Public Safety Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

On the first question, related to the apology, let me refer members again to the report. We want to be careful to be doing as Justice O'Connor suggested.

I'll just read to you from the report itself:

...if the Government of Canada chooses to negotiate with Mr. Arar,

—and in fact we do, and we have sent the indication and have begun to do that—

negotiated arrangements can be more creative than a mere damage award. A compensation agreement could involve anything from an apology to an offer of employment or assistance in obtaining employment.

That's the recommendation of Justice O'Connor.

Let me answer your question, Joe; you've asked me to do that, and I want to.

We intend to go farther than simply offering employment, but this is a discussion between Mr. Arar and his lawyers. Justice O'Connor, as a person who understands these judicial processes, also understands that within the context of compensation is the issue of apology.

If I can use another example, we had the situation of the Chinese head tax—just follow me on this. That was something that was put in place by another government, but this government took responsibility to address it. But before there was an apology stated, there was a lot of discussion that went on with those who were working their way through the civil process. We had to make sure the apology would be something that was sufficient for those who had been hurt.

It's precisely the same process in principle that's being applied here. Justice O'Connor is saying that if the government wants to do this—and we do—then do it this way. It could include an apology; it could include other things. That's why, out of respect for Mr. Arar, out of respect for what he and his family went through, we want to make sure this is done correctly.

On the second question, of national security, about 99.5% of everything Justice O'Connor wanted to publish has been published. For some matters of national security—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

On what basis are you saying that?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I take the advice of national security. I take the advice of those who work with other security agencies. And on the basis of national security, and for the importance of maintaining proper relationships with other security agencies, with our allies, a decision was made to retain a tiny portion of the information.

Now it's very important to note that Justice O'Connor, though he does not share that view with us, did say that nothing of the information that was being held stopped or restricted in any way the report he put out here, his criticisms, or the recommendations. So nothing has restricted in any way his ability to come out with some very good recommendations.

I just have to say, when looking at this information, that when it comes to national security, the risk to Canadians, and the risk to some of those involved in our security agencies, I will have to do what I think is right and make the recommendation that a very tiny portion of this information, which could be harmful not to Mr. Arar--Mr. Arar has been given a clear assurance from us that we want things cleared for him.... But I am taking that position.

As a matter of fact, we're taking a statutory position, and we have advised Justice O'Connor of this. We will take the necessary steps, through a court order, to protect what we believe are national security interests. Now if that proceeds to court, then the courts obviously will decide and it will have to stay with that. So that's why we're taking that particular position; it's in the interest of the security of Canadians.

As far as parliamentary oversight, as Mr. Comartin, I think, knows, Justice O'Connor has said he wants to come back, and is coming back, with a second report. Much of it has to do with policies, but a significant portion of it will have to do with the question of parliamentary oversight.

I have indicated publicly, even when I was a member of the opposition, that I want to see some kind of oversight mechanism. It was also part of our campaign commitment coming into the last election, and it is still the Prime Minister's commitment. We want to see proper parliamentary oversight by an all-party group.

Some around this table have brought forward excellent recommendations on that in the past. We're going to proceed with that at some point, but I think in deference to Justice O'Connor, we have to hear his views on it. We'll continue to proceed in that particular direction.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Minister, with regard to the other three—Mr. Almalki, Mr. El Maati, and Mr. Nureddin—again, Justice O'Connor was quite clear about the need for an expedited methodology or model to be used to conduct the investigation into those files. Do you have a timeline as to when you're going to take a position?

I want to say to you that I have a model or a couple of models that I can suggest to you. Do you have a timeline as to when your government is going to make a decision about how those three files are going to be handled?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thanks for that question.

We have said that we want to go ahead with that.

In terms of the best means, following the recommendations of Justice O'Connor and the timeline, I'm saying to my officials that as soon as possible, let's look at the best way of doing it. You have had good ideas in the past that have made sense and will continue to do so. If you want to get that information to me, I'll also give that to officials. We should look at the most effective, most efficient, and most expeditious way to get these answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go over to the government side.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I will share with the committee that the minister did indicate, last weekend, that he would be prepared to be here on Tuesday. He thought the commissioner would also be available. I checked with the chair and there was some discussion. It was determined that we didn't have time to do it on Tuesday. This was the first reasonable opportunity. I think my friend, Mr. Ménard, had a notice of motion to do exactly the same thing. So I think, with all due respect, that Canadians should feel comfort in the fact that this was the first reasonable opportunity for both the commissioner and you to be here, and I do appreciate that.

