Past due


While Richard Colvin awaits the necessary funds to pay his legal bills, the Liberals have publicly tabled some of the dozens of written questions they had put on the order paper and were awaiting government response when the second session of the 40th Parliament met its untimely demise. Included among them, several on the matter of Afghan detainees. To wit.

Who was responsible for redacting the documents and what role did the DFAIT, National Defence, the Privy Council Office or any ministry play? How many times has the government notified the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) of allegations of abuse, mistreatment, or torture of Canadian-transferred detainees?  Did the government follow-up on these or any other investigation with regards to allegations or evidence of abuse, mistreatment, or torture of Canadian-transferred detainees to ensure that each of the allegations had been investigated?  What were the results of these investigations?  What did the government do to assure itself that the allegations had been sufficiently investigated by the AIHRC or any other entity?  Were any records or files kept on these investigations?   Were any of these investigations deemed to be insufficient and, if so, what was done to remedy this? Did the government ever request legal opinions regarding Canada’s domestic and international legal responsibility for detainees captured by the Canadian military or military police in Afghanistan and transferred to Afghan authorities?  Did this legal advice contribute to the formulation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada’s diplomatic contingency plan related to detainees?


Past due

  1. Conservatives think of themselves as ‘tough on crime’… Unless, of course, the crimes in question are international war crimes. In that case they are fast, loose, and uncaring.

    • Are you accusing someone of war crimes?

      There is no immunity during prorogation,
      so bring it on Libs.

  2. If DFAIT and PCO were redacting prior to proroguing, should AIHRC and DFA and ITC now prorogue the redacting.

    The excitement you now feel after reading that is about the same as one feels after reading that publically tabled mess.

  3. Since the govt is absent recalibrating. Perhaps we the posters should provide the appropriate response? I'll take the easy one first:

    " Why do you hate our troops".?

  4. Because government needs to be exciting to be important?

  5. The government might be retaliating against Colvin by refusing to pay his legal bills, which would be reprehensible. But then again, wasn't his first lawyer his girlfriend? And didn't DFAIT already pay $21K in legal fees? Personally, I don't mind if they're a bit careful in reviewing the taxpayer money that gets handed out to private attorneys chosen by one guy.

    • Jus surmising here. Perhaps if the govt had'n't tried to obstruct and block Colvin's testimony in the first place, the legal bills wouldn't have been necessary – or do you object to him speaking at all?

  6. Oops…i see you did mind them retaliating…sorry bout that. Although i think my point is still valid.

  7. Can we please stop calling Colvin a whistle blower? He responded as he was obligated to, first to the MPCC and then to the parliamentary committee. He didn't leak documents or "go public" or blow any whistles, just testified as required and good on him.

    He did hire a lawyer to advise him on complying with the subpoenas to testify, but that's because as an employee of the Government of Canada, he faced contradictory instructions to testify and not to testify.

    If someone in his department or elsewhere has a problem with the expense they might rather direct that concern to the Justice Department which created those costs by acting like a tool of the PMO instead of on behalf of justice or the people of Canada.

    That would be an interesting question — how much time and resources did the Justice Department devote to its war of attrition with the MPCC and in developing its faux opinions on official secrets to prevent testimony before the parliamentary committee?

    • Regarding the cost of the Justice Department in providing the legal opinion on whether the government could comply with Parliament's motion to produce the detainee documents. If it was more than $10.95, we got ripped off.

      • Only if I don't have to break a 20.

        All the motions and obstruction of the MPCC, though. That's a chunk of change I bet.

  8. Aaron, wasn't this *your* question?

    Who was responsible for redacting the documents and what role did the DFAIT, National Defence, the Privy Council Office or any ministry play?

  9. If i told you it's better to light a candle then rail against the dark…you'd probably blow it out.

    If all those things that should be fixed at home could be easily fixed they would have already been fixed. Poltics sucks, agreed. But then what?

Sign in to comment.