On non-consultation

In case there's any doubt, we're not yet done with the list of Con MPs who - by their own party's account - couldn't be bothered to do anything during their Harper Holiday. For today, let's take a look at what the list tells us about the level of public input in the Cons' impending budget, as well as how seriously we can take the Cons' excuses for prorogation.

Remember that one of the major attempts to spin the prorogation consisted of Stephen Harper's argument that Con MPs needed to spend the time consulting with constituents on the upcoming budget. And after Jim Flaherty seemingly contradicted that claim by saying that budget consultations wouldn't actually be affected, here's how Flaherty reconciled the two statements:

Mike Storeshaw, Mr. Flaherty's director of communications, takes exception to the Ottawa Notebook’s suggestion that the Finance Minister and Prime Minister are saying two different things about prorogation:

“They’re not, and stating otherwise is just semantics,” Mr. Storeshaw writes. “Minister Flaherty does wide-ranging consultations all over the country in advance of presenting the budget. That’s what he’s doing in Winnipeg today, and would have been doing whether the House was prorogued or not. As you know, the House wasn’t even scheduled to be sitting this week, so the Minister is making use of the time to consult with Canadians, in much the same way he has done in years past. Just like the government as a whole, he is hard at work.

"… What the Prime Minister said was that the government, as a whole, would be taking advantage of this time in this way. I don’t know what’s inconsistent between the Prime Minister saying what all members of the government would be doing, and the Finance Minister actually doing it."

In case that wasn't clear enough, the Cons had thus set a clear public expectation by January 11 that all members of the government would be carrying out public budget consultations as the main reason for shutting down Parliament in the meantime.

And presumably any such consultation would have been included in the Cons' list. After all, here's what the list features according to Gordon O'Connor:

We have been governing and continue to govern during the constituency break as demonstrated by the attached list, which is by no means exhaustive and does not include the majority of MPs' constituency events.

The list focuses on:

- Our meetings with Canadians to listen to their views on the economy;
- Important Economic Plan investments to protect and create jobs; and
- Our Government's actions representing Canada's global interests.

That wording looks to nicely reflect the distinction drawn by Flaherty between normal MP work and the additional consultations expected during the course of prorogation. One might not anticipate extra work on the general constituency front (though we'll deal with that more in a later post), nor for the list to focus on MPs' work other than budget consultations. But one would absolutely have reason to expect that the Cons' economic consultations would be included, given that they were both the supposed highest priority during the Harper Holiday, and the primary focus of the list itself.

So is it fair then to say that 60 Con MPs didn't bother to actually follow through on their government's instructions? And that their constituents' interests thus won't be reflected in the upcoming budget to the extent the consultations actually had any effect?

Actually, the first question can be answered with a hearty "no" - but only because the list is significantly longer than 60. On a quick look from the Libs' analysis of days worked, 23 Con MPs worked only one day during the period included (though I'm not sure the list is entirely accurate on my own review). And of those, only 5 are listed as engaging in anything resembling budget consultations, with the other 18 merely announcing funding or attending public events.

That puts us at 78 Members of Parliament - a strong majority of the Cons' caucus - who responded to the instruction that all MPs were to carry out budget consultations by yawning, blinking and resuming their mid-winter naps. And that's without going into detail about the Con MPs who nominally worked two or more days who may have similarly omitted to include any consultation events from their meager activities.

And what's more damning, this is likely the portion of the Cons' activities which couldn't have been made up later. It wouldn't make too much difference whether a funding announcement or community event took place early or late in the prorogation period. But for budget consultations, one would think that any input would have to have been provided by the time the Cons compiled their letter to have had any chance of being taken into account.

So the end result is that the Cons have themselves provided evidence that the vast majority of their MPs can't be bothered to do anything about the party's supposed top priority. And plenty of voices who may have had a strong interest in the Cons' budgetary decisions will end up going unheard as a result.

Incidentally...

