Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2015

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'm sorry, but time has expired. Thank you.

Continuing our rotation, we'll go to Monsieur Giguère.

You have the floor, sir.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also go to the witnesses for being here with us today and for their excellent presentations.

My first question is about the RCMP.

Right now, when a Canadian is detained in a foreign country, when he is arrested, consular officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs are notified right away. In some cases, would it not be appropriate for our foreign service to be able to question those individuals?

Imagine if someone is arrested in Bangkok for being in the possession of 10 kilograms of cocaine or heroin, with the intent of trafficking the drugs in Canada. Could an investigation be conducted to proceed with arrests in Canada? Are you currently able to provide those types of services? Do you have the resources you need for that?

[C/Supt Eric Slinn]

Thank you for that question.

I think first and foremost you have to understand that liaison officers do not have the authority in a foreign jurisdiction that they do in Canada. We're guided very much by the laws of that country. We may want to do an interview—and yes, it's a very good point—and we would like to do an interview if we're aware of that arrest, but second, that interview may not be permissible under the laws of that country. We have to navigate the legal road in that regard, but yes, in many cases it would be advantageous to interview an individual who is arrested.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I think Mr. Crosbie would like a chance to comment, please.

Go ahead, sir.

[William Crosbie]

Yes, it's just a comment.

First of all, we are not automatically notified when a Canadian is arrested abroad. It's up to the Canadian to decide whether or not they wish to communicate with us. They have a right under the Vienna Convention to talk to their government through our mission abroad, but many countries do not, as a matter of course, advise us if a Canadian is being arrested. Our knowledge of who is abroad and whether they've been arrested really depends on the Canadians telling us that fact.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The law of the state where our officers serve needs to be followed, in particular when dealing with a family kidnapping, when one of the parents runs away with a child to another country. Can our police officers supervise any investigative services for that?

For instance, in Brazil, private detective agencies have the legal power to intervene. Can those powers be used to go after an individual who allegedly kidnapped a child in the case of a troubled family relationship? Do you have the necessary resources to follow up in a little more proactive way?

[C/Supt Eric Slinn]

Again, I have to underscore the importance of how we have no authority in that country. We leverage the law enforcement network within a country such as Brazil, to use your example, to assist the RCMP in advancing that investigation, but at the front end, we would be assessing many factors with respect to that investigation. Is there a nexus back to Canada? Is there a criminal offence?

As well, there are protocols on kidnappings that we work on with DFATD. Every case is unique.

I think the most important thing that I can give you is that we have no authority in those countries, but we work with that law enforcement agency. Oftentimes in many of the countries where we have liaison officers, the law enforcement capacity of that country is limited, so they often look to the RCMP to provide assistance. We are not forceful in our regard there. We're typically Canadian: we offer assistance. Oftentimes, we're taken up in that regard.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Crosbie, go ahead.

[William Crosbie]

If I could just add...because I believe you're also addressing a category of cases of child abduction. This is where a child is abducted by one parent going across the border—Canadian children and Canadian parents. In those situations, there are about 90-odd countries that are members of the Hague Convention, which provides for a process that parents can use to try to get the return of their children. We assist in that process, but there is a formal process for many countries that they can use. If they're not a signatory to the Hague Convention, then there is no formal process.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'm sorry, but the time has expired.

Mr. Crosbie, you can finish your comments, and then we're going to move along.

[William Crosbie]

There are countries that are members of the Hague Convention and ones that are not. If it's not a member of the Hague Convention, then parents do not have an automatic process that they can use and they seek the assistance of Foreign Affairs.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Very good. The time has expired.

Moving on now to Mr. Hayes. You have the floor, sir.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

This question will be for the Auditor General.

In your report you mentioned that your auditors had consultations with representatives from foreign police organizations. We talked about how things happen in their jurisdiction. The report mentioned the U.K. specifically. It says that their consular officials tell other relevant U.K. authorities when a citizen is arrested abroad for certain serious offences.

I'm trying to get an understanding. Have you examined the privacy legal framework that the U.K. officials operate under?

[Michael Ferguson]

I'll ask Mr. Barrett to give more detail, but certainly what we say in paragraph 2.53 is “in keeping with their legal framework”. We recognize the fact that the sharing they are doing is based on their legal framework, and our legal framework may be different.

I'll ask Mr. Barrett whether he has more details to give you on that.

[Frank Barrett, Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

To add a bit to that, generally speaking we are dealing with countries that are signatories to the Vienna Convention. However, their legal frameworks do tend to be different. There was more latitude in some of the sharing of information allowed between agencies in some of the other countries that we looked at.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

This was specific, obviously, to our Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yet nowhere in the report does it give an example of what can be shared versus what can't be shared. I'm looking for an example of what in the U.K. they could share that in Canada we wouldn't be able to share.

[Frank Barrett]

In general, certainly what we heard from liaison officers and consular officials in a few other cases was that it is routine and a normal practice to share information that comes into the consular office with their law enforcement agency.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

What are the specifics in terms of what type of information they could share versus something we couldn't share, or is it a general theme?

[Frank Barrett]

For example, it would be, “We know of citizens X, Y, and Z in this country who have been arrested. That may be something that is useful to you.”

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Crosbie, the report mentioned that only 17 of 34 requests were actually provided. If I'm reading the report correctly, these were requests by the RCMP to your Department of Foreign Affairs. You said that you put some things in place to make that better.

Can you give me a sense of this? Since those new things, whatever they might be, have been put in place...what are they, for starters? Has there been an improvement in terms of your ability to respond favourably in more than 50% of the cases?

[William Crosbie]

Well, you'll be familiar with the O'Connor report from a few years ago that looked at the situation of Maher Arar. That report made a number of recommendations about how consular information should be safeguarded. It also helped us to determine how we could, on an individual basis, decide when the public interest outweighed the interest of protecting someone's privacy.

What we had to add to the equation is a process that brought together the experts: privacy experts, people who understand the legislation and the commitments under the Privacy Act; the Department of Justice legal advisers, who could help us to look at how you apply those tests to an individual case; and then the consular officers. Having a formal process enables us to determine how the public interest in a particular case outweighs the privacy obligations we have toward an individual. Those are processes we've set up since that commission.

As explained as well, with the RCMP, we found that sometimes they were not asking us for information in a consistent way, or in a way that enabled us to apply the public interest test. That was a conversation that has been taking place with the RCMP. We're in the process of setting up better terms to help us do exactly what you've been talking about, and that is to provide more consistency in the way in which that public interest test is applied.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Slinn, would you care to pick up on that same topic, please?

[C/Supt Eric Slinn]

Yes, I could add to what my colleague has stated. I think a lot of it was lost in the communication. From an RCMP perspective, we could be better in terms of articulating specifically what we want. I think in the four or five meetings we've had since October, significant progress has been realized where we both understand our needs. Oftentimes that's what it was: DFATD not understanding our needs and our members not clearly understanding perhaps some of the rules and the processes around it.

I'm satisfied that we're heading in the right direction and that there will be fewer roadblocks, if I can put it that way.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

The time has expired. Thank you very much.

Moving along, we'll go back to Monsieur Giguère. No?

Then we'll go to Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's a pleasure to be here today.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Chief Superintendent Slinn, I understand that the areas of your programming are not directly responsible for terrorism and national security, but in the opposition we've had a concern about the underfunding of these two areas, especially after the testimony of the commissioner before the Senate committee on October 27, when he said that he had to reassign resources from organized crime and other areas to national security.

Has your program been asked to reassign personnel and the time of your personnel, or your resources, to work on terrorism and national security?