Public Safety Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to bring this meeting to order. This is meeting number 24 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are dealing with Standing Order 108(2), a study of the report of the commission of inquiry into the events relating to Maher Arar.

We would like to welcome our witness this morning, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Mr. Zaccardelli, welcome to the committee. We appreciate your coming before us today.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

A point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, further to pages 861 and 862 in Marleau and Montpetit, I would ask that the witness be sworn in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Does the committee consent to that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are there any objections?

Okay. We will have the witness sworn in.

Go ahead, sir.

[Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

The evidence I shall give in this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Commissioner, we usually allow an opening statement of approximately ten minutes, or whatever you need. Then we'll open it up to questions, beginning with the Liberal Party. So when you're ready, you may begin.

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be here today and to have the opportunity to review and discuss with you a number of matters arising from my appearance here in September to discuss Justice O'Connor's report of the events relating to Maher Arar.

My last appearance before this committee occurred, as you know, within a fairly short time of the release of the report. I know that the committee shared my desire to hear the response of the RCMP as soon as possible, and I personally believed it was important to extend an apology to Mr. Arar and his family without delay. I also looked forward to sharing with the committee details on the important work the RCMP is doing to implement the recommendations.

As a result, I believe that some aspects of my prior testimony could have been more precise or more clearly stated. A number of misconceptions have resulted, and, as I indicated in my letter to the committee, I have been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to set the record straight, both for the committee and the Canadian public.

At this point I believe it would be helpful for me to outline a number of key facts, including what I personally knew and when, what was included in ministerial and other briefings, and the matter of our organizational response.

The following facts are itemized and confirmed within Justice O'Connor's report.

In the fall of 2001, Mr. Arar was legitimately identified as a person of interest in the post-9/11 RCMP counter-terrorism investigation known as Project A-O Canada. At that time, Mr. Arar and Ms. Mazigh, as part of a request to U.S. Customs, were included in a list that resulted in their being inaccurately described as “Islamic Extremist individuals suspected of being linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist movement”.

After this, Mr. Arar moved in and out of the United States on two occasions without incident. Indeed, Justice O'Connor concludes that he could not ascertain with any certainty what steps were taken by the Americans as a result of the request.

I think it is important to note here that Justice O'Connor states that senior officers were generally aware that the U.S. Customs request had been made, but not of its specifics, nor, I can tell you, would they ever receive that level of detail in the reporting relationship.

In the spring of 2002, the RCMP shared information with their American counterparts in the form of three CDs containing extensive documentary information collected during the investigation to date. Of these documents, 94 made reference to Mr. Arar, and some inaccurate factual information was later found in them by Justice O'Connor.

In July, Project A-O Canada learned that Mr. Arar and his family had left Canada for Tunisia. The investigators later referred to this departure as “sudden”. They also characterized the conditions placed by Mr. Arar's lawyer on an interview as a refusal. Justice O'Connor found that these were two instances that contributed to an incorrect and potentially inflammatory picture of Mr. Arar. However, during this time period there was no recognition within Project A-O Canada that such an incorrect portrayal was emerging.

In September 2002, Mr. Arar was detained by American authorities while travelling through New York. In discussions with the Americans at this time, the RCMP were clear that Mr. Arar could not be linked to al-Qaeda. They informed their U.S. colleagues of this in both written and personal communications. Staff involved were consistent in their approach and continued to tell the Americans that the RCMP had no basis to detain Mr. Arar, to charge him with a criminal offence, or to prevent him from re-entering Canada.

On October 5 and 7 respectively, RCMP staff advised the FBI that the RCMP could not link Mr. Arar to al-Qaeda. Here, Mr. Chairman, I will refer to my letter that I sent to the committee on November 2. In the letter, I state:

Nevertheless, the fact remains that RCMP investigators clearly informed U.S. officials that there was no evidence to support criminal charges against Mr. Arar in Canada, that he could not be prevented from entering Canada and that we were unable to link him to Al Qaeda.

This should have had the effect of correcting any inaccurate information that had been provided previously. When I stated on September 28, 2006, that we had corrected the record, this is what I was referring to. While my remarks could have perhaps been clearer, I think Mr. Easter recognized the unfounded basis for some of the committee's questions when he cautioned against reading too much into what I had said.

On October 11, 2001, I was formally briefed that Mr. Arar had been removed to Syria by U.S. authorities, that the RCMP had shared our investigative material with them, and that Mr. Arar was considered to be a person of interest.

Again, as Justice O'Connor clearly states, it is important to reiterate that no senior staff--including myself--were told of the inaccuracies in the information provided to the Americans.

Over the fall of 2002 and spring and summer of 2003, the RCMP continued to interact with Canadian agencies, such as PSEPC, DFAIT, CSIS, and PCO, to ensure that ministers were appropriately briefed on the circumstances relating to Mr. Arar.

Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky was the primary lead for the RCMP. When representing the RCMP at numerous and regular interdepartmental meetings, he expressed what was known to us at the time: that the RCMP had shared investigative material with the U.S., that the RCMP had told U.S. officials that it could not charge Arar criminally or refuse his entry into Canada, and that the RCMP could not indicate links to al-Qaeda.

Deputy Commissioner Loeppky periodically and regularly briefed me, and Minister Easter was also briefed, regarding the situation as I have described it. Specifically, in November 2003, Minister Easter was given a comprehensive operational briefing, which included that Mr. Arar was deported to Syria unilaterally by American authorities, that the RCMP had shared investigative information, and that Mr. Arar remained a person of interest.

I think it is important to note that for the RCMP, Mr. Arar remained a person of interest during the whole period I have outlined. This is what I knew--all that I knew--during the three years from Mr. Arar's deportation until the release of Justice O'Connor's report.

On this key question of what was known by whom and when, I think it is helpful to really reiterate two statements from Justice O'Connor's report.

The first statement, with regard to the inaccurate information that was contained in the 2001 U.S. Customs request, Justice O'Connor states that “senior officers...were not apprised of the fact that Project A-O Canada had described Mr. Arar and Dr. Mazigh as Islamic extremists in its border lookout request to U.S. Customs.”

Second, with regard to the questions the RCMP sent to the American authorities while Mr. Arar was detained in New York, he states:

...I note that the senior officials at “A” Division and in the Criminal Intelligence Directorate (CID) were unaware that the communication was being sent....

It was during the inquiry that the compilation of all facts related to the events surrounding Mr. Arar were painstakingly pieced together by Justice O'Connor. But it is important to remember that Justice O'Connor confirms what I, too, believe: that no bad faith could be attributed to members of Project A-O Canada. This is made even more evident by the fact that Project A-O Canada staff did not identify or report any inaccuracies to senior staff, believing that any information used by the U.S. would be verified and that Mr. Arar would be subject to due process, as is standard operating procedure for police.

As I've noted before, the decisions made by senior officers, which I support, have been to accept these problems at an institutional level and to put into place corrective measures that focus on, first, strong central governance; second, information sharing; third, extensive training; and fourth, effective integration. Such measures are designed to increase our organizational effectiveness in the very challenging arena of national security and terrorism and to ensure that similar problems never reoccur.

As former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, told this committee just last week:

Accountability takes very many forms, and we have to get past the notion that heads must roll to have accountability. Sometimes maybe they should.

It may mean that you change the procedures that you had in place that led to the mistake, to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

In other cases it will be something else that is perhaps more important in terms of the culture of that organization.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear about the significance of what I have said here today. For a government official, nothing is more fundamental than ensuring that the information they provide to ministers is accurate and complete. To improperly withhold information or to misrepresent facts is a cardinal sin. If I had been guilty of such actions, no one would have to ask for my resignation, Mr. Chairman. The facts of the matter are, however, that due to circumstances I have described, we were unaware of some important information until the completion of Justice O'Connor's inquiry this year. My colleagues and I deeply regret that mistakes were made, but it is important to recognize that at all times we acted in good faith.

Finally, before we move to questions, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak with you today. As I stated on September 28, it is such steps that assure all Canadians of the existence of transparent, accountable, and responsible leadership within the Canadian democratic system that is the very bedrock of a safe and civil society.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, Commissioner Zaccardelli.

As is the usual practice at this committee, we begin questioning with a seven-minute round. All political parties participate, beginning with the official opposition.

Mr. Holland, I believe you have some questions for the Commissioner. Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Zaccardelli, for coming before the committee today.

I'd like to start with a quote from September 28. The quote is: “...I found out that investigators were speaking with American officials while he was in detention.” The “he” is Maher Arar. “...I learned that in this process they tried to correct what was labelled as false or incorrect information with regard to Mr. Arar.” ... “That was my first point of knowledge about the matter....”

This wasn't one reference. We count eight separate references saying precisely the same thing, stating that your first point of knowledge of this matter was much, much earlier than you are saying today. Because you are now saying today that you were in the dark and you didn't know anything until Justice O'Connor's report came forward, I'm wondering on which day you perjured yourself before this committee, today or September 28?

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Mr. Holland, I first had an opportunity to read Justice O'Connor's report when I returned from overseas. As soon as I received the 1,200-page report, I immersed myself in that report, and I tried to come before the committee as quickly as I could. We had contact with the committee. I tried to get as many of the facts as I possibly could.

I have to honestly tell you that in preparation for coming here on September 28, I thought I was preparing myself to deal mainly with the recommendations on the way forward. When I came here and testified, I gave the best answers with the best knowledge I had at the time. Subsequent to my testimony, in reviewing my testimony and in hearing comments, I realized that some of my testimony and comments were not as precise as they possibly could have been. That is why I did everything I could to try to get back before the committee to correct the record. The information I gave on the 28th was the best information I had.

The first time I became aware of this matter was in 2002, after Mr. Arar was in Syria and it became very public. It was then that I started to inform myself. That's the first time I started.

