Stalling on the Afghan Detainee Issue

The terms of reference for Iacobucci do nothing to illuminate the scandal surrounding the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan.

What does a government do when it wants to hide a deeply troubling topic? It issues a press release about it on a Saturday afternoon. That is what the Harper government did with the much anticipated terms of reference for former Justice Frank Iacobucci last Saturday.

The terms of reference give a bare outline of the task before Iacobucci. He will essentially act as an advisor to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on which documents relating to the Afghan detainee issue should be released and which should be withheld to protect Canada's international relations, national defence, or national security.

Did this “please don't notice me” release satisfy the demands of the opposition that the executive deliver all relevant, uncensored documents to the Afghanistan Committee examining the alleged transfer of detainees to Afghan forces to be tortured? The answer is no. It was not long before the opposition clamored that the terms of reference fell far short of their requirements.

For one thing, they pointed out that there is no time limit for the completion of Iacobucci's work, reinforcing the suspicion that this is a stall tactic by the Harper government. It is also clear that it is the justice minister who will make the final decision on which documents will be delivered to the Afghan Committee.

In effect, the terms of reference are a cover for the Harper government's belief that it is above the House of Commons and indeed the Constitution of Canada.

What is also more than insulting for the opposition is the inference from the terms of reference that the members of the Afghan Committee cannot be trusted with uncensored documents that may relate to Canada's international relations, national defence, or national security without two levels of filtering, first by Iacobucci and then by the justice minister. The terms of reference attempt to justify this position with the absurd argument that only by giving the justice minister the final decision on which documents to release can the government be held to account. This is the equivalent of leaving the wolves guarding the coop in the interest of protecting the safety of the chickens.

The British and American governments have released the most sensitive information relating to their military operations, including allegations and legal memos relating to torture, to their elected officials under conditions that they take oaths of secrecy and it happens in private hearings. The Harper government, in contrast, continues to thumb its nose at the fundamentals of Canadian democracy and the Constitution, and is now drawing into their machinations one of Canada's most distinguished jurists.

What kind of horrible secrets is the Harper government so desperate to hide from Canadians that it is willing to undermine the foundations on which this country was built?