Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2009

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

No, not at all. What I'm saying is basically that we are looking. For each country that we want to share information with we will do an assessment. That assessment is based in part on DFAIT's annual report on that country in respect to their human rights records. We also consult through the websites and what not of other NGOs, like Amnesty International. There's a complete review being conducted of each country before we go ahead and share information with them.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Is that something new?

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

It's not something new. It's something that is enhanced. We're documenting it now to make sure we can answer for our actions.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

But are you acknowledging that it wasn't done in dealing with the case of Mr. Elmaati, for example, in 2001?

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

I can't comment on what was or was not done at that time. What I can speak about is what we do now.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm talking about the findings of Mr. Iacobucci and the testimony given to him that the RCMP didn't know and CSIS didn't know that Syria was engaged in torture. I know you've only been in the job eight months, and maybe that's why you've been sent here, but can you tell us what the RCMP's reaction to that finding is? Is that something they accept? Because you say you take the results and the findings of O'Connor and Iacobucci with the utmost seriousness. Does that mean you accept them?

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

What I'm saying is at this time we cannot comment on the findings of Justice Iacobucci. With the recommendations given by Justice O'Connor on events that occurred about the same time, we have implemented a series of policies. We now exercise central control and we've enhanced our process in which we conduct our national security criminal investigations.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Michaud, very shortly after the Arar inquiry report was released, Mr. Justice O'Connor's report was released. The Commissioner of the RCMP appeared before this committee while a case was before the courts by Mr. Arar and apologized to Mr. Arar publicly for the actions of the RCMP in this case. Why are your instructions to tell this committee you're not going to apologize for the actions the RCMP were found to have taken in the case of Mr. Almalki, Mr. Nureddin, and Mr. Elmaati?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Excuse me. There's a point of order.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, when I look at the mandate of this committee, it really has nothing to do with what the RCMP will do. It's what they have done in relationship to those two reports, the O'Connor and Iacobucci. I think asking these members of the RCMP, to push them into a corner to do something that's not within their mandate to do in the first place, goes beyond the scope of the committee and I don't know how it enhances what this committee is doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, thank you.

I think the point is well taken. Let's try to focus on what we agreed to.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

With respect, Mr. Chair, what the agencies have done in response to what has happened includes whether or not they're treating it seriously enough to apologize to these individuals for what the agencies have done. So I believe it is a relevant question. We're asking them what they did to change their procedure so it doesn't happen again. Yes, that's very important, but what they are doing to repair the damage that has been done to these men and their families is also important.

So I'm asking them why they are now saying they're not prepared to apologize or try to repair the damage when in the case of Mr. Arar, the Commissioner of the RCMP came and said they apologized for what they have done and what they have caused. This committee made a recommendation after that, that the government ought to attempt to compensate Mr. Arar for what's happened. I don't know what's changed between now and then, and I respect what Mr. MacKenzie is saying, but at the same time we're trying to find out what these agencies and the government are prepared to do to repair the damage they've done.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It's outside the scope of the responsibility of the two officers who are here. You're asking these two officers to make some apology that you believe they should make. I don't think it's within the scope of their responsibilities to offer that apology to anybody.

As you well know, there is a very large civil action against the Government of Canada. These matters took place some time ago, certainly before this current government, but to push these officers into a corner and try to make them commit one way or another to something that's outside their scope of responsibility I think is too far from the responsibility of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Really, I don't think it's going to be useful to start getting into a big long debate. We have our witnesses here. Let's try to stick as much as possible to the present report.

On a point of order as well, Mr. Holland?

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

A point of order.

Apologies were absolutely germane to both reports. In the case of O'Connor the apology to Mr. Arar was absolutely germane, and in the case of Iacobucci the apologies to the other individuals were absolutely germane. If there is somebody put in front of this committee who does not have the clearance or authority to talk on the issue and apologize, then we need somebody in front of this committee who can. I will not accept as an excuse litigation. It was not an acceptable excuse under Arar, and it's not an acceptable excuse now. After what had happened, let's make no mistake. Read Iacobucci's conclusions; it is absolutely germane to his conclusions, as it was to O'Connor with Arar. This committee acted on Arar; we have an obligation to do the same. And if there are individuals who are before the committee who can't answer the questions, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask them; it means we should have people here who can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think that's future business of the committee. We can discuss it at that point.

I'll give you another minute and a half, Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I take it that you were instructed not to deal with any questions related to apology, were you?

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

No. Basically, what I'm saying is that because of the ongoing civil litigations, because of the fact that the findings of Justice Iacobucci are still under review, I am in no position to make any statement in relation to Justice Iacobucci's findings.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I have a question to Mr. O'Brian, CSIS.

There was quite a lot of discussion in both the O'Connor report and the Iacobucci findings that the use of particular language and terms such as “jihadist”, “Islamic extremist”, etc., can open the door to a slipshod and casual process in which guilt is assigned by association, which is a phrase Mr. O'Connor used. Are these phrases that your organization has stopped using in reports and information-sharing? Is that something that you've avoided, this labelling?