Gordon O'Connor's inclusion on the list of deadbeat Cons is particularly telling for reasons going beyond the fact that he's one of the better-known MPs included. Keep in mind that the list was sent out to the opposition party whips by none other than...Gordon O'Connor, chiding them for pointing out the Cons' vacation in his capacity as the government's whip.

In fairness, I'm sure O'Connor had little to do with the wording of the letter. Or the content of the list. Or indeed his schedule during the course of his Harper Holiday. But if anybody took O'Connor's feigned indignance seriously for a second, he surely deserves some mockery now that it's clear that he himself didn't take any of his party's "governing" seriously enough to take part.

Of their own motion

The Gordon O'Connor letter to his fellow party whips reported on by Susan Delacourt is certainly interesting enough as a matter of curiosity, particularly in the fact that O'Connor apparently can't so much as write to his counterparts without including partisan slams. But the most significant part of the letter released so far looks to be the part which isn't yet publicly available (emphasis added):

With respect to the next session of Parliament:

- It is our position that all committees, including the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan be reconstituted quickly, upon the return of the House. I have attached for your and the other Whips' consideration, motions in this regard.

So what makes that statement significant? I've posted several times about my view that the prorogation should have served as an ideal opportunity for the opposition parties to hit a reset button of their own, using the convening of a new sitting of Parliament as an opportunity to coordinate the structure of committees and otherwise work on amendments to existing Parliamentary procedures to permanently shelve the Cons' dirty tricks manual. And hopefully they'll have made some progress on that front.

But O'Connor's letter signals that the Cons are looking to foreclose that possibility by offering their own motions - which presumably wouldn't have to be reviewed in advance by the opposition parties if they were merely pro forma materials. So I'm not sure anybody should be surprised if the Cons are now including requirements that, say, all questions for witnesses must be pre-cleared with the PMO.* And it would be even less surprising if the Cons demand that the opposition parties agree to whatever rules they want to set as the price of having committees back to work "quickly".

Which makes it doubly important that the opposition parties have their own plans to put in place new rules which prevent the Cons from torpedoing committee proceedings. And if the opposition is faced with a choice between a delay in getting started and a set of rules which lets the Cons hide from accountability at any time, then this looks to be a battle worth fighting.

*No, not really. Right? RIGHT?

The reviews are in

William Johnson:

The fundamental issue is no longer the appropriate treatment of detainees. At issue is the credibility of the government and its responsibility to answer to Parliament and so to the people of Canada.

The government has subverted Canadian democracy by its constant misinformation, by its withholding and censuring of documents, by making non-credible claims that it cannot release documents for reasons of national security.

Only an impartial judicial inquiry can determine the facts and finally restore badly abused ministerial responsibility. We cannot trust this government to report honestly on itself.

Manual transmission

The Cons apparently aren't shy about saying that their dirty tricks manual will be put back into effect as soon as Parliament starts up again. But it might be worth the opposition's while to call Gordon O'Connor's bluff about what's included:

The infamous House "committee obstruction manual" from the last Parliament will be refined, improved and will be back in play, says new Chief Government Whip Gordon O'Connor who also hopes for a less raucous and more productive 40th Parliament when it returns on Nov. 18.

"What it is in reality is it's like the Cole's Notes of what committee chairs should think about, or how to operate in committees," said Mr. O'Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Ont.) in an interview with The Hill Times. "I think there's a need for that certainly for people who will be chairs from our side, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to go through the book—if you want to call it that, but it's just a bunch of sheets of paper—and I think I'll try to refine it and improve it so that it's focused on how to be an effective chair."

Assuming O'Connor could be taken at his word that the dirty tricks manual is really nothing more than a handbook for chairing committees, there would then be no reason at all for the Cons to refuse to keep it hidden for partisan purposes. And indeed, they'd have every incentive to want to work with the other parties in developing a manual which could be applied to all Parliamentary committees, including those which are chaired by opposition members.

