Article content continued

“They also prohibit certain use of information likely obtained through mistreatment, except when it is absolutely necessary to prevent loss of life or significant personal injury.”

The measure has sparked mixed reactions, with NDP defence critic Randall Garrison describing it as a “public-relations exercise” that will have little real effect because of the exception allowing torture-tainted intelligence.

“In the end, the Canadian government remains complicit with torture,” he said. “The prohibition on the use of torture. It’s not: sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t.”

Amnesty International Canada called the new directives a welcome change from those issued by the previous Conservative government, although the group expressed concern with the fact that some torture-tainted info would still be allowed.

That concern was particularly acute when it came to the military, said Alex Neve, Amnesty Canada’s secretary-general, given its recent history in Afghanistan and Iraq of partnering with groups that have questionable records.

In the end, the Canadian government remains complicit with torture

Canada soldiers “may therefore be faced with decisions about what to do with information that bears the taint of torture on a regular basis,” Neve said, so “the need for extra vigilance to ensure that the Canadian military is not implicated in torture is all the greater.

“That is why there should simply be an absolute ban on using any such information.”

Both Amnesty and the NDP have repeatedly called for an inquiry into the Canadian military’s role in the handling of detainees who were later tortured by Afghan security forces during the last decade.