In regard to the information sharing, there are a number of different considerations that must be taken into place. If we look at the MOU that exists between the RCMP and IRCC that was completed in 2012, there are provisions in there to share information. However, within that MOU, it does not place the limitations that exist for law enforcement in the sharing environment, i.e., the Privacy Act, the charter of rights, human rights. There are a number of different factors that are outlined specifically in that MOU that everyone must keep in mind when there are obligations, or they feel there are obligations, on law enforcement to share with other agencies.
Every agency has its own sharing processes and protocols in place, as does the RCMP. It's a matter of determining when that information can be shared and how it should be shared. When you look at the cases that we're discussing here as far as citizenship is concerned, you also must remember that when the police are doing an investigation, it's not necessary or may not be evident what the nationalities or the immigration status of those people are. It may not surface within an investigation. For example, if an officer is dealing with somebody who's charged with a simple theft charge, they may not question them on their citizenship or their status because it doesn't seem applicable to the offence, whereas if you're dealing with somebody with a citizenship fraud or an immigration fraud, their citizenship and their status become a factor in that.
I should also add in that regard that their citizenship or immigration status—whether they're a permanent resident or whatever their status is—may also come into play when a person is arrested and then being released. There's a clause within the Criminal Code. If we feel there's a flight risk, they may be asked in regard to their citizenship, their status, to ensure that the person is not going to flee.
In moving forward with the memorandum of understanding, I think those guidelines have to be clearer between our agencies. Furthermore, we need to examine what IRCC needs to do to fulfill their obligated duty. In the RCMP, we have to balance that with the expectations placed on us by other legislation to protect the privacy of every individual in Canada. There's a balancing act that has to be there.
I think with regard to the information sharing, there are processes in place. They have been effective in circumstances. There was actually one back in October 2015, in which a number of individuals connected to an organized crime case were deported. There were a variety of charges.
I should also mention that citizenship fraud or issues with fraud may not just necessarily be the sole purpose of an investigation. It may stem from bigger investigations, as the last one, which was a huge, very complex organized crime file. That was an effective means to demonstrate how well our agencies work together.
Are there challenges? Yes. Do we need to do better at trying to be able to determine what people's status is going into investigations to figure out at what point we can share information? The complexity of investigations also makes it difficult to share at times. If there's an investigation that goes in several different directions, providing notification to another agency may impact negatively on another investigation that's part and parcel of that.
We are aware of all of those circumstances. information sharing is key to a whole-of-government approach to security for national security, for economic security, for all the security needs of our country. Those are required because every agency holds information that may be required.