Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2015

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I call this 46th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to order.

Colleagues, I have no committee business prior to commencement of the hearing, so unless somebody has something they want to bring forward at this time, and I'm not seeing anyone, we will proceed with the public hearing on chapter 2, “Support for Combatting Transnational Crime”, of the fall 2014 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

Colleagues, we have the Auditor General with us, and our witnesses are here. The meeting will unfold in the usual manner beginning with opening remarks from each of our witnesses. As always, the initial opening remarks will be from our Auditor General, Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Auditor General, you now have the floor, sir.

[Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss chapter 2 of our November 2014 audit, entitled Support for Combatting Transnational Crime.

Joining me today is Frank Barrett, the principal responsible for the audit.

Many crimes that affect Canadians begin or end with actions taken beyond our borders. Criminals and their organizations do not view borders as limitations on their activities.

To advance investigations involving transnational crime, Canada's law enforcement community relies on a network of RCMP liaison officers located in various countries. These officers interact with foreign law enforcement agencies to extend Canada's investigative reach.

In our audit, we examined whether the RCMP established priorities for serious and organized crime and aligned its international programming to those priorities, and whether the RCMP and the Department of Justice had in place the systems and practices necessary to address their international obligations. This included looking at information-sharing practices between federal departments as well as the RCMP's cooperation with international policing organizations.

We found that the RCMP aligned the operations of the liaison officer program to respond to priorities for serious and organized crime and that it did so through consultations with its partners and the work of various international and domestic committees.

The RCMP was able to react to new priorities and changing circumstances by rapidly deploying staff temporarily when necessary.

However, we found that the RCMP had not yet developed a process to assess the overall performance of the liaison officer program. Such an assessment would help the RCMP identify how best to use the program's limited resources to meet priorities in a changing environment.

Our audit also looked at the RCMP's information sharing practices and cooperation with other federal departments. We assessed whether the liaison officers had the information necessary to fulfill their operational requirements.

We found that liaison officers had access to the information required to support investigations both domestically and internationally. They had access to key case information that allowed liaison officers to react in a timely manner to requests related to investigations.

Many of the files we reviewed showed that liaison officers had been directed to share only selected information with partners. In all of the files we reviewed, the documentation showed that liaison officers adhered to the instructions on information sharing provided by Canadian investigators.

We noted that some information on Canadians abroad who were arrested, charged, and convicted of serious crimes as well as their prison release dates are potentially valuable to law enforcement policing efforts. We found that the RCMP is generally not provided with this information from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development because of Privacy Act restrictions on the sharing of information about individuals, as well as restrictions by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms about what can be shared with law enforcement agencies.

European countries are dedicating an increasing number of resources to Europol, which is becoming an important avenue for the sharing of information between police agencies.

We found that the RCMP had not assessed the costs and benefits of greater participation in Europol nor the impact that this could have on the size and location of the liaison officer program in Europe.

Our audit also looked at the Department of Justice's processing of requests for mutual legal assistance and extradition. We found that it often took over a year to process the requests we reviewed. Justice Canada is the central authority in these matters, but it had not taken any action to assess the reasons for significant delays in processing requests for extradition or mutual legal assistance.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer the committee's questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson.

Now, for the RCMP, we have Chief Superintendent Eric Slinn, who is the director general of support services for federal policing.

Chief Superintendent, you now have the floor, sir.

[C/Supt Eric Slinn, Director General, Support Services, Federal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Mr. Chair and honourable members, I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the RCMP's role and support in combatting transnational crime abroad, the focus of chapter 2 of the OAG fall 2014 audit.

The audit focused on RCMP systems and practices in place to support Canadian law enforcement agencies to address serious and organized crime abroad, notably our liaison officer program. For clarity, the audit did not assess counterterrorism activities.

I am the director general in charge of the international program at the RCMP.

To combat serious transnational crimes such as drug trafficking, corruption, money laundering and human trafficking, to name a few, the RCMP is working with its international counterparts to gather and provide information related to our internal investigations and those of other Canadian police forces.

Because Canadian law enforcement agencies do not have jurisdiction outside of Canada, we share information through police-to-police networks and multilateral police organizations such as Interpol and Europol, as well as through formal mechanisms, including mutual legal assistance and extradition treaties.

The RCMP international program provides direction, support, and assistance to Canadian law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of crimes committed in Canada and those committed abroad that affect Canada. A central part of this program is the RCMP's liaison officer network. There are currently 42 liaison officers located in 26 priority countries around the world fostering and maintaining key relationships with foreign law enforcement agencies, ultimately extending Canada's investigative reach.

These officers receive requests from Canadian and foreign law enforcement agencies to advance investigations of interest to Canada. Requests range from doing routine background checks on individuals to liaising with local police, to advancing investigations of organized crime or child sexual exploitation, to following up on requests for evidence for extradition. In 2013 the RCMP responded to more than 2,200 requests, more than half of which were related to serious transnational crimes.

