The Continuing Disaster of Air India Flight 182

How can Canadian security and policing authorities possibly have been so unbelievably inept? As facts see the light of day - finally - the mind boggles with the extent of the stupidity displayed by those very agencies whose existence Canadians depend upon to ensure the security of the country at large as well as protecting the lives of individual Canadians. No small task, to be sure, but this is what responsible governments do; set up government institutions for that very task and oversight: safety and security.

What a massively unbelievable failure. Not only did the RCMP and CSIS not communicate with one another to ensure that each was kept in the loop of unfolding data, but they appear to have done so deliberately, each jealous of its autonomy, authority and fact-finding. As though they viewed one another's existence as that of an interloper into the other's territory. Co-operation between the agencies appears to have been nil. If one agency was the recipient of vital information it was carefully hoarded, which didn't stop each agency from prodding the other about what was known to each.

While they wished to be aware of what the other knew, they obdurately kept back relevant information themselves. So much for efficacy, for collaboration, for collegiality between professional security agencies representing the government of Canada and its vital interests. An adversarial approach to solving a problem when collective action was required. Canadians of Indian descent must be beyond outrage and despair, as should we all be. A colossal waste of innocent lives by a malevolent terrorist group's execution of a dreadful act of collective murder.

And the vicious murderers, unrepentant still, are beyond justice. Newly revealed is the fact that the now-Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, James Bartleman, while in the position of chief of intelligence at the Department of External Affairs was aware through a casual scrutiny of a daily intelligence information pack of the imminent threat of a bomb on an Air India flight. The warning was so explicit it named Flight 182 and gave the weekend dates.

Awareness was certainly there. Some kind of action had been taken, since three pieces of luggage from the flight were isolated and searched. When, post-explosion, then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney telephoned Rajiv Gandhi to 'render condolences' (another wince-inducing misery) Prime Minister Gandhi, as a former airline pilot, exasperatedly enquired why it was that all the baggage hadn't been examined before pre-flight.

Now, 22 years on, Mr. Bartleman recalls that, knowing a joint CSIS-RCMP meeting was taking place at the External Affairs building just then, took the document and offered it to the attention of the senior RCMP presence. The meeting itself was taking place to discuss ongoing Sikh extremist violence in Canada. The very man later exonerated, found not guilty in the execution of the terrorist plots to bring down to Air India planes, was well known to Canadian authorities.

The founder of an extremely violent Sikh group whose purpose was destabilization of the government of India, who preached violence and exhorted fanatical Sikhs to seek out moderate Sikhs and Hindus, to beat and to kill them, figured as a cause for concern in bringing his brand of political and religious activism to Canada. The Indian community was in turmoil, expressing great fear and indignation that such violence could occur on Canadian soil.

Those who spoke up vigorously against Sikh violence were beaten and threatened with death. A highly respected and courageous editor of a local British Columbia Indian newspaper who continually defied militant Sikhs was beaten so badly he became wheelchair-bound. But he continued to persist, to publish his condemnation of the violence and extremist hatred, undaunted by countless death threats. His was the public face of the moderate Sikh community. He was murdered.

Now Mr. Bartleman had in his hands an alarming warning of a potential deadly assault. His initial alarm led him to bring it to the attention of the senior RCMP officer who quickly spurned his overture and icily and abrasively informed Mr. Bartleman the matter was known and everything was well in hand. He didn't need Mr. Bartleman to tell him his job, he said. Upon which Mr. Bartleman removed himself taking the document with him, washing his hands of the affair.

An insulting rebuff resulting in delinquency of professional responsibility. Not a word to his colleagues at Foreign Affairs. No other, additional attempt to spread the word, or contact someone at a higher level to ensure that the matter was sufficiently being looked to. Total abrogation of responsibility, but resonant with the manner in which high-placed bureaucrats often react when exposed to unpleasant circumstances. Duck. It'll go away. Not my responsibility.

It is not a particularly career-enhancing move to go beyond the facade of making a first, aborted move, when faced with any highly-placed individual representing another government agency who might take umbrage and scupper future opportunities. So, no memo-to-file, no follow up activities; after all, if others are alerted they might ask what are you going to do about it yourself? And that's a call for action. Easier to abrogate responsibility. Nurse that hurt ego.

Relegate that information to the shredder, the unfortunate encounter to dim memory. Tuck it all away. Twenty-two years later it can be dusted off. That's when accountability can be sought.