Impromptu Semi-Liveblogging: The Chief of Defence Staff speaks ...

 At the moment, I can report that we have been cheerily informed, in both official languages, that our conference is slightly delayed, but will begin shortly, and our assumed patience is appreciated. Further bulletins as events warrant.

So, is this what they mean by military time? This teleconference was supposed to start at 11:30, then pushed to 11:45, and we're still waiting at ... okay, admittedly, only four minutes, and Ottawa is currently experiencing weather-related technical difficulties, but still. 

And here we go! The CDS is up -- and, as predicted by Colleague Fitz-Mo, he begins by citing his May 2007 statement on that whole prisoner-who-wasn't-a-prisoner transfer-that-wasn't-a-transfer controversy that showed up in the Globe this week. He's had his staff look into the incident again -- not that it hadn't been thoroughly looked into already -- who discovered new information that appeared to contradict his initial statement. 

Wait, is he saying that the section commander report suggests that the individual in question was in Canadian custody before being transferred to the Afghan authorities? That's what it sounds like. 

So after getting a "bad feel" off this Afghan, and subsequently searching him, and photographing him, the Canadian military handed him over to Afghan custody "in good faith." No, he doesn't know why he didn't find out about this before today -- thus causing him to inadvertently provide incorrect information in his most recent statement -- but he's going to look into it. 

Huh. 

The first question comes from Colleague Cudmore, who asks about the growing evidence that it was "common knowledge" that prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities were at risk of torture, and the general -- who, incidentally, is coming across with a lot of credibility, which is almost always the case when someone admits having made a mistake, however unintentional.  He agrees that it's something that has to be looked at, but doesn't give any specifics. 

In response to a question from Peter Harris, he agrees that it's time to investigate what else he might not know -- after all, he didn't discover this case of abuse until this morning -- although he doesn't give any specifics on how that should happen. He recalls that, during his years on the ground, he's learned that the first report is "always wrong," the second slightly less so, and it isn't until the third report that it starts to get close to right. 

According to Natynczyk, you have to keep in mind that all this was happening on a "complex battlefield," and the field reporter is trying to collate all that information and "sift it up". He wouldn't put a "malicious intent" on something like this -- these people are trying to do the best they can, he stresses. 

Another reporter asks: Can we conclude that at least one Canadian detainee was, in fact, abused by Afghan authorities? Well, the general isn't willing to go that far, although he agrees that one can, however, conclude that someone handed over by Canadian Forces was, in fact, abused

Over to the phones, and a question that I can't quite make out due to a crackly line, but to which the CDS responds by reiterating his intention of conducting a full investigation into what happened with this event, at least.  

The dulcet tones of CTV's Roger Smith fill the line; he notes that the NDP has demanded the defence minister resign, and suggests that the military seems to have "hung the minister hanging out to dry" with this latest revelation. The CDS doesn't address that directly, but he, too, wonders why they didn't have that report back in 2006, since he was responsible for providing the minister -- and Canadians -- with the best information they had at the time. Smith notes that a lot of people are likely asking why he didn't get that information -- and a document turning up the day after he testified, and faced some tough questions. Would he not  agree that the proper way to look into this is a public inquiry? The general won't give a yes or a no to that one -- it's not his position to tell the government what kind of inquiry to hold, he notes -- but he points out that when you see a discrepancy -- as was the case here -- "you want to drill down." 

A question about the Noonan report leads the general to note the difficulties in determining what terms like "turned over" mean, in context; asked if he thinks this may put Canadian soldiers at risk, he denies that the information he's providing today would do so. The entire chain of command understands what they did that day, he stresses -- and the soldiers involved did the right thing -- a courageous thing, even. 

The Globe's Steve Chase asks whether the minister has ever asked his CDS if there was "credible evidence" of torture, and Natyncyzk again describes the massive flow of information; it's not up to the CDS to provide that level of information. 

Oh, and he -- the general, that is, and please don't make me type his name again -- thinks it's very important that Canadians hear this information from him; he is, after all, personally responsible for the 2007 statement, and when he realized what was said then, and what he said yesterday, was wrong, he wanted to clear that up. 

To be clear, he notes, this information is a report from the battlefield, and doesn't describe a transfer that took place at the Kandahar airfield; Canadian Forces did, however, assume custody of that individual. CanWest's Juliet O'Neil's sharp ears picked up on the line in the report stated that photographs were initially taken in case of future abuse, which had "happened in the past," and wonders if that doesn't sort of confirm that has been said, as far as the prevalence of possible abuse. He also won't say whether any international laws have been broken -- he doesn't know what those soldiers knew on the ground, and it's "premature" to say whether that is the case, which is another reason why he wants an investigation to "shed some light" on what people knew on the ground. 

And -- that's it. Anyone else think that this afternoon's committee meeting is going to be even more interesting than we thought?