Madam Speaker, in his report the former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci agreed with the men we are talking about, finding that all three suffered treatment amounting to torture as the term is defined in the United Nations Convention against Torture, this, after the authorities are disputing their claims.
For years these men have said the questions they were asked under torture could only have come from Canada. The justice agreed, finding that in all three cases the information and questions in the hands of their interrogators did come from Canada. CSIS sent the questions to Mr. El Maati and Mr. Nureddin's interrogators. In Mr. Almalki's case, it was the RCMP that sent the questions.
These men also wanted to know how Canadian agencies used, back in Canada, their so-called confessions and the statements they were forced to make under torture. The justice gives the answer to that as well.
From Mr. El Maati's confession, information that agencies knew or should have known was likely the product of torture was then used to justify further telephone taps and search warrants back here in Canada. What is worse is that CSIS then used information obtained in the searches and sent more questions back to the Syrian interrogators. In the justice's words:
Syrian officials would likely have viewed these additional questions sent by Canadian officials as a “green light” to continue their interrogation and detention of Mr. Elmaati, rather than a “red light” to stop.
Would the member agree that what was revealed in this report is a vicious cycle of Canadian complicity in torture?