Public Accounts Committee on May 26th, 2009

[D/Commr Tim Killam]

I think you speak to a project that our criminal intelligence folks did just recently with regard to class 1 airports, the large airports in Canada.

We looked for any gaps in security for our purposes, to be able to know where we would target our investigations with regard to organized crime. It verified that there were 58 organized crime groups working within or using the eight class 1 airports across Canada. And we found a number of workers within secure areas who had some association or had close association with organized crime.

This was shared with Transport Canada, and this was also one of the catalysts to making sure we get over the large legal hurdles with regard to sharing information between Transport Canada and the RCMP. We could ensure that we looked at all our databases and were able to take the right information from Transport Canada to do our search with regard to that person and their suitability. That's why my previous statement was, I believe, with the agreement we have and what we're working on right now--we are looking at all the databases we have access to--the airports and the marine ports are and will be safer, for those who want to apply and work in those areas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Monsieur Pomerleau.

Mr. Shipley, four minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to our guests for being here.

I'd like to go to Ms. Hurtubise, and I would also like to hear from the RCMP and Transport Canada to help me understand.

Ms. Hurtubise, in your presentation you talked about the coordination since 2004 with the Government Operations Centre. Can you help me as to how that links with the memorandums of understanding that have been developed, and how that will complement some of the security issues that had not been addressed before, which seem to now be moving ahead at a satisfactory rate?

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

Yes, thank you.

The Government Operations Centre does not get involved in policy arrangements between any agencies, so it would not be involved per se in the MOU between the RCMP and Transport Canada. Its role is operational and it's one of information and coordination. It is there to coordinate and provide information among all the operations centres in government and also to coordinate with provinces, where the case may be, and sometimes even with local municipalities.

I could give you an example of the recent floods in Manitoba. Many people were involved in that. The Government Operations Centre was producing regular reports, at one time four times a day, and eventually it was a little bit less. We were liaising with the Manitoba government and providing them with all the information we had. We were ensuring that the Canadian Forces were aware of the situation in case they might be asked to provide support.

So it's very much to ensure coordination of all the Government of Canada activities, inform all the various players in the Government of Canada so that everyone has the same information, and add that extra dimension to the provincial and municipal dimensions, if necessary.

You may recall a major explosion in Toronto about a year and a half ago. There was a concern that search and rescue equipment in Toronto might not be sufficient. Through the Ontario Operations Centre and the Toronto area police forces, a request came in to the Government Operations Centre, and we lined up search and rescue equipment from another Canadian city that could have been brought in, if necessary.

So it's very much coordination of various government operations across the board. In that way we are better equipped to deal with any issue.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

And you raise an interesting point, because today focuses a lot on airports and points of entry. But those of us who have been involved in municipal work over the years know that everything from weather-related emergencies to train derailments to aircraft crashes--it isn't always the large jets, but we do have those happen.... We have an incredible respect, I can tell you, for the Government Operations Centre in terms of dealing with emergencies that happen to everyday people. Set aside that these do not involve terrorists, these are not threats to our society; they are events that happen whether they're natural or just by accident. I want to pass that on as part of what we sometimes overlook, quite honestly, the good things that are happening out there.

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

Yes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

As we go through some of those debriefings post-event, the lessons learned—that's a new term I guess I've learned down here—are lessons to be learned, and they need to be implemented. I just wanted to pass that on.

Ms. Dansereau, you talked about filling positions, and I want to follow up on Mr. Christopherson's comments. On the filling of positions and the number of vacancies, you always have these vacancies. Is the process behind because they're trying to save dollars, because it's hard to find qualified people, or because it's a complex issue and security is one of the main issues to be dealt with?

[Guylaine Dansereau]

It's not about saving money. We created permanent positions in order to attract and retain qualified employees. The training is not available outside, so we do the training on site. It requires further training and staffing actions to keep our employees and train them. So it's a lengthy process to retain and staff positions.

It's also very complex. It requires a stringent screening process to have qualified criminal analysts to do the job.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

You have the money to do it.

[Guylaine Dansereau]

Yes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, you have four minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll attempt to get three issues on the floor as quickly as I can. We'll see if it works.

I want to continue where I left off before on decision-making and draw our witnesses' attention to page 11, item 1.19:

Our 2004 audit reviewed the management of security intelligence, finding that overall direction came from five high-level government committees within the intelligence community, and that decision making was by consensus. When agencies could not reach consensus, decisions could be delayed.

I draw to your attention items 1.27 and 1.28, as the Auditor General did. You'll recall that when I asked her if this was still a concern, her answer was yes. So I'd like to hear a response to that.

Secondly, on the day this audit was tabled, in the news release, the Auditor General said in the fourth paragraph:

The audit also found, however, that security and intelligence agencies are still not subject to a level of independent review that corresponds to their intrusion into people’s lives.

I'd like to hear some comment on that.

My last comment is on the watch list--they're called lookouts in this report--on page 27, item 1.72, and on page 29, item 1.81 where it says:

Processes to ensure the quality of lookouts have improved in certain areas; however, there is a gap in ensuring the quality of lookout information provided to CBSA by other agencies.

If you flip the page over, that comes up as an issue first shown in the 2004 audit, and it's still unsatisfactory.

Those are the three areas.

Don't all jump in at once.

[Marie-Lucie Morin]

Thank you for that. I think I will tackle the first question.

Look, what I would say is that the issues with respect to security and intelligence are by their very nature complex. It does perhaps sound like a simple thing to say, but it is just a reality. My experience is that we are able to prioritize issues and we are able to provide timely advice to the government on priority issues.

