Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I will once again quote the “Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar”, but this time, I will go back to the beginning of the report, specifically the part where Justice O'Connor talks about a misperception that was widespread at that time. It is important not to say things that are false. We have to proceed very cautiously in conducting an inquiry and not rely on information that is not sound, so to speak.
The current debate, which is bogging down the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, was sparked by the Global News report, based on information from a supposedly certain source, a person who works for an intelligence agency. We have to be careful though because we don't know if that person works for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. If they do, they have broken the law.
We don't know if that person has the full picture. I seriously doubt that they had access to the analyses on which the intelligence agencies base their work. The testimony from intelligence and national security officials makes me doubt that.
Another thing that makes me very cautious is that the officials said it was partial or inaccurate information. They expressed their doubts about the veracity of the information. Yet, people still want an inquiry into this.
My colleagues opposite are asking why I am so reluctant. They are saying that if everyone is innocent and everything is in order, I have nothing to fear. Yet, we are in the process of changing everything.
We are elected officials, and our privileges by far exceed the burden of proof that prevails in courts of law. We have privileges that no one else in Canada has. In my opinion, having those privileges requires us to be very thoughtful. It is a tremendous responsibility to trigger a process that can damage the reputation of other Canadians, if not of an entire community.
That is why I am reluctant to pursue that avenue, but it is also because I have access to relevant information, as everyone around the table does. We have seen this kind of thing before. It was between 2002 and 2006, in the Maher Arar case. I think it is entirely appropriate to consider the inquiry conducted by Justice Dennis O'Connor, to read his “Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar”, and to examine the key points in our current situation.
I assume that my colleagues are in good faith, and I hope they will exercise good judgment and show restraint before embarking on an inquiry that could hurt the reputation of a number of individuals, including that of an elected colleague.
I would ask the interpreters to refer to part 3.4 of the “Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar, Analysis and Recommendations”.
In this part, we see how Justice O'Connor arrived at his conclusions. He gives an overview of his conclusions. He talks about Maher Arar and the right not to be subjected to torture. He talks about the sequence of events, such as Mr. Arar's detention in New York and his being sent to Syria. He talks about Mr. Arar's incarceration and the mistreatment he suffered in Syria. Saying he was mistreated is a euphemism because he was in fact tortured. Justice O'Connor does not mince words in presenting his conclusions.
If that were the end of it, that would already be a parody of justice, but the truly horrible part is that leaks of false information persisted after Mr. Arar's return—relating not only to Mr. Arar, but also to two other individuals who were involved—and even during Justice O'Connor's inquiry.
It is beyond me that all this happened. Justice O'Connor had many recommendations to make. It is in our general interest to remain aware of this information.
The part of the report I want to quote is the overview Judge O'Connor gave of the misperceptions regarding Mr. Arar.
At the beginning of the Inquiry, many people within government and likely some members of the public believed that Mr. Arar had not been tortured while in Syria and that he had voluntarily admitted links to terrorist activities. It is instructive and disturbing to trace how this misunderstanding grew. Let me recount a few of the milestones. After the Canadian consul first visited Mr. Arar in Syrian custody on October 23, 2002, it should have been apparent that Mr. Arar had likely been tortured in the preceding two weeks.
This is rather serious. Mr. Arar was tortured for two weeks and incarcerated for over a year. I will continue reading the report:
Some Canadian officials, including Gar Pardy, Director General of Consular Affairs at DFAIT, operated on that assumption. However, others did not, saying they required more evidence.
At the beginning of November 2002, the Syrian Military Intelligence gave Canada’s ambassador a brief summary of a statement Mr. Arar had apparently given Syrian authorities during his first two weeks in custody. In that statement, Mr. Arar had said that he had attended a training camp in Afghanistan in 1993. DFAIT distributed the statement to the RCMP and CSIS without attaching a note cautioning that it was likely the product of torture and that, even if true, the admission was of doubtful significance for establishing terrorist links.
This part is very important. It comes down to highlighting the importance of setting the context. In leaks to newspapers from an anonymous source, there was no warning. What did our national security and intelligence experts tell us? Every time they received a bit of information or heard a rumour, they put it in context.
We may sometimes think that information is coming from a reliable source. We could then think that it is true. Others will say that it is coming from an unreliable source; that we should not give it too much importance. That's how this is presented to us, because it's information that was passed along on the ground. However, there's no context around it.
