Public Safety Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Mr. MacKenzie, the only way I can do this is to refer to Mr. O'Connor's report, because I was in the defence department at the time. So I don't actually have firsthand knowledge of any of that period with regard to Mr. Arar.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Your understanding, though, is that back when Mr. Easter was the Solicitor General, he didn't wish to have a public inquiry.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I can't speak to that. I have never discussed the issue with Mr. Easter. I was in—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think it was public knowledge. I think it was in the House where he was asked about it.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

That could be. I just didn't follow it that closely.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Justice O'Connor's inquiry was constructed as a result of Minister McLellan's intervention in 2004.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I believe it was announced around January 28 or 29, 2004. I do recall that. By then I was in Public Safety.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

And I think that's the information we have.

Mr. Justice O'Connor's report came out on September 18, 2006.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

That's correct.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

The commissioner appeared before us on September 28, 2006, ten days later. Fair enough; in that time period he would not have had a great deal of opportunity to examine entirely the complete report by Mr. Justice O'Connor.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I would assume so, but I'm guessing.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes, fair enough.

From the time Commissioner Zaccardelli appeared before this committee on September 28 until November 2, 2006, the date of that letter you saw, a number of former cabinet ministers took some offence to what had been said. There was public knowledge that some former cabinet ministers disagreed with what he'd said to this committee.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Getting ready for today, I did read Mr. Easter's and Ms. McLellan's testimony, and I didn't read that they took offence. I think it is fair to say they disagreed.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

If the former cabinet ministers felt there were inconsistencies in what Commissioner Zaccardelli said, would you not expect it to be normal that he would write or ask the committee to come back and explain any issues he had, whether he was correcting the record on what he had or hadn't said? Would that not be a normal thing?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Well, it would be, Mr. MacKenzie, but to my recollection, Mr. Zaccardelli wanted to come back to the committee from very shortly after he was here. I can't speak to the communications, but I do recall that. And I do know that the commissioner—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Did you read the letter?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Yes, I did.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

In his first paragraph, he said, “Committee members have stated publicly that they have additional questions to ask me.” Now, he didn't say “former cabinet ministers”, but I think members opposite made it very clear, after his September 28 appearance before the committee, that they had additional questions given what some former cabinet ministers had said.

As a matter of common sense, would it not make sense that the commissioner would want to come back to explain?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I don't disagree with that. All I'm saying, Mr. MacKenzie, is that I agree it would be natural that he would want to come back. It's just my understanding that he wanted to come back before that letter was written. That's the difficulty I'm having--

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

No, that's fair enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That completes the third round.

Mr. Holland, I believe you wanted to continue with your questions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So we did establish...because I believe you had said, Mr. Elliott, that Mr. Day was in the room when you received the letter. You didn't forward the letter to Mr. Day but he was aware of the letter. Is that correct?

[William Elliott]

No, that's not correct, Mr. Chairman. I talked about having received the letter. My understanding is that the letter was copied to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. It was received in our offices the day it was sent or the day after. I saw it some days after that.

I referred to a meeting that I attended with Mr. Day and the commissioner shortly before the commissioner's appearance on December 5, which was a considerable time after the department had received a copy of the commissioner's letter.

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

So despite all the contradictions, you didn't feel it necessary to share it with him. But even in this meeting, which happened a few days before, did the commissioner outline in any way, shape, or form the contradictions that really he had outlined already in the letter to you, and that he further outlined when he appeared before the committee?

[William Elliott]

He simply indicated that he was coming back before the committee on December 5 to clarify his testimony.