Justice Committee on May 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We'll hear Mr. Lee on that point.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

The force and all agencies that make use of these powers are required to report publicly and say how many people have been designated and how many incidents have occurred. So there is a record of how many designations were made.

[A voice]

Mais non pas du nombre des gens—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into a debate here. My point is that—

Réal, give me a moment here. If I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.

The designations show the number of people who've been designated. If the question is how many people have been designated, then the answer is in the report. If the question is how many people are trained to go undercover, that's another story, but it's not part of the section.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

If you're looking just for numbers, I get the feeling there's some hesitancy to get into all of that as far as numbers are concerned. I don't see what purpose that serves, to get into what size of an operation is running, or how many agents, or how many designated officers there might be. What's the purpose?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I do not understand. We are parliamentarians and we are looking at the scope of provisions of the Criminal Code establishing exemptions. I do not want to know whether Mr. Lee thinks it is in the report or not. I have read the previous two annual reports, which the clerk sent to us, and they failed to mention the number of designated officers. The question is whether we may sit in camera to discuss this matter.

As for the scope of the questions, that is up to us. I will abide by your decision if you decide, as chair, that we will not sit in camera. As to whether the question is relevant, I assert that my colleague's question is quite relevant. As for the rest, it is up to us to decide how far we will go to obtain this information.

We will understand if the RCMP prefers not to respond. We are not asking for details about investigation cases. We are asking how many designated officers there are in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, Mr. Ménard, you made your point.

Mr. Warawa, on the same point.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem going in camera, but I would suggest that we do that after we do our normal business. The point of going in camera was brought up by Mr. Thompson at the beginning, and I'm sure there will be some topics that we could discuss in camera. I would prefer that we deal with in camera at the end of this meeting, the public session. For us to be bouncing back and forth between in camera and public I don't think is practical. So I prefer we do it at the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Your point is taken, and certainly we can discuss a few points in the last ten minutes of this session, which we will begin at 5:20.

I would like to ask the assistant commissioner, is there going to be any reluctance on your part to share this information in an in camera session?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No, absolutely not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay, it shall be so.

Mr. Warawa, you have five minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

The first question, Mr. Chair, is regarding the involvement of the civilian agents. We've heard of the designation for members of the RCMP or other municipal police. How is the civilian agent involved with this? Is there any training for them? You mentioned the one error at the beginning. I think it was in 2002. How is a civilian agent involved, and what training do they receive?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Civilian agents do not receive training. They would only be able to use this legislation if directed by a designated member of the RCMP, in our case, a designated public officer. So the reasonableness and proportionality test, if you will, is done by the police officer who is designated and directing the agent.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So do they realize that this authorization ends when that circumstance ends? They were directed for a very short period of time.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

This is correct, they are. And in fact this is made clear to them in a letter of acknowledgement that's signed by them and us, explaining the situation, that this is an act, that they are directed to commit an act or an omission for a very specific purpose.

To tell you the truth, when handling a civilian agent in any type of operation, even if we don't have to make use of section 25.1, the rules around the handling of civilian agents are very, very tight, to the extent that it's always made clear to them that if they're involved in any criminality they're on their own and they will be arrested if we find out about it, unless it's under our direction. So whether it's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act direction, which is covered under the CDSA, or whether it's something else, such as a section 25.1...it's made very clear that they can only operate under our direction.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The second question refers to identity theft. You had mentioned passports and the hypotheticals--there were driver's licences, social insurance cards. Identity theft is a concern.

My riding of Langley, British Columbia, had the notoriety of having the greatest amount of mail theft per capita in Canada. The issue is focused around crystal meth and people being up for 72 hours. Their job is to steal mail and get it back to organized crime. Then organized crime goes through the mail and makes use of valuable pieces of personal information for identity theft. So it is a problem.

This may be something for in camera--I don't want to press for specific details--but hypothetically, are we involved in dealing with that very important issue of identity theft using section 25.1?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Potentially, again depending on the offence in question and whether it requires the use of section 25.1 or not. The possession of fraudulent documents such as passports requires the use of section 25.1.

We find with identity theft the best defence against it, if you will, is educating the public--education, awareness, and prevention. We have several initiatives under way to do just that. In fact, in the next three weeks we're doing an awareness campaign at a senior citizens home here in Ottawa whereby they will be exposed to the various ways their identities can be stolen.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you because I have limited time. I'll have a follow-up question on that when we go in camera.

My final question refers to page 15 of your submission, where you talk about when prior approval is not feasible. At the end of that paragraph, on page 16, you said that the RCMP has not used this portion of the legislation to date.

If the RCMP has not used this portion of the legislation, and we're in a five-year review, would that indicate that part of the legislation isn't usable or it's not likely to be used? Do we need to look at that? Why has it not been used?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I think the fact that it's not been used is a reflection of how seriously we take this piece of legislation and the honesty and integrity of our members in dealing with this legislation in a very forthright and forthcoming way. It's very clear as to when it should be used, and our members are very clearly educated on the fact that if you do use it, you'd better need to use it. It's not dissuading them from using it, but telling them if you use it, you'd better be able to stand behind what you've done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Warawa.

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, panel members, for your very cogent, compelling presentations this afternoon.

I just want to ask you about the history of the matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, prior to 1999 undercover investigations were occurring on an as-needed basis, and no particular harm was befalling police officers or RCMP officers. I practised law for some 25 years, some criminal law, and I don't recall a series of cases in which police officers were being routinely charged for offences or crimes committed as part of an undercover operation.

Is that the case?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

You're correct.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

It just wasn't happening.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That's correct.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I should recall this, but I don't. What triggered the 1999 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada? What were the particular facts in the Campbell case that resulted in that decision about no longer having immunity? Do you recall?