Public Safety Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

One of the other issues I'd like to clarify from today--and Mr. Holland has obviously attached my name to it--is the letter that came from the commissioner. It was stamped November 2, 2006. I would say to you that I have read it and that other people have read it. I haven't found anyone other than Mr. Holland who seems to find something in that letter that says the commissioner was totally going to change his story, as he did this week.

That having been said, if you had reacted to whatever Mr. Holland thinks was in the letter that no one else could find, would you consider it to be political interference in telling the commissioner what he should have done as a result of that?

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

I did fear.... I don't want to be paranoid, but as people say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, and I felt some kind of trap being laid there that had to do with this letter, because of course if I had....

The implication seemed to be that this letter was out, the mystery letter that the whole world knew about, so why didn't you do something like reel in the commissioner or slap him around or say, “What do you think you're doing?” When the commissioner indicates to a standing committee of the Government of Canada that he wants to appear for a certain reason, for me to call him to account for that or to demand what he thought he was doing or to interfere in any way would be contempt. I wouldn't do that, and I didn't do that.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

One other thing I want to clear up today--and I think Mr. Holland was accurate, for once--is on the issue of the terrible thing that occurred to Mr. Arar, his detention and subsequent removal to Syria. Under whose watch did that occur?

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

Just so everybody knows, I didn't give that question to the member, but I'll take it anyway. He's making a point. This is why we are being transparent.

First, I would hope that even if this had happened under our watch--which it didn't--I would still want all the answers and I would hope I would still be transparent. But it didn't. This happened under someone else's watch.

I'm not saying this to be partisan, but I have to say that I don't understand why the ministers didn't call in the officials. Now, the ministers didn't have the information, and I'm not holding them to account for that, but when they knew something was frightfully wrong, why didn't they call those officials in, be it the commissioner or somebody else, and ask what was going on?

As someone has already pointed out--actually I think it was Mr. Holland who quite rightly pointed it out--for another year or for another period of time these things continued to hang over Mr. Arar's head. I don't understand why questions weren't asked. We in the Government of Canada that's in place now ask those tough questions of each other and of our officials. We want answers. The people of Canada deserve transparency, and they're going to get it.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think that is why we wanted to have the former cabinet ministers here.

Mr. Cotler quite rightly recused himself from issues at cabinet with respect to Mr. Arar. He informed us of that. But there were people around that cabinet table who knew that there were problems with that. It was in the press every day.

Would you agree, rightfully so, that somebody should have been pushing officials to find the answer? Nobody seems to have done that. We haven't heard from anyone to date.

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

I agree, and as I've said, that's of great concern.

I think there is a time and a place for an investigation or a commission in certain instances. Forgive me if this sounds too simplistic, but I'd like to just call people in and ask what happened. This particular commission cost $13.5 million. I think it was money well spent, because some good has come out of the heartbreak and the travesty that took place, but surely you can just call people in and demand answers. If you don't get them, then maybe go to a commission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Cotler, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On that point, that's exactly what did happen, Mr. Day. As Mr. MacKenzie said, I was acting as counsel. I even asked the government of the day, and I counselled Mr. Arar to put these questions to the appropriate officials--RCMP and the like.

They did put those questions. They did not get the answers. That is why we ended up having a commission of inquiry, which we recommended so that we could get the answers. Now we do have the answers that should have been given, as Justice O'Connor said, before the commission of inquiry was even set up. That is why we ended up with Commissioner Zaccardelli's resignation.

I thought that ought to be stated, for the record.

Let me just go to some questions that have arisen from your testimony today. You mentioned that there are going to be discussions about compensation on December 14 and 15 and that you were making that public. Along with that, I just want to say that Mr. Arar's lawyers have amended the statement of claim. They are now seeking $37 million, not $400 million. I think it's important that this also be put on the record.

The second thing is that you mentioned that Maher Arar had been removed from the lookouts in Canada. You mentioned representations that have been made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to their counterparts in the United States regarding Maher Arar.

My question to you is whether Maher Arar and his family are still on the American watch list, and if they are, what the Canadian government is doing to remove them from the American watch list.

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

First, on the question of compensation, the member is more at liberty than I am to discuss that. It's before the courts right now, but I don't have a problem with his bringing that information out. That's a point of interest, and I'll take it as that.

On the question of lookouts, I've asked that question directly. As a matter of fact, I met with the Attorney General of the United States on that question, and the response was--I'm not saying I was totally satisfied with it--that because it was a matter of privacy, if Mr. Arar or perhaps his lawyers would contact the State Department, they could find that out.

