Public Safety Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order, please. I'd like to call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 23. We are studying the events related to the Maher Arar situation.

We would like to welcome as our witness this morning the Honourable Anne McLellan, former Minister of Public Safety. Welcome to our committee, and we look forward to the testimony you have for us.

[Anne McLellan, Former Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The usual practice, as you probably are aware--things haven't changed much since you've been here--is we usually allow you whatever time you may require--10 minutes, 15 minutes, whatever--to make a statement and then we will open it up to the official opposition, which at this time is the Liberal Party of Canada.

Anyway, welcome, and you may begin whenever you are ready.

[Anne McLellan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be back on Parliament Hill.

Thank you for inviting me here today. I want to congratulate you and thank you for following up on the O'Connor report.

I asked Mr. Justice O'Connor to take up the important task of getting to the bottom of what happened to Maher Arar, and why it happened. His exhaustive investigation has served an important public purpose, but most importantly has provided the foundation on which Maher Arar and his family can move forward. It is clear that what happened to Maher Arar should not have happened, and that mistakes were made. While it was not appropriate for me to meet with Mr. Arar personally during my time as minister, I do want to take the opportunity now to express how sorry I am for everything that has happened to him and his family. It is now up to this government to decide how to implement Mr. Justice O'Connor's recommendations and to compensate Mr. Arar.

My involvement with the Arar case began when I become Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on December 13, 2003. Mr. Arar had been returned to Canada from Syria in September 2003. Prime Minister Martin asked me to get to the bottom of what had happened to Mr. Arar. In addition, he asked me to look at whether additional oversight was required for the RCMP in relation to its national security activities. In fact, that request was in the public documents issued at the time Prime Minister Martin became Prime Minister and the new government was installed on December 13, 2003.

Prime Minister Martin and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham were both very concerned about the conduct of the United States in relation to Mr. Arar, obviously that conduct being the deportation of a dual citizen to Syria rather than his expected return to Canada. To try to prevent this from happening again, discussions began with Mr. Graham's counterpart, Colin Powell, to enter into an agreement to ensure that no Canadian holding dual citizenship would be deported to a third country without consultations at the highest levels with DFAIT and the State Department. That agreement was adopted by Prime Minister Martin and President Bush on January 13, 2004, in Monterey and hence its name, the Monterrey Protocol. I believe the original agreement was confirmed recently by Minister Peter MacKay with his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Rice.

During the early part of January 2004, my department and I considered the best way to fulfill the Prime Minister's request that we get to the bottom of what happened to Mr. Arar. We considered the possibility of the Commission for Public Complaints undertaking an investigation. Since there seemed to be some concern as to the scope of the public complaints commission's jurisdiction, we finally decided that a public inquiry chaired by a judge or former judge would be the most transparent and independent process. On January 28, 2004, I announced our government's decision to hold a public inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials as it related to the deportation of Mr. Arar from the U.S. to Syria. I also announced that Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor of the Ontario Court of Appeal had agreed to serve as a single commissioner. An order in council was issued on February 5, 2004, officially appointing Mr. Justice O'Connor and setting out the terms of reference.

From that point on, it would have been inappropriate for anyone in the government to comment or speculate upon what did or did not happen to Mr. Arar or the reasons therefor. I have read the testimony of my former colleague, Wayne Easter, as well as that of Jim Judd, now director of CSIS, and that of Commissioner Zaccardelli. I have also read Mr. Justice O'Connor's factual findings and his recommendations.

Mr. Justice O'Connor reminds us all of the importance of oversight of the actions of government agencies involved in intelligence gathering and law enforcement. As I mentioned earlier, Prime Minister Martin had called for a review of whether there was sufficient and appropriate oversight of the RCMP in the exercise of its national security role. I know we all look forward to Mr. Justice O'Connor's second report, in which he will provide us with guidance in relation to additional appropriate oversight mechanisms.

