Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I think I would, because of time constraints. If we had all day and they didn't cut me off, I'd be happy to do it now. When you send your letter to us, would you be good enough to attach any internal written documentation you have to support the conclusion in the letter?

Secondly, I'd like you to be provided with a copy of this letter of March 18, 2009, from the RCMP. Once again, it's from Assistant Commissioner Bob Paulson. Would you be good enough to read the letter and provide us with a written response stating whether, and for what reasons, you agree or disagree with the letter's contents? In addition, please accompany your response with any relevant internal documentation that you may have.

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

I'm sorry. You're asking me to comment on whether I've actually—

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

We will provide the letter to you. These are departmental questions, not individual ones.

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

Okay.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I'm going to go to the RCMP and ask the same question. You say you've already seen Assistant Commissioner Paulson's letter of March 18, 2009. Would you read this and provide us with supporting documentation and evidence? I'm not questioning anything; I just want to read more. Would you please provide this to us, in full, so that we can see evidence to confirm the statements made in respect of each of these recommendations?

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

With respect to CSIS, I would just put one wrinkle on that. We have four areas of policy: administration, security, human resources, and operations. Many of these are public. Some, however, are not, for reasons of national security confidence that I'm sure you can understand. A lot of our answers are process answers, as opposed to specific answers, because often we can't speak about specific cases.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

If there is something that is not being provided to us, at least let us know what's not being provided and why.

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

Okay. That's almost like the question “What don't you know that you wish you'd said if you didn't...?”

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

I was very interested to read the long letter that the RCMP sent you on how it had followed the O'Connor report's recommendations. I don't want to pass judgment on that, and I have very little time.

Briefly, I realize that it is a bit quite repetitive. Let's say that the subjects addressed were repetitive as well: a lot of training, a lot of workshops, a large number of individuals who completed their training. The point now is to discuss exchanges of secret intelligence that must remain secret or at the very least be classified.

Here we're missing an important player, with whom you no doubt have relations, particularly in determining the passenger protection list, commonly called the no-fly list. And that is the Department of Transport, although I don't see how that department has jurisdiction to assess the dangers that certain individuals wishing to travel by air present. I believe that authority belongs to the RCMP or to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Could you briefly tell us whether you in fact play a role in establishing that list or whether decisions are made by the Department of Transport? If so, on the basis of what information are those decisions made?

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

On behalf of the RCMP, I would say that our role with respect to the no-fly list is to provide the Department of Transport with information that we may have on individuals who might pose a threat to air security.

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

Does the Department of Transport make the decision to put a person on the list based on information that you transmit to them, or do you decide who must be put on that list?

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

I wouldn't want to mislead you, but I don't think it's the RCMP that makes the decision. However, I'm not familiar enough with the process to know who makes the final decision whether to put a person on the list. I can promise to check and try to get more details on the subject and forward that information to you later.

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

All right.

I imagine you still have a lot of exchanges with our neighbour, the United States. That's probably the country with which we have the most exchanges of all kinds. Can you tell us whether the Americans have access to Canadians' criminal records.

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

You're asking me whether they have access to Canadians' criminal records?

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

Yes.

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

Pardon me, but I don't know how to answer you. Perhaps Bert can.

In fact, the RCMP has a diversified mandate and it includes various mechanisms. I'm not familiar enough with the various sectors that have that kind of relationship with American agencies to know to what point they can have access to criminal records. I would prefer not to venture an answer and risk it being incorrect.

[Superintendent Bert Hoskins, Superintendent, National Security Criminal Investigations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Maybe I could just comment.

If you're talking specifically about national security, obviously if the Americans want information on an individual, they have to be able to come to us with a request demonstrating why they have that request. Obviously, if we see that request as being lawful, and they have a legitimate interest in that individual, we would share information on that individual with them.

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

I understand that we have to exchange information with our allies in order to protect ourselves from security threats. However, if there is a most highly restricted list, it is criminal records. I'm not familiar enough with the system to know that a lot of people have committed crimes and may be dangerous without ever having been convicted. If there is one truly objective document, it is the one that cites the legal decisions determining that a person has committed crimes. I wonder if that isn't the first document that is consulted when people want to assess the danger an individual presents. First the criminal record is checked, then other things, no? In any case, you don't know.

The Iacobucci report suggests, once again, that the three persons mentioned be offered the same apologies as those made to Mr. Arar. Was the RCMP consulted or does it have a role to play in preparing those apologies? If so, has that been done?

[C/Supt Gilles Michaud]

First, I would like to inform you that civil actions have been brought over those incidents. Currently, it would therefore be inappropriate on my part to make any comment whatever on Judge Iacobucci's report.

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

All right.

Mr. O'Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure you have access to Canadians' criminal records when you want to consult them. Do you have exchanges with the Americans on that subject?

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

I'm sorry I'm having slight difficulty understanding exactement quelle question vous avez posée.

Is it simply an issue of yes, we have access to CPIC and the criminal database, which all police officers and a number of investigative agencies in the country do have? When we exchange information with the United States, if there is a reason to exchange information and if there is a reason to give the details about an individual that would assist us, we would do that, and that might include the criminal record of that person. I guess my answer is partly specific, if that's the hypothetical that you ask, but it's also general. Every time we exchange information it is subject to review by SIRC; therefore, if we are exchanging too much, or too little, or not enough, or in a cavalier fashion, we tend to believe that the system will sort that out.

Does that address it? I'm not sure.

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

No, but my time is up.

[Geoffrey O'Brian]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, listening to Mr. O'Brian, it seems that everything is all right and this was just a learning experience for us. Yet we have the reports before us of Justice Iacobucci, for example, determining that during the inquiry the CSIS officials repeatedly told that inquiry that they had no evidence that Syria used torture so they didn't consider that the confession that he made may be the product of torture. In fact, CSIS decided to corroborate the confession of Mr. Elmaati, which were extracted under torture, by sending more questions to be asked of him by his torturers.

The RCMP also had this confession as well. Your report that Mr. Ménard gave us today now says that the RCMP now determines whether countries have questionable human rights records by consulting with the annual reports of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. That seems to me to be as incredible as the statement that the RCMP didn't know that the Syrians engaged in torture. Are you saying that's the extent of your understanding of whether a country engages in torture, by looking at annual reports of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade? Is that what you're suggesting to us, that that's your major source or only source?