Why is "A public inquiry" so important to the victims of torture through the use of....?

[Robin Yan]

Dear all of the victims As a victim of torture through the use of non-lethal weapons, gang-stalking, acts of serious violation of human right, happened in Canada. I have an idea as follows: Virtually, what ever those criminals are using on innocent people, such as, non-lethal weapons, microwave, direct energy weapons….., the purpose is only one, that is “torture”. Torture is serious issue the world is concerned about. However, torture by the use of new and hi-tech, is most deceitful, most dangerous and most serious. According to Amnesty International and one torture case dealt with by the Canadian Government, Maher Arar’s case, they both concluded: “only can public inquiry deal with torture case” because officials of the government get involved in. In addition, I attach the statement by the Attorney General of Canada which addressed the nature of the public inquiry at the end of body of this letter. It is very, very good and useful for us. With the above thought, I am now wondering if it is possible for us to choose one day to take to the street in our own respective countries to appeal to the presidents, the Prime Ministers of our own countries’ to hold a public inquiry into our cases. The purpose is as follows: 1) tell the whole world what we are suffering and what help we need 2) through our so peaceful, rational and well –organized action, tell those criminals that we are not alone; we won’t give up; you must stop it right now. 3) draw the attention from the politicians, journalists, famous figures, scientists with kind hearts in the world so that they can get involved . The above is my idea. I don’t know if it is possible. Help is needed from all of you . Thank you for taking time to think about it. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Robin Yan 07/08/09 416-220-3483 P.S. My computer and e-mail have been hacked since the beginning of this year, which was confirmed by MSN. My important mail letter were torn open. If contacting me with the most important message, please confirm. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE ACTIONS OF CANADIAN OFFICIALS IN RELATION TO MAHER ARAR _________________________________________________ OPENING STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA _________________________________________________ 1. This opening statement is made on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. The statement will address the nature of Commissioner O’Connor’s inquiry, offer some general observations on the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Maher Arar, and identify some of the unique challenges the Commissioner will face in conducting an inquiry of this kind. Nature of the Inquiry 2. The Commission of Inquiry is an impartial fact- finding exercise. It is not an adversarial proceeding, such as a civil or criminal trial. Lord Saville, in his opening statement to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, said the following about public inquiries: We should emphasise at this point that this is an Inquiry, not a trial. Trials are in the main conducted on an adversarial basis, i.e. where each party puts forward its case and seeks to answer the case put against it; where the tribunal acts as a sort of referee, requiring the parties to abide by the rules; and where, at the end of the day, the tribunal decides the case in favour of one side or the other on the basis of the material the parties have put before it. An Inquiry like the present Inquiry is quite different. Here the Tribunal takes the initiative in trying to ascertain the truth. Unlike an adversarial contest, it is for the Tribunal to seek all the relevant material. Its task is - 2 - not to decide the matter in favour of one party or side or another. Indeed, from the point of view of the Tribunal, there are no parties or sides. There will, of course, be those who have material evidence to give or who have a legitimate interest in challenging such evidence, but the Tribunal will not treat them as sides or parties in an adversarial contest, but rather as a means of seeking out the truth. 1 3. This point must be emphasized, because it is clear from the submissions that have already been made to Commissioner O’Connor in these proceedings that many of the parties who have been granted the right to participate have a very clear idea of what they would like the Commissioner to conclude. However, it has not been established that any Canadian official acted inappropriately in relation to Mr. Arar. This is something all parties must bear in mind as we embark upon this fact- finding exercise. 4. No-one can deny that serious questions have been raised about the manner in which Mr. Arar was treated in other countries. But the role of Canadian officials in these events, which is the mandate of this Commission, is a more narrow inquiry. 5. The central question for the Commissioner to determine is whether Canadian officials in fact did anything wrong in relation to Mr. Arar. It is a question that the Government is confident he will be able to answer. Whether the Commissioner will be able to answer all of the other questions raised by Mr. Arar’s circumstances is another matter. 6. In Dixon v. Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal identified another important difference between a public inquiry and a trial. The Court said this: … Courts of law are designed, if civil, to settle disputes between opposing parties and, if criminal, to establish guilt or innocence. They must arrive at definitive conclusions; … 1 Lord Saville, Opening Statement at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, April 3, 1998 (available at http://library.thinkquest.org/18666/newinquiry/opening/openingstate.htm) - 3 - Commissions of inquiry, be they investigative or merely advisory, are not, in any way, under the same duty. … nowhere do we find the imposition upon them of a duty to conclude. On the contrary, their purpose, which is primarily to advise and to help the government in the proper execution of its duties, is not conducive to settling issues and drawing definitive conclusions. It is the legal duty of the commissioners to report, but that report is limited to explaining what they have done, what they were able to draw from their investigations (in terms of findings of fact) and what advice they are in a position to give to the Executive in light of those findings.2 7. Mr. Arar has stated publicly that one of his objectives in this inquiry is to “clear his name”. His lawyers appear to be urging Commissioner O’Connor to settle the issue of whether or not Mr. Arar has ever been involved in terrorism, and to draw definitive conclusions on this point. It may be impossible for Commissioner O’Connor to do so. More importantly, the Commissioner’s terms of reference do not require him to do so. 8. Similarly, it may be impossible for Commissioner O’Connor to settle the issue of precisely why Mr. Arar was detained in the United States and subsequently deported to Syria, or why he remained imprisoned in Syria for close to a year. The answers to these questions lie beyond the control of Canada, and we cannot be certain that they will be made available to the Commissioner in these proceedings. They too are beyond the Commissioner’s terms of reference. 9. That is because this is not an inquiry into the actions of foreign officials in relation to Mr. Arar. Nor is it an inquiry into the actions of Mr. Arar himself. It is an inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar, and all of the information about the actions of those officials is available and will be provided to the Commissioner. 2 Dixon v. Canada, [1997] 3 F.C. 169 at 180-181 - 4 - The Role of the RCMP and CSIS 10. Following the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada recognized the need to significantly enhance the resources dedicated to anti-terrorism by the RCMP, CSIS and other agencies, as well as the need to improve the legislative framework for protecting Canadians from such threats. Legislation was enacted to create new criminal offences to address terrorism and terrorist-related activity. 11. Both before and after the enactment of Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, the RCMP was responsible for investigating and preventing the commission of terrorist-related criminal offences. Because terrorist organizations operate internationally, the RCMP co-ordinates certain aspects of its investigations with the police and security services of other countries, including the United States. This necessarily involves the exchange of information. 12. CSIS’ mandate to collect and analyse information respecting threats to the security of Canada encompasses activities involving the threat or use of serious violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state. In appropriate situations, CSIS shares information that may be used in the investigation of an alleged contravention of any law of Canada or a province to a peace officer having jurisdiction to investigate the alleged contravention. This includes the RCMP.3 13. Given that virtually all current threats to the security of Canada either have their origins abroad or are manifested across international borders, CSIS and the RCMP have increasingly looked outside Canada’s borders, both to understand the threat and to build strong cooperative relationships with security intelligence and law enforcement agencies around the world. After September 11, 2001, security organizations were placed under intense pressure to expand their capabilities and enhance effectiveness. The emphasis was, and continues to be, on integration: 3 Canadian Security Intelligence Act, ss. 2(c), 19(2)(a) - 5 - from information gathering and analysis, through investigation, and ultimately to the prevention of terrorism and the prosecution of terrorists in Canada and abroad. 14. Effective integration requires improved information systems, open information sharing, cooperation and coordination across organizations natio nally and internationally. The RCMP and CSIS are among the intelligence and law enforcement agencies in Canada and abroad working to create a climate of trust and cooperation between security organizations in different countries. 15. The Auditor General has recently concluded that the vast majority of the funds allocated by the Government in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 went to priority areas.4 Nevertheless, the Auditor General also expressed concern about what she perceived to be a lack of coordination among security agencies, with particular weaknesses at airports and border crossings. She noted that departments and agencies are still unable to share some security information, and their systems are not all able to communicate with each other. The Government is acting on these recommendations, and has recently released a comprehensive National Security Policy to assess the threats to Canadians, articulate our national security interests, and outline an integrated management framework for national security issues.5 16. A key contribution of the RCMP towards integration has been the establishment of several multi-agency and multi-disciplinary teams to conduct national security investigations. These Integrated Nationa l Security Enforcement Teams (“INSETs”) are comprised of RCMP members and investigators seconded from other Canadian law enforcement and security intelligence agencies. They are located in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa. 4 Office of the Auditor General of Canada, “National Security in Canada - The 2001 Anti-Terrorism Initiative”, March, 2004 5 Securing An Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy, available at http://www.pcobcp. gc.ca/docs/Publications/NatSecurnat/natsecurnat_e.pdf - 6 - The Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Mr. Arar 17. There is an emerging understanding of the actions taken by Canadian officials in relation to Mr. Arar, particularly the actions of the RCMP and CSIS. The RCMP has conducted an investigation in response to complaints lodged with the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP (“CPC”), and a copy of that investigation report has been provided to Commission Counsel. The Security Intelligence Review Committee (“SIRC”) has examined the involvement of CSIS in relation to Mr. Arar, and a copy of that report has also been provided to Commission Counsel. 