Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on November 25, 2009.BLAIR GABLE
Frustrated by the non-answers from the Prime Minister about who knew what and when regarding the alleged torture of Afghan prisoners, Michael Ignatieff posed this question: "What kind of government, what kind of Canadian government does nothing to prevent torture?"
For more than a week now, since the explosive testimony of senior Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin that the torture of prisoners was routine in Afghan jails, Question Period in the House of Commons has been consumed by this controversy.
The Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP have demanded a public inquiry into the allegations, there have been demands for documents, demands for answers as to whether the Prime Minister knew of the allegations and demands for answers as to why the government took 18 months from the first reports of torture to act.
Despite all of the questions, however, the Liberal Leader, his opposition colleagues and Canadians are no closer to the answers.
The House goes around and around in circles.
So what kind of government does nothing about torture?
Not his kind of government, Stephen Harper said. He dismissed the premise of Mr. Ignatieff's question.
"On the contrary, Canadian officials and soldiers have always acted when they have had credible evidence of abuse. That is absolutely clear," he said. "… any such slander of soldiers and Canadian officials without evidence is without basis."
He accused the Liberals of putting in place a weak transfer system when they were in government, which his government had to work quickly to improve.
The Prime Minister also repeated what he had said yesterday in the House - that Canadians officials acted when there was "credible evidence of abuse." Both he and his ministers maintain that Mr. Colvin's testimony is not credible.
When it came to NDP Leader Jack Layton's turn, he demanded again that Mr. Harper put "partisanship aside" and call a public inquiry.
Once again, Mr. Harper dismissed the demand, turning the tables on Mr. Layton by arguing he should put aside his partisan hat to hear from all witnesses who want to testify and "not try to censor their testimony."
He was referring, of course, to David Mulroney, who is now the Ambassador to China but was the Prime Minister's point man on Afghanistan. Mr. Mulroney has flown back from China to testify as he was named by Mr. Colvin as a senior official who told him he didn't want to hear the reports of abuse.
The parliamentary committee is considering whether to allow his testimony.
Although the government showed few cracks today, the opposition got caught once. It's tough to always be on the side of the angels.
In a testy exchange about giving up documents to the committee, Defence Minister Peter MacKay shot back at Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae that the Liberals were trying to raise money on the back of this crisis.
"What is interesting when we hear the allegations of partisanship is to note that the Liberal Party is now fundraising on the issue of Taliban transfers, trying to scare Canadians and further smear Canadian soldiers during their important work in Afghanistan," Mr. MacKay said.
The Defence Minister was referring to a just-released fundraising letter from Liberal Party national director Rocco Rossi asking for donations.
"It's textbook, U.S. Republican-style attack politics, except this time it's undermining Canada's mission to bring democracy and respect for the rule of law to Afghanistan," Mr. Rossi wrote, referring to the way in which the Tories are handling the issue. "We owe it to our troops, our diplomats, and to Canada's international reputation to find the truth about what happened. In times like these, no one can afford to sit on the political sidelines."
To which government backbenchers shouted: "Shame, shame."