In conclusion, let me say, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, that the O'Connor report provides insight not only into what can and did happen to one individual, but I think if Mr. O'Connor's report is taken up—and I know that you're taking it up and that it is the expressed intention of the government to take up his recommendations—it will help us, again, understand the difficulties and the challenges involved in striking the right balance. Obviously the paradigm foundational responsibility of government is to ensure the collective security of its people, but in doing so we must always be respectful and mindful of getting the balance right. I think Mr. Justice O'Connor's report goes some significant distance to providing us guidance in terms of what we need to remember about what we need to inform ourselves to ensure that we're always trying to get the balance right.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my remarks and look forward to questions and comments from the committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Ms. McLellan. I appreciate that.

As is the normal practice here, we'll begin with the Liberal Party of Canada. Mr. Mark Holland, please.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. McLellan, thank you for appearing today. Thank you for your words and for establishing the Arar inquiry.

I'd like to start with some questions on the time that you became the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. There would have obviously been, at that time, briefings around the Arar affair. Can you tell us the nature of those briefings, whether or not Commissioner Zaccardelli was included in those, and who might have participated as well from the RCMP in the briefings that took place?

[Anne McLellan]

You're quite right that, obviously, I was the new minister as of December 13, and we had created a new department as well. So the briefings were comprehensive, as they are when any new minister takes over a ministry, and in my case we were in the process of establishing a new department and trying to bring some cohesiveness to the various parts of the department from the very beginning.

I was briefed by Commissioner Zaccardelli in relation to key issues and challenges confronting the force at the time. I was also briefed by the then head of CSIS, Ward Elcock, in relation to the challenges and activities of CSIS. Certainly keep in mind the time. Mr. Arar had returned to Canada in September 2004. He, upon his return, through the months of October and November, had been calling for a public inquiry. Mr. Martin became leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in November 2003. He was being briefed and was working through the necessary transition in the lead-up to becoming Prime Minister of Canada. So during the months of October and November there was substantial discussion taking place outside Parliament in relation to Mr. Arar and his situation. Therefore, clearly when Mr. Elcock and Commissioner Zaccardelli came to brief me, the Arar situation was one of many cases that we discussed.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Commissioner Zaccardelli has testified before this committee that as soon as he found out that there was false information and learned of Mr. Arar's innocence he informed the government, and we heard from Mr. Easter that he had never had any such interaction with Mr. Zaccardelli. Can you tell us, either at the time of those briefings or subsequently, did the Commissioner or the RCMP tell you that they were ruling out Maher Arar as a terrorist or as an Islamic extremist? At any time, did they admit that there had been false information provided to the United States that may have led to the arrest of Maher Arar?

[Anne McLellan]

The first time I became aware that false information had been provided to the United States was when I read the report of Mr. Justice O'Connor. I will say that to the best of my knowledge—and I have thought about this, because I read, obviously, Mr. Justice O'Connor's report, as well as the comments before this committee by Commissioner Zaccardelli and others—in my presence, neither Commissioner Zaccardelli nor anyone else, either from the RCMP or CSIS, ever referred to Mr. Arar as an Islamic extremist. That was an expression that was never used in relation to Mr. Arar in my presence—ever.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

In your view, in light of what's happened, and now seeing Justice O'Connor's report, did the RCMP, in your opinion, withhold information from you at the time, when there were leaks and much speculation, including questions during question period from the opposition parties asking why the government wasn't doing more to go after Mr. Arar or why we were being soft on this individual? Looking back on it now, when those questions were being posed by the then opposition, and when the leaks were occurring, do you feel that the RCMP was withholding information from you that would have been helpful at that time, at the time that you were minister?

[Anne McLellan]

I can't say that I believe the RCMP withheld information from me. I think, obviously, from Mr. Justice O'Connor's report, that it is clear, as I said in my statement, that mistakes were made and that inaccurate information was provided to the United States of America that in some way, in all likelihood, impacted on the treatment of Mr. Arar by the United States of America.

I have no evidence whatsoever that the RCMP ever withheld any information from me.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

By the same token, they didn't provide you with any information to suggest that Maher Arar either was or was not a terrorist. As these leaks were occurring, they were not providing you with information the other way.

