Evidence of meeting #15 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Then, Mr. Easter, in terms of communications, you've talked about documentation, the House book card, and other memos that came to you from the RCMP. Were there any verbal communications to you that the information the RCMP initially had on Mr. Arar was false or misleading?
9:40 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
No, and I've indicated that in my opening statement. I've checked that as well with other people who would have been with me during those verbal communications.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
In terms of your recollection in this regard, how would you categorize the Arar case in terms of its seriousness for your department and for you, personally, as a minister?
9:40 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
It was in the early period, November-December 2001, January 2002, one of many, but the issue did take on an increasing criticalness as the months progressed.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
We'll now move over to the government side. Mr. MacKenzie, please.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
I am a little confused. I think there's an article in one of the media today indicating that you first knew about this erroneously labelled information only a month ago. If I understood your response to Mr. Comartin, you actually knew about it back when the O'Connor--
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought it was during the hearings. That's fine.
You were Solicitor General, you were not only an MP in the House. When you were aware of the seriousness--and I think we accept very much that initially this was probably a little bit under the radar because it was of one of many things, and I think we've heard that same line, basically, from the commissioner--once it began to take on some importance, did you never question anyone, the commissioner or anyone in your ministry, about if they were sure of the accuracy of the information that was used? When you were going to the U.S. to talk to them, you had to feel that you needed to have the information.
9:40 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
Yes, Mr. MacKenzie, absolutely. Especially in the spring of 2003, prior to going to a meeting with Attorney General Ashcroft, we asked for a full briefing, we asked tough questions on Mr. Arar, because it was a public issue. We were concerned about the detention and deportation. There were lots of questions asked, yes.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
They could have been asked of the commissioner, they could have been asked of both, really, Deputy Commissioner Loeppky and Commissioner Zaccardelli, and others who may have attended with the commissioner and deputy commissioner.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
So there would be no question that in mid-2003 those hard questions were being asked about the authenticity of the information that was passed to the Americans. At that time there was never any suggestion there had been an error.
9:45 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
No, and this is....
When you go through O'Connor's report, it would be absolutely amazing to me, if there had been errors admitted to in any material or in conversations, that it wouldn't be included in Justice O'Connor's report. And it's not, other than to say the ministers weren't provided with perhaps all the information.
I would think, given Justice O'Connor's report and the availability of documentation--I mean, there are thousands of pages--from so many sources, that he would certainly raise it in his report if it had been admitted to.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I'm not questioning that. I just want to be certain that the questions were actually asked and either a denial or misinformation was provided by the officials at that time.
9:45 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
As I indicated at the beginning as well, the difficulty here is the RCMP and Solicitor General relationship in terms of operations. Yes, hard questions were asked, but I think the response was basically along the lines that the facts are as were provided to me in briefing notes and House book cards.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
And the same scenario was that while this was going on there was the talk of the one-voice letter. Obviously this was not a run-of-the-mill situation by that point. Did that relationship between the Solicitor General and the RCMP change in any way, shape, or form, where they became more willing to talk, if you will, to the Solicitor General about what was going on?
This issue had gotten larger than law enforcement. It had crossed international boundaries, and it was a major issue in many minds, but was there still no indication that errors had been made in the information passed to the American authorities?
9:45 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
No, not on errors being made. As I indicated to other questions and questioners earlier, there were certainly more extensive briefings as time went on, on some of the background and parameters around Mr. Arar and why he was a person of interest. That was not until, I believe, about November 2003.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
When you became aware of the information flow between the Canadian authorities and the Americans, as the Solicitor General, did anyone, either yourself or any of your officials, confirm that the caveats that are supposed to be in place were in fact adhered to?
9:45 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
I think the assumption was made that they were. One of the requirements is certainly that there be a flow of information between the various law enforcement agencies, between our two countries and the security agency. It's important that there is a flow of information.
I actually believe that part of the problem here in that information flow--and it relates to what I said earlier in terms of the RCMP to a great extent getting back into national security issues--is that it is two different individuals. Policemen tend to take information, gather it, lay a charge, and provide it to the courts to deal with. That's not the way security matters operate, so you have to be absolutely sure that the information is accurate and has the checks and balances. I think Mr. O'Connor certainly has recommended that, and I agree with that 100%.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you, sir.
We'll move now to the next round.
From the Liberal Party, Mr. Alghabra, please.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Easter, and thank you for coming.
I want to go back to the question of the leaks. In July 2003, as you mentioned and as the committee knows, several leaks were made alleging and including items that Mr. Arar had travelled to Afghanistan and had some activities related to terrorist activities. As the Solicitor General, were you ever briefed on those allegations, as to whether in fact, yes, those were things that the RCMP believed; or no, we don't know where these leaks came from and they contain inaccurate information?
9:50 a.m.
Malpeque, Lib.
As I indicated earlier, Omar, as Solicitor General I asked when the leaks occurred, and whether they were accurate or inaccurate. I asked for an investigation to be held within all our branches, which would have included CSIS and the RCMP.
I believe there were further investigations elsewhere about whether the leaks could have come out of the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Privy Council, and that investigation did occur. As is well known, the investigation led nowhere and had no results.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
But if you allow me, the leaks happened, so I'm curious if you were ever briefed. You could have been briefed on two things: whether that was information the RCMP believed actually happened; or once the RCMP officials realized those leaks were inaccurate, did they ever brief you that those leaks were inaccurate, that they didn't really believe those things?