So O'Connor's spin can be tested very easily: if the Cons actually believe they've produced nothing more than a handy guide for better committee operation, then for the sake of having all committees running smoothly they should be eager to make it public. On the other hand, if the Cons think their manual needs to be kept in-house lest it be used against them by opposition committee chairs, then there's no reason to think they've changed in the slightest from their perpetual obstruction and tantrum-throwing from the last session of Parliament.

Attacking themselves

Ryan Sparrow's suspension has already attracted plenty of discussion. But it's worth noting that Sparrow didn't just attack the father of a deceased Canadian soldier; instead, he attacked the father of a deceased Canadian soldier for spreading a message which the Cons themselves have pushed. Here's Gordon O'Connor in the wake of another soldier's death in 2006 (and just before the first Afghanistan extension vote):

More than ever before, we must stay the course so that the sacrifices made by the members of the Canadian Forces are not made in vain.

As a result, the story isn't just another example of the Cons reflexively picking partisan fights with anybody who dares to say anything which doesn't suit their political purposes - though it works on that level as well.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, it also highlights how little grounding the Cons actually have in the principles and positions which they've tried to sell as part of their party brand. And the fact that the Cons now consider the same words they themselves used not long ago as justification for attacks today should make it clear just how little reason there is to take seriously what they have to say during the campaign.

Limited credit

Shorter J.L. Granatstein:
If you pretend that Gordon O'Connor was nothing more than a defence industry lobbyist all along, he wasn't such a disaster as Defence Minister.

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.

Underequipped

So much for my theory that even Gordon O'Connor wouldn't try to make the argument that Afghan troops don't need to be trained in order to take over operational responsibility in Kandahar. After all, word comes out today that any claim along those lines would only nicely match O'Connor's apparent theory that it doesn't much matter whether or not Afghan troops receive equipment promised by the Cons:

Toting obsolete equipment and an arsenal dating back to the Soviet era, the Afghan National Army says it’s waiting for modern weapons promised by Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor.

The Afghan army, which Canada is counting on to take over fighting against the Taliban in coming months, still has yet to receive C-7 assault rifles and ammunition the Canadian government pledged to deliver, said Lt.-Col. Sherinshaw Khobandi...

The C-7 delivery delay has slowed the preparation of Afghan recruits and stalled their takeover of combat operations against the Taliban.

For now, Afghan soldiers must rely on Soviet-era weapons, such as the Kalashnikov AK-47.

At best, the AK-47s are not as precise and have a shorter range than the C-7, which is the Canadian version of the American M-16.

Khobandi is waiting for the weapons with impatience.

"I’m hoping and waiting for that day (to) come," he said.

Needless to say, any anticipated change in equipment can only reduce the value of the training now being given to Afghan troops. Which means that the equipment problems make it even less likely that O'Connor's current spin about Canada's role in Kandahar could possibly bear any resemblance to reality.

Unfortunately, the Afghan army appears to be stuck "hoping and waiting" for competence which the Cons have shown no signs of being able to deliver. And now that it's clear that even the Afghan troops who are now at the centre of O'Connor's message are rightly impatient with the Cons' broken promises, there's no reason for Canadians to put up with Con government much longer.

The incompetence continues

It's been well-known for some time that the Cons don't value intelligence in potential candidates. But is it really too much to ask that their cabinet ministers have at least enough basic understanding of logic to recognize when they're contradicting themselves?

Here's Gordon O'Connor today:

Mr. O'Connor said there is no discrepancy between his opinion and that of Gen. Hillier.

”I never said that the army units would be trained within six months,” he said. ”I said that over the next six months we will get four or five of these battalions to train. And if you check, my words, word by word, I said that at some time in the future we will be able to go into some reserve state. But we don't know how long that is.”

The Canadian troops are committed to remaining in the country until February 2009 and are shifting their focus to the training for the Afghan army, he said.

