I have a follow-up question.
As somebody who doggedly asked questions again and again in the House and outside of the House, it was very shocking to me--I still feel really quite shocked by the fact--that I had a cabinet minister say to me, “Everything I hear is that this guy is really a bad cat, so you may want to be careful about being associated with his case”, which totally missed the point that there was no justice being applied here. Also, because of either deliberate leaks or this kind of casual treatment of the Arar situation, even journalists were saying, “Well, I don't know. From everything I hear, he sounds like a really bad cat, so why are you persisting in this?” In fact on one occasion two embassy personnel--at least people who identified themselves as Syrian embassy personnel--approached me after a meeting at which I had been calling for a full investigation into the Arar inquiry to say, “I think you want to be careful; this guy is really a bad cat.”
With all of that kind of discussion going on, I'd like to understand--because I can't believe that wouldn't have reached CSIS ears, seeing as they are in the intelligence business--why, given all of that, all of the pertinent officials would not have come out as one voice to say there is no possibility whatsoever of justice being brought to bear on this situation unless, as Monia Mazigh, Maher Arar's wife, said publicly again and again, we “bring him home and bring him to justice”.
What would account for the position CSIS took, that rather than bringing this person to justice they let all of this dangle out there with the distinct possibility that the information had been obtained under torture?