Alex Neve [Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada]: "Over the past week there has been reason to both commend and chastise Canada for the approach it takes to assessing where torture is likely to occur.

In the midst of court action launched by Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, challenging Canada's practice of transferring battlefield detainees in Afghanistan into the custody Afghan officials, a manual has come to light, used to train Canadian diplomats who are likely to interview Canadians imprisoned abroad. There has been considerable criticism of Canada's approach in the past, as consular officers sent in to foreign jail cells have often lacked the expertise and information needed to detect whether prisoners may have been subjected to torture or mistreatment. This was certainly underscored in the course of the public inquiry into the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who was detained and tortured in Syria for one year. Among the many revelations of wrongdoing and mistakes by Canadian officials, the public inquiry made it clear that the efforts of Canadian diplomats in Syria to determine whether Mr. Arar was being tortured were inadequate. The new training program was meant to remedy those distressing shortcomings.

The manual included a page listing a number of countries or locations where torture or abuse in prison may possibly occur. Those listed are Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Guantanamo Bay, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the United States. Not an exhaustive list by any means but certainly a sampling of countries where there have been notorious and often tragic examples of detained Canadians being badly tortured, sometimes leading to death. It was remarkable and refreshing to see a list based objectively on a country's human rights record, not politics. As such, Guantanamo Bay, Israel, Mexico and the United States were all included, despite being close allies of Canada. This did, however, starkly highlight contradictions in Canadian foreign policy. For example Canadian consular staff were being trained to be cognizant of the fact that torture is a real likelihood in Guantanamo Bay while, at the same time, the Canadian government maintains virtual silence and refuses to intervene in the case of Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, sent to Guantanamo at the age of fifteen and now held there for over five years.

But all of this changed quickly once the information came to public attention. There was swift reaction from both the US and Israeli Ambassadors to Canada, both objecting strenuously to having been listed in this way. That was followed soon after by a statement from Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier, expressing his regret for having embarrassed close allies who were "wrongly" included on the list. He indicated that the list was to be reviewed and rewritten. So once again, human rights considerations take a back seat to politics. The message of course is that Canada is more concerned about protecting allies from embarrassment than delivering comprehensive and objective training that will help protect Canadians from torture.

Lists such as these should most certainly be regularly reviewed. The purpose of the review should be to ensure the accuracy of the information. If there have been substantial reforms in a country then yes, of course, it should be removed from the list. If it is apparent that a country where torture is a real concern and where there is a likelihood of Canadians being imprisoned is missing from the list, it should be added. Sadly, though, that does not seem to be the spirit of this review. Rather, it appears that the motivation is quite simply to compile a list of countries not friendly to Canada.

The struggle against torture deserves and requires a more principled approach."