Public Safety Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

This is not a question, but Mr. MacKenzie kindly made reference to the fact as to whether Maher Arar could have been discussed with some other people around the cabinet table, like me. For the record, I need to mention I recused myself in all matters relating to Maher Arar, because I had acted as counsel for his family prior to my being appointed to the cabinet. Consequent upon the establishment of the commission, something that I otherwise recommended, I then immediately desisted and was not in the room when any discussion.... I left the cabinet room whenever any discussion might have taken place relating directly or indirectly to Mr. Arar.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Alghabra, do you have some brief questions?

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the discussion you and I had about accountability. I agree with you. I don't necessarily think, although maybe some people do, that the finishing of accountability is rolling heads. There are many measures. And I think it's also good that we examine our protocols and see if we need to strengthen them. But the reality is that the existing protocols were broken. So there were protocols that were broken. Therefore, while we want to examine how we can make sure that our protocols are foolproof and more friendly, how do we deal with the fact that we know the rules were broken, in your opinion?

[Anne McLellan]

I think you need to hold people to account for the fact that rules were broken, and as I said, there are different ways one does that. And it will be up to the government of the day to decide whether they believe accountability, in this context, requires that someone, anyone, be relieved of his or her official functions.

But I do think that one of the key ways we make sure that these kinds of things don't happen again is to review the protocols, the basis on which we share information, the countries with which we have agreements, and whether the terms of those agreements are satisfactory, especially when we have a reasonable apprehension or suspicion that countries practise torture. We make sure that the reliability of the information is tested. If we have concerns about reliability, we share those concerns with whoever we're giving the information to, either domestically or in foreign countries, especially if we're giving that information to foreign agencies. If we have a concern about reliability, we explain it fully. We put other caveats on the information, caveats that would restrict its use. If information is provided to the FBI, do we want to put a caveat on that information that it only be used by the FBI for the following purposes?

Now, we can't guarantee that those caveats will be followed, but we have a reasonable expectation, and we should in fact make it clear, if it comes to our attention that they haven't been followed, that we fundamentally disagree with that approach and express, at the highest levels, our objections to the breaching of the terms on which information was shared.

So we need to review all those procedures. And we need to create and we need to reinforce through training a culture in which in fact those protocols are treated seriously, and in which, if we have a policy of caveats, they're always applied, and regardless of the circumstances, they are not ignored and they are not pushed to one side. Because we see with Mr. Arar what the costs can potentially be when in fact those rules aren't followed.

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

I do want to state that prior to becoming a parliamentarian I was an advocate for civil rights.

[Anne McLellan]

Yes.

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

I want to commend the work your department had done at the time to increase sensitization of the forces and to increase interaction with Canadians and training and education. I thought, at the time, that those initiatives had gone a long way and were certainly benefiting Canadians and law enforcement agencies.

I want to ask another question, and it's relevant to what Mr. Holland just asked. Do you have an opinion on the fact that the RCMP has now gotten back into intelligence gathering for national security and that there might be some duplication with CSIS? Do you have an opinion on that and on what the relationship between these two agencies should be?

[Anne McLellan]

Mr. Justice O'Connor talks about that. In fact his first recommendation goes directly to the heart of that matter.

There are lines that, by force, get blurred from time to time, but I agree with Mr. Justice O'Connor: you have to work really hard to try to keep the lines as distinct as possible. CSIS is there to collect intelligence. They are not a law enforcement agency. They do not do criminal investigations. In fact, as Mr. Justice O'Connor found, at least in relation to this, CSIS conducted itself quite appropriately, in that they turned whatever information they had over to the RCMP in relation to Mr. Arar and certain other intelligence they had. They turned it over and it was then up to the force to carry that information, to use that information in the context of an ongoing investigation, as I understand it.

There does have to be a discussion between CSIS and the RCMP in terms of CSIS saying “We have the following intelligence”, and the RCMP and CSIS do have to talk together to determine whether that information is sufficiently concrete or substantive, that it is something the RCMP would then pursue in the context of a criminal investigation.

You do have to try to keep these two entities separate and what they do separate. CSIS gathers intelligence. Some of that intelligence may ultimately be transferred to the RCMP for the purpose of an ongoing criminal investigation, which may or may not lead to charges at some point. The vast majority of information collected by CSIS or any intelligence-gathering entity never goes to a law enforcement agency for ongoing investigation. It's not that kind of information that's collected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard, you have another question. Go ahead.

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

If I understand the position in which you found yourself, as a member of Cabinet, you appreciated that deporting someone to Syria was a serious decision, one that must be justified in some way. You were unaware of the reasons the US had for acting, but you also knew that if the Americans had good reasons for doing what they did, they should have shared them with the RCMP, since Mr. Arar was a Canadian citizen.

[Anne McLellan]

That's my opinion.

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

You knew that the RCMP had shared information with US authorities before making this decision. What you did not know was that this information was erroneous.

[Anne McLellan]

Yes.

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

You placed your trust in Commissioner Zaccardelli when he was RCMP Commissioner. I'm aware of the relationship between a chief of police and a minister. There are things that a minister must not know, things that he may or may not know, and things that he must know. Had the Commissioner been in possession of any information, would that information have fallen into the category of things that a minister must know?

I'm talking about the fact that erroneous information was conveyed and may have influenced the decision made by US authorities.

[Anne McLellan]

My own view is that if the commissioner knew that erroneous information had been given to the United States, when I became Minister of Public Safety, that, in my opinion, is something I should have been told.

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

Would that have affected your confidence in Commissioner Zaccardelli?

[Anne McLellan]

I would want to know more about what the commissioner exactly knew and when. He is coming back here to you, and I will be listening very carefully as to when he knew erroneous information had been provided to the Americans. Certainly, again, my view is that had he known—or others, as far as that goes—that erroneous information had been provided to the United States, he should have told me that.

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

Had you known that, as a member of Cabinet, perhaps you could have used this information in your talks with Syria to convince them to set Mr. Arar free. You might have been able to argue that Mr. Arar was in Syria because of erroneous information passed along to the Americans. You could have asked that Mr. Arar be released.

[Anne McLellan]

I would have thought, had one known there was erroneous information communicated that might have in some way influenced either the United States or Syria, in terms of continuing to hold him, that it should have been made clear to the Syrians that erroneous information had originally been provided to the United States.

Now, you and I both know that whether or not the Syrians would have acted upon that fact is a different question. But clearly, had we known there was erroneous information, then it is something, I would obviously think, you would put into play with the Syrians and say, look, we hope you understand that Mr. Arar has been misdescribed in original information provided to the United States. That, one presumes, would have helped buttress the request being made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and ultimately the Prime Minister that Mr. Arar be returned home.

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

You and I both know that if the Syrians sometimes act as we would not, it's not really out of spitefulness but more beacuse they hope—

[Anne McLellan]

No, that's right.

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

—that they are detaining someone who can provide them with information to advance their investigation. If they're convinced that this individual cannot give them that information, they will release him more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Do you have a response to that?

[Anne McLellan]

No, I think I agree with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Comartin, you indicated you might have a supplementary question.