I am not aware of the details of the police protocol. However, I imagine that such protocols are, indeed, in effect. I just want to sound a cautionary note with respect to protocols. Such protocols are indeed necessary.
I represented an intervenor in the Arar inquiry. The matter of protocols was extremely important in the context of that inquiry. At the time, there were information-sharing protocols in place with foreign countries, including the United States, of course. I should say, however, that under political pressure in the post-911 period and the context of integrated teams and operational forces that many different police organizations were involved in, including the FBI and possibly police forces from other countries, protocols were easily ignored.
It is important to remember another point with respect to protocols, and it relates to what police officers know about human rights. It's great to have protocols laying out all sorts of fine principles with respect to human rights, but although an officer may know something about human rights--since it can happen that officers are more aware of these issues--the involvement of a person outside the police is often beneficial. In other words, having a judge there to witness the action, as is the case with search and wiretapping warrants, is a way of more easily guiding police action and ensuring it respects rights and freedoms, laws and fundamental rights in this country.
Protocols may well talk about fundamental rights, but it's possible police officers will not fully understand the meaning of the word “torture”, for example. Even if we tell them it is prohibited under section 269.1 of the Criminal Code and that there does not have to be bodily injury or assault for torture to have been carried out, in actual fact, I'm not certain that there won't be torture.