Evidence of meeting #27 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Yes. Anyway, thank you.
That finishes the second round. We will now go to the third round.
Mr. Holland.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Maybe I could start with a point of common understanding. That would be that on September 28 certainly, at the earliest, but by November 2 or November 4 or November 5 when, Mr. Elliott, you saw the letter, it was clear that the testimony Commissioner Zaccardelli had given was shaky, unclear, and question-ridden.
Would that not be a fair assessment, based on your surprise and what you witnessed at that point in time?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would say it was clear that the testimony of the then commissioner required clarification.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
There were a lot of questions at that point.
That's a simple question: there were a lot of questions emanating out of that testimony.
4:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I guess.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Okay.
When you received the letter on November 4--or November 5, because you said it was a couple of days after you received it, sent on November 2—the letter really spelled out the contradictions in very clear terms. The commissioner had stated on September 28 that he was aware of Maher Arar, his detention, and also the inaccurate information that had been given by the RCMP at that point in time; yet in the letter he contradicts that.
So if you were surprised at his testimony on September 28, you must have been shocked when you read the letter on November 2. What was your reaction when you read the letter on November 2?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I didn't have much of a reaction to the letter on November 2. I read it and I took from it that he wanted to come back before the committee to clarify his testimony. I assumed that this would happen.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I did not.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
You had questions on September 28, so did it add additional questions for you when you read that letter?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I don't actually think I had questions on September 28.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
You didn't have questions? You were fine with the letter? When he said on September 28 that he knew about Maher Arar not only being detained in New York, but that the RCMP had given misleading information, and now the letter was suggesting that he didn't know that, it didn't raise concerns in your mind?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I guess I would agree with what I took from the commissioner's letter, that his testimony had not been very clear, and I think there was a mixing of timeframes. The commissioner talked in his testimony about evidence to, I believe he said, correct the mistakes that were made. I took from this that he was referring to the answers the RCMP had provided to the Americans when Mr. Arar was detained, which included, for example, questions about whether or not he'd face any charges in Canada, whether he was admissible to Canada. I took from Mr. O'Connor's report that quite specific information and specific answers were provided to the Americans at that time.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Yes, but if I may, the letter was clearly contradictory. You were surprised by the evidence that was before September 28, yet you didn't have conversations with Minister Day. Well, one has to suspend belief to think that you weren't in some way passing these thoughts along.
Then we had Minister Day, who was saying he stood 100% behind the commissioner, who later said in December that the first point when he realized there were questions about the testimony of Commissioner Zaccardelli was Monday, December 5. That was the first point at which he said he knew there were questions.
What you're saying is that as far back as September 28, and certainly on November 4 or November 5 when you saw the letter, you knew there were questions. Are you saying that the minister is that incompetent that he wasn't capable of understanding and seeing those questions, and that you were not relaying these concerns or questions at that point in time?
I'm trying to understand why these questions or concerns wouldn't have been there and why the minister would have said he was so shocked on December 5.
4:15 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I'm having some difficulty with respect to the assertion that there were questions. It was apparent from my reading of the commissioner's letter that clarification with respect to his testimony was required.
That did not move me to ask questions of the commissioner. I thought the commissioner would come back before this committee and would clarify his responses and that arrangements would be made to do that. As Mrs. Bloodworth has indicated, I did not think it necessary or appropriate for me to review with the commissioner or to ask the commissioner the specifics of what evidence or testimony he would give—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I'll have to interrupt here.
Your time has actually expired, Mr. Holland.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I'm not sure if the last line of questioning was incompetent or if he just didn't understand, but I thought you made it perfectly clear that the testimony on September 28 did not raise any alarms in your mind. It wasn't until you read the letter dated November 2, whenever you read it, that questions were raised.
4:15 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I thought that the testimony of the commissioner was unclear, and I knew shortly after he appeared that he wanted to come back to clarify his testimony.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Okay, fair enough.
I'm not sure where my friends have the problem with the whole issue, but I would like to go back to the timelines. Mr. Arar was detained in New York and then ultimately transported to Syria in 2002.
4:15 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
This thing went on for something like 375 days, plus or minus, I believe, his incarceration in Syria?
4:15 p.m.
National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister & Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I think it was just under a year.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
After he was ultimately released, or even during that period of time, there were cabinet ministers in the former government who denied that we should bring our officials back from Syria because we didn't trust the information we had received. Is that a fair assessment of what was going on during that period of time?
To be fair, there may have been some misunderstanding within the reporting from folks in Syria and the people here of the true nature of Mr. Arar's incarceration and treatment in Syria.