EBD on QP at SDA.

Mark
Ottawa

Question Period today was particularly painful to watch. Not just because the same old questions pertaining to unimportant matters continue to be asked in slightly different ways, but because they don’t serve any purpose beyond the transparency of their political motivations.

Take the fact that Liberal MP Wayne Easter got up in the House of Commons again today, 34 days after Helena Guergis had a particularly unpleasant birthday at a Prince Edward Island airport, and asked yet again for the government to explain itself. There is nothing to be gained from asking questions about either Ms.Guergis or Mr.Blackburn, and the truth is that while many Canadians think that Helena Guergis probably went outside of bounds of proper decorum, we stopped caring weeks ago.

But because Veteran Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn has surfaced in the news over an airport squabble regarding a bottle of Tequila, the Liberals see it as an opportunity to play partisan games in the House of Commons.

What you might not realize, is that Mr.Blackburn was returning from a vacation in Mexico with, as is wholly appropriate, a sealed bottle of tequila. Unfortunately for him, the airport gestapo decided to seize it because it exceeded the 100 mL of liquid allowed on air planes. He was understandably upset. I would be, too. Not just for being forced to surrender something you paid good money for, but because of the ridiculousness of whatever passes for airport security these days.

Although I suppose that technically the Veterans Affairs Minister could be smuggling the tequila on the plane in order to use it as the fuel for an airplane bomb in a suicide mission for Allah, the likelihood is probably as remote as Osama bin Laden being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize [although even that seems more probable, since those things don't seem very difficult to win these days].

Then there was Ujjal Dosanjh’s obligatory torture-rendition-war crimes question to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who could at this point simply hire a Mexican migrant to stand in his stead and read from a sheet that refers all questions on Afghan detainees to the need for patience of retired Supreme Court Justice Iacobucci to do his job.

But if it’s not airport blowups or tortured detainee questions, the opposition is nothing if not unrelenting to score with the unfathomably ill-advised Conservative G8 maternal health plan. Several Liberal and NDP Members got up in the House of Commons today and demanded to know whether the government would be offering the “full range” of maternal health services to women in the third world. The full range is, of course, a euphemism for abortion, the current wedge issue that the opposition is, rather successfully I must say, driving into the heart of the Conservative government right now.

There is no proper way to address this hot potato. The Conservatives have managed to ignore the abortion issue for their four years in power, even though they are fully aware that their socially conservative supporters would like nothing better than to bring it up for legislative control. The opposition, too, would love nothing better than for the Conservatives to bring abortion into the House of Commons, since the topic is completely toxic to the government. You just have to look at the emotional rhetoric flung about when the Conservatives tried to add criminal punishment to those who harm the fetus of pregnant women during the perpetration of another criminal act in order to fully understand.

Unfortunately, Bev Oda, Minister of International Cooperation, said that the Conservative plan for maternal health has always “been clear”, in that they are open to any options that would promote maternal health in their plan. The fact is that, no, they haven’t been clear about it, which is the reason the opposition are on them like feral dogs on a chicken bone.

Allowing the opposition to make this issue about abortion, has wedged the government inbetween the socially conservative and liberal elements of the country. If they allow for abortion to be included as a part of CIDA’s maternal health, the socons will be upset that the government is officially sanctioning and funding abortion abroad. But if they explicitly remove that option from the table, the opposition will use that as proof of a socially conservative ideological agenda.

It’s not about holding the government to account. These politicians don’t care about whether Afghans were really tortured, or if Helena Guergis made an airport worker cry, or if women in countries they’d never visit can get abortion on-demand services. It’s all about gotcha politics, and the moment you engage people in these games, they’ve already got you.

