If I could pose the question, what we're hearing in the conclusions of Justice Iacobucci--which do follow the conclusions of Justice O'Connor--which I think are very clear, is that intelligence officials are saying that we can't know whether or not this information was obtained by torture.
If you do a Google search of Syria, you're going to know they engage in torture. There's probably a pretty good chance that if they're coming out of a Syrian prison, they're going to be tortured. You don't need to really study that one too deeply.
What I'm concerned by is that we continually have officials, who are still coming before committee, and ambiguous statements about how we engage other countries in torture, as recently as the transfer of Afghan detainees.
So as the oversight body, given that, and given that we are supposed to have a ministerial directive that prohibits that exchange, do you not think it's important to review that? Are you not concerned by the fact that this practice seems to be ongoing and continuing, despite a ministerial directive in place?