Public Safety Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

We stuck to trying to find out whether or not there were leaks. There's all kinds of information out there. Some of it is accurate; some of it probably isn't. But the key for us was what, if any, information was coming out of the offices under our responsibility or from the government as a whole. That's what was key for us: that somebody, somewhere was using information, accurate or otherwise, to undermine the credibility of Mr. Arar, and that was our concern.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON

The attitude at that time, in 2003—before, during, and after the whole situation—caused by leaks and I also recall by opposition members, who were the Alliance then.... Do you recall what types of questions they had for the government, what kind of pressure they exerted on the government, and what type of impact that had on the government and your office?

9:50 a.m.

Malpeque, Lib.

Certainly. On the questions on the file, let's put it this way: they ranged all over the map. They ranged from questions by Mr. Day, I believe, and others at the time that the government wasn't tough enough on terrorists. Whether that was referring to any of the people in the news at that time, I would have to go back and look. But certainly there were very tough questions from Mr. Day that we weren't doing enough on fighting terrorism. There were questions from the other side, in particular the NDP, saying that we weren't doing enough to protect civil liberties. So they ranged right across the map.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Thank you.

We'll have a shorter round this time, and if we're going to get around, we'll have to move to Mr. Ménard from the Bloc.

Thank you.

October 24th, 2006 / 9:55 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

We would have to agree first on the words, Mr. Easter. A person of interest and an extremist terrorist or an Islamic terrorist are, for you, two different things, aren't they?

Malpeque, Lib.

Yes.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

If I understood properly the answer...

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Ménard, I think a person of interest could lead anywhere, from being absolutely innocent to being a terrorist. It could lead in any direction. It means that there's information there that leads a law enforcement agency to have an interest in this individual, based on connections or whatever else, which may lead somewhere. It may be good; it may be bad.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Now, if I understood properly your answer to Mr. Comartin, until November 2003 or July 2003 — you seem unsure about the exact date — for you, Mr. Arar had always been characterized as a person of interest but not as an extremist terrorist or an Islamic terrorist. Is it correct?

Malpeque, Lib.

That is correct.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

When he was characterized as an extremist terrorist or an Islamic terrorist, namely in November 2003 or in July 2003, is it really by the RCMP that he was characterized as such?

Malpeque, Lib.

Yes, I believe it did.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I agree. Then, have you discussed it...

Malpeque, Lib.

Let me backtrack a little bit on that, Mr. Ménard. That would have been very late in my time as Solicitor General, and that would have been at least their allegation at one point in time.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Am I wrong to think, Mr. Easter, that the fact that an extremist terrorist or an Islamic terrorist was sent to Syria by U.S. authorities is much less surprising for you than if it was simply a person of interest, without being an extremist terrorist?

Malpeque, Lib.

The fact of the matter is--and I've answered this a number of times, and Justice O'Connor goes into this as well--that there were no officials, not the RCMP, not CSIS, involved in the decision by the Americans to deport. Mr. Justice O'Connor indicates that the information provided of Canada likely was one of the reasons for that decision, but elsewhere in the report he indicates that there was information globally as well.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

This is your final question, Monsieur Ménard.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I come back to your relationship with Mr. Ashcroft, from the United States. If you had known that Mr. Arar was innocent of any link with terrorist activity, you would have mentioned it to Mr. Ashcroft and you would have asked him: why did you send him to Syria? You would have asked him this to know if, precisely, they had their own reasons to send him to Syria.

Malpeque, Lib.

Let's be clear--

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Finally, as this is my last question, the issue was to know whether they had their own reasons to send him to Syria because, if this citizen came back from Syria, it remains that it was a Canadian citizen.

Then it was good to know if he was an extremist terrorist or simply an innocent individual.

Malpeque, Lib.

Just let's be absolutely clear. With respect to Mr. Arar and the decision by the U.S. to detain and deport, we did complain strenuously to the U.S., to Mr. Ashcroft. We--or I did, at least--operated under the view that they violated international law in terms of what they did. Mr. Arar was innocent, from my point of view, and should not have been detained and deported to Syria. We made that very clear to Mr. Ashcroft. We asked the question, why did you deport him, but no answers were forthcoming. Mr. Ashcroft would maintain that they did it under their laws and they had the right to do so. I disagree with that. We argued that point strenuously.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Thank you.

Mr. Brown, for a brief round.

With your permission, Mr. Easter, we're going to go over by a few minutes. Is that all right?

Malpeque, Lib.

It isn't a problem.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz

Okay, these are the last questions.