Source: CTV News
URL: [link]
Date: April 2, 2009
OTTAWA -- A senior CSIS official has backpedalled on his admission that the spy agency uses information extracted through torture.
In a letter to the Commons public safety committee Thursday, Geoffrey O'Brian of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said his comments to MPs this week "may have provoked some confusion."
"I wish to clarify for the committee that CSIS certainly does not condone torture and that it is the policy of CSIS to not knowingly rely upon information that may have been obtained through torture," O'Brian wrote.
He is a lawyer who provides advice on legislative issues at the spy service, where he has worked since its inception almost 25 years ago.
The letter contrasted sharply with his testimony at a committee hearing on Tuesday
O'Brian told MPs then that the agency would use information gathered through torture in the rare instance that it could prevent a catastrophic terrorist plot like the 1985 Air India bombing or the 9-11 attacks."The simple truth is, if we get information which can prevent something like the Air India bombing, the Twin Towers -- whatever, frankly -- that is the time when we will use it despite the provenance of that information."
O'Brian's comments sparked criticism of CSIS from opposition MPs and human-rights advocates. They also prompted Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan to quiz CSIS director Jim Judd at a Tuesday night meeting about the spy agency's policy on torture.
On Thursday, Van Loan told the committee he's willing to issue a written directive to CSIS prohibiting the use of information from torture -- a signal welcomed by NDP public safety critic Jack Harris.
"The greater the clarity, the greater the opportunity that's going to be followed," Harris said.
But Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland said he still believes O'Brian's initial comments.
"He was very clear over two hours of testimony that there were circumstances where CSIS would use information obtained through torture, and where they would continue to work with countries that we know to be involved with torture," Holland said.
"So if somebody as senior and as knowledgeable as Mr. O'Brian could be -- if we believe it -- misguided, well, who else is? If Mr. O'Brian can't get it straight, what do people inside of CSIS know?"
At a joint appearance before the committee Thursday, both Van Loan and Judd played down O'Brian's initial comments.
Van Loan suggested O'Brian had been engaging in a philosophical discussion.
Judd said O'Brian "may have been confused" in his remarks: "My supposition is that he was venturing into a hypothetical."
An investigation by the watchdog over CSIS concluded last year the spy agency might be using "information obtained by torture."
The Security Intelligence Review Committee found CSIS's concern has focused on the impact that torture might have on the reliability of information it uses, rather than obligations under the Charter of Rights, the Criminal Code and international treaties "that absolutely reject torture."
It stemmed from evidence CSIS entered in the case of client Mohamed Harkat, slated for deportation to his native Algeria under a national security certificate.
Judd allowed Thursday that CSIS may have made use of information from torture in the past, but added "our policies and practices" have changed.
A federal inquiry by Justice Dennis O'Connor into the Maher Arar torture affair made 23 recommendations -- including several aimed at CSIS -- on information sharing, training and monitoring of security probes.
O'Connor said in 2006 that policies must include specific directions "aimed at eliminating any possible Canadian complicity in torture, avoiding the risk of other human rights abuses and ensuring accountability."
He also said information should never be provided to a foreign country where there is a credible risk that it will cause or contribute to the use of torture.
Judd said Thursday that CSIS has implemented the inquiry recommendations.
O'Connor's inquiry also called for a new family of watchdogs to keep an eye on CSIS, the RCMP and other security agencies.
Van Loan told the committee it would be "wise and prudent" of the government to wait for a report on the 1985 Air India bombing that killed scores of Canadians before overhauling national intelligence oversight.
But Opposition MPs accused the government of stalling.
"Why would you wait for yet another inquiry?" asked Harris.
The Commons committee is studying the government's response to the O'Connor inquiry and a more recent commission on the overseas imprisonment of three other Arab-Canadian men.
Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was jailed in Damascus and tortured into giving false confessions about terrorist ties.
The inquiry into his case found information supplied by Canada very likely set the stage for his ordeal.
The federal government apologized to Arar in 2007 and gave him more than $10 million in compensation.
Both Judd and Van Loan declined to apologize to the other three men jailed in Syria -- Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin -- because doing so could interfere with lawsuits they have filed against the government.
Harris noted that in 2006 then-RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli apologized to Arar at the same Commons committee, even though the Ottawa engineer was suing the government.
© 2009 CTVglobemedia All Rights Reserved.