He indicated to me--and he used the terminology “may or may not”--that they may or may not have information separate from anything that Canadian intelligence has ever said. I can't say for sure if Mr. Arar's lawyers have followed that path, but that was the response we were given.

I made it very clear that he's been removed. Obviously if another country tells us who we should or shouldn't have on a lookout, we might take that as information, but no other country is going to tell us in a final way who should be on a lookout, and that's the position they're taking.

I think he will get that answer if he follows through with the State Department, and we will do anything to assist in terms of making it clear that we have nothing, and that there is no reason he should be on the lookout.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

On the matter of representations to Syria, as you know, Justice O'Connor concluded in his report on the finding of fact that a Canadian citizen--in this instance, Maher Arar--had in fact been tortured. Has the Canadian government held Syria accountable for the torture of a Canadian citizen, and has the government sought redress for that torture?

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

I know it's been brought to the attention in a matter of concern by the Department of Foreign Affairs and by the minister. There has been a letter. There has been discussion.

I'll have to get back to this committee after talking with the Minister of Foreign Affairs to see what other steps have taken place, but I--

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Would you be able to have tabled before this committee the representations made by the Canadian government to the Syrian government in the matter of both protest and of securing appropriate redress?

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

I think that's fair, and I will see what I can do to get that and to make that happen.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have one final question. Maher Arar now has a suit before the American courts in which he seeks compensation for violations of his rights by Americans, including, I might add, the breach of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations since they did not advise him of his consular rights or advise Canada that they were detaining a Canadian citizen. The judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that the suit would be prejudicial to American national security, but in the course of the judgment, also said that it would be arguably prejudicial to Canadian national security.

My question is whether the American government consulted the Canadian government as to whether or not the Canadian government would regard any American response to be prejudicial to Canadian national security in that case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That is your final question, I guess.

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

I have to say these are tough questions. I prefer Mr. Holland's.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I think you're on a fair point. And I'm going to be honest with you; I don't have an answer to that, and we probably should have pursued that. I'm not saying we didn't, but again on that question, if you would allow me some time, I'll seek an answer, and if we have not pursued that, I'll ask my colleagues why we have not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ménard.

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

Minister, we agreed when we last spoke that based on the information received when Commissioner Zaccardelli testified on September 28, the Commissioner had made two serious errors, one in his capacity as a police officer, and a second, as head of a police force. As a police officer, he failed to act or to take steps to secure the release of an innocent person. As a police chief, he failed to fully inform the minister, the person to whom he is accountable, of mistakes made by the RCMP.

Following his testimony, did you ask the Commissioner why he had not done anything to secure Mr. Arar's release from a Syrian jail and why he failed to inform the ministers of the errors committed by the RCMP?

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

We discussed these matters, but in a more general way, since Justice O'Connor's report had already been released.

I can't answer for Commissioner Zaccardelli. However, as we now know, in a large organization, when an investigation is launched, the chief or deputy chiefs may not be fully aware of the facts associated with another investigation. That doesn't excuse matters, but it's a possibility.

Because of the many details of this case, it's also possible that there was some confusion. I'm not making excuses, but it's possible. I can understand how things can happen.

I have to rely on the report which says that mistakes were made by certain individuals and agencies. That's why it's important that Mr. Arar be compensated.

I can't explain the answers -- or lack thereof -- given by the commissioner, his deputy commissioners and some ministers. I don't have all the answers but I'm now responsible for any answers given by my government. What I can say is that we will follow through with Justice O'Connor's recommendations.

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

I will sum up your answer. You started by asking him a simple question: why did he not inform the minister? Then, you asked him a second question: why did he not take steps to secure Mr. Arar's release? You received a lengthy answer which either you didn't find satisfactory or you didn't understand very well.

Mind you, you would have found yourself in the same situation as the members of this committee when we put the question to him.

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

He told me the exact same thing that he had told the committee, namely that his officials and officers had kept the information secret for quite some time. According to what he told me and according to his testimony to the committee, it was some time before he learned of the facts.

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

From what you're telling me, I don't get the sense that he won over your trust with his answer. This continues to puzzle me. Why, knowing what you did prior to December 4, prior to the contradictory testimony, did you not lose confidence in the commissioner who had a duty to share with you information vital to your office and why did you not ask for his resignation?

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

I admit that during the interview, I stated that the reason why the Commissioner was still on the job was because we not only had confidence in him, but in the entire RCMP as well. I can understand why you might be puzzled.

After learning of the Commissioner's contradictory testimony, we began asking other questions. That's why, after a day or two, Commissioner Zaccardelli decided to step down.