A shining example

Congratulations to Peter MacKay for offering what may prove to be the definitive statement of the Cons' commitment to openness, accountability and honesty in politics.

On cabinetry

Since Adam Radwanski didn't quite cover all the notes worth mentioning from the Cons' cabinet shuffle, here are a few more observations...

- The big news of the day was MacKay to Defence. But am I the only one who finds it the least bit surprising that Deceivin' Stephen's choice to try to clean up his party's political mess on Afghanistan is someone who's already contributed to the problem?

It seems beyond doubt that MacKay will find some way to run his mouth and make the Cons' public image on Afghanistan even worse. Which leaves only the question of which group will benefit more from MacKay's appointment: his House sparring partners (Dawn Black and Denis Coderre), or his riding challengers (Louise Lorefice and Elizabeth May).

- One of today's changes may help to signal just how much control is being exercised by the PMO rather than individual ministers. Industry goes from being run by one of the most rabid anti-government ideologues in Maxime Bernier, to a former Progressive Conservative in Jim Prentice - which would seemingly make for a strong chance of a far more moderate direction if the ministers have held any sway. But will anything actually change?

- Gordon O'Connor may have found himself shuffled into what seems to be the safest Cabinet position possible. But it's worth wondering whether the opposition parties find ways to keep holding his feet to the fire - if for no other purpose than to test what aside from a lack of political use (farewell to thee, Carol Skelton) is considered a removal-worthy offence for Harper.

- Speaking of Skelton, while I neglected to note it when she retired, her Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar seat figures to be another juicy target for the NDP in the next federal election - that is, if anybody notices she's gone.

- Finally, the Oda/Verner position swap may have been largely a matter of change for the sake of change. But I have to wonder if the switch is aimed in part at putting Heritage in the hands of a minister who's less susceptible to the (predominatly English-based) citizen media who managed to run Sarmite Bulte out of Parliament for her coziness with the entertainment industry, and figured to cause problems for Oda as well.

Recognizing the damage

It's a plus to see the opposition parties criticizing the Cons' attempt to bury two reports on Canadian deaths in Afghanistan. But I have to wonder why the criticism is limited to the Cons' immediate effort at damage control, rather than including a wider view of the Cons' disregard for the well-being of Canadian troops.

Here's what opposition MPs had to say about the reports:

Opposition parties accused the Tory government Wednesday of delaying the release of the findings of military investigations into two incidents in which Canadian soldiers were accidentally killed by American firepower in Afghanistan.

"This is damage control, pure and simple," said Liberal MP Denis Coderre. "Let's call a spade a spade."...

Coderre said it's hard to believe that five months were needed to get Hillier's signature on the report and to liaise with American authorities...

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said she doesn't buy the explanation because the U.S. report into Costall's death was released a month ago in response to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press.

Releasing the Canadian findings in the middle of summer, when many are on holiday, virtually guarantees that the matter will be forgotten and swept under the rug, she said.

"It would work better for the government if they were more straightforward with members of Parliament and the Canadian public," she said.

"When information is held back -- rightly or wrongly -- it leads to a perception of coverup."

While the comments from Coderre and Black are reasonable enough, they fall far short of dealing with the larger issue raised by the Cons' consistent pattern of covering up key facts about Afghanistan. From hiding the caskets of troops to suppressing information about detainee transfers (which could expose Canadian troops to legal jeopardy due to their own government's negligence), the Cons have done nothing but try to paper over the real risks facing Canadian soldiers. And in consequence, Canadian troops will all too likely continue to face needless dangers which would be reduced if the country at large discussed them more thoroughly.

In sum, the mere fact that the Cons are indeed carrying out political damage control is far less damning than the likelihood that Canada's troops will end up worse off as a result. And the more Canadians see how false the Cons "support" really is, the less likely the Cons are to hold the ability to keep our troops in harm's way for much longer.

On intelligent coverage

I've noted many times before that one of the largest problems with most mainstream coverage of politics is that it generally fails to distinguish between substance and spin (or even outright nonsense). With that in mind, let's give due credit to Aaron Wherry for contrasting Dawn Black's substantive questions on Afghanistan with the embarrassing non-responses provided by Peter MacKay (and other assorted hijinks):

(W)hile the buffoons were basking in their bons mots, the Speaker called upon the honourable member for New Westminster-Coquitlam and up rose the NDP's Dawn Black.

"Mr. Speaker, Afghans are increasingly concerned with the mounting civilian death toll," she explained. "This week the Afghan senate asked foreign forces to put an end to the hunting and the search and destroy approach. Last week President Karzai said the civilian death toll is something his government can no longer accept. Will the government acknowledge the serious concerns of the Afghan government and change course, just as Afghan officials and the Canadian public are demanding?"

Now, as the New Democrat defence critic, Dawn Black isn't likely allowed much room for improvisation. Her agenda is fairly obvious. But that aside, this seemed a fairly intelligent and well-meaning query.

