Maybe it's just like the memories of Christmastime from when I was a kid. The snows were deeper, the tree more packed with presents. But I also recall a time when Ministers of government actually stood down for events they were involved with - sometimes quite tangentially. Yet thoughts of ministerial responsibility past dance in one's head at the news today that...
Peter MacKay, Stockwell Day and Gordon O'Connor, then senior cabinet ministers, met the head of the International Red Cross in the fall of 2006 as the humanitarian organization tried to focus Canada's attention on alleged abuses in Afghan prisons, The Canadian Press has learned. Precisely what Jakob Kellenberger told the three, as well as Robert Greenhill, then president of the Canadian International Development Agency, in the Sept. 26, 2006 meeting is blanketed by diplomatic secrecy.
See, just one month ago the news was that "reports amounted to evaluations of the Afghan prison system based on second- and third-hand evidence" and that "when the government had "credible" evidence, it acted in 2007 to strike a new deal." So, is the understanding of the head of the International Red Cross not credible? Is the problem that if one cannot trust the Governor General, the judiciary, the news media, the military, the premiers, scientists and even our diplomats one also cannot be expected to trust the Red Cross because it isn't a part of the PMO?
The sad thing for the Tories appears to be that if they had taken a different approach in this matter, admitted that 2006 was a bad year for the Afghan detainee file, this would have gone away quickly. Just as this is most certainly not about the actions of the military, it really did not have to become about the actions of members of the Federal cabinet in 2006 or 2009. But now it has.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - December 21, 2009 8:52 AM
Yeah, this really didn't have to happen. Could've just said that there was a tendency on the part of the gov't not to believe the reports, but once it became clear that it was impossible for them not to be true, the policy was changed. (Or is that what they're saying now? Story's changed so often...)
Oh well.
Hans - December 21, 2009 9:32 AM
yeah the tory story has changed so often, at first i thought they were shifting their messaging on purpose, then i thought they were lying now i think they don't really know what happened, why they did what they did or why they are doing what they are doing now.
leaving aside the moral quagmire of the harper/baird method of communication with the citizens, this seems to be a lesson in how every tactic or strategy has an expiry date. sure, the tory stonewall and smear approach was an effective to keep the opposition off balance but when it comes to an issue involving real people, competent people with real information and understanding, such as colvin or the red cross, then the bully-boy bluster and deceits aren't the best approach.
don't even get me started about ministerial responsibility. chretien made a jok of that concept and you will never find the harperites admitting that they are wrong. but this is a rather pathetic fiasco and peter mackay should really resign.
Ben (The Tiger) - December 21, 2009 10:18 AM
What really enraged me about the AdScam stuff in Parliament was how Gagliano and others sloughed off the idea of ministerial responsibility -- the claims that they couldn't possibly have known.
It's their job to know.
And now my Tories are parroting the same line...
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Oh well, I like the job that Chretien did, policy-wise, and I rather like Harper's performance. But can't we have that along with keeping to our Westminster traditions? (Without caucuses picking leaders, and being able to turf them, I guess not.))
P of K - December 21, 2009 3:32 PM
I hope that this story has nothing to do with the actions of the military but in reality, with the credibility of anything the government (past and present) says on the matter now severeley in doubt, that too remains to be seen.