Thanks in part to top-secret information from the government’s eavesdropping agency that only surfaced after hearings closed, the Air India inquiry has vindicated the contested claims of former Ontario lieutenant-governor James Bartleman.
Mr. Bartleman delivered the most stunning testimony before the commission three years ago when, after nearly 23 years of silence, he disclosed that Ottawa knew days before the 1985 bombing that an Air India plane would be targeted for a flight leaving Canada.
At the time, he was director of security and intelligence for the Department of External Affairs, a position that involved reviewing reports from the Communications Security Establishment, which intercepts phone calls and other electronic signals from abroad. He testified that when he took this information to the RCMP, he was “hissed” at and brushed aside.
In response, the government unleashed a full-throttle assault on his credibility – including critical testimony from the CSE. In their final brief to the commission, government lawyers dismissed Mr. Bartleman’s story as “inaccurate.”
But the head of the commission, Mr. Justice John Major, didn’t buy it.
“On balance, the evidence cited by the Attorney General of Canada to discredit James Bartleman was not persuasive,” states the report. “The Commission accepts the evidence of Bartleman, and finds that he delivered a message to the RCMP identifying a direct threat to Air India 182 the weekend of the June 22, 1985 flight. In accepting Bartleman’s testimony, it is significant to note that he had nothing to gain by coming forward with his testimony, and stood only to suffer a loss to his reputation in facing government-wide efforts to impugn his credibility.”
Mr. Major said the government attacks on Mr. Bartleman were “ineffectual” and the commission’s lead counsel, Mark Freiman, called his the testimony “courageous.” The CSE did not respond to a request for comment, and current Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Thursday it was too early to comment on the specifics of the report.
“I’m very glad that I was able to make a contribution, and that’s about it,” Mr. Bartleman said Thursday. “At this stage of the game, it’s not a time for criticizing people who criticized me. I’m just very happy that I was able to be of assistance and I hope that will be helpful to the families of the victims.”
In his report, Mr. Major said Ottawa’s attempt to raise questions about Mr. Bartleman’s testimony through aggressive cross-examination was “entirely misguided.” Contrary to the government’s position, Mr. Major said Mr. Bartleman was not the only source indicating Ottawa should have known Flight 182 was at high risk of being bombed by known Sikh terrorists in June, 1985.
“After the close of the hearings, the Commission became aware of relevant information in the possession of the Communications Security Establishment,” states the report, which could not detail the information for national security reasons. “A CSE witness who attempted to attack Bartleman’s credibility asserted that he would have warned the government of any threat against an Air India flight.…He was apparently unaware, however, of the existence of the CSE information about security measures being mandated for Air India operations, inside and outside of India, in response to threats of sabotage by Sikh extremists…”
In the commission’s view, this information led the commission to deem Mr. Bartleman’s evidence as credible.
“Even if Bartleman saw nothing more than what was contained in the CSE information unearthed by the Commission, it is likely that it would have been enough, given his knowledge of Sikh extremism in Canada, to convince him that the threat needed follow-up,” the report states. “This was precisely what Bartleman did.”
