Public Safety Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order, please.

This is meeting number 25 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are going to be dealing with the report of the commission of inquiry on the events relating to Maher Arar.

As is the usual practice at our committee, we will allow our witness, the Honourable Stockwell Day, to make an opening statement of approximately 10 minutes, if he so chooses, and then we will go to the Liberal Party, the official opposition, with the first round of questions. Our first round of questions will be seven minutes.

Any time you are ready, Mr. Minister, go ahead.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. It's encouraging to know that there are MPs like yourselves who are concerned about Mr. Arar's plight and about all the events associated with Justice O'Connor's report.

As you know, it's been two and a half months since the report of Justice O'Connor came out. I have to say, overall, I'm pleased with the progress that's been made following the report coming out. As you know, there were 23 recommendations that Mr. Justice O'Connor came forth with. I believe it was within the first 24 hours of the report coming out, after we had a chance to look first at the recommendations, that the government indicated that we wanted to accept all 23 of those recommendations. That has been done.

When you look at what has happened since then, this whole unfortunate affair, which resulted in tremendous grief and a negative impact on Mr. Arar and his family...though it was done under the auspices of a former government, the new government has to take responsibility for the actions. I believe we've done that. As a result, there is some silver lining on the dark lining of that cloud of activity that took place under the former government. Whenever either an individual or an institution gets severely looked at and criticized, looking has to become inward for a period of time. You have to say, on the criticisms, are they fair; are they valid; and if so, what can you do to improve? The net result is that there have been some significant improvements.

The first 10 of those recommendations affect the RCMP. They have put in place a number of systems already to address those 10 recommendations. For instance, they now have a national security management system. They've moved back from what was a regionalized approach, especially on major investigations, to bringing in some more central control and central management. It reduces the risk of the types of mistakes that happened in the Arar situation from happening again. They also have established new memorandums of understanding in terms of working with CSIS on information sharing that has been positive. There was already a move over the last several years towards a more proper and adequate information-sharing partnership back and forth between the RCMP and CSIS, but this whole investigation and Justice O'Connor's recommendations have built an even stronger and more appropriate relationship there.

The way in which caveats are managed was a huge problem and central to the difficulty that Mr. Arar went through. That has been brought forward and clarified, and systems have been put in place to make sure caveats accompany all material that may involve an individual, if there are caveats when they're sharing with other agencies. It also resulted in high-level contact from the highest levels of governments right down to, and including, various levels of officials.

As you know, Prime Minister Harper made it a point to contact President Bush about concerns about the file and how things were handled on the U.S. side. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, in some very clear manners, both verbally and by letter, communicated with the Secretary of State to say that we are very concerned in terms of protocols, especially when a Canadian citizen is apprehended in the United States and might possibly face deportation, especially if they have dual citizenship.

I'll give some credit to the Liberal administration.They did set in motion something called the Monterrey protocol, which was solidified in 2004 and then underlined again with the communication between Mr. MacKay and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. That protocol basically firms up the fact that if there's a Canadian who's being detained, there must be certain information relayed. There must be contact from the United States back to Canada, and certain things cannot happen without Canadian approval. The minister was very diligent to pursue that and secure that commitment by letter from the Secretary of State.

Also, there was communication from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Syrian officials, very clear concerns that had to be addressed in terms of what happens.

A number of things have also been established in terms of protocols when we're dealing with information sharing related to countries with human rights records that are less than glowing. There has to be some clear delineation of that. There has to be some communication to other agencies, to individuals involved, and to the public in general, and some limitations that come into effect when you're dealing with agencies and countries that have shoddy human rights records. There still needs to be, at times, some information sharing if our citizens are detained in those areas, but it has to be very clearly and carefully articulated.

The situation related to compensation for Mr. Arar is something that we looked into right away. As you know, Mr. Arar has a claim, and we wanted to make sure lawyers were actively engaged and in discussions on that. We made sure that was happening. I can tell you—I don't think it's revealing anything that's not known—that on December 14 and 15 some very formal discussions are going to be taking place, and we hope that moves the file along considerably.

Steps were taken, from my point of view, to make sure—and this happened within the first week of the O'Connor report—that all information about Mr. Arar that appears on what are called “lookouts” in Canada were removed so that there wouldn't be any kind of designation or any flags on the travel of Mr. Arar or his family.

