I'm not being critical, because I recognize that.
I would question some of my friends opposite as to whether they have read the report. If they read the analysis and recommendations on pages 162 and 163, they might see that Justice O'Connor is not that critical of CSIS and the role that CSIS played in this. I would perhaps question the demands for apologies from many of them about CSIS's role. When I read Mr. O'Connor's analysis and recommendations, I don't see where he has faulted CSIS a great deal for what transpired.
I think if we look at it on the basis of where fault lies, there are lots of shoulders to bear that responsibility, including political, press, perhaps the RCMP, and perhaps CSIS in some small way. But I don't think it's fair for us to be overly critical of CSIS, when we see what Mr. O'Connor wrote after having the opportunity to hear a lot of testimony.
It's fair that we're here to ask what we can about some of the issues surrounding it. It wasn't our intention with this committee to redo O'Connor. We are concerned about issues surrounding what political people knew and what they should have known, and perhaps what they did to secure Mr. Arar's release from Syria.
I guess that would lead into my question. During that period of time, when there were discussions about the one-voice letter and what was going on in Syria, can you tell us what CSIS's role--not the words--would have been in briefing the political people to work together on that one-voice letter?