As previously mentioned, the RCMP also works through multilateral organizations such as Interpol and Europol to advance Canadian investigations. With respect to Interpol, the RCMP manages Canada's Interpol national central bureau, which involves collaboration between various law enforcement agencies across Canada. This bureau is the Interpol point of contact in Canada and serves to facilitate requests between law enforcement agencies in Canada and those around the world.

The RCMP is also the main point of contact for Europol. For clarity, Europol differs from Interpol as it focuses on intelligence sharing rather than on facilitating police requests.

The RCMP's international program is an effective tool to advance transnational crime investigations. For example, RCMP liaison officers regularly share information with Canadian and foreign law enforcement partners to advance criminal investigations. However, there are challenges. For example, the RCMP cannot generally access information on Canadians arrested, charged, and convicted of serious crimes abroad held by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development because of restrictions in the Privacy Act on the sharing of information about individuals, and restrictions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the sharing of information about Canadians with law enforcement agencies.

In terms of audits in general, the OAG found that the RCMP liaison officer program was well positioned to address priorities for serious and organized crime. However, three recommendations were made to improve the program.

First, the OAG recommended that the RCMP assess the performance of the liaison officer program to ensure that it gets the best use of its limited resources. We agree. To make the program more efficient, we are developing a performance management framework that will allow us to make the best use of our limited resources. We believe that we can implement the framework in 2015-2016.

Second, it was recommended that the RCMP assess costs, potential opportunities, and challenges associated with greater participation in Europol. We agree. We have begun a formal assessment to better determine the costs, potential opportunities, and challenges that may result from greater participation in Europol. We plan to complete this assessment by spring of this year.

Finally, the OAG recommended that the RCMP work with the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to identify information related to Canadians arrested, charged, convicted, or released from prison abroad that can legally be shared and to put in place processes to share this information with the RCMP. Once again, we agree. We are working closely with colleagues from DFATD and are hopeful that processes can be improved within the limits of Canadian law.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, I'd like to thank you for your time today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you, Chief Superintendent.

We'll move to opening remarks from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. With us today to do so is Mr. William Crosbie. He is the assistant deputy minister and legal adviser, consular, security and legal.

Mr. Crosbie, you now have the floor.

[William Crosbie, Assistant Deputy Minister and Legal Adviser, Consular, Security and Legal, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, and honourable Mr. Auditor General of Canada.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for giving Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada the opportunity to provide an update on the department's action plan following the Auditor General's fall report.

I'm happy to report that much progress has been accomplished since the publication of the report and that our two institutions, the RCMP and Foreign Affairs, are working in a spirit of collaboration and transparency to meet the Canadian public's interest.

Today, more and more Canadians explore remote corners of the world, work for foreign-based companies, participate in student exchanges and retire in southern destinations. While most international trips are trouble-free, the Government of Canada is there to provide consular assistance should a Canadian find himself or herself in trouble.

Canada has a team of dedicated consular officials who assist thousands of Canadians abroad each year when a Canadian citizen requests consular assistance. The role of consular officials is to ensure the well-being of a Canadian in distress abroad and to ensure that they are being treated fairly and in accordance with local laws. We provide consular assistance 24 hours a day, seven days a week, through our Emergency Watch and Response Centre and more than 260 points of service in 150 countries.

Parallel to all of this mobility by Canadians is the increasingly transnational nature of crime, as has already been mentioned. Foreign Affairs is pleased to work with the RCMP as part of the Government of Canada's commitment to protecting Canadians from crimes and criminals that cross our borders. As notified by the Auditor General, information sharing with the RCMP regarding Canadians arrested, charged, and convicted of serious crimes abroad is subject to limitations. Specifically, limitations are prescribed in the Privacy Act on the sharing of information about individuals and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the sharing of information about Canadians with law enforcement agencies. That said, our department shares relevant information with the RCMP in accordance with Canadian privacy laws, and remains committed to doing so when it is in the public interest.

Our management action plan outlines initiatives that are currently under way to improve information-sharing practices between Foreign Affairs and the RCMP, capitalizing on existing mechanisms such as the presence of an RCMP liaison officer within Foreign Affairs. In September 2014, Foreign Affairs and the RCMP agreed to set up a consular policy dialogue among senior officials to discuss a number of priorities of interest about institutions, including information sharing. The members of this dialogue met for the first time in October, and will continue to meet on a quarterly basis. As a direct result of that initial meeting in October, we formed a joint working group to discuss information-sharing processes in more detail. This working group has already met on several occasions and has been able to address some of the RCMP's concerns on the way information that may be available to Foreign Affairs can be shared. Because we wanted it to be solution driven, we involved consular, legal, and privacy experts from both institutions. The working group is reviewing the legal framework under which our institutions can share information and is exploring new avenues to share information. It has also reviewed the current mechanisms and identified some quick fixes that will yield significant improvement in the way requests are handled, particularly improving timeliness of response.

