I'm glad my colleague raised the issue of relevance. People play games. People can say that Mr. Arar was neither a chief of staff nor a national election campaign manager of any political party, and that is true.
I raised this point because we are debating something that intelligence and national security experts maintain does not exist. In their opinion, the most that can be said about the information leaked to the media is that it is incomplete and does not provide the whole picture.
Without disclosing any state secrets or security intelligence, these experts said there was no fire even if we think we see smoke. They said that foreign interference is indeed important and real, but that, in relation to the inquiry, we have to be careful about the information certain individuals have disclosed to the media and certain journalists, because those experts are not convinced of the truth of that information.
That is why I raised another situation in which information leaked to the media was revealed to be completely false. It was not simply a waste of time or a situation in which the victim emerged unscathed: there was a real victim in that case.
We cannot say that all individuals act in good faith. When a person who presumably works for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service decides to leak information even though their job requires them to swear an oath and not disclose sensitive information, we have to ask some questions. Not only is that person disclosing just a single aspect, but they are not living up to their professional commitments.
We can wonder whether such a person is reliable if they are willing to abandon their professional obligations and take the risk of being charged and going to jail for leaking information. I am not sure that is a reliable person. I would like at least to have a second source of information. It is unfortunate that, among the journalists involved in this matter, at least one journalist was involved in the Maher Arar affair and decided to publish information that proved to be false, which caused a great deal of harm to Mr. Arar.
I am tremendously concerned about this. That is why I am suggesting this, Ms. Normandin. That is why I think it is important to remember what happened, because I hope that will compel us to avoid something that could become or could be perceived as a major injustice. That is why I am drawing a parallel between the current situation and what happened 20 years ago. I think that is our duty.
I do not want to deal with this matter lightly. What we are discussing is significant. Aside from the principle of ministerial responsibility, what we are discussing here is essentially based on leaked information that intelligence and national security officials have rejected as false. If we cannot trust those people, who are committed to protecting us all, whom can we trust?
It would be a bit strange for us to continue to pursue what, by all appearances, is an injustice or an unwarranted path and claim that we will hold a public inquiry and ask individuals to break the law by coming here to disclose everything they know about the topic, including secrets and intelligence that are matters of national security.
I hope there will be an inquiry into foreign interference in Canada. Can we recognize the fact, though, that such an inquiry will include a public portion and a portion behind closed doors? I am willing to do that, but no one in the opposition has said so. I want people to say this instead of constantly demanding full transparency and inquiries that are 100% public.
I can see at least one member of the opposition nodding his head and I congratulate him. He needs to speak up though. That has not been stated in the motions presented thus far, since they refer to a public inquiry only.
An opposition MP just said off mike that the Maher Arar inquiry was a public inquiry. Let me repeat with my microphone on so that all Canadians understand my reaction and what I am about to say: there were actually two parts to that inquiry: one public and one behind closed doors to examine classified information. This is extremely important.
If that model were suggested, I would have no problem supporting it. I hope that is the model that the independent special rapporteur will recommend to the Prime Minister. I am confident that that person, a prominent Canadian, will provide an overview of the situation and make recommendations to the Prime Minister, who has agreed to follow them to the letter. Canadians can trust us because we will do what is best, without partisanship. I hope all my colleagues will be delighted to support the work of the independent special rapporteur. It is important.
Let me conclude with one final point, but I will certainly have more to say later on. We should not rely on the information that was disclosed, for a number of reasons. First, the officials told us that, even if that information were valid, it is just partial information and describes just part of the picture. Secondly, they also said that the conclusions drawn by the journalists and certain members of the opposition were false. Finally, if we continue to rely on information that the officials said is inaccurate, that might tarnish the reputation of certain elected officials or even an entire community.
I am not making this up: this kind of thing has happened in the past.
We already suffered a national disgrace when certain information about Maher Arar was disclosed by journalists. It was a grave injustice in 2002‑03, which continued until 2005‑06, and would still be an injustice today.
Let us use what happened in the past to guide us. Let us not repeat the errors of the past. Let us be innovative and make new mistakes.
For all these reasons, I implore my opposition colleagues to take a different approach.
Thank you, Madam Chair.