We can perhaps debate who is or is not being beaten with electrical cords, what the Canadian military has to do with that and what can be done in a foreign country where the issue of jurisdiction and responsibility is the stuff of legal briefs. But it is difficult to dispute that in military conflicts, innocent people - that is to say, those who are not actively trying to facilitate the killing of our guys - are often unduly harmed. And even the most coldly practical among us must concede that unwarranted death and destruction do not generally endear an occupying force to its occupied nation, nor fill the homeside with patriotism. This is, then, a reasonable concern.

So up came Peter MacKay. "With respect to international security assistance force, it is a UN-mandated NATO mission," the Foreign Affairs Minister explained. "We are all aware of that. We know that the operations are conducted with the consent of the Afghan authorities under a democratically-elected government in Afghanistan. NATO operations are conducted jointly, alongside Afghan national forces."

This seemed a fine way of saying, "Hey, we aren't the only ones who periodically blow up women, children and well-meaning old people."

Dawn Black pressed on. "Mr. Speaker, 90 civilian deaths in the last two weeks is something to take very seriously. The Conservative government cannot tell us anything about what is happening with Afghan detainees. It cannot give us a straight answer about the duration of the mission. Canadians have clearly lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence and the government's handling of the war. If the Government of Afghanistan does ask Canada and NATO to change their tactics, will the government do so?"

Setting aside the debatability of several assumptions therein, this too seemed a reasonable question.

Here came MacKay's response. "What we know very well is when it comes to the mission in Afghanistan, the members of the NDP are sheep in sheep's clothing."

One assumes the Foreign Affairs Minister was trying to be smart. One might subsequently suggest that the Buffoon from Bourassa may want to save a chair at the next club meeting.

Now, it could be that the focus (along with a relatively similar contrast the previous day) will be the exception rather than the rule. And indeed, it does seem clear that the story about some MPs providing more substance than others is only being told as a matter of contrast when a real policy discussion immediately precedes or follows the very worst of the worst - thus offering at least equal time and notoriety to those who stand out for their lack of substance.

But the more attention there is to the difference between MPs who are using their public platform to deal with real issues and those who see the House of Commons as a place where, truth, decorum and intelligent thought are all optional, the more likely Canadians are to ask why we don't have more of the former. And hopefully that kind of discussion will be both continued in Wherry's coverage, and picked up by others as well.

(Edit: fixed label.)

Low in facts

The Globe and Mail reports on yet another complete fabrication from a Con cabinet minister, as the Red Cross has flatly denied Gordon O'Connor's claim that it has any involvement in Canada's detainee transfer agreement with Afghanistan:

The International Committee of the Red Cross confirmed Wednesday that it has no role in monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement, in direct contradiction to assurances Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has made to the House of Commons.

The Red Cross also said that it would never divulge to Ottawa any abuses it might identify in Afghan prisons.

“We were informed of the agreement, but we are not a party to it and we are not monitoring the implementation of it,” Simon Schorno, a spokesman for the ICRC, said in an interview.

In his most explicit statement to the House of Commons on May 31, Mr. O'Connor said: “The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action.”...

That claim has been persistently and vigorously disputed by opposition political and human-rights groups, which contend the ICRC never divulges its findings either publicly or to third parties and that the minister is misrepresenting its role.

“The minister is wrong,” NDP defence critic Dawn Black said.

“Either he is woefully ill informed or he is misleading the House. He needs to clear this up,” she said this week in a interview from her riding in British Columbia.

Even the Foreign Affairs Department has now formally contradicted the minister's statement.

“The ICRC is not required to notify Canada,” Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Ambra Dickie confirmed in an e-mail, delivering a formal response that had been approved by senior officials to a written question from The Globe and Mail. The question was: “Is the ICRC required to notify Canada of any suspected violations of the Geneva Convention against detainees transferred into Afghan custody by Canada?”

While it's a plus to see O'Connor's invention exposed, I'll disagree with Black's view here just as I did with the Libs' strategy earlier, as there's no reason to think that offering the Cons a chance to explain their lies will result in anything positive. At best, O'Connor will have nothing useful to say; at worst, he'll simply conjure up some other excuse which may not be debunked until after the next election, allowing him to give a wrongful impression that he's actually made up for his previous fabrications.

Instead, it's long past time to conclude that the Cons simply don't have anywhere near enough credibility to be worth listening to, and to highlight the basis for that conclusion to the wider public. And with any luck, the end result in the near future will be a change to a government which isn't thoroughly detached from reality.

Update: Not surprisingly, O'Connor's response goes directly into the "nothing useful to say" category:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, in an about-face from earlier comments, acknowledged Thursday that the International Committee of the Red Cross does not inform Canada of the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian troops and transferred to Afghan authorities.

In a terse statement released to The Globe and Mail Thursday evening, Mr. O'Connor said: "It was my understanding that the ICRC could share information concerning detainee treatment with Canada.

"I have recently learned that they would, in fact, provide this information to the detaining nation, in this case Afghanistan."

Among the Cons, this apparently counts as contrition and explanation. But it shouldn't be hard to see that O'Connor's wrong "understanding" was precisely the one that Dawn Black and others attempted to correct.