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

No, I don't think so. We attempt to describe individuals in lots of circumstances, depending on the status of the investigation. If it's early in an investigation, we may be simply seeking information. If it's later in an investigation, we may be able to come up with an assessment, and we will do so.

I must admit—and I have to be careful how I respond to this—Mr. Justice O'Connor in fact in terms of CSIS at page 151 of his report on analysis and recommendations said that he was impressed with the way CSIS generally exchanged information, with caveats, and so on and so forth.

If you are asking me if we make mistakes, I will have to admit we are human and we do make mistakes, but I think my answer to you is that we have a process in place that ensures there is sign-off when things are exchanged. We have of course that process of the approval of agreements first, then constant monitoring of them, and we attempt to properly characterize information every time we describe someone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We're going to have to wrap up this round. We're right over time.

Mr. McColeman, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

First of all, I'd like to thank you all for taking the time from your schedules to be with us. I think it's important to our study of the recommendations that you came prepared today. I appreciate that.

As a new parliamentarian, I tend to think in terms of the general context of what it is we're trying to achieve here, and of the recommendations put before us by these two reports, their acceptance by the agencies who have to adapt, and the implementation of those recommendations. I believe it's the role, from this seat, to be studying it from a 30,000-foot level initially and then to drill down to see evidence of that having occurred.

Having said that, I'll first address my comments and questions to Mr. O'Brian. If you'll allow me, I want to read a section of your submission. It says:

While we don't always agree with SIRC or, frankly, always enjoy the SIRC process, our Director has noted that this system of review set up under the CSIS Act has - over time - made us a better service. I used the phrase "over time" on purpose because it seems to me that virtually everyone who has thought about these issues has concluded that there are no simple, easy once-and-for-all answers. To me, that's part of the genius of the CSIS Act process; that it's just that - an ongoing process, capable of adjusting to changed and changing operational, legal and political circumstances.

Having been involved in civilian oversight of a police service in my history, it seems to me that this context--and I'd like you to comment--implies there's ongoing training and things that are happening in the implementation as recommendations roll out. We see evidence from the minister that there are issues that have been implemented.

I'd like your comments about some of that, about some of the context of the acceptance and implementation, and in the case of CSIS, the oversight of SIRC and how that works well for you.

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

Yes, thank you.

I think it's terribly important, in terms of context, to understand that this world of review is with us all the time. It isn't a question of going along and being found out and then suddenly having to adjust. It's a constant thing.

When I was trying to prepare for this today, one of the things I found, which frankly surprised me, was that this year's SIRC report, which I think was tabled in the House two months ago, talking about our operational policy, notes that in 2007 and 2008--those are the years they are reporting--CSIS revised and/or published over 140 policies. And I think they mentioned there were 70 more that were being initiated or were under development.

All I'm saying is that it's a continual process. I think that's a terribly important point to make. We sometimes think, and I think legitimately so, of examples like the O'Connor commission, the Iacobucci commission, and Mr. Justice Major's commission, as negative events because they are pointing out what they consider to be lacks or gaps or whatever in our process.

I think that's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that it's a positive process. I can't think of too many countries in the world that actually have the commitment to adjust and correct and try to improve the systems they have. I think we should take some pride in that.

Instead of people saying, gosh, they're out to get us, I would hope they would instead say that these are people doing a difficult job under ministerial control, under judicial control, obviously, for warrants, and constantly being reviewed. Under section 41 of our act, there is the ability for anyone to complain if they believe that CSIS has done something that has affected them in any way--I mean, the wording is very general.

Frankly, I think it's a pretty good system. Are there mistakes? Yes. Do bad things happen from time to time? Yes. Is the system a good system? Frankly, I think it is, and I think we should take some pride in it. I think we should view it as a positive.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I appreciate that context, because that's been my sense of things in a very practical and pragmatic way in terms of organizations, be they public, businesses, etc. There are successes and failures, especially as you go through the process of change in organizations. You have both sides, and you learn from the failures. That's what these recommendations are, and you take those to heart and change your operations as a result of that. We talk about specifics in this environment, and I'd like it to be pointed out from at least this person's point of view that the general context of how we operate is the bigger, more important question of oversight and governance, in my mind.

I'll give you another example of this. We've had many witnesses to this committee. Most recently we had U.K. members of Parliament here who developed a highly secretive, highly protected group of senior parliamentarians who actually are not able to share in a public venue such as this some of the specifics we're talking about. So I like our system in the sense that we haven't reached that point--where we've had a crisis in which we've had to develop that layer of oversight.

I also would like to ask Mr. Michaud about your comment in your submission, which says that you are committed to making further changes to your national security criminal operations as you continuously adapt to our ever-changing environment. Can you expand on some of the things that you've witnessed as changes in your eight months in the role you're in?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Very briefly, please. We're way out of time. Maybe we'll have to wait for the next round. Can you, in just a sentence of two, summarize what you might tell us?