comprised of
three retired
judges, one of whom died in March 2011, and two who remained to
file a report,
Claire L’Heureux-Dubé and
Frank Iacobucci. The jurists were to
frequently consult with an Ad Hoc Committee of Parliamentarians
(Conservative,
Liberal and Bloc MPs).
What occurred on June 22, 2011
made it to the next day’s front
page of the Globe and Mail, but died
in the dog-days of summer. The panel
released its report, clearly indicating they did not believe
their work was
wrapped up. Their covering letter made
it clear that there had been communication and disputes with the
Harper
government throughout April and into May. They acknowledged
that, with the end
of the 40th Parliament and the election, the
Speaker’s ruling
“ceased to exist.” The judges wrote, “We
considered that it would not be appropriate to cease our work
before completing
what the Panel undertook…” Nevertheless,
their letter closed “We understand that no further work is now
expected of the
Panel.”
With that, 4,000 pages of
heavily censored documents were given
to every Member of Parliament, leaving an estimated 40,000 more
pages still
un-reviewed and in the government’s files.
Minister
of Foreign Affairs John Baird announced that
he had no intention of releasing the rest of the documents. Twelve million dollars had been spent and
that
was quite enough. “I suspect,” he said, “that if we went on for
12 years and
spent $120 million that some would say that wasn’t enough.” Certainly Stéphane Dion, who had been a
member of the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee, said it had not
been enough, as
did Bob Rae, and NDP MP Jack Harris, who called the whole
process a “farce.”
Most disturbing to me was
Baird’s framing of the issue as the
handling of “Taliban prisoners.”
Colvin’s testimony had put it clearly in my mind that
these were not
enemy combatants. They were randomly
snatched; men in the wrong place at the wrong time. Then I learned that if Canada had thought
the prisoners were Taliban, there was an
entirely
different detention process. Those
detainees identified as possible Taliban were not turned over to
Afghan
authorities at all; they were delivered to the US
forces in Afghanistan. By definition,
handing Afghan detainees over
to the local authorities for questioning meant we did not think
they were
Taliban.
So after more than 18 months of
controversy, devastating
allegations, an historic finding of contempt, the slate has been
wiped clean by
the election. The order for the
production of documents passed by the House has ceased to exist.
The Speakers’
order is null and void, and while historic, is history.
As one journalist said to me
“Who will care now? No one is going to
request the production of
the remaining documents now.”
To which, I replied, “I do and I
will.” I hope the constituents of
Saanich-Gulf Islands
agree.