I have been a national security advisor for six months but have been associated with this community for many more years, and I have seen a high degree of progress in the celerity, the speed, with which we're able to treat issues. We have better mechanisms now to face events when they occur, whether it is the standing up of the operations centre or, as somebody else mentioned today, the ITAC, the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre. So I do feel that we are well equipped, in fact, to meet the challenges as they come our way.

That being said, can we make more progress? Yes, we can make more progress. But I do not believe that the structure as we have it today is actually an impediment to our providing the right policy advice in a timely fashion. My position is a position of coordination. I sometimes have to accelerate work, to make sure that agencies and departments speed up the work, but I have to say that I am satisfied that they are stepping up to the plate.

So again, in conclusion, not to belabour the point, it is not perfect, but I think it is a lot better than it has been.

Thank you.

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

On your second question, sir, I don't have the precise quote you noted, but it was about independent review being proportional to the intrusion, I think, of the activities in people's lives, or words to that effect.

I can say, and I believe the Auditor General recognized this in her report, that a lot of work has been done, a lot of analysis, and a lot of options have been developed. We agree completely with the principle set out that the level of review should be proportional.

We also agree, and I believe--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sorry, it was actually about the independence of that review, not proportionality.

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

Yes, external review, some call it. An independent review is what others call it. Yes, absolutely, sir.

I would point out, as I believe the Auditor General did as well earlier, that, for example, CSIS already has extensive independent or external review, however you cast it, through SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. But we have done a lot of work since the O'Connor report came out on this, and ministers have appeared before various parliamentary committees on this issue.

A lot of work has been done. We have developed a lot of options. We have set out a number of principles. In addition to the proportionality one, there's the fact that the operational effectiveness of agencies is also critical. We have done a lot of work specifically with respect to review and oversight of the RCMP, but we have also done work with respect to the need to have review for operations that involve more than one agency. That's very important.

I will conclude by saying that we are now awaiting the report of the Air India inquiry, and then the government will decide how it wants to implement those recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. Thank you, Madam Hurtubise.

Mr. Weston, four minutes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you all for being here today.

I have to say you have been very forthcoming with your answers. I thought, Madam Morin, you might say that if you answered the question, you'd have to kill us, but you haven't said that yet.

In terms of the international field, you've said in different ways how complicated things have become. How good are we at integrating information from the field from abroad? And related to that--maybe this is for other members of the panel--how good are we at integrating best practices from other countries? What is the international dimension? It seems in a complicated world much of what is relevant here is happening in Islamabad, for instance.

[Marie-Lucie Morin]

Thank you.

I believe we are actually doing a very good job on both counts. We do receive a lot of information from varied sources. By the way, today we have to look at the integration of information that is also readily available in open sources. There is a view that the only information that is helpful, from a security and intelligence point of view, is that which is provided, I would say, by our sister agencies or departments overseas. In fact, the business of analyzing all elements that go into providing recommendations to the government on national security entails the analysis of every possible source of information. This is done in various departments across government, but it is coming together in an integrated way.

I have mentioned the creation, for example, of the ITAC, which has really brought us into the 21st century in terms of being able to pull together this material in a timely and helpful fashion. Of course, in the business of security and intelligence, the amount of information grows exponentially. This is the case as well in the so-called civilian world. So it is a challenge that we need to constantly reflect upon, as to how we are going to be able to continue to really analyze all the information that comes our way.

In terms of best practices, I already mentioned that we have particularly close ties to other Westminster-style governments, but we also have very close relationships with other allied countries, partner countries. Of course, it is important for us to take stock of how they are conducting this kind of business, because you are right in saying that there are best practices elsewhere that we need to be able to import if we think it would be desirable.

This being said, I want to share with you that Canada is often cited as a best practice as well. So inasmuch as we look to the outside, the outside world also looks to us for best practices. When I said earlier that I believe we are first class, I do believe that. I receive a lot of delegations from overseas who want to come and talk to us about how we conduct our business. So there is very much give and take, including from what I would call a machinery-of-government point of view that goes on in this community.

Thank you.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before we go to Ms. Ratansi, I have a question I'd like to put to the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP here, on the whole issue of civilian oversight.

As you know, the RCMP had a fairly lengthy hearing before this particular committee about a year and a half or two years ago. Very troubling allegations came about. We have the Robert Dziekanski situation going on in Vancouver now. There have been a number of inquiries, and it's been troubling for members of Parliament to watch this. Bear in mind that most of us came here with a lot of respect and admiration for not only the RCMP but the people who wear the uniform, but it certainly has been a very trying couple of years.

One of the issues that I see as fundamentally deficient in the overall organization is this lack of any meaningful civil oversight. We have the complaints commission, but even the commissioner himself gets up before a parliamentary committee and indicates very clearly that the legislation is woefully and totally inadequate. This has been called for, really, by various commissions within government and outside of government, and I think the RCMP will be well served with a more comprehensive regime of civil oversight. That was recommended two years ago by the Brown commission, but as of yet, nothing has been done on that issue.

Do you see any developments coming, and where do you see this whole issue going?

Perhaps Madam Morin might want to chirp in on this issue, too, because I think this is clearly an area where there is a deficiency in the whole operation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[D/Commr Tim Killam]

The RCMP welcomes oversight mechanisms. We have gone through a very rough last couple of years. There is a lot of work being done, and I know my colleague Madame Hurtubise can speak to that. Frankly, I think we're very close to being there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Would you prefer to comment, Madame?

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

A lot of work has been done. I think there's a recognition of a need to enhance and modernize the CPC. We need to provide it with additional powers. The RCMP is very open to that. We look forward to seeing the recommendations of the Air India inquiry.