"Given the clear differences in definition (of torture), the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the government does not rely on such assurances in the future."The Brits have gone through this process over concerns of US flights landing in Diego Garcia an obscure British protectorate in the Indian ocean.
British territories have used for refueling US “rendition flights” taking prisoners to countries with no bans on torture.
The United Nations convention bars the return of individuals to states where they are at risk of being tortured and the UK has a "legal and moral obligation" to ensure no more of these flights land on British territory.
The committee has recommended that the government carry out an "exhaustive analysis of current US interrogation techniques" and should verify that Britain is not used by the US for future "rendition" flights.
Meanwhile Harper’s government, who has already had one of it’s citizens, Maher Arrar, handed over to foreign country and tortured by the US, shows no concern about it’s legal and moral obligation in the case of Omar Khadr.
It seems obvious that a country either condones torture or it does not and you would think that under the UN convention, Canada should do everything in it’s power to protect it’s citizens and the citizens of other countries from the risk of being tortured.The current US government condones torture and unfortunately Canada's current government, by it's refusal to repatriate Omar Khadr and by extraditing US war resisters, seems to also.
References BBC here.