So what's the problem? (That is, aside from deciding where to start in finding the questions raised by O'Connor's new stance.) Let's go to the wayback machine to see just what he actually said a week and a half ago:

"Over the next four or five months were going to be picking up four or five additional Afghan battalions to train and mentor and get them out into the field," O'Connor said.

We're hoping by the end of this rotation that's going in now, the so called Van Doos rotation, we'll have about 3,000 Afghan army operating within the Kandahar province, and as we train more and more of the Afghan army to carry out their own operations we'll continue to withdraw, put more emphasis on training, and at some stage basically be in reserve."

About the only way one could possibly reconcile O'Connor's current position as to the timing of any "reserve status" with his past one is to assume that there's absolutely no relationship between the training of the promised Afghan troops and the reserve status of Canadian troops. Which in turn would of course make the earlier statement misleading in linking the two.

And O'Connor's rationalization that he never stated that the Afghan troops would be trained within six months seems utterly bizarre given his plain statement that the troops would already be operating by that time. Though I suppose if O'Connor wants to defend the position that Afghan troops should be operating without training by February, he'll likely find an eager opposition ready to tear him apart even more.

It remains to be seen just how much longer Deceivin' Stephen stands behind his embarrassment of the Defence Minister in light of this and other PR disasters. But any faint hope the Cons may have held that O'Connor would figure out how to handle his department has to be diminishing by the day - and at some point, the spillover effect of O'Connor's incompetence has to be seen as more harmful to the Cons than grudgingly admitting defeat.

Weak on defence

Today's news saw another flood of commentary - including some from usually-reliable Con hacks like David Bercuson and Tom Flanagan - calling either for Gordon O'Connor's ouster as Defence Minister, or at least some major rethinking of the current mixed messages on Afghanistan.

Now, one would have to figure that the Cons would want to put forward as credible a figure as they could find to defend a minister whose past lobbying on behalf of the defence industry made him a controversial figure even before he started his mismanagement. So what does it say about O'Connor's future that the only voice apparently willing to try to back him is a current defence lobbyist?

On mixed messages

Impolitical theorizes that the effect of a few recent statements on continued combat in Afghanistan is to isolate Rick Hillier against military and civilian leaders. But while I'd agree that there are some mixed messages on the future of Canada's stay in Afghanistan, the split looks to me to be somewhere else entirely.

Specifically, in the public appearances cited by Impolitical, Hillier, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier and Brigadier-General Tim Grant all take the position that there's little prospect of training Afghani troops to take over the combat role now occupied by Canada. It's only the consequences of that premise which are in dispute among the military officials who have commented publicly: Hillier takes a strident "Canada must stay" position, compared to Gauthier's message that "troops from other countries" can handle Canada's current role and Grant's openness to reshaping Canadian involvement.

Now, I certainly don't agree with Hillier's attempt to spin the lack of progress to date as reason to stay in combat indefinitely. But at the very least, all three military officials appear to want Canada's debate about Afghanistan to be based on a realistic assessment of how much slack can be taken up locally over the next year and a half.

In contrast, Deceivin' Stephen and his embattled lackey are claiming that Afghani troops can be trained to be just as effective as Canadian ones over the next year and a half (and indeed sooner in order to enable Canada to take a "reserve" role in the meantime). Once again, the message is "as they stand up, we'll stand down", accompanied by a claim that a substantial number of Afghani troops will have "stood up" on those terms by 2009.

Now, I don't think for a second that the Cons actually believe the claim. Instead, they likely figure that they have a better chance of winning an extension vote which supposedly involves only training and reserve status, rather than one which is premised on continuing combat as a first option. And once they have that vote to extend the mission, they can claim that the scope of the extension includes the ability to continue combat as usual, based on the shocking realization that the training hasn't gone as "planned".

In sum, the real difference in message right now is between honest military officials who are willing to acknowledge the implausibility of the government's plan, and Con partisans who see the truth as an acceptable casualty if it means furthering their political goal of winning an extension vote. And in that contest, it's the Cons who deserve blame for undermining both the troops and the truth.

