No useful purpose

While I agree with Greg's assessment James Travers' odd conclusion, I'd think it's worth focusing on a couple of other aspects of Travers' concluding words:

Iacobucci's document review serves the useful purpose of putting on hold a test of wills between Parliament and the Prime Minister that could provoke an election the Opposition doesn't want now and would be foolish to ever fight on the abuse issue. But the ultimate result will be more foot-dragging if Iacobucci is kept too far from the truth to explain why ministers let generals play loose and fast with Afghan prisoners.

To my recollection, the number of tests of wills since which have resulted in anything but Harper steamrolling over the position of the majority of Canada's elected representatives is...one, being the opposition's rejection of longtime reform bagman Gwyn Morgan as chair of the Public Appointments Commission responsible to ensure non-partisan hiring. Since then, there have been plenty of showdowns between Harper's executive and Parliament - and Harper has managed to get his way every single time by strongarming the Libs when he can (which is most times) and shutting down Parliament when he can't.

From that starting point, I'd think a couple of realities should be painfully obvious.

First, it's long past time for the opposition to actually show that Harper can't count on winning every single "test of wills" that comes up. And indeed the opposition should see value in doing that for its own sake even if the merits of an issue alone aren't decisive (which they are in the case of parliamentary supremacy in any event).

And second, even if one wants to claim some value in trying to de-escalate any fight over Afghan torture documents, it's utterly absurd to suggest that it's at all "useful" to allow Stephen Harper alone (and as Travers notes, in secret) to decide how to do that.

Simply put, pointing to a delay process set up unilaterally by one side of the dispute as a positive example of putting it "on hold" doesn't do a thing to encourage reasonable solutions. Instead, it only sends Harper the message that he can afford to keep Parliament in a state of constant brinksmanship, secure in the knowledge that he can count on the likes of Travers to bail him out by saying the opposition parties have to accept his proposed diversions in the interest of avoiding the fights that Harper has set up with his constant attacks on the role of Parliament.

Mind you, Travers seems to be off base in suggesting that an election would be in the offing in any event. Thus far the opposition has been careful to emphasize that it doesn't see its oversight role as a confidence test - and absent media figures like Travers needlessly muddying the waters, it should be glaringly clear that any decision to precipitate an election over the Cons' torture coverup would be solely in Harper's hands.

But whether or not an election might result, there's absolutely no reason for the Libs or any other opposition party to accept the idea of compromising on the Cons' secret terms solely in order to once again give them a fig leaf to back down. And if Harper once again bullies the opposition into getting his way this time, we'll surely end up in exactly the same place on another issue in a matter of months.