There are two issues still outstanding, of course. In part two of the report, which will be tabled, coming from Justice O'Connor next week, I'm really looking forward to the recommendations he has in terms of oversight. We've had some good discussions around the table here on that. We were also advised that there should be a follow-up investigation of some sort related to three other individuals who were mentioned in the Justice O'Connor report. I can tell you that we're very close to finalizing both the mandate, the points of reference, and, we think, the individual who will lead that up. I'm hoping I can have that information out to you before Christmas.

Mr. Chairman, I think that just about completes the time allotted to me. I actually have a couple more minutes, but I won't take up too much time other than to say that this committee has been very aggressive, and rightly so, appropriately so, on this file. Information that I've seen come from this committee has been helpful to me in terms of deliberations and things that fall under my jurisdiction. I hope the committee will continue to do so and play an effective role.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Now we will go to seven minutes for questions. We have only one hour with you, Mr. Minister. I'm going to try to keep to the time so everybody can at least get an opportunity to pose their questions. I presume there will be some questions.

Mr. Holland, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister Day, for appearing today.

Minister Day, on Tuesday, both you and the Prime Minister expressed surprise at the reversal in testimony that was given by Commissioner Zaccardelli, but in fact, that was an act. On November 2, the government chair of this committee, your parliamentary secretary, and all members of this committee received a letter from Commissioner Zaccardelli explaining that he would make that contradiction. We asked questions about contradictions. In fact, as of September 28, I even called for his resignation based upon the testimony that was given at that time.

The reality is that you knew and you did nothing. You knew that you could have, at that stage in time, before it reached this crescendo of anger, before this public outpouring of rage, acted at that moment and did not.

It wasn't just the letter. There were a series of contradictions. You said you followed the testimony of this committee. Then you would have also known, Minister, that throughout the course of the testimony that was occurring there were all kinds of contradictions. Despite all that, you said that the government, you, and the Prime Minister had full confidence in the commissioner, even after the speech when the commissioner went public with what you knew last Monday. When the country was reeling in disbelief, you still expressed confidence in the commissioner. Perhaps today we start to learn why, and this leads to my question.

CP reports that—and I quote here—you had made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister at one cabinet meeting this fall, according to a government official. The quote is:

“Day asked straight out. He said, 'This is not right. Why is this man still here?'” one of the government sources said.

The prime minister avoided the subject.

“Harper just changed the channel. He said, 'Now, moving along to the next subject.'

“He just cut him dead.”

So my question to you is, did you push the Prime Minister for the commissioner to be released or fired? Yes or no?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Holland, you have an amazing propensity for hyperbole, which is certainly your right to do. All of us, when the cameras go on and the lights go up in politics, behave a little differently.

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

Yes or no?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Your persona changes quite radically, so it just takes me a minute to adjust.

So let me just say this. Why did you not continue to read the article, where my comment is there?

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

Can you answer the question I posed to you? I get seven minutes; I get to ask you a question. My question is very simple. Did you ask the Prime Minister for the commissioner to be released, in the fall? Yes or no?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

And I'm asking you, because my answer is in the article.

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

I'm not a witness before this committee. You are, sir. I'm asking you a question. Would you please answer it, yes or no?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

In fact, Mr. Holland, you do have to give an account for your behaviour.

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

Why don't you answer that question, and then I'll answer the one you posed to me. Why don't we do it fairly? Yes or no? Answer the question, and then I'll be happy to answer the question you have for me.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Continue reading the article instead of stating half truths, and the whole committee will have the answer.

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

I'm asking you a question. Did you, or did you not, push for the commissioner to be fired in the fall? Yes or no?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It's in the article.

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

Yes or no? I'm just asking you a question. Can you answer the question, please?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I've answered the question.

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

You didn't.

The national security adviser is the most senior public servant on security issues and directly advises the Prime Minister. This is Margaret Bloodworth, who is going to be appearing before this committee next Tuesday. Did she identify any inaccuracies in Commissioner Zaccardelli's testimony? Did she advise you or the Prime Minister about these inaccuracies?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

No.

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

At no time did she?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I've answered the question.

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

Okay.

Commissioner Zaccardelli testified under oath before this committee that he met with senior officials in the government, by which he meant senior public servants. Can you tell us who those public servants would be?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

The public servants that Mr. Zaccardelli met with over what period of time?

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

We're talking about the period of time between the September 18 release of the O'Connor report and the 28th, when he appeared before the committee, and also immediately afterwards. Can you tell us who he meant when he said before this committee under oath that he had met with senior officials? Who would he mean by that? He specifically meant senior public servants. Who would those individuals have been?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I don't keep track of his agenda. It would be interference for me to do so. I have no idea.