To address specifically the concerns raised by the Auditor General, the consular operations bureau created the travelling child sex offender information-sharing committee. This is an internal committee that reviews the information that Foreign Affairs has about consular clients who are convicted of sexual crimes against minors. The work of this committee has created a sound mechanism to review and determine whether existing and new information held by Foreign Affairs could be lawfully shared in light of the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act. This act came into force in 2011 and stipulates that the names of those Canadians who are convicted of sex offences abroad and who are returning to Canada may be included in the national sex offender registry. In support of these initiatives, we're also taking this opportunity to review our publications and training for consular staff to have a common understanding of what we may lawfully share with the RCMP and how we do it.

Protecting Canadians from criminals who commit crimes outside Canadian borders remains a key commitment of the Government of Canada. Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada will continue to work with the RCMP to improve lawful information-sharing practices between our two institutions to the benefit of the Canadian public.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you, Mr. Crosbie.

Our last witness, from the Department of Justice, is Janet Henchey. Ms. Henchey is the senior general counsel and director general of the International Assistance Group.

Ms. Henchey, you now have the floor.

[Janet Henchey, Senior General Counsel and Director General, International Assistance Group, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

As indicated, I am the director general and senior general counsel of the international assistance group, which is part of the litigation branch of the Department of Justice.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on the recommendation made in the Auditor General's 2014 report on the mutual legal assistance process and the extradition process in Canada.

I can confirm that the Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the Minister of Justice, is responsible for the liaison and coordination of mutual legal assistance and extradition requests made to and from Canada and for the management of Canada's treaty relationships in these areas of international cooperation. We are pleased to note that the report found our processing of extradition and mutual legal assistance requests to be within expected timeframes. That said, we are aware of the need to ensure that extradition and mutual legal assistance requests are reviewed and processed in the most timely and efficient manner possible in order to provide the best possible service to domestic and international law enforcement and prosecutor partners. The Auditor General has noted that the work of Justice Canada accounts for only 15% of the overall time needed to process mutual legal assistance requests. Similarly, he points to the fact that we are only directly in control of roughly 30% of the overall processing time for extradition matters. Clearly, we need to continue to work closely with our domestic and foreign partners if measurable improvements in processing times are to be achieved.

To that end, we are taking the appropriate steps to identify and reduce any excessive delays that could undermine our efforts to make the process more efficient.

These steps include conducting a comprehensive review of our outstanding file inventory for the 2014-15 fiscal period, with a view to identifying cases that result in significant delays; examining the reasons for these delays; and implementing measures, where possible, to address substantive delay.

In addition, throughout the 2015-16 fiscal year, the Department of Justice will arrange meetings with significant treaty partners and Canadian investigators and prosecutors to discuss methods to mitigate lengthy delays that may reduce the effectiveness of international cooperation.

Those steps are included in our detailed action plan.

I can also inform you that as of this date we have almost completed a comprehensive review of our outstanding file inventory. We have also specifically reviewed the files of our two major partners—the United States and France—and have already begun discussions with these two partners through face-to-face bilateral meetings in order to assess whether delay has been a factor in mutual legal assistance and extradiction cases to and from these countries.

That concludes my opening remarks. I'd like to thank the committee for its time and attention. I'll be happy to answer your questions and to provide any additional information for the purposes of the committee's study.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you, Ms. Henchey. I appreciate that.

I have a couple of notes before we begin the rotation.

First, on the all-important action plans, it would seem that we are able to give an A to the RCMP and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development for having their action plans in well in advance. We were able to circulate them to members.

Justice, you got it in on time, but just, so you get a C. There's room for improvement there, but you still met the requirement.

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think it's relevant to mention that our routine motions actually do say that the departments have up to six months after the Auditor General has tabled the reports, though I believe it does say that we like different departments to come with them, and highly recommend it “when feasible”. I believe that's what it says in the routine motions.

I don't necessarily think it's fair to be giving grades. Specifically in our own routine motions, we don't actually require the departments to bring them.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

We'll check the actual wording, but not right now. We'll do it later.

They are required to bring them here for the hearings. If your chapter is not chosen, then you still have to have it in within six months.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I was just looking at that, Mr. Chair. It actually does say specifically.... Just give me a moment here to find my papers.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

If it does say that, I'm glad you brought it to our attention, because we'll need to fix it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I was just checking this a little while ago, and it says it was agreed:

That all departments and agencies of the federal government that have been subject to a performance audit by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada provide a detailed action plan to address the audit recommendations which have been agreed to - including specific actions, timelines for their completion and responsible individuals - to the Public Accounts Committee and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada within six months of the audit being tabled in the House of Commons; and that departments and agencies that are invited to appear before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss the findings of an audit should, when feasible, provide an action plan to the Committee prior to the hearing; and That departmental action plans and progress reports received by the Committee be published on the Committee’s website.

