Tom Flanagan, the University of Calgary political science professor, was an early and influential force in Stephen Harper's political career. Flanagan was one of the key organizers behind Harper's first-ever leadership race, to win the Canadian Alliance against Stockwell Day. He would eventually go on to be the national campaign manager for the Conservative Party's first election in 2004. He's been “outside the tent”, as they say, for a couple of years now, partly because he's been occasionally critical of Harper as prime minister.
On Monday, on CBC's Power and Politics show, Flanagan had some remarkably frank things to say about Harper's decision to prorogue. You can watch the whole segment at CBC's site. Here are some excerpts:
FLANAGAN: … the government's talking points really don't have much credibility. Everybody knows that Parliament was prorogued in order to shut down the Afghan inquiry, and the trouble is that the government doesn't want to explain why that was necessary. Personally I think it was a highly defensible action, but instead of having an adult defence of it, the government comes up with these childish talking points. So then you try and backfill with other stuff that doesn't make much sense either. So it's a self-created problem.
Host Evan Solomon: You said there's good reasons he could have justified the prorogation of Parliament. What are those reasons? You called it he could have had an adult conversation. What is that conversation?
FLANAGAN: Well, the conduct of foreign policy and military affairs constitutionally belongs to the executive. That's why the Governor General is, for example, commander-in-chief of the armed forces. You can't fight a war by direction from backbench MPs of the opposition. The opposition parties are trying to make political capital out of something that happened several years ago.
It's not surprising that the Bloc (Quebecois) would do it because they don't believe in Canada. So they don't mind trying to damage the Canadian Forces. And the NDP doesn't believe in force, so I guess it's not surprising that they would. But it's the Liberals that created the mission in Afghanistan. It's the Liberals that created the transfer agreement under which these alleged atrocities happened. So I think it's shameful for the Liberals to be trying to politicize it as they have, and I think that if the Prime Minister would explain this and go on the counterattack against the liberals, I think it would work. But he's — as he sometimes does — he likes simple talking points about [the] Olympics or whatever the talking point of the day is and it skirts — just avoids the real issue. I'd rather see the debate joined on the real issue but looks like it's not going to happen at least for a while.
I'm tired of hearing Conservatives and their advisors continue to make this false link between criticism of the government's handling of Afghan detainees and “trying to damage the Canadian Forces,” as Flanagan puts it. No link exists.
One could argue successfully that by knowingly allowing a poorly thought out policy to remain in force, the Conservatives put the troops in hard's way. Let's remember that the Geneva Convention is signed by a country to guarantee that any of its troops captured by the enemy can expect humane treatment. “We treat your troops well, and you do the same for ours,” is the basic concept here.
Now, if an enemy combatant knows that he/she will be tortured if captured, that makes them fight harder — and possibly to the death — out of fear of what may happen if they are taken prisoner. Plus, if we hand detainees over to authorities that we know will use torture, what do you think might happen to our troops if they are captured by the enemy?
Seriously, this “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” attitude by the Conservatives on the detainee issue exposes Canadian troops to much more risk than the opposition parties' pointed questions in the House or at committee.
But, I do love the fact that no matter how much the Conservatives bungled this issue, it's still the Liberal's fault because they signed the original agreement. Apparently, the Harper government is not responsible to ensure that existing agreements actually work. And no stewardship is needed on any files or agreements that date back to their predecessors?
I guess this kind of thinking is why they blew the surplus in short order after getting elected?
Mr. Akin, congratulations on posting both sides of the coin, as it were, of Mr. Flanagan's comment, unlike other journalists, who shall remain nameless.
I am referring to the part where Flanagan says:
“You can't fight a war by direction from backbench MPs of the opposition. The opposition parties are trying to make political capital out of something that happened several years ago.“
It was back to the old Flanagan rhetoric that we know and love today with Tom Clark, tho looking a little less relaxed than he did yesterday.
“He's been “outside the tent”, as they say, for a couple of years now”
Actually David, it was almost five years ago that he left, although he did come back briefly to work on the 2006 campaign. Seems just like yesterday, doesn't it.
And Ottawa Jeff, remind me again, exactly when did the Taliban sign the Geneva Convention ?
JAD said: And Ottawa Jeff, remind me again, exactly when did the Taliban sign the Geneva Convention ?
And if the enemy doesn't abide by international agreements, then we shouldn't either, that logic is the reason our soldiers are at risk of torture. But the argument is actually very simple. We went over there to stop terrorism by exporting our beliefs, such as the charter of rights and freedoms. IF we don't uphold our beliefs when it is hard, ie the enemy doesn't play by the same rules then what exactly are we trying to export to them? Much Music? Hockey? Remember that this is counter insurgency, meaning that the Taliban are Afghan. The people we are trying to convince that our way of life is better. IF we want this to happen, we really shouldn't be looking the other way as the Afghan government tortures their cousins, brothers, best friends, etc. Put yourself in their shoes, which side would you support? If the government tortured my brother, I know I would support anyone fighting them, as opposed to helping them.