On the face of it, it sounded crystal clear. “Canada will never use torture or be party to that,” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said after meeting his counterpart this week in Washington.
But the reality is Sajjan’s comments are as clear as mud. That’s because the minister would not say what his commitment never to be a “party” to torture might mean in practice.
Some might argue we already are. Under a formal policy put forward by the Harper government in 2012, Canada can use information obtained through torture in “exceptional circumstances” involving an “immediate” threat. That means that if another country passes on tips it obtained through torture, Canada can act on them – a directive that some believe encourages other regimes to continue their terrible practices.
The order creates an incentive for countries that engage in torture to continue to do so “to curry favour with the Canadian intelligence community,” wrote Robert Holmes, the former president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
That is unacceptable. And when the Liberals were in opposition they knew that. Then, they urged the Conservative government to issue a “clear ministerial directive” against swapping information with torturing regimes. But more than a year into the Liberal government’s mandate, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale has so far refused to rescind the directive, even while admitting it raises a “troubling set of issues.”
Troubling, indeed. Sajjan’s stated categorical opposition to torture is welcome. But it means little if not reflected in policy. As Sukanya Pillay, executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, rightly points out, “Canada has to now take care that we do not condone or inadvertently collude with torture.”
This is particularly important at a moment when the new U.S. administration has expressed openness to revisiting its ban on so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. President Donald Trump has been clear that he supports the use of torture and firmly believes that it works, though most military and security experts suggest that it doesn’t. He vowed on the campaign trail to bring back not only the torture tactic of waterboarding, but “a hell of a lot worse.”
It’s true that since taking office he has said he would defer to the anti-torture views of his defence secretary, James Mattis. But that means the U.S. is potentially only one adviser away from embracing torture if Trump changes his mind and overturns former president Barack Obama’s ban on the practice.
All the more reason, then, for Canada to send a clear message to the U.S. — and the world — that it will not accept information obtained through torture.
Any policy that condones torture, or worse, creates a market for it and thereby contributes to its use, is a betrayal of our values and our obligations as a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture. Sajjan is right to unequivocally condemn torture and complicity in it. But to do so in words is not enough. His government should now act accordingly.
The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