Afghan National Army soldiers. Photo credit: Master Corporal Robert Bottrill, Canadian Forces

The opposition attacked the federal Conservative government over Afghan detainees in Question Period again today, with the NDP picking up on the word “rendition” that had been used by federal MP for Vancouver South, Ujjal Dosanjh, the day before. The increasingly exaggerated language is based almost solely on the recent hornets nest stirred up by University of Ottawa Professor Amir Attaran, who inexplicably claims he has seen unredacted documents that show that Canadian intelligence officers ordered high-value targets to be tortured in Afghan prisons.

Following that CBC article was an rather vague report by the Canadian Press that CSIS has been used in some unknown, undeclared capacity in Afghanistan. But that doesn’t preclude the report from speculating about a number of things, such as the idea that CSIS has been playing a “crucial role” as interrogators of a “vast swath” of captured Taliban fighters. There’s no evidence to suggest this is true.

Picking up on these two unsubstantiated pieces of hearsay journalism, Ujjal Dosanjh spoke in the House of Commons on Monday:

“Mr. Speaker, the CBC and the Canadian Press have both reported that the government ordered the transfer of detainees to the notorious Afghan NDS for the purposes of extracting additional information.

We are not questioning the actions of our troops, as the Prime Minister continues to say, we are questioning the actions of the government.

Did the government conduct a deliberate policy of rendition, the outsourcing of interrogation and torture of Afghan detainees for extracting additional information?”

Well, transferring detainees to the NDS is hardly as surprising as Mr.Dosanjh makes it sounds. The Afghan NDS, whether the Liberal member thinks it is notorious being largely irrelevant, frequently rode along with Canadian Forces and joint task force operations, taking control of detainees on site. In fact, Afghan Police and NDS took custody of suspected Taliban fighters with no questions asked by Canadian Forces, and often without any documentation of the so-called transfer.

After the Prime Minister gave an answer that more or less insinuated the previous Liberal transfer policy was to blame for whatever problems the Liberals are looking for, Mr.Dosanjh asked again:

“Mr. Speaker, did the government conduct the policy of rendition? Each week media are reporting more troubling information. None of this information so far has helped the government’s claims.

Allegations as serious as rendition require more than just a vetting of the documents. They require a full and transparent public inquiry to look at all the facts.

Will the government do the right thing and call a public inquiry?”

The “information” referred to by Mr.Dosanjh is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated speculation in newspapers based upon claims made by a single University Professor and the extrapolation of torture from several unrelated events. But further to the point here, how exactly does one “rendition” an Afghan from his own country into the custody of his own police force? That word doesn’t quite make any sense in this context. When the police in Canada pull a gang member in for questioning, there isn’t any question that he’s been “renditioned”.

The main problem with the current theory being flogged by the Liberals and NDP right now, which is that CSIS has been acquiring “high-value targets” [based on words taken out of context by Richard Colvin] with the assistance of JTF-2 special forces [also unconfirmed], has been “outsourcing” interrogation to the Afghan intelligence services for the purposes of gleaning intel for NATO, is that there’s no logical explanation for it.

For one thing, the vast majority of detainees went directly to Afghan police, and hence NDS interrogation, anyway. For another, there was never any “vast swaths” of captured detainees to begin with. This concept that Canadian Forces captures dozens of Taliban fighters a day is something largely fabricated by an imaginative mind. Then there was the 72-hour rule for ISAF, which meant that all NATO players, like Canada, were required to turn over Afghan detainees to the proper authorities within 72 hours, or let them go.

The final red flag is the idea that CSIS would be working with the NDS in any capacity that would personally benefit Canada’s intelligence agency. There’s no reason for the Afghan intelligence agency to interrogate anyone for the benefit of Canada, nor that CSIS would get any information extracted from a detainee back from NDS.

Given the recent inventions of torture, rendition, and secret spies, you have to wonder what the opposition is going to come up with tomorrow. It kind of makes you want to tune in to Question Period and find out, doesn’t it?

As everyone knows by now, former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer pleaded guilty to careless driving this morning and was given a rather tiny fine of $500. The former Edmonton MP was charged in September with possession of cocaine and driving under the influence after being stopped for driving 93 km/h in a 50 zone.