[Anne McLellan]

I think it's fair to say that the only expression I recall ever being used in relation to Maher Arar by anyone, but in particular by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was the fact that at least at some point he was a person of interest. I think it's fair to say that that was the expression used by the force--I shouldn't say the force; I should say Commissioner Zaccardelli, in relation to any briefing he may have provided me.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

There was an article on October 4, 2006, in the Toronto Star. In that article you said that Maher Arar was obviously a very big issue for the commissioner. I'm assuming that you mean Commissioner Zaccardelli. Could you expand upon what you meant by that? In what way was this a very big issue for the commissioner? Was he personally directing this file, in your estimation? What did you mean by that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That will probably have to be your final question.

[Anne McLellan]

What I meant by that was.... Keep in mind that Prime Minister Martin had given me the specific mandate on December 13 to get to the bottom of the Maher Arar case. Prime Minister Martin was also calling for me to review whether additional oversight of the force was required in relation to their national security activities. So I think it's fair to say that the coming together of those two things was very much on the mind of Commissioner Zaccardelli in terms of what mechanism might be put in place to get to the bottom of what happened. Clearly, the mechanism would be one of interest not only to the commissioner and the RCMP but to CSIS and other agencies within government.

I would say that in my mind there was no question that the Arar situation, what happened to Mr. Arar, why it happened, and how we were going to get to the bottom of that was very much front and centre for Commissioner Zaccardelli. My sense of that was that the commissioner quite rightfully was concerned, as we would expect someone in his position to be, about what happened. He was concerned about the things Mr. Arar was saying upon his return in relation to what had happened. I would hope that anyone responsible and the head of a force like the RCMP would be concerned and would want to know what happened and would make sure that corrective measures were taken, so that if mistakes were made, they weren't made again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Ménard, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam, for assisting our committee.

When you were appointed Minister of Public Security, and hence, the Minister responsible for the RCMP and CSIS, Mr. Arar had already returned to Canada,—

[Anne McLellan]

Yes.

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

—so that any unfair treatment he may have received was at least in the past. You wanted to get to the bottom of the incident and took steps to do just that.

Prior to assuming this portfolio, you were in Cabinet. I believe Mr. Arar's case had already made the headlines well before Mr. Martin's new government took office. During this period, while in Cabinet, was it your impression that Mr. Arar was connected in some way to a terrorist organization, or were you convinced that the treatment he received was completely unjustified?

[Anne McLellan]

As I said in relation to Mr. Holland's question, I think it would be fair to say that at least at various points during that year, from the time he was detained in the United States until his return in September 2004, the expression I would use is that the impression was left that he was a person of interest. Nobody ever said anything else to me, either before I became Minister of Public Safety.... For example, around the cabinet table in discussions nobody ever used the language of “Islamist extremist”, but I do think it's fair to say that the impression was he was a person of interest.

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

Who falls into the category of “person of interest”? Does the expression also apply to completely innocent people who may unwittingly have been in contact with terrorists as well as to persons with likely, if not proven, ties to terrorism?

[Anne McLellan]

It could. I think “person of interest” is not a scientific term, it is a term of art--and you are well familiar with it. So a person of interest may very well be completely innocent. I think that's what Mr. Justice O'Connor concluded in relation to Mr. Arar. It may be, as in Mr. Arar's case, through association with those who are being investigated by whoever it might be, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, local police, whatever. As you are aware, a person of interest can bring within it a fairly wide group of people, but person of interest does not.... As Mr. Justice O'Connor has indicated, we need to be very careful around the language we use, because you can be a person of interest because of an association and be completely innocent.

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

When speaking out on the Arar case, did Commissioner Zaccardelli tell you that, as far as being a person of interest was concerned, Mr. Arar was totally innocent?

[Anne McLellan]

This would come from the briefings I received when I became Minister of Public Safety. I think it is fair to say that the impression that was left with me was that Mr. Arar had been a person of interest. I cannot say that as of December 2003, when I became minister, that Commissioner Zaccardelli continued to believe he was a person of interest. I have no reason to believe that the commissioner in December 2003 or January 2004 continued to believe that Mr. Arar was a person of interest.

I think it's fair to say that in the briefings with him and others, I had the distinct impression that there had been times when Mr. Arar had been viewed as a person of interest. Obviously, Mr. Justice O'Connor confirms in his report that this was exactly what Mr. Arar was, for a significant period of time.