Recommendation 23 has received a great deal of discussion from members in the House and outside with respect to compensation to Mr. Arar. I think the one issue that gets raised frequently is that we should avoid applying a strictly legal assessment. Without going into any discussion with Mr. Arar, what would it cost the Government of Canada today to satisfy Mr. Arar's outstanding civil claim?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Do you mean how much is...what the figure is that's out there at this point?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes. What would be the dollar figure, without negotiating?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Well, you know how civil claims are, and I can only state what I know to be public. There was a claim of something in the order of $400 million, but are you asking what the final settlement would be, or are you asking if that's the existing notion that's there right now?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'm asking if that's what's there without any negotiations.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I understand that's a figure, but we want to proceed, as I've already indicated, in discussions between lawyers. We've given that indication; we want that to take place.

I'm very concerned about Mr. Arar and his family, and I'm concerned that they know and understand that we recognize what they've been through, and that it be addressed, but I really can't get into further discussion, as I have to respect him, his lawyers, and government lawyers on that point.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

The other issue, Minister, that's been frequently raised is with respect to apologies and so on to Mr. Arar and his family. Was there anything that precluded the former government from offering those apologies prior to today?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

There's no precluding anybody, or the former government, from offering an apology. As a matter of fact, Justice O'Connor raised the question of the inability of the government of the day, when Mr. Arar was in prison, to act with one voice--to say he was a person we were not worried about in terms of security and criminal background.

We had a case in which the Prime Minister apparently at one point wanted to send such a letter. The Solicitor General didn't agree to sign it, and if the security people weren't signing it, that had some impact, according to Justice O'Connor, on the Syrian officials. Justice O'Connor says there were statements made by different members--ministers, at the time, in the former government--that resulted in some ongoing grievance.

I think in those cases, individual members who are no longer with the government would have to decide on their own if they think an apology is forthcoming from them individually.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think you've already mentioned it, but I think it's worthy of further comment. Mr. Justice O'Connor recommended in his report released last week that Mr. Arar's name and his family's name be removed from the Canada Border Services Agency lookout. Can you confirm if that in fact has occurred?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Yes. As I indicated, within about 24 hours of receiving the report, I gave that instruction, and that instruction was followed through.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

As we go forward with these 23 recommendations--some of which you have already indicated deal with the RCMP, CSIS, and others--what plans or commitment can you give to this committee and Canadians that those will be corrected and followed out?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I think my indication is clear. I've been very specific in terms of numbering the recommendations themselves, indicating which ones were already moving ahead and the commitment to move ahead on all of them, and looking at the best way to do that.

Some directly affect the RCMP. Some affect both the RCMP and other agencies. Some of those are already in place, and others are moving forward expeditiously. I would welcome the committee to check on our progress a month or two months from now to make sure we are moving as we indicated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, you're done, Mr. MacKenzie.

We are moving to the Liberal Party for their second round. Next is Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us here today.

After 9/11, and after the deportation of Mr. Arar, many civil rights advocates and community groups spoke about the attitude and the rush to conclusion that many officials had done, and the suspension of due process. I want to specifically address the point that you, the Prime Minister, and several members of your caucus criticized the government at the time for trying to get Mr. Arar released. Is that true or not?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

No, that's not true. As a matter of fact, although some members--

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay, you've answered my question.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I can't answer for intentions, but I can say I'm on the record very clearly, and I was putting questions to the government of the day on this issue. As a matter of fact, at one point I asked, “Why won't you just give Mr. Arar the answer to his fair questions? Why are you running him the risk of a huge, expensive, and time-consuming process? Why won't you just give us”--

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

You've answered my question. I'm referring to the time when Mr. Arar was deported by the U.S. to Syria. Didn't you call for an inquiry to determine why the Prime Minister of the time was defending a man who was suspected of links to al-Qaeda?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I ever talked about al-Qaeda. But I stand corrected. I don't think so. I made a lot of statements, if I can assure my colleague, on this very question.