Canadian complicity in torture abroad is back in the spotlight after a newly released spy watchdog report flagged serious gaps in how federal agencies handle sensitive information-sharing. The report, issued by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA), warns that several agencies are falling short of the legal standards meant to prevent Canada from contributing to mistreatment overseas. As a result, the watchdog is calling for tighter oversight and clearer accountability.

The findings raise fresh questions about how well Canada’s intelligence and security agencies balance international cooperation with human rights obligations. Torture prevention, according to the report, depends heavily on how carefully agencies assess risk before sharing information with foreign partners.

What the Watchdog Report Reveals

The report centers on the Avoiding Complicity in Mistreatment by Foreign Entities Act. This law forbids federal agencies from sharing information with — or using information from — a foreign organization when doing so would create a substantial risk that a person would be tortured or mistreated in custody abroad.

However, the law does allow information-sharing under specific conditions. Agencies must first assess the risks and take steps to manage them, a process known as mitigation. As the report explains:

“Mitigation is the only mechanism to allow for the sharing of information that otherwise carries this risk, and mitigation may, at times, prove exceedingly challenging.”

This strict approach, the watchdog notes, reflects Canada’s broader human rights commitments. Specifically, the report states:

“This strict prohibition is in line with Canada’s international human rights obligations and international efforts to eradicate the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”

In addition to these standards, agencies are required to keep detailed records showing how they weighed these risks before making sharing decisions. Poor documentation, though, became a recurring problem throughout the watchdog’s review.

Where Agencies Fell Short

The report, which covers the year 2023, examines five cases involving information disclosures to foreign organizations engaged in armed conflict. Consequently, the watchdog assessed how these conflicts complicated efforts to manage torture-related risks.

Three agencies — the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) — may not have fully complied with the law’s requirements. Notably, the watchdog identified deficiencies across all three organizations.

For example, CSIS relied on caveats and assurances from receiving agencies rather than more rigorous safeguards. These caveats stipulated that shared information could only be used for intelligence purposes and had to align with international human rights law, including the Convention Against Torture. They also restricted further sharing without CSIS’s permission.

Despite these conditions, the watchdog found the caveats and assurances were “inadequately designed” to address mistreatment risks. CSIS has not yet issued a public response to these conclusions.

Meanwhile, Global Affairs Canada faced a different issue entirely. Its record-keeping practices were so poor that the watchdog could not even assess the department’s compliance in the case under review. This gap highlights how documentation failures can undermine oversight just as much as flawed risk assessments.

Armed Conflict Adds Complexity

Beyond individual agency failures, the report points to a broader challenge: armed conflict abroad makes compliance significantly harder. When a foreign partner is involved in active fighting, Canadian agencies struggle to verify how shared information will actually be used.

Furthermore, the watchdog acknowledged a genuine dilemma facing these agencies. Sharing information for humanitarian purposes can conflict with the strict requirements of avoiding complicity in mistreatment. Therefore, agencies must navigate competing priorities while still protecting human rights.

Recommendations for Stronger Oversight

To address these gaps, the spy watchdog recommended more thorough mitigation plans. These plans should carefully evaluate the reliability of proposed caveats and assurances before any information changes hands.

Additionally, NSIRA directed five agencies — CSIS, National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, Immigration, and the RCMP — to jointly study information-sharing practices with foreign entities from conflict zones. This collaborative review aimed to pinpoint recurring challenges and potential gaps in the legal framework.

As a result, the resulting study identified specific weaknesses in how directions are applied across departments. It also flagged possible legal framework gaps that could leave room for future compliance failures if left unaddressed.

Why This Matters Going Forward

Ultimately, this report underscores an ongoing tension between international cooperation and human rights accountability. Canada’s intelligence agencies operate in a complex global environment, often working alongside foreign partners whose practices they cannot fully control.

Still, the law is clear: information-sharing cannot proceed if it creates a substantial risk of torture or mistreatment. Moving forward, stronger documentation, more rigorous risk assessments, and better inter-agency coordination will likely be essential to closing the gaps this report has exposed.