Update: The Globe and Mail discusses the Cons vs. troop split as well. But it looks like the Libs are being far too generous to the Cons, as Ujjal Dosanjh is merely talking about a "need to know who's in charge" rather than the sheer implausibility of the Cons' position or its likely strategic purpose.

On parrots

It was just last week that the Cons were reminded that patterning their message on Afghanistan after Bushco's propaganda on Iraq - in that case the language of "cut and run" - wasn't winning them any points with the Canadian public. But they've already managed to forget the advice entirely, as Gordon O'Connor's latest spin is nothing more than a clunkier version of the equally well-worn "as they stand up, we'll stand down":

During an appearance on CTV's Question Period that aired Sunday, O'Connor said those numbers are largely due to Canadians' lack of clear understanding of Canada's successes in Afghanistan, as well as the challenges faced there.

He said there is reason to believe that the situation in Afghanistan is improving, and Canada's frontline role will soon be reduced.

O'Connor said Canadian troops recently sponsored an Afghan infantry battalion, providing intense mentorship and training, and as a result the battalion is now out conducting its own operations...

"Over the next four or five months were going to be picking up four or five additional Afghan battalions to train and mentor and get them out into the field," O'Connor said.

"We're hoping by the end of this rotation that's going in now, the so called Van Doos rotation, we'll have about 3,000 Afghan army operating within the Kandahar province, and as we train more and more of the Aghan army to carry out their own operations we'll continue to withdraw, put more emphasis on training, and at some stage basically be in reserve."

If there's a bright side for Canada, it's that unlike the U.S.' equivalent message, O'Connor's seems to be paired with some recognition that the combat mission actually will end in the relatively near future.

But it still speaks volumes about the Cons that they still can't seem to come up with anything to say that hasn't already been beaten to death by their ideological soulmates to the south. And if they continue to lack any ideas of their own, it may not be long before Deceivin' Stephen's already-poor approval numbers equally track those of Bush and company.

Update: It turns out that Graham Richardson made a similar point on QP's panel discussion. Now if only he also agreed with me that the suppression of information at the Department of National Defence is worth discussing, as he didn't even bother asking O'Connor about the issue in his interview.

On the other foot

In one of the surest signs yet that the movement against continued combat in Afghanistan is gaining traction, Gordon O'Connor has been forced to respond to the ever-declining support for continuing the status quo by highlighting a distinction which neocons have tried to claim doesn't exist:

While only 38% of Quebecers support Canada's mission to Afghanistan, 90% support the troops, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Sunday after speaking to the first contingent of Quebec-based soldiers leaving for a new rotation.

Sadly, O'Connor's momentary appreciation for the difference between supporting the mission and supporting the troops figures to be a short-lived reaction to some particularly damaging poll numbers involving the mission. And indeed it's not hard to anticipate the Cons trying to make O'Connor's "supporting the troops" number the story to divert attention from their past and continuing desire to extend Canada's combat role.

But even if it doesn't signal a longer-term move toward reality on the part of the Cons, O'Connor's message today should ensure that any future attempts to conflate the two concepts will be taken even less seriously than they have been so far. And an easy retort to Con jingoism is something which Canadians should have no trouble supporting.

On chains of command

The Globe and Mail reports on a new Department of National Defence policy under which information about Afghan detainees is being systematically suppressed from public release. But while the policy is highly dubious on its own, what's even more interesting is what the announcement says about the relative positions of the two people most directly responsible for the decision:

The office of General Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier, has halted the release of any documents relating to detainees captured in Afghanistan under the federal Access to Information Act, claiming that disclosure of any such information could endanger Canadian troops.

According to documents made available to The Globe and Mail, the Strategic Joint Staff, a newly created group that advises Gen. Hillier, has been reviewing all Access to Information requests about detainees since March, shortly after the detainee controversy first erupted.