There is a fine expression: "A text without context is pretext." It means that a text unsupported by verified information serves as a pretext to justify a hasty conclusion or a baseless one. That is exactly what happened to Mr. Arar. We have to be cautious with everything we are doing, because if we continue this inquiry without knowing the context, it means we are here only to prove a point, that we've drawn a conclusion without evidence to support it. It makes no sense to act this way.
I will continue by quoting another passage in the report on the events surrounding Mr. Arar:
In late April 2003, a briefing note to the RCMP Commissioner indicated that Mr. Arar had “volunteered” to Syrian authorities that he had attended a training camp in Afghanistan in 1993, the implication being that he might have terrorist links.
What was this information based on? Once again, it was determined to be completely false.
In July 2003, the Syrian Human Rights Committee published a report saying Mr. Arar had been tortured while in Syrian custody. The Canadian consul visited Mr. Arar on August 14, 2003. Syrian officials were present throughout the visit, and Mr. Arar, who was anxiously hoping to be released, was very careful about what he said in front of them, indicating that the truth would come out when he returned to Canada. He also stated that he had not been tortured, beaten or paralyzed. Understandably, the consul was sceptical of this last comment, given the circumstances in which it was made.
Finally, we have a bit of context. When surrounded by people who are torturing us, it's very unlikely that we will tell the truth, isn't it? That is the reason for which the courts do not accept testimony from someone subjected to violence.
These are fruits of the poisonous tree. We should always remember that.
I will continue reading the report.
Later the same day, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs made a public statement about the consular visit. He had not been properly briefed. He indicated that, during an “independent” visit, Mr. Arar had confirmed that he had not been tortured. This statement created an inaccurate picture, as the visit had not been independent. Syrian officials had been present throughout. Moreover, the Minister made no reference to the need to view Mr. Arar’s statement about not being tortured with scepticism.
If an MP or citizen had heard the minister tell such a story without specifying that Mr. Arar was not alone when he made his statement, the minister would surely have been told that Mr. Arar would have had to be alone when making that statement. Indeed, if the people who illegally detained Mr. Arar for nine or 10 months were present, I would not have expected Mr. Arar to tell the truth. Everyone knows that doesn't make any sense.
I will continue:
When Mr. Arar was released on October 5, 2003, he flew back to Canada with the Canadian consul. He gave the consul some details about his ordeal, stating that he had been beaten on occasion during the first two weeks of his detention. The consul reported his conversations to other officials at DFAIT a few days later. However, subsequently, in memoranda, he reported that Mr. Arar had said that he had not been beaten. No mention was made of the statements Mr. Arar had made on the plane trip back to Canada. Mr. Arar first spoke publicly of what had happened to him in early November 2003. He described how he had been beaten during the first two weeks of his imprisonment and had given the Syrians a statement. Although somewhat more detailed, the description was consistent with what he had said on the plane. Professor Toope found Mr. Arar’s description completely credible. In the months following Mr. Arar’s release, there were a number of leaks from unnamed government sources indicating that Mr. Arar had admitted to having terrorist links in Syria and stating that he was not a “nice guy” or a “virgin,” as would be seen when the truth came out. It is fair to assume that some government officials and members of the public had the impression that Mr. Arar had admitted to having connections to terrorist activities and they formed a negative impression of him. If nothing else, some assumed that “where there is smoke, there is fire.” Certainly, at the beginning of the Inquiry, it was obvious to me that many within government believed that Mr. Arar had not been tortured and that he had voluntarily admitted links to terrorist activity to the Syrians. They were of the view that the truth would come out during the Inquiry.
Well, the truth did come out. When Professor Toope’s report was made public over a year later, the government did not challenge the findings in the report and, indeed, through counsel, the government indicated that Mr. Arar had given “a credible” account that he was tortured. The disturbing part of all of this [once again, I am quoting the Justice] is that it took a public inquiry to set the record straight. Getting it right in the first place should not have been difficult, and it should not have been a problem to keep the record accurate. However, over time, the misperception grew and seemed to become more entrenched as it was reported. In this report, [Justice O'Connor said] I speak often of the need for accuracy and precision when collecting, recording and sharing information. Inaccurate information can have grossly unfair consequences for individuals, and the more often it is repeated, the more credibility it seems to assume.