Again, Mr. Chair, these rules have not changed. It's my understanding that these were the same routine orders that previous iterations of this committee did.

That being said, I think I've made my point. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Yes, and I make mine in regard to “should, when feasible”. Nobody contacted us to tell us that they couldn't get it here in that time; therefore, they met the deadline. But we do prefer to have them in time to circulate them.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Again, Mr. Chair, just in the spirit of everyone getting along and everyone, including the departments, knowing the expectations of the committee—I do know you set a very high bar for the committee, and I think that's a very good thing—maybe the clerk can confirm, and we do have a new clerk, that this expectation is being told to the departments so that no one is caught blindsided on these matters.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Yes. We'll revisit the letter that goes out to make sure it's very explicit.

You raise a good point. Maybe we should tighten up “should” and “feasible”, and just make it clear that they have to be here. But I think there's an understanding that if there are extenuating circumstances—things do happen—we would certainly be open to that. The expectation has been, always—and I'm the longest-serving member on this committee in the entire Parliament—that those action plans are here for us for these meetings, and nobody failed.

So save your arguments for when somebody gets a crack on the wrist.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

No. Again, Mr. Chair, I would just point out these have been adopted by previous iterations of the committee, and that's what has been decided. It's not necessarily up to individual interpretation.

That being said, I look forward to the committee hearing today.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That's good, but if you think you got the last word on it, you didn't. They are expected to be here, and it's only by exception that they are not in trouble. That's that.

Now, we'll begin the rotation in the usual procedure, and we will start off with Vice-chair Carmichael. You have the floor, sir.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and welcome to our witnesses today. Thank you for your testimony in support of chapter 2. I would like to address a few questions to Mr. Ferguson, if I may.

Mr. Ferguson, in your opening comments you spoke to a number of issues that were in the report with regard to information sharing. I wanted to speak to a couple of those and get a little further information from you.

Specifically I would like to ask what significant barriers within government exist to sharing information between agencies on crimes committed by Canadians overseas. I wonder if you could specifically touch on that one.

[Michael Ferguson]

In terms of the information sharing between the RCMP and Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, we identified particularly in paragraph 2.51, and I think it has been mentioned here a number of times, that in terms of determining what information can be shared, it's important that Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada respect all of the different requirements of the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Certainly, I think there's an interest in finding ways to share what information can be legally shared, but it's also important to respect the fact there are restrictions on what can be shared in legislation.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

I understand the issues around the Privacy Act. I guess my concern is on balancing the work and the needs of the liaison officers in trying to do the best work they can do for us overseas, while being restricted internally.

In one of the paragraphs in Mr. Crosbie's opening statement, he spoke about meetings in September and October where Foreign Affairs and the RCMP got together and worked through a number of different issues. Are you finding ways, Mr. Crosbie, or perhaps even Chief Superintendent, that these barriers might be better overcome so that our people are more effective in the work they are doing overseas?

[William Crosbie]

Yes. We are working closely with the RCMP to identify how the existing legislative mechanisms we have can be applied in specific situations.

What we have done is we've created an internal committee in our department that brings together privacy experts, legal advisers, and consular officers to look at specific situations where information could be shared in the public interest with the RCMP. We've also discussed with the RCMP how we can improve our ability to respond to their requests under paragraph 8(2)(e), regarding investigating authority seeking information from us. We found that sometimes we were getting incomplete requests from the RCMP, so we worked with them to make sure there's a standard form that's used and we get standard information.

The last thing we've been doing in our department is working to ensure our consular officers understand their obligations to come to headquarters and advise us when there are cases that should be looked at from a public interest perspective. Those cases are then brought back to headquarters where we bring together the committee and we view the individual cases to make those determinations.

We're improving the internal process, and then improving the process with the RCMP in the interest of being able to share specific information in the public interest.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Ferguson, on balance, and in your opinion, with the audit completed and some of the findings within the audit with regard to information sharing, would the sharing of this information lead to the expeditious resolution of cases and possibly even the prevention of ongoing criminal activity?

[Michael Ferguson]

It's difficult, of course, for me to specifically answer that question, but I think what I can say is that it was my understanding as we went through the course of the audit that the RCMP has determined that there is certain of this type of information that could be useful to them in the course of their investigations. To the extent that the information can be legally shared, we certainly encourage the RCMP and DFATD to work together to find ways such that everything that can be shared legally can be shared in a way that is done on a timely basis.

I can't say specifically that the information might have helped this or that, or another investigation, but it was my understanding through the course of the audit that the RCMP has identified that this type of information may be useful to them. To the extent that they can receive it legally, then, that would help in their investigations.