The Air India Inquiry – March 5, 2007 (Part 3 of 4)

Inquiries on CPAC

The Air India Inquiry – March 5, 2007 (Part 3 of 4)

Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182

Witness: Wesley Wark

Wesley Wark (Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto) continues his testimony under direct examination by Mark J. Freiman (Commission Lead Counsel) on Canada’s security and intelligence community, the origin of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Sikh extremism, the Canadian investigation into the Air India bombing, and related matters. Under cross-examination by Jacques Shore (Counsel for the Air India Victims’ Families Association), Mr. Wark comments on the apparent failure of Canadian politicians, the Canadian media, and the Canadian public to adequately appreciate the security and intelligence implications of the Air India bombing. Under cross-examination by Richard P. Quance (Counsel for the family members of the crew member victims of Air India flight 182 and Indian nationals), Mr. Wark explains his disagreement with aspects of the 1985 Report on Security Arrangements Affecting Airports and Airlines in Canada (the Seaborn Report). Under cross-examination by Soma Ray-Ellis (Counsel for Air India), Mr. Wark testifies about specific intelligence failures in Canada’s investigation of the Air India bombing, especially a lack of Punjabi translators. Under cross-examination by Barney Brucker (Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada), Mr. Wark testifies about the extent of his direct experience with Canada’s intelligence and security agencies and his lack of operational experience in intelligence or law enforcement. He is also asked about the definition of “intelligence” and his public position on Bill C 36 (the Anti-terrorism Act).