We have before us partial, incomplete allegations, which experts have denied. However, around this table, some of my colleagues insist on repeating those allegations, which haven't been corroborated and, according to officials, are completely inaccurate. Yet they continue to repeat them. As Justice O'Connor said, the more often information is repeated, the more credibility it seems to assume in the minds of Canadians. Wow. It's very important to keep that in mind.
I'll continue quoting the report:
Inaccurate information is particularly dangerous in connection with terrorism investigations in the post‑9/11 environment. Officials and the public are understandably concerned about the threats of terrorism. However, it is essential that those responsible for collecting, recording and sharing information be aware of the potentially devastating consequences of not getting it right.
The burden does not belong exclusively to those who head our national security and intelligence services. Indeed, they're an extremely important part of that responsibility, but it's a burden we all carry.
As elected officials, we enjoy certain privileges. No matter what we say in Parliament, we are never held accountable for those words, because a certain degree of freedom is required if elected officials want to be good parliamentarians or senators. However, those privileges come with responsibilities.
What I find infuriating is the fact that the people in charge, who have a much more complete overview than we do, or at least more than I do, came to the conclusion that there's always foreign interference in Canada, that the allegations we read in the newspapers were neither truthful nor credible and that they mislead Canadians.
If we want to question these people, we are all lost at this point, because they are an aggregate of experienced people who want to protect us. They've learned lessons from the past and do their work sincerely. They have information sources coming from our Five Eyes allies, meaning the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. They probably have other sources coming from our other allies. That said, I do not want to spread misinformation. At the very least, I can say they have access to that information.
The witnesses who appeared before us did not reveal any national security intelligence. They answered our questions frankly and came to the conclusion that what was reported in the newspapers was false.
In that case, why are we persisting with all this? Why do we want to break parliamentary traditions by forcing political aides to testify? Why are we accusing certain people of being influenced by foreign interests? How is it that we think it's acceptable to say this about a prime minister? It makes no sense. Everything is upside down.
I am sure that at least one country is laughing up its sleeve, and that's China. Other countries under an authoritarian regime, such as Iran or Russia, are probably watching us.
We're getting all worked up. Some people insist on repeating falsehoods for partisan reasons. Others have good motivations, but they're still playing the same game. According to our heads of security, they may be doing it for lofty reasons, but possibly for bad reasons too.
It is beyond me when they continue to repeat things that undermine Canadians' confidence in our institutions, even when experts tell us that our institutions have successfully resisted attempts at foreign interference.
That doesn't mean we can rest on our laurels. We must always remain vigilant. We must always adapt our measures to respond to the growing abilities of countries who want to wreak havoc in all democracies around the world.
I don't know if it was Ms. Romanado or Ms. Vandenbeld who said that the real challenges today aren't the struggles between capitalism and communism. One of the real challenges is the division between authoritarian governments and democratic governments. It was Ms. Vandenbeld who said that, because she has broad international experience. She worked in developing countries and saw the struggles that come with an authoritarian system.
Some people in those countries are working very hard to establish good governance so that they can enjoy the same advantages available in Canada. These people need help. I hope Canada will always stand up to help them. Ms. Vandenbeld saw what is happening for herself. She spoke of the importance of having exemplary practices and adapting them, depending on the situation.
Ms. Vandenbeld said this morning that Canada is seen as a world leader on these issues. She talked about her past and the way we can start to democratize and to share, as much as possible, the responsibilities linked to national security issues.
It started with the proposal from the former prime minister, Mr. Paul Martin, which was to establish a national security committee.
Mr. Paul Martin sought Parliament's support in order to create a national security committee that would be made up of parliamentarians. These parliamentarians would be sworn in as members of the Privy Council before they could be briefed on matters of national security.
Unfortunately, Mr. Martin did not win a majority vote in the election. He headed a minority government, the first one for decades, and lost the following election.
The next prime minister claimed at the time to very much care about national security. However, he never followed up on this claim by striking an advisory committee to deal with such matters.
It wasn't until 2015, when Mr. Trudeau's majority government was elected, that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians or NSICOP was formed. Not only did his government set up the longed‑for committee, it also created a review agency called the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the NSIRA.
We have dealt with these matters through another committee comprised of public servants, whose mandate is to uphold our national security on behalf of Canadians. We have also set up an organization that brings together all the recognized political parties in the House of Commons and their campaign directors. Again, all these people have sworn an oath. The members of this committee pool all their information on threats or any major attempts at foreign interference in our electoral system. This was another fantastic innovation.
