The Air India Inquiry – September 17, 2007 (Part 1 of 2)

Inquiries on CPAC

The Air India Inquiry – September 17, 2007 (Part 1 of 2)

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

Witness: Lyman Henschel

Jacques Shore (Counsel for the Air India Victims’ Families Association) and Raj Anand (Counsel for Lata Pada and other victims’ relatives) make submissions concerning the disposition of testimony from victims’ families given during the first phase of the inquiry. Mr. Shore chastises the Canadian government for its failure to prevent the Air India bombing and for its response to the disaster. He makes a series of explicit policy recommendations and responds to questions from Commissioner John C. Major. Mr. Anand speaks about his clients’ skepticism concerning the efficacy of the inquiry. He also speaks about alleged deficiencies in the Canadian government’s response to the disaster and raises the question of systemic racism on the part of the government and the news media in their responses to the bombing. Barney Brucker (Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada) makes a brief submission. Commission Lead Counsel Mark J. Freiman makes opening remarks. The Commission is shown a CBC television news report, originally broadcast in December 1987, concerning the possible erasure of wiretap recordings related to the Air India investigation. The report includes an interview with Reid Morden, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Commission Counsel Anil Kapoor makes a series of procedural remarks. Lyman Henschel (a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)) testifies. Under direct examination by Mr. Kapoor, the witness speaks about his working relationship with the Vancouver Integrated Intelligence Unit (VIIU), about changes to his duties following the Air India bombing, about the RCMP task force created to investigate it, and about his own role in the investigation. Commissioner Major questions the witness and Mr. Shore conducts cross-examination. Mr. Shore asks Mr. Henschel what, in hindsight, he might have done di