• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Oppostion calls for O' Connor's resignation

nowhere_man

Jr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Copied From CTV.ca

O'Connor apologizes for detainee statements
Updated Mon. Mar. 19 2007 5:58 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff


Opposition MPs were calling for the resignation of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, hours after he formally apologized in the House of Commons Monday for inaccurate comments he made about the monitoring of detainees handed over to the Afghanistan government.

O'Connor has received heavy criticism for wrongly claiming that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) observed detainees under the conditions of the prisoner handover agreement and that they would report back to Canadian officials if anything was wrong.

"I fully and without reservation apologize to the House for providing inaccurate information to members," O'Connor said Monday in Parliament. "I regret any confusion that may have resulted from these statements.

"The answers I gave were provided in good faith. I take full responsibility and do so without hesitation."

O'Connor also tabled letters to correct information he and other DND officials provided to the House of Commons.

In a report by The Globe and Mail earlier this month, the ICRC denied O'Connor's initial claims saying they were not responsible for monitoring the Canada-Afghanistan detainee-transfer agreement.

The ICRC said they only report findings to the country that is holding the detainees.

O'Connor made it clear Monday that he understood saying the "International Committee of the Red Cross is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainees transferred by Canada to the Afghan authorities."

The apology corrects numerous statements he made in the past, including one to the House on May 31, 2006:

"The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action."

Opposition reaction

Later, the federal opposition pounced on the defence minister during question period in the House of Commons.

Government House leader Peter Van Loan rejected a demand from Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe that O'Connor resign.

"For nearly a year, this government has been dealing with the transfer of detainees in Afghanistan," said Duceppe. "Every time the minister of defence replied to a question that he was relying on the Red Cross to ensure that the prisoners were all being treated well. But the Red Cross contradicted the minister recently.

"Will the prime minister ask that his minister of defence resign, as he misled the House of Commons for months on end?"

Van Loan replied by saying O'Connor corrected the record as soon as he was able.

Other MPs then took on what they said was the government's attempt to derail investigations into the treatment of detainees by Canadian soldiers themselves.

These came after the Defence Department said it could challenge the jurisdiction of the Military Police Complaints Commission to investigate allegations of wanton disregard for prisoners' welfare.

Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association lodged the complaint that on 18 occasions troops handed over prisoners knowing they would be abused.

There are also at least three investigations going on into the alleged beatings of three captured Taliban who were picked up near the village of Dukah, 50 kilometres west of Kandahar, last April 7.

"All of the investigations will proceed and we will wait for the outcome of every investigation,'' O'Connor told the House.

As late as March 4, 2007, O'Connor told CTV's Question Period that DND was "reliant on the International Red Cross to monitor" the treatment of detainees.

The relationship between the ICRC and the Canadian government became a divisive issue after it was revealed that three Afghan detainees -- key prisoners in an investigation into alleged abuse by Canadian soldiers -- disappeared.

Currently, Canada's Military Police Complaints Commission is investigating allegations that on 18 separate occasions troops handed over prisoners knowing that they would be abused.

The original prisoner handover agreement, signed by Gen. Rick Hillier in 2005, has been criticized because it does not allow Canada any say in the treatment of detainees once they are sent back to Afghan authorities.

To correct the situation, Canada finalized a deal with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission this month that will have them monitor and report on detainee abuse.

Under the new agreement, Canada is required to notify the ICRC and the Afghan commission every time a prisoner is transferred to local authorities.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070319/oconnor_detainees_070319/20070319?hub=Canada

 
Well, its not often that I agree with the Opposition...

But, I believe, that it would be in the interests of all involved, that Mr. O'Connor tender his own resignation. Not simply for this particular incident, but I feel that he has been an ineffective minister of national defence, having simply compounded the issue.

My 0.02.
 
Let me get this straight....A minister makes a statement based on wrong information (gee, I've done that) found out the correct answer, and stood up and said he was wrong....and now he should resign because he had the gonads to admit an error...hmmm...don't add up. Now if you want to be a hypocrite, then there is an argument  for him resigning over this, but it's a real stretch.
 
GAP said:
Let me get this straight....A minister makes a statement based on wrong information (gee, I've done that) found out the correct answer, and stood up and said he was wrong....and now he should resign because he had the gonads to admit an error...hmmm...don't add up. Now if you want to be a hypocrite, then there is an argument  for him resigning over this, but it's a real stretch.

+1

He had the nuts to own up, anyone else see the irony in owning up to errors coming from the Liberals?
 
Guess they want him to just be the fall guy. He can't be the only person responsible for what happened but the opposition seems to think he should take ALL of the blame?
 
Baloo said:
But, I believe, ...that Mr. O'Connor tender his own resignation. Not simply for this particular incident, but I feel that he has been an ineffective minister of national defence...
Maybe Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh wil cross the floor to take the job  ::)
 
Journeyman said:
Maybe Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh wil cross the floor to take the job  ::)

Oh, please. I realize that Dosanjh is a complete fool, totally inadequate for the job. But what exactly has O'Connor done? Aside from some half-baked schemes at the beginning of his tenure, making gaffes about the mission in Afghanistan and not fighting for an appreciable increase in the Forces' budget, I fail to see what he has accomplished. He owned up in this instance, and I applaud him for that. However, thats not what I am basing my opinions on, so I will continue to feel that he is not suited for his position.

Just because I don't want Mr. O'Connor at the reins doesn't mean I'm advocating for an even bigger mistake. Don't put words in my mouth.
 
I think the CPC (and CF) [and for that matter the Cdn public would be better off if O'Connor hit the road.
Laurie Hawn although a pilot  ;) would be a much better choice to replace the ignorant and arrogant O'Connor.
 
Harper is not going to change O'Connor until a total cabinate shuffle, which will be after the next election. To do otherwise leaves the impression the opposition was correct.
 
Well, that is not entirely fair. Rona Ambrose was released as minister of the environment after the hysteria surrounding the Clean Air Act. Why not this?

As I-6 stated, it does no good for the Canadian Forces, the government or the public, who need better information and clarification on the mission in Afghanistan, to keep Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor around any longer than necessary.
 
Compared to Rona Ambrose, O'Connor is doing spectacular. She couldn't or wouldn't control her department, could not articulate her position well, could answer little on her portfolio. The CCP had to dump her or lose credibility, that is not the case with O'Connor. You have to remember that people are comparing him to the last few MND's, and he compares favorably, in that case.

Does that mean that I support his staying in place. No. But neither do I want the CCP to lose credibility in the voter's eyes, I want them to get a majority, and you don't do that by dumping people that the opposition rails against, unless the public rails against it also. (which was the case with Ambrose)
 
Back
Top