Today, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands read out comments made by Mr. Fred DeLorey, the national campaign director for the Conservative Party in 2021. Mr. Fred DeLorey said that there was no doubt in his mind that there had been no foreign interference in the 2015 election. The results of the national election reflected the will of Canadians in each riding.
What's more, and this is relevant to the debate that we're having right now and that Canadians are also watching, he came to the conclusion that his party was unfortunately engaging in petty politics. That's a shame, because this is a matter of national security.
He is not the only great Conservative to say that this type of work should be dealt with by the NSICOP. After hearing the Prime Minister's statement last Monday, Mr. DeLorey came to the conclusion that the Prime Minister went even further than Mr. DeLorey himself would have done and that we should seize the opportunity to have an inquiry that would be untainted by partisan interests.
I think that Mr. DeLorey's conclusion is probably the same as the one to which the vast majority of Canadians have arrived, i.e., that these matters should not be the subject of partisan political debates. That's very important. I am happy to see some people nodding their heads here around the table. It is encouraging and leads me to believe that we will perhaps find a fair solution that will get us out of this impasse.
As I said, Mr. DeLorey was not the only Conservative. There was a former RCMP assistant director, a former chief of the Ottawa police and a former Conservative senator, Mr. Vernon White. I discussed the issue of making Wellington Street a pedestrian zone on many occasions with Mr. White. We had the idea of making it a more welcoming and useful space, a pleasant area where Canadians could come to celebrate Canada or even protest on occasion.
Mr. White conducted an in‑depth study on security within the Parliamentary Precinct. He came to the conclusion, as did I, that we are exposing government to risks that can't be justified. We have to protect the Parliamentary Precinct.
I don't want to keep banging on about the subject, because it's not relevant to our debate, but I did want to say that the former senator Vernon White cared about our national interests. We were able to set aside partisan interests and hold discussions that were very fruitful. I consider him to be a friend. Indeed, over the weekend, I listened to him speak on The House, the CBC radio show.
Mr. White is known for his candour. He said that the NSICOP was not the ideal place to hold these discussions, because parliamentarians can see everything, even classified information that hasn't been redacted. The committee is all set up and is fully independent, which means that it does not subject to any influence from the current Prime Minister.
Mr. White was a member of the committee that does incredibly important work on security matters. There has never been a leak from that committee. All committee members, both current and former, have taken their work seriously. They do not deserve the insults that have been hurled at them by some people who believe that the committee is a tool of the Prime Minister. According to Mr. White, this is utter nonsense. We must maintain our support for the NSICOP. We must avoid tarnishing the reputation of its committee members.
Mr. DeLorey and Mr. White came to the conclusion that these are two very useful tools. We can use them to really get at the heart of the matter quickly without spending too much of taxpayers' money. At least two great Canadians are of this opinion.
My colleague from Kingston and the Islands spoke of a third Conservative who had expressed his support, i.e., the former senator from Kingston, Mr. Hugh Segal, another great Canadian who enjoyed a stellar career. He was, amongst other things, chief of staff for Prime Minister Mulroney and the senior political advisor to Mr. Bill Davis, the former Premier of Ontario.
I am a Quebecker and I remember clearly that Mr. Davis was always considered one of the best provincial premiers. In an article published recently in the Toronto Star, Mr. Davis expressed the same opinion as Mr. White, the former senator, and Mr. DeLorey, the former Conservative campaign director, which is that the NSICOP is a good forum to discuss these matters and that the Prime Minister made the right call.
We have to stop all this petty political chicanery on an issue as important as our country's national security. This is obvious.
I would like to continue, but I know that other MPs want to speak. I would dearly like to hear what my colleagues have to say, especially my colleagues from the opposition. I hope that they won't just keep parroting the same thing and state that we have been going on and on about this for hours.
Once again, this is an important issue. We will take the time that we need to look at it closely. Period.
If my colleagues have any new ideas or new arguments, I am all ears. However, I do hope that this will go both ways, and that my colleagues will also listen as I would listen to them, and take into account the points that I have raised.
I believe that we should respect our parliamentary traditions. In order to do so, we should end this debate, withdraw the motion and let the committees with the proper mandates do their work. Matters that can be looked at in public will be looked at in public. Matters that need to be examined behind closed doors will be examined in such a manner, in order to protect information that deals with national security. Afterwards, there will be a report, which must always be published.
I will stop here in order to hear what my colleagues have to say.
Thank you very much.