COVERITLIVE.COM

11:28

Greetings, National Press Theatre/NDP/general political liveblogging enthusiasts! I'm in my usual seat, trying desperately to thaw my unmittened thumbs before the action gets underway; the room is starting to fill up with reporters, and various busy little NDbees are buzzing around, making sure we all have copies of their "timeline of leadership" on the detainee issue, and promising another as soon as the event gets underway.

11:35

Lots of chatter about what could happen next -- I think it's safe to say that this story will lead -- and very possibly consume the entirety of -- Question Period, not that the Hill news cycle ebbs and flows purely as a result of what happens during that 45 minute block. But what else? The NDP, it seems, has some thoughts on that: It begins with a P and ends with an Ublic Inquiry. So now you know what the 'big announcement' is. Try to look surprised!

11:38

And here's Paul Dewar! And Jack Harris, but Dewar gets the ball rolling with a brief recap of Colvin's testimony, and the most disturbing allegations therein, which he lauds as a courageous act, and excoriates the government for attempting to impugn his character, particularly given his current position at our DC embassy. His answer? Yes -- a public inquiry: the men and women of the Armed Forces, he says, deserve nothing less.

11:42

Dewar goes through what sounds like much the same statement in French, stressing that only a public inquiry can get to the bottom of this. With that, he hands the floor over to Harris, who points out that the situation in Afghanistan is more dangerous than ever, and reminds us that Canadian soldiers could have been put at risk of being found complicit in war crimes by a government that refused to stop ordering them to hand prisoners over to Afghan authorities. He dismisses the notion that this is "ancient history," as per the current defence minister: Why, he wonders, should they take the government's word that any problem with the transfer system has been fixed?

11:43

Harris notes that only a full inquiry would have the authority to call all officials, past and present, including former and current cabinet ministers. With that, he's ready to go to questions, but Dewar takes a moment to reiterate the bit about the ongoing problems plaguing the Afghanistan mission; there is also, he says, an important moral issue here: Canada cannot be complicit in torture, and the damage to our reputation could be serious, and lasting.

11:45

Anticipating what is likely to be the first question, Harris gives a preemptive answer: Why a public inquiry? Because a House committee isn't the right forum, and the MPCC investigation is too limited, and being hamstrung by government lawyers.

11:46

CTV's Roger Smith wonders if the NDP believes it is "inconceivable" that the ministers of the day were not aware of what was going on, or of Colvin's reports, and Dewar points out that any way you look at it, this is a major lapse in accountability -- were these "rogue deputy ministers" depriving Colvin of documents he needed, and telling him to quiet down?

11:48

Also from Smith: What about David Mulroney, currently the Canadian ambassador to China? Do these allegations hurt his credibility, or that of Canada on human rights? Dewar agrees that Mulroney needs to address the issue -- but so does the prime minister, who has been "going the plausible deniability route"; that, he suggests, is no longer open for transit.

11:50

Colleague Lunn asks about the Conservative contention that Colvin failed to inform the ministers of his concern; Harris waves that away as a "scattershot attack" on the credibility of the witness; he doesn't know if Colvin would have been in a position to do that directly, as there is, after all, a chain of command. Dewar calls yesterday's behaviour at commitee "reprehensible," particularly when some members seemed to be implying that he was 'a patsy for the Taliban'.

11:52

Dewar -- who is clearly genuinely angry, and getting more so as he describes the attempts to challenge Colvin, and previously, members of his party -- and Harris quotes Former Colleague Wells' explation of the Bucket Defence, which he seems to agree is operational here.

Page 1 Next >