The Strategic Joint Staff has given strict guidance to National Defence's director of Access to Information, Julie Jansen, on what documents should be withheld. The result is that the flow of documents about detainees has virtually dried up and the department has summarily rejected requests for the same kind of documents it released earlier.

In recent letters responding to requests filed on behalf of The Globe and Mail, Ms. Jansen has “exempted in its entirety” the disclosure of detainee transfer logs, medical records, witness statements and other processing forms. The department said the information could not be disclosed for national security reasons...

Asked if there was any evidence that soldiers' safety had been compromised because of earlier disclosure of detainee information, DND spokesman Marc Raider responded that “the information cannot be provided for operational security reasons.”

It was on the basis of successful access requests by The Globe and by Professor Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa that Canadians first learned of allegations that three Afghan detainees were abused while in Canadian custody. Those allegations have led to three separate investigations by the Canadian military and the Military Police Complaints Commission, which have yet to be completed.

On the substantive side, the policy looks like one that's ripe for challenge. As a general rule under Access to Information legislation, a blanket policy of withholding a specific class of documents tends to be seen as an improper failure to consider whether documents are in fact subject to disclosure. And the use of a specially-chosen group of reviewers to produce the desired outcome doesn't seem likely to make such a policy look any more legitimate.

Unfortunately, though, such a challenge may take years to work its way through the Information Commissioner and the courts. But we won't need to wait that long for today's news to speak volumes about a complete breakdown in the appropriate chain of accountability within National Defence.

Under Canada's Access to Information Act, the "head" of each government department is generally responsible for compliance with the appropriate access rules. Of course, those functions can be and are frequently delegated - but ultimately it's the minister who properly holds responsibility for his department's decisions. And presumably the minister would be responsible both to approve any blanket policies...and to defend those policies publicly.

So who's the minister responsible for National Defence? Not surprisingly, that would be the perpetually-embattled Gordon O'Connor, who happens to have demonstrated his utter incompetence most clearly in his attempts to respond to the previously-disclosed documents about detainees.

Now, it's not at all surprising that O'Connor himself apparently isn't defending, or even addressing, his department's new policy - both because the perception that he's merely covering up his own tracks would be inescapable, and because there's always the danger that he'll blurt out that the Red Cross is fully responsible to make sure that National Defence complies with the Access to Information Act.

But with O'Connor so plainly shirking both his ministerial responsibility to make sure that his department properly reviews documents for disclosure and allowing his his delegate Hillier to take the public fire for that fact, today's article ultimately offers one more strong piece of evidence that O'Connor simply isn't doing his job. And that in turn provides yet another reason why O'Connor shouldn't be allowed to remain responsible for anything.

Update: Jeff has more to much the same effect, while several other posts have also covered the suppression of information.

On standard communications

The Cons' content-free media strategy seemed to work relatively well for as long as the press was willing to put up with nonexistent answers. But now, the Cons' stonewalling has led to a rightful response pointing out the Cons' lack of substance - and even CanWest's news coverage gets into the act in its report on future military spending:

The release of the (Cons' anticipated defence strategy paper), crafted by the military to meet the Conservative's defence vision, is at least a year late. Officials with Mr. O'Connor's office stated last year the strategy would be ready in the summer of 2006. They then changed that to the fall and then later said the strategy would come out by the end of 2006.

In an e-mail sent Thursday, Mr. O'Connor's office stated: "When we are ready to announce more on this, we will do so."

That same mailed sentence is the standard communication line from Mr. O'Connor's office used to answer questions on a variety of issues, ranging from the defence strategy to when a compensation package might be ready for Canadian veterans exposed to nuclear fallout during the Cold War.

Now, the Cons would presumably be unhappy enough to have their delays pointed out publicly by the media chain which is normally most friendly to the party.

But with the Cons' attempts to deflect the press becoming an object of ridicule in and of themselves, Harper and company face a choice of either allowing their "brand" to become synonymous with blanket refusals to say anything meaningful, or loosening the reins and risking the virtual certainty that the Cons' none-too-bright public faces will embarrass the party. And the opposition has to be looking forward to seeing either of those scenarios play out.

Whose lie is it anyway?

Apparently the Cons' attempt to get Gordon O'Connor out of the spotlight hasn't led to any better-informed answers on Afghan detainees, as Peter MacKay is now under fire for conflicting stories on the number of complaints of torture:

Canadian officials have received allegations of torture or abuse from six Afghan detainees, two more than reported by cabinet ministers during testimony at a Commons committee a few days ago.

The change of facts prompted Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre yesterday to accuse Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day of "misleading the House and the people of Canada."

The higher number was cited by MacKay at a news conference Friday, after two days of inquiries by opposition MPs and reporters about discrepancies in testimony he and Day gave at a joint meeting Wednesday of the Commons defence and foreign affairs committees.

MacKay's defence is supposedly based on a difference in the time periods involved. But it's worth noting that any attempt to artificially cut off the time period was itself nothing but a Con creation: see for example this exchange from Question Period, where Denis Coderre's straightforward question the number of allegations of torture and abuse received a heavily-spun response about MacKay's latest sightseeing expedition.

As a result, MacKay has nobody but himself to blame for the confusion he's fostered. And with the Cons' backup talking head apparently having no more idea what he's talking about than the minister who's been pushed out of the limelight in disgrace, the Cons' incompetence in dealing with Afghanistan is only becoming more clear by the day.

Uninformed

The Ottawa Citizen reports that Gordon O'Connor's Defence Department is continuing to thumb its nose at accountability and oversight, this time by trying to stall access requests for documents which have already been made public.

The theory is apparently to try to screen and limit the release of any potentially embarrassing information which wasn't caught the first time. But aside from the fact that "potentially embarrassing" isn't a valid basis for refusing to disclose information, is there really any point to trying to limit embarrassment within a department stuck with O'Connor as its public face?

Access to disinformation

Perhaps surprisingly given the oft-documented incompetence of the minister in charge, the Department of National Defence managed to fare reasonably well in the Information Commissioner's report card on government institutions. But the NDP reports that the DND is looking to change that mark for the worse next year if its response time (and ministeral runaround) on information about Middle East detainees is any indication:

NDP Defence critic Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) revealed in Question Period today that the Department of National Defence is refusing to release details and records relating to the possible capture of detainees in the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf.

Black says Minister O’Conner is risking another firestorm because of his refusal to answer questions about sea-based detainees. On October 12, 2006 the minister of national defence signed a policy for the handling of detainees who were taken at sea as part of HMCS Ottawa’s participation in the Bush administration’s Operation Enduring Freedom.

“The suppression of these documents is troubling,” said Black. “Canadians expect Minister O’Connor to be forthcoming with information concerning Canada’s role in detainee transfers even if that means visiting the filing cabinets personally to retrieve the records.”

Black is frustrated with the unreasonable delay put forward by the Department of National Defence of 150 days to release the requested documents pertaining to “all detainees” the department admits to possess.

It's worth wondering just what's currently being hidden, as the request would seem to be an extremely easy one to answer if there haven't been any detainees handed over under the agreement. Though in fairness, there's always the distinct possibility that the Harper Cons would cover something up just for the sake of covering up.

One way or the other, though, the unwillingness of O'Connor's department to even remotely approach its legal obligations to answer a fairly simple access request appears all too consistent with both O'Connor's cluelessness as a minister and the Cons' governing philosophy of suppression. And the more public scrutiny the Cons face for those trends, the more likely we'll be to put them in the rear-view mirror.

On roleplaying

Sure, it looks bad enough for the Cons that another of their MPs - this time Gord Brown - has been caught allowing an assistant to impersonate him. But I suspect it may only get worse: how much more damaging will it be when word gets out that the role of "Question Period Gordon O'Connor" has been played by a paperweight for the last three weeks?