18. The Attorney General has filed extensive submissions on the principles that should guide the Commissioner in determining what portions of the evidence must be heard in private and in the absence of the other parties. There are significant aspects of this case that cannot be heard in public. Nevertheless, based upon the information that is presently available to the Government, it is confident that its officials acted appropriately in relation to Mr. Arar. 19. In particular, the Government categorically rejects the accusation made by some participants in these proceedings that its officials subjected Mr. Arar to “racial profiling”. Nor were Canadian officials complicit in the practices of “extraordinary rendition” or “torture by proxy” that are allegedly engaged in by other countries. Canada does not countenance torture in any form. The Criminal Code prohibits torture and the use of evidence obtained as a result of torture. Torture is one of the very few offences to which Canada extends the application of its laws beyond its own borders. 20. Senior representatives of the Government of Canada have publicly denied that Canadian officials participated in the decision by the United States to remove Mr. Arar to Syria rather than to Canada. That denial is repeated here. While Mr. Arar was detained in New York, Canadian officials did not suggest to their U.S. - 7 - counterparts that he should be deported to Syria. Nor did Canadian officials acquiesce in that decision. 21. While Mr. Arar was detained in the United States and imprisoned in Syria, Canadian consular and other government officials went to great lengths to ensure that he was provided with all consular and other support that could be given. The end result of those efforts was Mr. Arar’s release and safe return to Canada. National Security Confidentiality 22. Commissioner O’Connor will face numerous challenges in the conduct of this inquiry. They include the need to conduct the inquiry in a fair and expeditious manner, and the need to maintain public confidence in the process. However, it may be that the single greatest challenge he will face is to “take all steps necessary to prevent disclosure of information that, if it were disclosed to the public, would, in the opinion of the Commissioner, be injurious to international relations, national defence or national security”. 6 23. Extensive written submissions have been filed by all parties concerning the principles that should be applied to determine whether certain information should be received by the Commission in private (“in camera”), and in the absence of other parties and their counsel (“ex parte”). Because of the central role this issue is expected to play in the inquiry, it will be helpful to summarize the Government’s approach. 24. The Government acknowledges the importance of conducting the Commission’s proceedings in public to the greatest extent possible. A transparent and open process will best enable Canadians to satisfy themselves that Canadian officials acted responsibly in relation to Mr. Arar. 6 Commissioner’s Terms of Reference, paragraph (k) - 8 - 25. Nevertheless, there is some information that must be kept secret in order to protect Canada’s national security and the safety of all Canadians. This includes information that could reveal the nature of an ongoing security intelligence or law enforcement investigation, and the identities of individuals who are potential targets of the investigation. It also includes information that may divulge the methods of operation and investigative techniques of security intelligence or law enforcement agencies. Another example is information that could reveal the identity of investigators who work covertly, or that could jeopardize the safety of members of the public who have provided information to security intelligence or law enforcement agencies. 26. Promoting Canada’s interests through its relations with other countries, including Canada’s consular interests, also requires that some information be kept confidential. Confidentiality is a fundamental and necessary characteristic of sharing information in the context of international policing, security intelligence, diplomacy and negotiation. 27. As the Federal Court of Appeal has affirmed, it is clear from the nature of the subject- matter of international relations, national defence and national security that occasions when the public interest in maintaining confidentiality will be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure, even in criminal matters, will be rare.7 28. Even if the public does not gain access to certain information on the ground of national security confidentiality, it may rest assured that Commissioner O’Connor and his counsel will have access to all the information necessary to fulfil his mandate under the Terms of Reference, regardless of how sensitive that information may be. There is no basis for the suggestion made by some parties in these proceedings that claims of national security confidentiality may serve to “cover up” any wrongdoing. 7 Goguen v. Gibson, [1983] 1 F.C. 872 at para. 24 (T.D.) (QL); aff’d., [1983] 2 F.C. 463, 7 D.L.R. (4th) 144 (C.A.). - 9 - Conclusion 29. The Government’s decision to hold this public inquiry is testament to the seriousness with which it views Mr. Arar’s allegations of misconduct on the part of Canadian officials. Commissioner O’Connor and his counsel are being given unprecedented access to confidential government information to assist the Commissioner in his search for the truth. It will be an ongoing challenge for him to conduct his proceedings in a manner that does not harm Canada’s ability to promote its interests through its relations with other countries, or the ability of our security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to keep Canadians safe from terrorism. 30. As Commissioner O’Connor undertakes this important task, the Attorney General assures him, his counsel, the other parties and the Canadian public of the Government’s support for his work, and its full cooperation in his inquiry.