There
are a few questions that arise when reading the stories about the
legal fees taxpayers paid for Richard Colvin, the Canadian diplomat
and so-called whistleblower in the Afghanistan torture case of
Taliban prisoners.
A
Foreign Affairs official said the lawyer of the diplomat has
submitted two invoices for a total of $20,000 and that a third has
been submitted and approved for payment. Furthermore, the department
has put aside additional funds for a total of $50,000.
I
don't have enough elements to judge the appropriateness of these
payments and I am not aware of any legal implications related to his
testimony in front of the Parliamentary committee and, once properly
explained, they might be completely justified. Still, there are some
considerations that must be made.
The
first is related to the consistency of the legal bills. While it
might sound like a small amount of money, it's actually quite
sizeable if you consider that Colvin has not been a subject of any
investigation for illegal behaviour in any way, shape or form. It's
also true that some have questioned the appropriateness or
credibility of his testimony.
But
Colvin has always acted as a Canadian diplomat and, as such, it's
the Department of Foreign Affairs and its lawyers who should take
care of him. It might be that he felt his credibility was under
attack and he had to defend himself by hiring his own lawyer. But I
have some trouble accepting that. First, I'm not aware of any
reprisals against him. Second, during the debate on this issue, the
credibility of many people has been under attack, starting with
Defence Minister Peter MacKay. Does MacKay need to hire a lawyer to
defend himself? The testimony of many witnesses has been questioned
and this has been accepted, albeit grudgingly, by everybody. Why is
it that only Colvin's credibility cannot be doubted?
Again,
I'm not aware of any legal action taken against Colvin.
And
this leads me into the second part of my consideration: when
paranoia steps into situations like this it can obliterate any rules
and fair judgment.
For
example, Foreign Affairs, according to some reports, had initially
turned down Colvin's request. Immediately, in some newspapers, this
answer was characterized as an act of intimidation against the
whistleblower. It might be the case, but it might also be the case
that, according to the government rules, the request had to be
turned down.
Unfortunately,
because the media always look for victims and villains, and the
tendency of governments to cave in to public demands, we will never
know the details of this decision and the possibility of
establishing a precedent that, in the future, will cost the
taxpayers not thousands, but millions of dollars.
There
is also the possibility that the payment of the legal fees for
Colvin was never an issue, that Foreign Affairs had always intended
to foot the bill and that it's just the media creating hype about
something that didn't exist. In all cases, the whole issue doesn't
look good on Colvin, Foreign Affairs or the media in the eyes of the
taxpayers that, once again and perhaps wrongly, feel that they have
been taken to the cleaners.
In
other news, another political poll creates a natural buzz
The
political events of the last few weeks have confirmed a couple of
things we already knew.
According
to recent polls, the decision of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to
prorogue the House has not been well-received by Canadians and the
results we see in the polls are eloquent. In particular, an
Angus-Reid poll for The Toronto Star showed that Conservatives are
at 33 per cent, slightly down from another poll taken in
mid-January.
The
poll, however, also shows the Liberals at 29 per cent and the NDP at
19 per cent.
These
numbers also show that while the Conservatives are penalized by the
decision of the government to prorogue the House, Liberal Leader
Michael Ignatieff is not benefiting from it. And this says a lot
about the credibility of the Liberal leader among
Canadians.
