Public Safety Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2006

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The department knew, when Mr. Arar was sent to Syria, that he was removed to that country because he was suspected of having been involved in terrorist activities. It wasn't because he was thought to be involved in drug trafficking, money laundering or some kind of international fraud. He was removed because he was suspected of terrorist involvement. Correct?

[Alan Kessel]

I believe we understood eventually that the RCMP had concerns about Mr. Arar. At the time that we were dealing with him at the consular level, which is the basic front line response that the government has to citizens, we were unaware of all the background to this. We were dealing in a small, tight timeframe to ensure that this individual received consular protection. This included ensuring that he had a lawyer, which was done; ensuring that his family was in contact with him, which it was; and ensuring that the U.S. government knew that we were concerned about this individual, which it did.

Regardless of that, the U.S. government removed him to Syria. Since then we have been putting processes in place to avoid that happening again, internally and with the U.S. government.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

All the while that you were in contact with the RCMP, you never once heard that senior RCMP officials believed Mr. Arar did not have any terrorist ties and that his removal from the US was likely due to a miscommunication of information between the RCMP and US authorities.

[Alan Kessel]

Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add more than what the O'Connor inquiry has given on this particular thing. He has expounded on this considerably. So I would suggest that what the commission has indicated on that particular issue is clear, and in the report of the inquiry. I don't have anything more to add to that.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Kessel, Mr. Justice O'Connor was never told that the Commissioner of the RCMP believed Mr. Arar was innocent from the moment he was removed to Syria. We learned that right here. Obviously, you didn't know that.

Would your attitude have been different had you been convinced that because of a mistake on the part of authorities, most likely on the part of the RCMP, an innocent man was going to be left rotting in a Syrian jail for another year?

[Alan Kessel]

Mr. Chairman, our obligation as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is to provide consular services to Canadians who are in trouble. We did that. The O'Connor inquiry found that we did it well. We will continue to do that.

I do not possess the information that Mr. Ménard wishes on these other subjects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

Does anybody from the government side have a question? Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Serious concerns were expressed by Commissioner O'Connor with regard to the sharing of information contained in consular visit reports with others outside of DFAIT. I think you alluded to and answered some of the questions, but specifically, what steps, if any, have you taken to implement this recommendation 18 requiring consular officials to first fully advise those receiving visits that this information will be shared with others?

I ask that question in the particular context surrounding the type of investigative techniques some countries in the world use, other than those accepted in, shall we say, western democracies, and in addition to that, perhaps the kind of rights and privileges that Canadians hold when they are arrested and detained for investigation of certain crimes or suspected crimes.

Perhaps Mr. Desjardins could answer.

[Robert Desjardins]

Yes, thank you very much.

Under the Vienna Convention, a country that detains a foreigner has the obligation to inform that person of his or her right to have access to a consular representative, and that normally is granted or should be granted. The purpose of the consular visit is not to pursue any kind of investigation. The purpose of the consular visit is to assess the well-being of the individual, have a clear understanding of the charges that are laid against him or pending against him, ensure that due process takes place, and arrange for a legal counsel. So normally consular officers do not pursue in any way, shape, or form any kind of investigation.

Now, it is possible that information could be brought to their attention that may have a bearing, for instance, on national security. Then, of course, it would be the responsibility of the consular officer to report that matter, and discussions and consultation would take place here at headquarters as to whether and how that information could or should be shared with other agencies.

But consular officers are there to provide to detained Canadians the basic consular services, and that does not include investigative techniques or approaches.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I'm not suggesting that you would have the investigative technique or approach, but you mentioned you look at the well-being of the individual. Because we are not always sure that these meetings are in private—we may think they are, but they may not be, and I think you know where I'm going there—if the consular official has the slightest inkling that there could be something amiss there, is there a policy that the official would transmit that to Ottawa? And then what would happen? When he transmits it to Ottawa, what steps would we then take? Would we then engage the diplomatic process to have the department advise the minister, and then the minister would call the country in which this is occurring to say that as a result of our visit we still have concerns? Would that occur?

[Robert Desjardins]

Depending on the nature of the concern, we would take appropriate action. For instance, what we do on a regular basis is make representations on behalf of detainees when we have reason to believe their health concerns are not being addressed properly. So it's done, really, at the local level. The consular officer goes to the prison authorities and raises concerns and then expects action to be taken. If we're satisfied with what is being done, bravo. If we're not, then we pursue it, elevating the level of representation as required.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

So the elevation could go as far as the minister's making an intervention with his counterpart of that country, saying that we think they have a person in their custody and we are concerned that he is not being treated in accordance with national conventions?

[Robert Desjardins]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll have to end the meeting here.

We have one brief item of business. Mr. Brown, you were going to raise this before we conclude.

We'll just thank our witnesses. Thank you very much. Your part of the meeting is done. We just have one item of business that we have to quickly conclude.

Our time is up.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In my capacity as chair of the subcommittee that's reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act, I'd like to say that the committee continues to do its work. As you know, we have already tabled our interim report, but we are continuing work on other issues and we are requesting an extension until February 28. So this committee would have to request that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You're suggesting we write a letter?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Yes, forward a letter to the House leaders, to the House, to request that extension.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Can we get the consent of the committee to do that? Are there any problems with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.