Evidence of meeting #8 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Okay.
So you do undertake this so that the Canadian public can have some comfort that the watchdog is watching? Is that what you're saying?
10:50 a.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I would hope so. Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
And we have the absence of that, at least officially, with respect to the RCMP. Is that...?
I guess that's your position, Mr. Kennedy. You're doing what Mr. Holland calls “workarounds”, and getting some cooperation, but you don't have the powers you need.
10:50 a.m.
Chair, Executive Services, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
That is correct.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Then the next piece is the one that we talked about at the beginning, where we have as many as 20 agencies working either in concert or in different phases, perhaps on the same investigation, or doing similar things. That's missing as well, and we have to find a way to make sure that happens.
Mr. Kennedy, did you want to comment?
10:50 a.m.
Chair, Executive Services, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
There's just one thing I wanted to speak to. It might have come out of Mr. Ménard's question, which I hadn't responded to.
In phase 2 of the O'Connor report he talked about national security creating some sort of overarching body that would actually have the chairperson for SIRC, CPC, and the CSE commissioner sit with this other person and coordinate where the work would go. I took issue with that. That's not required. The last thing you need to do is have people complain that they have a forgery case, let's say, and then have someone say, “Oh, by the way, direct that to this body to look at as a national security matter.” Now you're telling the guy that it isn't just a criminal case, it's a national security case.
So it really didn't make sense. It also didn't address the fact that beyond just those three players, what you have are all sorts of other folks who are doing national security work at the provincial and municipal levels. What you really needed was the gateway approach, where you could either do joint investigations, joint research, or collaboratively work together. That's the key.
If you do that, then you hope that the people who head those institutions act in a responsible fashion. I talked about the project we're doing with Victoria in B.C. The police board there was very responsive.
I would prefer to do that. If SIRC had a case, we could look at it together, cross-designate people to do it, share it, but at the end of the day, the recommendations that come out would be different. Recommendations to an intelligence officer doing that stuff and recommendations to a police officer doing his or her work will be different.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Mr. Harris, your time is up, sir. Thank you very much.
We have time for one more questioner.
Mr. Norlock.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for coming today. We're learning a lot.
I guess I'll start out with a comment, Mr. Kennedy, and perhaps then a question. For 30-some years I worked as a police officer in Ontario. As you know, the Province of Ontario has an oversight body, or a police public complaints commission, referred to as OCCPS, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. I can tell you that it's a very valued component in public safety in Ontario today. Just as I value your position with the RCMP and the fact that you provide a place where people can go who have issues with the policing services, that's a value to all of us, as well as to the people of Canada.
The other comment I'm going to make has to do with something you talked about. You mentioned that in certain cases there have been commissions to study particular issues. Then you mentioned that the former public safety minister had tasked you--along with the budget--to do a study into the taser issue.
Would you say that the assignment was perhaps able to alleviate the necessity for a commission into that? And very quickly, sir, because there's another follow-up question after that, would you say that it probably was good value for money?
10:55 a.m.
Chair, Executive Services, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It's good to speak to someone who has a knowledge of the process, as you obviously do in Ontario. As you know, by the way, in Ontario with Mr. Gerry McNeely, they actually put in another piece, which had been absent for 13 years. It not only looks at complaints but looks at broader issues of policy and things of that nature. So I was influenced by the good work Ontario is doing, looking at the recommendations I put forward as well.
Yes, in terms of the budget and the taser, I would have to think in terms of providing information to the minister and to the commissioner for them to do something. But for that, if he was going to do something at the federal level, he probably would have had to turn around and call a commission of inquiry, because we didn't have the powers. The minister currently can look to SIRC, let's say, and say, “I've got this issue. Will you go and do it?” Beyond what they self-initiate, he can actually ask them to do something. That's not on the books for us. I proposed that the minister be given that ability where he can come to us and say, “Will you look at it?” So in this case we did it. Kudos to Mr. Day for having done it.
It was fortuitous that just prior to that we had the supplementary money, $3.7 million, for the current fiscal year. That put us in a position to go and fulfill that mandate. Was there value to that work? I believe so, because the commissioner has come out and indicated that they have changed their policy, and there were 22 recommendations. That was done; we had an interim report back to him within two or three weeks, I think, and then a full report within six months, and we've had follow-up action. So value for money? I would think so.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you.
If we carry on with some of the other commissions and inquiries, would it be safe to say those inquiries occurred prior to 2006? It was after 2006 that the commissions of inquiry then made recommendations, and stemming from some of those issues, you're making these requests.
10:55 a.m.
Chair, Executive Services, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The O'Connor inquiry was established, I believe, prior to.... I think it was 2004-05. So clearly it's those recommendations with the key one, because that's the first time anyone has actually looked at this, since 1976 or 1974, and he made those recommendations. Clearly, they have to be acted upon.
In the intervening period, yes, there was a series of commissions that were established. I referred to APEC; that was $20-some-odd million. These others are two and a half years long.
My view is that if you properly constitute a commission with the right resources and powers, you're going to save yourself an awful lot of money. Right now, on national security policing issues, we've got Iacobucci, Major, and O'Connor, who have gone out there and done things--very, very expensive models. These models were very cost-effective in terms of doing the same thing, probably in a more timely fashion, and to some extent also doing preventive work that might avoid this.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you.
I have a couple of quick questions for Ms. Pollak.
Because you're a body dealing with Canada, and you say you have done some comparisons, and you've been asked some questions about comparisons with other countries...you know we always look to our neighbour to the south or to another sister Westminster-style government, such as Australia and Great Britain. We're talking about value for dollar because that's important--but not always necessary when it comes to public safety. You don't always have to look at the dollar; sometimes public safety is paramount.
I guess my question would be this. If you were looking at a cost-effective model, it seems to me, looking at your budget—which was, I believe, about $2.9 million last year, and I think your actuals were about $2.6 million, so you actually came in under budget, and I think that was in your report—
11 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
The question, quite quickly, is this. Compared to committees that do these things in other countries, have you ever done a cost analysis?
11 a.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
No, and I really wouldn't want to take a guess at that.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
That brings this meeting to an end. We want to thank our witnesses very much for the input you gave us. You gave us good insights into what you do, and it's been very, very helpful. Thank you very, very much.
This meeting stands adjourned.