8
When the Conservative government implies that opposition members who ask questions about Afghan detainees are traitors, as it did Friday in the House of Commons, it is not only being juvenile and undemocratic. It is insulting those Canadians who want the questions answered.
The question from Liberal MP Mark Holland was both obvious and necessary: Will Canadians be informed when and if Canada's military resumes handing over prisoners to the Afghan authorities? The answer from Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan: "What we will not do is what the agent for the Taliban intelligence agency wants us to do over there, which is to release to them information on detailed operations in the field."
The answer was doubly juvenile and undemocratic because, on the weekend, Defence Minister Peter MacKay answered the very same question in a straightforward manner (the answer was yes) on CTV's Question Period. The same government that would not think of being rude to a television host or viewing audience has no compunction about acting that way during the Question Period for which the TV show was named. It shows a lack of respect for the House.
Consider why the question is so obvious. The government's record on this file is one of concealment, denial and the telling of falsehoods. For instance, for nearly three months after the military stopped transferring the prisoners to the Afghans over torture concerns, the Canadian government neglected to tell Canadians. When the truth finally came out because of a document in a public court file, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokeswoman said the military had changed the policy without telling the government; a day later she recanted.
And consider why the question is necessary. Canada is in Afghanistan to support the rule of law; torture is always dehumanizing and unlawful. The Federal Court of Canada had just ruled on a legal challenge to Canada's transfer policy by Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The court said the challenge was moot because the transfers had stopped. But would the public know if the transfers resumed? The judge thought so. She also thought it's
important to know. Is the judge a traitor, too?
In Pictures:
