SIRC - the other board members

Big stink this week because in addition to being SIRC Chair, Chuck Strahl is also a registered lobbyist for Enbridge and for Alberta Frog Lake Energy Resources Corp, a First Nations firm that has partnered with a Chinese-company to drill for oil. This would probably never have blown up the way it did this week if ...

• if the Harper government as a whole didn't behave like pro-pipelines lobbyists and activists themselves,  
• if CSIS, the spy agency which SIRC oversees, didn't spy on anti-pipelines activists, and 
• if CSIS director Richard Fadden hadn't publicly expressed concerns in 2010 about "public officials and cabinet ministers in BC/Alberta being under the influence of China"

Strahl has stated he would recuse himself from any SIRC oversight of CSIS operations as they pertain to Enbridge - which not only doesn't seem very useful in a watchdog chair but could have been a useful reason to appoint Strahl to SIRC in the first place. Anytime SIRC is looking into whether CSIS is complying with the law in operations Strahl has a financial interest in, Strahl will be out in the hall.

Kady O'Malley pointed out that Strahl however is only one of five SIRC board members. 
Ok. How many of the other four of Steve's SIRC appointments also have grounds to be out in the hall when any oversight of CSIS operations re pipelines activities come up?

Denis Losier - appointed to SIRC from 2008-03-17 to 2014-03-16 is a member of the board at Enbridge Gas NB, a subsidiary of Enbridge Inc.

L. Yves Fortier - appointed to SIRC from 2013-08-08 to 2018-08-07 is a former director at TransCanada Pipelines

Deborah Grey - appointed April 2013 to April 2018
I don't know how former Chilliwack MP Strahl came to lobby for the First Nations Frog Lake Energy Resources in Alberta. Possibly through his contacts as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs or via the former SIRC chair till 2010 Gary Filmon, who is on the board of directors of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd which Frog Lake Energy Resources thanks as a partner. But fun fact - before Grey and Strahl led a Reform breakaway group together opposed to Stockwell Day in 2001 and prior to her distinguished career as a Reform MP, Deborah Grey was a high school teacher for ten years at Frog Lake Indian Reserve.

The fifth member, Frances Lankin's term is up this month. As CEO of United Way Toronto from 2001 to 2011, probably her partnership with Enbridge in the annual Enbridge CN Tower Stair Climb for United Way fundraiser would not be enough to put her in the hall.
It will be interesting to see who Steve nominates to replace her.


Additional ...
In his remarks to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence three weeks ago, Strahl tentatively endorsed a parliamentary oversight committee of intelligence agencies as recommended by Justices O'Connor and Iacobucci and like other Five Eyes partners have. "Not reinventing the wheel," he said, " just filling in the missing bits" - possibly alongside SIRC, with the proviso that such a body should retain independence of the minister. He did however mention this caveat if such a body is peopled by MPs: 

"... careful of what you ask for because you might actually get it. In this case, once you're privy to top-secret information, you can no longer stand for your constituents or your region or your province or anyone else and say, "I am appalled at what's happening in whatever," because now you are privy to top-secret information you're not allowed to talk about."

I blogged about his testimony at the time - which impressed me with its forthrightness - but I recommend reading the full transcript yourself, via Lux ex Umbra, your one-stop for all things spooky.
.

The Manning Spy Watchdog Centre for Building Northern Gateway

The Vancouver Observer is reporting that last month former Reform/Alliance/Con MP Chuck Strahl added Enbridge "Northern Gateway Pipeline lobbyist" to the list of other part-time jobs he has accrued since leaving Harper's cabinet two years ago:

• Chair of  SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee watchdog which oversees CSIS, for five years starting in June 2012
• Chair of the Manning Centre for Building Conservatives since April 2013
• two year election campaigner for Christy Clark, according to her, until the obvious conflict of interest went public a month before her re-election in May

It's a good article and I'm not going to rehash it here so go read.

A few additional notes :

In October 2011, the Vancouver Sun reported that Strahl had already bagged Enbridge as a client at his new private consultancy and quoted him as a self-described pipeline supporter.

G&M: CSIS, RCMP monitored activist groups before Northern Gateway hearings

"The National Energy Board worked with the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service to monitor the risk posed by environmental groups and First Nations in advance of public hearings into Enbridge Inc.’s Northern Gateway project."

So. Enbridge lobbyist and SIRC Chair Chuck Strahl monitors CSIS which in turn monitors the Canadians who don't want the Enbridge pipeline he is lobbying for.

Tim Groves at the Dominion, Oct 2012, before he moved to The Guardian : 

"The Canadian government has been orchestrating briefings that provide energy companies with classified intelligence from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and other agencies, raising concerns that federal officials are spying on environmentalists and First Nations in order to provide information to the businesses they criticize.

The secret-level briefings have taken place twice a year since 2005."

In Nov 2010, the RCMP and CSIS assisted the department of Natural Resources in organizing a daylong event at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa. From a director of energy infrastructure security at Natural Resources :

"These forums provide excellent opportunities for energy sector stakeholders to develop ongoing trusting relations which facilitate the exchange of pertinent information 'off the record'."

Which hat would Strahl be wearing when he comes to review joint CSIS/energy sector stakeholder events like that? His Christy Enbridge lobbyist hat or his SIRC spy watchdog hat?

And what is SIRC's stance on closer ties being fostered between private sector tarsands giants like Enbridge and the spying agency it oversees? 

Strahl's predecessor at SIRC, disgraced fraudster Arthur Porter,  advocated for closer ties in 2011 :

"Today the Service [CSIS] is also reaching out to non-traditional partners, such as the private sector."

"In SIRC’s opinion, an effective strategy would involve identifying those sectors with the greatest potential to be of investigative value to the Service ... the Service strives to engage and support the private sector’s security needs in other ways. Efforts are also underway to increase the number of security clearances for individuals in the private sector."

Clearly, Porter saw the advantage in mining the private sector for intel in exchange for assurances regarding their security, as did former CSIS chief Jim Judd, head of the agency Porter was supposed to be monitoring, as quoted in the Review of CSIS's Private Sector Relationships (SIRC Study 2010-2012)


The ridiculous thing about Strahl registering as an Enbridge lobbyist with the BC gov in order to "arrange a meeting between Minister Rich Coleman and representatives from Northern Gateway Pipelines" is - does anyone really think Coleman and Enbridge need help finding each other?
.
h/t : Strahl's 2012 by-election campaign ad at top via Jennifer Woodroff.
.

Inside the Senate Committee on National Security

On Monday the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence heard from the watchdogs of both CSIS and CSEC - Chuck Strahl, Chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), and CSEC Commissioner Jean-Pierre Plouffe.

Here Plouffe is explaining to Senator Romeo Dallaire why Justice Mosley slapped down CSIS for outsourcing their spying to their Five Eyes partners (US, UK, NZ, and Australia) via CSEC. Plouffe :

"CSIS has a jurisdiction which is limited to Canada, whereas CSE's jurisdiction reaches abroad. So CSIS, in accomplishing its activities, believes it has need of assistance from allies abroad and in order to obtain this, CSIS has to go through CSE because CSE deals directly with allies. In Justice Mosley's decision, CSIS asked for assistance from CSE because both individuals in question were abroad. And what happened is unfortunately CSIS did not disclose to Justice Mosley that they sought assistance from Five Eyes. So it is legal for CSE to call on the Five Eyes, however in this case there was a warrant from the court that specified it be within Canada not abroad. Mosley said CSIS was lacking in candor and good faith." 

Plouffe added this has "complicated" CSEC's relationship with the NSA and other partners.
The impression you get from listening to Plouffe is that the Five Eyes partners share just about anything and everything, with the Canadian contact being CSEC.

CSIS watchdog Chuck Strahl addressed this as problem for the privacy of Canadians, saying "we must put legal caveats on CSIS/CSE-generated intel" shared with Five Eyes partners and third parties :

 "CSIS is concerned with erosion of control of intelligence given to CSEC and by extension to the Five Eyes community." 

"CSIS has developed information privacy protocols with only one Five Eyes partner."

While Strahl doesn't reveal which Five Eyes partner it is we do have a privacy protocol with, a 2009 Memo of Understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart does mention one between NSA and Canada. This was the Snowden-leaked doc which revealed an NSA agreement purporting to share raw unfiltered intelligence data with Israel, who is not a Five Eyes member, with the proviso that Israel weed out intel about Americans and other Five Eyes citizens .

Or as Strahl put it : "A Five Eyes partner may act independently on CSIS-originated info."

He said his office was limited to the oversight of CSIS and so his investigators were unable to follow threads that led into CSEC. Likewise Plouffe said his office could not stray into investigating CSIS. 

This was not, Strahl said, what O'Connor and Iacobucci had in mind when they each recommended a joint oversight, adding there is "no provision in current legislation, which is 30 years old, for parliamentary oversight", the only Five Eyes partner not to have any.

On Abdelrazik, Strahl said CSIS created an "exaggerated threat assessment" and "inappropriately disclosed classified information". 

The senators seemed far more concerned with what new measures had been put in place to prevent a "Snowden nightmare" in Canada than in the content his leaks revealed. They didn't ask a single question of Plouffe or Strahl about spying on the G20 in Canada and Brazil or allowing the NSA to build backdoors into internet encryption under our watch.

Not one.

For his part, Strahl said "Snowden has caused us to question how we work and that's good."

Asked what possessed him to come out of retirement last year to head up SIRC, Strahl laughed and said it was classified. 

I'll bet. SIRC has had an interim chair since the former SIRC chair and fraudster appointed by Harper, Dr. Arthur Porter, resigned in disgrace in 2011.

.
Dec 20 Update : Plouffe's explanation above - on Justice Mosley chastising CSEC/CSIS for outsourcing their spying on Canadians to Five Eyes partners - goes public :

CSIS asked foreign agencies to spy on Canadians, kept court in dark, judge says

Canada's spy agencies chastised for duping courts

Canada’s spy agencies have deliberately misled judges to expand their eavesdropping powers unlawfully

Update : Senate Committee transcript up.
.

Steve and the multinational man of mystery

I do hope someone is securing the rights to make a Made In Canada thriller about Stephen Harper's spy watchdog and his various business associates.

I'm referring of course to the Honorable Dr. Arthur Porter, "His Excellency, Ambassador Plenipotentiary, Republic of Sierra Leone" and also "Member, Queen’s Privy Council for Canada” for life.

Really, this cast of characters has everything -  spies, dictators, terrorists, Russians, drug cartels, arms dealers, diamond mines, bribery, money laundering.  

Here's a storyboard to get you started ...

2008 : Dr. Arthur Porter is appointed to five-member CSIS watchdog committee, SIRC, on recommendation of PMO. 

June 2009  SIRC committee member Arthur Porter appointed to lead investigation into complaint CSIS 'was complicit in the detention' of Abdelrazik" six years previously.
Investigation goes nowhere.

June 2010  Porter promoted to Chair of SIRC by Harper

Also in June 2010, Porter wired $200,000 in personal funds to former Israeli agent and international lobbyist/arms dealer Ari Ben-Menashe to secure a $120-million grant from Russia to build Russian port facilities in Porter's native Sierra Leone where his family have diamond mining interests. The offshore payment was made via one of Porter's private companies, the Africa Infrastructure Group, but the deal fell through. 
Mr. Ben-Menashe was charged in the US in 1989 with illegally attempting to sell three military transport airplanes to Iran but acquitted on the grounds he was acting on official Government of Israel business. 

Ben-Menashe testified he had personally witnessed George H. W. Bush attend a meeting with members of the Iranian government in Paris in October 1980, as part of a covert Republican Party operation — the so-called October Surprise — to have the 52 U.S hostages then held in Iran remain there until President Jimmy Carter, who was negotiating their release, had lost the 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan.

His house in Montreal was fire-bombed this past December.

During Porter's 2004 -2011 tenure as CEO at McGill University Health Centre, two former top executives at SNC-Lavalin allegedly authorized $22.5 million in payments related to getting the contract for a $1.3-billion superhospital expansion to Porter who was head of the selection committee. Payments were made to Sierra Asset Management Inc in the Bahamas at a bank run by a business associate of Porter's.

Nov 2011 Porter resigned from SIRC following the NaPo story on his dealings with Ben-Menashe and a month later from his position as CEO of McGill University Health Centre, where he left behind $300,000 in personal debts and a hospital with a $115-million deficit .
According to the McGill Daily, Porter sold the condo McGill fronted him half a million bucks to buy without paying back the $800,000 loan on the place.

Feb 2013 Arrest warrants issued for Porter for defrauding the government, accepting bribes, and money laundering in connection with alleged SNC Lavalin $22-million kickback to Porter via Sierra Assets Management to secure the hospital contract.  Also on the arrest warrant :

• Former MUHC director Yanai Elbaz.
• Former CEO of SNC-Lavalin Pierre Duhaime
• Former SNC-Lavalin VP Riadh Ben Aissa, in jail in Switzerland for the past year on suspicion of making bribes in return for contracts in Libya
• Jeremy Morris, Sierra Asset Management, Bahamas, 

SNC-Lavalin signed a deal to award Sierra Assets Management, formed in November 2009, 3 payments totaling $10-million for consultancy fees regarding a gas project in Algeria. The $1.2 billion Rhourde Nouss gas project deal was awarded to SNC  the same year by Sonatrach, Algeria’s national oil company.
Last Monday Algerian police raided SNC offices in Algiers regarding "allegations of bribery and kickbacks involving Sonatrach and public officials and agents hired by SNC-Lavalin to procure a number of large infrastructure projects."
FINTRAC, the Canadian federal agency that monitors money laundering, is investigating a trail of SNC payments to Porter and later Sierra Asset Management from 2007 to June 2012, six months after Porter left MUHC.


On May 27 Porter and his wife were arrested in Panama and are fighting extradition to Canada. Porter has stated he is too ill to leave his home in the Bahamas to fly all the way to Montreal to face charges, however he was seemingly well enough to embark on a business trip 1½ times that distance from Bahamas to Antigua, but was unfortunately nabbed en route in Panama.

Porter's Panamanian lawyer, Ricardo Bilonick Paredes, a former ambassador of Panama, testified at Manuel Noriega's 1991 trial that he :

"acted as a middleman between Manuel Noriega and Colombian drug cartels in the 1980s ... passing millions of dollars in bribes to Noriega, in exchange for the ability to fly planes packed with tons of cocaine from Panama to the United States."

Dr. Karol Sikora, Porter’s business partner at his medical cancer clinic in the Bahamas, was hired by the son of the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2009 to give a medical opinion on the condition of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrah - in prison for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.  Sikora secured al-Megrah's release from prison on compassionate grounds, testifying that he only had 3 months to live. Al-Megrahi lived another three years .

Currently Sikora is arguing Porter's self-diagnosed stage four lung cancer means he will not live long enough to stand trial.

Some have questioned how Steve could have displayed the poor judgement to appoint Dr. Arthur Porter, multinational man of mystery, to head up a sensitive position at SIRC giving him access to both Canadian and American intelligence.

You're kidding me, right?

May22 2014 update : National Post :
Arthur Porter and associate split $22.5M payout in ‘biggest corruption fraud in the history of Canada,’ Quebec inquiry hears

SNC-Lavalin made threats against Spanish bid rival

.

Everybody loves a SIRCus

In response to media reports that CSIS had been complicit in the detention of Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik in Sudan, outgoing CSIS director Jim Judd requested that CSIS watchdog and review panel, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, "investigate and report on the performance of the Service’s [CSIS's] duties and functions with respect to the case of Abousofian Abdelrazik at the earliest opportunity". That was in March 2009.

Three months later Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn ruled that CSIS was indeed "complicit in the detention" of Abdelrazik in Sudan. Then in September of this year, newly released CSIS documents revealed the spy agency's attempts to delay Abdelrazik's return to Canada long enough for the CIA to spirit him off to Guantanamo, even as Foreign Affairs diplomats were arranging for his return, making this the biggest known Canadian  intelligence agency scandal since Maher Arar.

So how's that full investigation by SIRC requested by Judd coming along then? 

Dead in the water apparently.

Steve promoted Dr. Arthur Porter, the SIRC committee member charged with leading the Abdelrazik investigation, to chair of the committee in June last year, and then accepted his resignation this month following a NaPo story regarding Dr Porter's offshore cash payment to a former Israeli arms trafficker - now acting as a lobbyist for the Russian Federation - to sell infrastructure deals to Sierra Leone where Porter has mining interests and holds the title of "His Excellency, Ambassador Plenipotentiary, Republic of Sierra Leone".

"I wish to state for the record that I have fulfilled with diligence my mandate," 

wrote Dr. Porter in his letter of resignation to Steve.


... which got me to wondering just what was so gosh-darned important in SIRC's mandate last year that it bumped the Abdelrazik investigation requested by CSIS right off the list.

From the Security Intelligence Review Committee 2010-2011 Annual Report
Checks and Balances : Viewing Security Intelligence Through the Lens of Accountability

The Lens of Accountability interested itself in five SIRC-initiated reviews and three public complaints.
The Reviews :

~ a pitch for "retooloing" SIRC to allow for "independent review" of Canada's other intelligence agencies as well as CSIS

~ "SIRC also followed through on its commitment to pay close attention to CSIS’s expanding foreign investigative activities. Although overseas operations unfold in unique circumstances and present different challenges, CSIS should strive to ensure that the management of its operations abroad mirrors, to the extent practicable, the standards of administration and account­ability that are maintained domestically."

~ "Today the Service is also reaching out to non-traditional partners, such as the private sector."

"In SIRC’s opinion, an effective strategy would involve identifying those sectors with the greatest potential to be of investigative value to the Service. ... the Service strives to engage and support the private sector’s security needs in other ways. Efforts are also underway to increase the number of security clearances for individuals in the private sector."

~ "an appreciation of the way in which the internet supports CSIS’s activities"
although it notes :

" At issue was the volume of information pertaining to young people being retained by CSIS as part of its operational reporting."

~ A positive review of CSIS’s cooperation "with a “Five Eyes” partner" - which could be either the US, UK, Australia, or NZ.

Note to SIRC : If you have to use evasive terminology like "a Five Eyes partner" in your "positive review" rather than actually name the country you are feeling positive about, it's not really much of a public account, is it?

~ "a positive impression of RCMP–CSIS cooperation"

"The relationship between CSIS and the RCMP, in particular, has moved to the forefront following the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act (2001). As a result of this legislation, CSIS and the RCMP have had to work more closely together"

~ "Canada is experiencing levels of espionage compa­rable to the height of the Cold War."

~ Afghan detainees.

" In particular, SIRC’s review found no indication that in the period during which CSIS conducted detainee interviews, CSIS officers posted to Afghanistan had any first-hand knowledge of the alleged abuse, mistreatment or torture of detainees by Afghan authorities."

however :

"SIRC noted that CSIS did not comprehen­sively document its role in the interviews of Afghan detainees by keeping records that would confirm the numbers and details of all of the detainee interviews"

SIRC also handles citizen complaints against CSIS. This year three were investigated and written up, which included the following complaints :
CSIS failing to identify itself as CSIS, harrassment of family members, suggesting to interviewee that a lawyer was not necessary, delay in providing security assessment for a site access, and allegedly providing an "unjust, unfounded, and unethical" assessment to Citizenship and Immigration Canada regarding  a complainant's application for permanent  resident status.

Aside from providing some gentle advice, like that in its reports to Citizenship and Immigration Canada "the Service not include certain information unless it has been corroborated", SIRC did not find anything unduly alarming in its public report of the three out of 48 new and carried-over complaints.


I'm sure the four out of five health industry experts that comprise SIRC's review panel on CSIS did the best they could with their unwieldy $3-million Lens of Accountability. Unfortunately that lens is looking the other way in the case Abousfian Abdelrazik, the largest CSIS intelligence scandal since Maher Arar.
.

Update : SIRC reviewed CSIS re Abdelrazik for their 2012-2013 report, covering the period from March 2003 to December 2004. 
It found "no indication that CSIS had requested Sudanese authorities to arrest or detain Abousfian Abdelrazik" , but that "CSIS inappropriately and, in contravention of CSIS policy, disclosed personal and classified information." Further, "in mid-2004 in preparation for Mr. Abdelrazik’s possible release, SIRC found that CSIS assessments to its government partners contained exaggerated and inaccurately conveyed information" and that "CSIS excessively reported, and hence retained in its operational databases, a significant amount of information not related to the threat, originating from individuals who were not targets."
.

Federal Court orders Ottawa to bring Abdelrazik home

Federal Court Judge Russell Zinn found that Abdelrazik is "as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists" and has ordered the government to facilitate Abdelrazik's return within 30 days.
He also found CSIS "complicit" in Abdelrazik's detention by Sudanese authorities six years ago.

Some quotes from Justice Zinn's decision in Federal Court June 4, 2009

ABOUSFIAN ABDELRAZIK v THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

"Mr. Abdelrazik lives in the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan, his country of citizenship by birth, fearing possible detention and torture should he leave this sanctuary, all the while wanting but being unable to return to Canada, his country of citizenship by choice. He lives by himself with strangers while his immediate family, his young children, are in Montreal.
He is as much a victim of international terrorism as the innocent persons whose lives have been taken by recent barbaric acts of terrorists.

I find that Mr. Abdelrazik’s Charter right to enter Canada has been breached by the respondents.

I find that Mr. Abdelrazik is entitled to an appropriate remedy which, in the unique circumstances of his situation, requires that the Canadian government take immediate action so that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the facts found establishing the breach and the unique circumstances of Mr. Abdelrazik’s circumstances, the remedy requires that this Court retain jurisdiction to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik is returned to Canada.

One cannot prove that fairies and goblins do not exist any more than Mr. Abdelrazik or any other person can prove that they are not an Al-Qaida associate. It is a fundamental principle of Canadian and international justice that the accused does not have the burden of proving his innocence, the accuser has the burden of proving guilt. In light of these shortcomings, it is disingenuous of the respondents to submit, as they did, that if he is wrongly listed the remedy is for Mr. Abdelrazik to apply to the 1267 [U.N.]Committee for de-listing and not to engage this Court. The 1267 Committee regime is, as I observed at the hearing, a situation for a listed person not unlike that of Josef K. in Kafka’s The Trial, who awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed to him or the reader, is arrested and prosecuted for an unspecified crime..

Then following a review of correspondence between officials in DFAIT and consular officials in Khartoum :

I find, on the balance of probabilities, on the record before the Court, that CSIS was complicit in the initial detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese.
This finding is based on the record before the Court on this application. The role of CSIS may subsequently be shown to be otherwise if and when full and complete information is provided by that service as to its role.

CSIS has already denied this and asked for a review by SIRC, Security Intelligence Review Committee, the CSIS oversight body with which it has an alarmingly cosy relationship.

Justice Zinn also had a few choice words for DFAIT, with regards to this July 2004 DFAIT email in response to Abdelrazik's wife raising the possibility of chartering a private plane to return her husband to Montreal. Ms. Gaudet-Fee of Foreign Affairs :

"So, should she get a private plane, there is very little we could do to stop him from entering Canada. He would need an EP [i.e. Emergency Passport] and I guess this could be refused but on what ground.
So, stay tuned."

Justice Zinn :

I find the comment of the official of Foreign Affairs very troubling.
In my view, it is reasonable to conclude from the July 30, 2004 musings of the foreign Affairs official that Canadian authorities did not want Mr. Abdelrazik to return to Canada and they were prepared to examine avenues that would prevent his return, such as the denial of an emergency passport. That conclusion is further supported by the extraordinary circumstances in which the Minister made the decision on April 3, 2009 to refuse the applicant an emergency passport.

At no time however in the last five years did DFAIT admit to Abdelrazik that they had no intention of allowing him to return to Canada; in fact they repeatedly assured him that they would grant him an emergency passport.

The flight scheduled for April 3, 2009

[130] In March 2009, Mr. Abdelrazik managed to obtain and pay for a flight from Khartoum to Montreal with a stop over in Abu Dhabi. He had been repeatedly assured for years that an emergency passport would be provided in that eventuality. Notwithstanding the numerous assurances given by Canada over a period of almost 5 years, and repeated as recently as December 23, 2008, on April 3, 2009 just two hours before the flight was to leave, the Minister of Foreign Affairs [Lawrence Cannon] refused to issue that emergency passport on the basis that he was of the opinion, pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order, "that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country."

I find that the only reason that Mr. Abdelrazik is not in Canada now is because of the actions of the Minister on April 3, 2009. ... the Minister waited until the very last minute before the flight was to depart to deny the emergency passport.

Had it been necessary to determine whether the breach was done in bad faith, I would have had no hesitation making that finding on the basis of the record before me.

[156] I have found that Canada has engaged in a course of conduct and specific acts that constitute a breach of Mr. Abdelrazik’s right to enter Canada. Specifically, I find:
(i) That CSIS was complicit in the detention of Mr. Abdelrazik by the Sudanese authorities in 2003;
(ii) That by mid 2004 Canadian authorities had determined that they would not take any active steps to assist Mr. Abdelrazik to return to Canada and, in spite of its numerous assurances to the contrary, would consider refusing him an emergency passport if that was required in order to ensure that he could not return to Canada;
(iii) That there is no impediment from the UN Resolution to Mr. Abdelrazik being repatriated to Canada – no permission of a foreign government is required to transit through its airspace – and the respondents’ assertion to the contrary is a part of the conduct engaged in to ensure that Mr. Abdelrazik could not return to Canada; and
(iv) That Canada’s denial of an emergency passport on April 3, 2009, after all of the preconditions for the issuance of an emergency passport previously set by Canada had been met, is a breach of his Charter right to enter Canada

[160] Accordingly, at a minimum, the respondents are to be ordered to provide Mr. Abdelrazik with an emergency passport that will permit him to travel to and enter Canada. There is any number of ways available to him to return to Canada. He once secured an airline ticket and may be able to do so again. In the Court’s view that would cure the breach and be the least intrusive on the role of the executive. If such travel is possible, and if funds or sufficient funds to pay for an air ticket are not available to the applicant from his April 3, 2009 unused ticket, then the respondents are to provide the airfare or additional airfare required because, but for the breach, he would not have to incur this expense.

In fulfilment of this judicial process, the applicant [Abdelrazik] is ordered to appear before me at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, at the Federal Court ...

“Russel W. Zinn”
Judge

Thank you, Justice Zinn.
.

CSIS just fine with tips "extracted" via torture

I'm not sure what is the most alarming aspect of CSIS testimony today that they will still use information that may have been obtained by torture in other countries "if lives are at stake" :

"Geoffrey O’Brian, a CSIS lawyer and advisor on operations and legislation, under questioning by the public safety committee, admitted there is no absolute ban on using intelligence that may have been obtained from countries with questionable human rights records on torture."

~ That CSIS continues to reward other countries for torture - when exactly are lives not "at stake"?
~ That they condone a practice which, in addition to being barbaric, is not even effective
~ That oversight of CSIS operations remains negligible
~ That recommendations from both the O'Connor and Iacobucci inquiries are being ignored
~ That we are now in open contravention of UN Convention Against Torture
~ That CSIS is comfortable being open about this, presumably based on the assumption there is sufficient public support
~ That about half of the 250+ public comments under a similar article at the G&M do indeed support the CSIS position, citing the necessity of preserving "republican" or "christian" or "North American" values, backed up with examples gleaned from the US TV drama 24 Hours.

Apparently in addition to condoning actions that prove we have lost the war on terrorism, we have also become a nation too stupid to safely operate a television.


.
Update : When I blogged this afternoon about this, I hadn't yet watched the actual proceedings.
Well now I have.
Apparently, according to O'Brian who is very keen on quoting the British House of Lords 2005 "torture decision", "the Executive is bound to make use of all information, both coerced statements and whatever fruits they bear, to safeguard the security of the state."
And if mistakes are made? Well there's always SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee and source of glowing reports about CSIS, to complain to afterwords.
And further, we should be grateful and proud of that.
.
Also, just because a country has an "abysmal" human rights record, it doesn't necessarily follow that information we receive from them is extracted by torture. In fact, usually we have no idea how information is obtained, so - not our fault.
Do we continue to share info with Egypt and Syria? Yes, we share info with 247 agencies, with caveats of course. See SIRC above.
Does the Con chair of the committee plus the five Cons on it continually interrupt with points of order and run interference for the intelligence agencies phrased as questions? You betcha.
.
Also on this one : Skdadl and Dave
.