Public Safety Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I wasn't in a position to have met; I was still in Defence in November of 2003.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

I thought you were, at that point. But you were working with Minister McLellan after that time.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I started in December of 2003.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Did both of you read the O'Connor report?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Yes.

[William Elliott]

Yes.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

It's clear that Justice O'Connor picked up on a lot of the inaccuracies that were going on at the time. To go back to this PCO briefing, you weren't involved in that, Ms. Bloodworth, but afterwards, when you did hook up and were working with Ms. McLellan, did you not think to ask some of the questions at the time?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

When I arrived in mid-December of 2003, at that point in time there was certainly one independent inquiry under way. The police complaints commission had announced they were doing one, and SIRC either had done or was doing it very shortly thereafter. There were two inquiries going on, one to do with the RCMP and one to do with CSIS with regard to the situation of Mr. Arar.

The issue for the government of the day was whether or not that was sufficient, whether to wait for the outcome of those inquiries before deciding to do anything else or whether to call an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Between mid-December and the end of January 2004, they decided to call an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. That was Mr. Justice O'Connor in January of 2004.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

After Commissioner Zaccardelli appeared here in September, we heard from former ministers on an ongoing basis where there contradictions with a lot of the testimony that we were hearing, going back to what had gone on prior to that PCO briefing. We heard from Mr. Alcock and Mr. Judd from CSIS, and they had said they had no idea whatsoever about the content at the time, much less the accuracy of the information that was supplied by the RCMP to the U.S. officials about Mr. Arar through Project A-O Canada.

So isn't there something disturbing in the comment on the CSIS relationship with the RCMP or its involvement in national security intelligence-related matters, especially involving a foreign government? Is that not really of concern to you?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Well, as a general matter, it would be inappropriate for CSIS to have knowledge of every criminal investigation or every involvement with a foreign country about a criminal investigation that the RCMP had. So that in itself is not disturbing.

The fact is that Mr. Justice O'Connor took from January of 2004 until September of 2006, a period in which he went through thousands of documents and heard many, many witnesses, to come to the conclusions he did. So I don't find it surprising that not everybody at the time, in December of 2003, or indeed at any time in between, had put together every piece of it. It took a very capable judge of the superior court and his whole staff many months to do that. It was a very complex issue with many thousands of pieces of paper and many witnesses. It was a big job for him to do.

So I don't find it surprising that there were not individuals who had put all of that together ahead of time, before he'd done that.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Right.

Okay, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

That brings us to the end of the first of four rounds of questions.

I have had two people indicate that they have another question. I'll let the committee decide. We'll continue with the questions. The procedure here is to start from the beginning again.

How many people still have questions? Four questions. Okay, we'll deal with those four questions.

Ms. Barnes, go ahead, please.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Elliott, you had those meetings after you were aware of the November 2 letter. You've said that Mr. Day was in the room during those meetings. You've said you were surprised, and we've heard, too, that by the time the information came from Mr. Zaccardelli during his December 5 testimony there was a change. There were two different situations.

In your capacity, what are you doing now to ascertain which version was the true version? Obviously they both can't be true. What things are you...? Did you just do nothing? Are you doing anything now to follow up and see if it is the testimony on September 28 or the testimony on December 5 that Canadians should believe as the true-fact situation over this story and over a chain of events that hopefully will never be repeated for another person?

I want to talk to you in a couple of minutes about going forward, but what investigations have you done in your capacity of advising the minister?

I think, Ms. Bloodworth, people here are not looking for your comments...to be talking to former Commissioner Zaccardelli, but certainly you are the person who the Prime Minister would be talking to.

First of all, Mr. Elliott.

[William Elliott]

First of all, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could clarify that I referred to one meeting that I attended with the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Minister of Public Safety a few days before the commissioner's testimony on December 5. The only mention of the testimony on December 5 or the appearance on December 5 was that the commissioner was going to appear.

Secondly, with respect to the facts and what happened, Mr. Justice O'Connor went through a very lengthy process. He looked at documentation, he heard evidence in public and in camera, and he did an exhaustive examination. I think his report details what happened with respect to Mr. Arar and the role of Canadian officials with respect to those events.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

My question was about what you've done inside to.... Are you just leaving it at, “Well, there's the new testimony, and now I accept that new testimony as being the real version”?

I'm asking you personally, as the person who is the deputy minister on this--and you've said that you were surprised--did you not do any follow-up or have questions at any point, even after December 5?

[William Elliott]

No.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you. That's what I was looking for.

Now that former Commissioner Zaccardelli has stepped down, the concern can still remain that his successor can be in a situation where he's not fully informed. We've talked about some of the steps that have been taken from the first report, but there's a second report out now. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the recommendations in the second report from the commissioner.

We have an interim RCMP commissioner now, but there'll be another one in the future, hopefully soon, and we don't want a commissioner who would be ignorant of the facts of files that are so material, with that information not being moved on for the benefit of the security of Canadians.

I'm wondering what you think of the second report, the review mechanism report, or if you wish to comment at this time.

[William Elliott]

With respect to information, I think the ten recommendations in Mr. O'Connor's part one report addressed to the RCMP, and the steps taken by the RCMP and others to improve the management and sharing of information, are very appropriate and helpful in addressing all of the underlying factors that gave rise to the events that were the subject of the inquiry.

On the part two report, clearly there is an acknowledged need for more and better review of the national security activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. O'Connor has made recommendations with respect to review more broadly. The government is considering those recommendations, and I have no doubt we'll be bringing forward proposals in due course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Elliott, in your opinion, what is the most important thing that needs to be clarified in Mr. Zaccardelli's testimony of September 28?

[William Elliott]

The issue that Commissioner Zaccardelli indicated in his letter was largely in relation to when he had what knowledge.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

In fact, if I understand correctly, we had to determine whether he had been informed of this shortly after Mr. Arar's arrival in Syria or much later. Am I right?

[William Elliott]

I think the general question is when did he have knowledge of the fact that inaccurate information had been provided to American officials?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes. According to his testimony on September 28, it was shortly after Mr. Arar arrived in Syria, was it not? This is the point that needed clarifying.

[William Elliott]

That's certainly one aspect, but I can't speak to all of the things that the commissioner felt required clarification.