But the cocaine and drunk driving charges were withdrawn before the charges were ever brought to court. According to the prosecution, there was no reasonable possibility of conviction on the serious charges, citing “significant legal issues” impeding the case.

Whatever that means. I mean, if you can’t nail a guy caught red-handed with coke while driving drunk and speeding, then there’s not much point to the legal system, is there?

But as for blaming the judge, or accusing him of being a Tory, which is exactly what journalist David Akin does, it seems a little misguided. Since the coke and drunk driving charges were tossed out, the charge was reduced to “careless driving”. Not exactly your crime of the century here.

When put in context of driving drunk with cocaine in the car and speeding, it sounds bad. But Judge Doug Maund was forced to look at the facts before him, not the cocaine or the alcohol, and certainly not Helena Guergis’s airport meltdown in Prince Edward Island, which I’m sure is contributing to some of the public backlash in the ruling. And the facts were that this was a first-time offender with a record of public service and no criminal background.

As for Rahim Jaffer, he only addressed the careless driving conviction outside of the court.

“I should have been more careful. I’m sorry. I know this is a serious matter,” he said. “Once again I apologize for that and I take full responsibility for my careless driving.”

It would have been better if he hadn’t spoken at all. Nobody really cares that he was caught speeding. We’ve all been there. No, the press was there to get an apology for taking cocaine and driving drunk. But since he got those charges tossed, the best thing to say would have been “no comment”. Saying “I should have been more careful” almost implies he should have taken the back roads during his drunk coked up joy ride.

The Liberal Party, fully trying to make the poor choices of Mr.Jaffer’s private life a public embarrassment to the Conservative Party, saw fit that Winnipeg MP Anita Neville, rather inappropriately, got up in the House of Commons today and said the following:

“Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their ‘get tough on crime’ rhetoric. They always say, ‘You do the crime, you do the time’. What then is the government’s comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?”

Naturally, the floor went into an uproar as the Conservatives called shame on the Liberal Member. After quite some time, the Speaker, Peter Milliken, restored order. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson, responding to the charge, seemed genuinely surprised by the smear. He began to answer, but the murmurs continued to drown him out.

“I almost do not know where to begin to comment on such an irresponsible question, Mr. Speaker. The government initiated the Director of Public Prosecutions for the very reason to make sure there would never be any political interference of any prosecution in this country. That should have the support of the hon. member, and she should get up, withdraw and apologize for that comment.”

Anita Neville was given a choice to apologize, though I don’t think anyone expected she would, as the House of Commons continued to rumble with the sounds of backbenchers yelling at one another from across the great hall.

“Mr. Speaker, what a hypocritical answer this minister gives. The government tries to pass the buck and the Conservatives are conspicuously silent, only when the law is being flouted by one of their own. Even the judge thought this was a ‘break’. Why the double standard? Nothing stopped them from commenting before. Does the government really believe that the punishment fits the crime?”

The return jab, being more predictable this time, elicited a lesser response of outrage. With the Minister of Justice being more composed, he returned the volley and repeated his demand for an apology from the Winnipeg Member for Parliament.

“Mr. Speaker, that is about as low as one can go, in my opinion. This hon. member is talking about a provincial prosecution in front of a provincial judge within the appeal period, and she is asking us to comment. That is completely irresponsible and she should apologize to this House.”

In the hours succeeding this answer, some people have inferred that Mr.Nicholson was taking a shot at the Liberal McGuinty government by pointing out, quite correctly, that the Jaffer case was a provincial matter before the Ontario courts.

Whatever the case, it is amazing how much animus has been drawn from all sides over the actions of a private individual no longer working with the federal Conservative government. And while we may all find his lenient sentencing distasteful, it is even more unbecoming that the Liberal Party tried to use this issue to smear the Conservative government in Question Period today.