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

Let me say this. On the basis of what you said today and on the basis of what you said on September 28, there really are two conclusions that one could draw, depending upon which version of what you put before the committee we're going to take.

One is that you knew nearly from the beginning and that you did very little. To be honest, when we go through the testimony and we hear both what you said and subsequent information that we obtained from Shirley Heafey, who is the former RCMP public complaints commissioner, who stated that the RCMP stonewalled her when she was trying to get information about national security cases.... She is on record as saying that the RCMP's direct refusals to release files for investigation of public complaints was an attempt to frustrate the complaints process.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

One moment, Mr. Holland.

Mr. MacKenzie, you have a point of order.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

She never appeared before us as a witness.

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

I didn't say she did. I said that in reviewing the information and from the information I was able to get, I found these statements--

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think you need to make that more clear.

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

No, she never appeared before this committee, but these are statements by Ms. Heafey, who was the chair of the RCMP public complaints commission.

Let me finish, because this is important.

The second conclusion, if we are to accept it—and I find it extremely hard to accept the second possibility—is that you were in the dark and you knew nothing, that as head of the RCMP you were so out of touch with your organization that you had no idea what was going on and you weren't asking questions in that period of time.

Both conclusions are unacceptable. Frankly, to be honest with you, one way or the other, you either misled the committee or you did not tell the truth before this committee.

The question is really no longer whether or not you should be fired, Mr. Zaccardelli. In my opinion, it's not. That has been made clear today. The question is why the government, Minister Day, and Prime Minister Harper went to such extraordinary lengths to protect you.

In the ten days intervening between September 18, when the O'Connor report was released, and September 28, I want to know what happened. What meetings took place? What discussions occurred?

This is what I want to get to, because I don't understand. When we had Minister Day before this committee, he said that he and the Prime Minister stood 100% behind you. We reserved judgment. We waited, we listened, and we said let's make sure we get everything in front of us. They didn't. Despite all the contradictions, despite all of the problems, and despite every reason in the universe to at least take a pause and ask some questions, they asked none. It was left to us on this side, all of the opposition parties, to ask questions.

Let me go to that intervening period of time. When you appeared before this committee at the time I'm referring to...can you tell us if you met with Minister Day between September 18 and September 28? If so, what was the content of the meeting? What was discussed? Was there any discussion on a communication strategy for how to deal with it?

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Mr. Chairman, out of all of that, there are two questions that I want to address.

First of all, as I've said in my statement, I want to be very clear--and Justice O'Connor states this in his report--that no senior officer was aware of any of the errors and mistakes and mislabelling of Mr. Arar in the report.

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

Mr. Chair, I--

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I would like to finish my answer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'Connor states that in his report very clearly. I and my senior officers became aware of the errors and mislabelling at the conclusion of Justice O'Connor's report. It is only Justice O'Connor who takes all of these various elements of the mistakes and the mislabelling and brings them together, as an auditor, to examine these, brings them together and comes to this conclusion. That's the first time it was all brought together, and in his report he states very clearly that no senior officer was aware of that.

In my testimony on September 28, I clearly inferred that some of the knowledge I got when I read the report. I implied that I may have had it in 2002. That was a mistake on my part, and that's why I wanted to come back here to correct the record. But that is very clear, and it's important for the committee to understand that.

No senior officer was aware of it, and all of us became aware after the report was published by Justice O'Connor.

With respect to the second question that Mr. Holland raised, I will go to the point of my discussions with the minister relative to the so-called muzzling, as you called it the last time I appeared, Mr. Holland.

Mr. Chairman, the report was issued on September 18. I was overseas. I was in Brazil at the Interpol conference. That was on the Monday that the report was issued. I came back late Wednesday afternoon. I went to my office, I changed, and I went and met with Minister Day.

We had a discussion about the report. He asked me if I had read the report. I told him I had just gotten the report and I was in the process of trying to read it. I had not slept because I had flown all night. He said, “You should get some sleep.” That's what I did.

I read the report, and then the next day, the next morning, I was in my office and I got the first indication that this committee might be meeting. So I called the minister's office and I set up a meeting. At the same time, that day I wrote a letter to the minister indicating my desire to appear before the committee and to make a public response to the report.

We met the next day, Mr. Chairman, and we–I'm sorry, not the next–on Thursday. That was when I wrote the letter, and I had the discussion and heard that the committee might be meeting.

On Friday I met with the minister. The minister and I discussed the report and we discussed the possibility of the meeting. By Friday afternoon we had indications that the committee would be meeting on Tuesday. We both agreed that would be the ideal time and place to have my first appearance.

That's exactly what happened. That's what transpired between the minister and me. At no time, Mr. Chairman, was I ever directed, was I ever given any instructions, was I ever sent any indication that I was not to talk about it. We understood that this committee was to meet as soon as possible and we agreed that this was the proper place to explain what happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard, seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Commissioner.

I'd like to begin by asking you a simple question. What should a police officer do when he finds out an innocent person is in prison, likely because of a mistake on the part of subordinate officers?