Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With your kind indulgence, I would like to make a brief opening statement of approximately ten minutes.
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP was created by Parliament in October 1988. Under part VII of the RCMP Act, a member of the public may file a complaint regarding the conduct of either a regular member or a civilian member of the RCMP in the performance of any duty or function under the RCMP Act or the Witness Protection Program Act. The bulk of the commission's work concerns complaints. If we look at more general issues such as programs, operations, operational policies, guidelines, and training, it would be to the extent that they are intertwined with the substance of the complaint.
Since its creation in 1988, the commission has received 27 complaints concerning the witness protection program. It had occasion to conduct nine reviews of the disposition by the RCMP in the first instance of those complaints. By the way, under the statute the RCMP does the investigation and then they make the resolution in the first instance.
One individual complainant was the source of three of the reviews. The majority of the complaints and reviews related to denial of access to the program, dissatisfaction with compensation provided, and perceived improper disclosure of information by the RCMP relating to a person in the program. Overall the commission was satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of the complaints.
Two cases resulted in comprehensive recommendations relating to the program. The first such case resulted in a public hearing held by the commission in 1992. I should point out that the program has been in place since 1984 but legislation was not passed until approximately 1995, I believe. This case was dealing with the program, not with any instance that was post-introduction of legislation. The individual who had testified on behalf of the Crown in a number of trials expressed dissatisfaction with the financial award and claimed that the RCMP had told her that she would be dropped from the program if she did not accept this offer.
The commission made 21 recommendations concerning the program. Those included assessing the ability to relocate and protect sources prior to exposing their identities; analyzing relocation and re-establishment potential from the time it becomes apparent that exposure is likely and danger is probable; informing the source of difficulties in protecting or relocating him or her and documenting conditions of relocation and protection in writing; providing training to handlers to recognize indicators of the changing needs of relocated witnesses; and providing counselling, as required, to relocated witnesses.
The second case arose in 1992. A woman who had been relocated complained that the RCMP demonstrated a lack of attention and concern in her regard. The commission found that the RCMP had mishandled the woman's relocation and name change. It recommended that RCMP policy relating to relocations be addressed, that a clearly defined memorandum of understanding be established between affected parties, that assistance of various social agencies be solicited, that the need to be circumspect and discreet be reinforced, and the maintenance of a diary date system to ensure that action is taken in an expedited manner.
Review bodies such as our commission are creatures of statute. The nature and scope of the review we perform is dictated by the powers given by Parliament. The mandate of the commission is expressed in a 1988 act of Parliament. Its powers are less robust than those provided to other review bodies such as the Privacy Commissioner in 1981, or the Security Intelligence Review Committee in 1984.
Some of the difficulties encountered by the commission, particularly as they relate to access to sensitive information held by the RCMP, are directly attributable to weaknesses in its legislative mandate. By operation of law, the RCMP may deny the commission access to a range of documents that fall into the following categories: significant damage to ongoing investigations; confidential human sources; investigative techniques not known to the public; solicitor-client privilege; litigation privilege; and section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which is a protection where there's a perceived harm to national security, national defence, or international relations.
There is a myriad of other statutory prohibitions. There's the Youth Criminal Justice Act. There can also be part VI of the Criminal Code dealing with wiretaps; that's protected. So there are other recognized privileges.
In the majority of cases, the commission does not require access to such information to discharge its review function. Where information is withheld, the RCMP, pursuant to a directive from the former commissioner dated February 15, 2006, is required to advise us of that fact and to state upon which legal basis it is denying access. I merely point out that this was in February 2006. The commission has been in place since 1988, but the directive was issued in 2006. I would then discuss with the RCMP an approach to address our needs while meeting their concerns about unauthorized disclosure. The former commissioner urged his members to afford the commission large and liberal disclosure and to avoid limiting disclosure unless there are substantive reasons that can be articulated for so doing.
As a matter of principle, however, I believe that an effective and credible review body ought to have access, as of right, to all information in the possession of the RCMP, but for cabinet confidences. There would be a need for checks and balances to ensure that such access did not result in the waiver of any existing privilege. I believe that the need to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure and the need for an effective and credible review body can be accommodated.
There has been much focus recently on the RCMP's activities in respect of national security investigations. We've heard reference to the fact that there are some 300 regular members engaged in such investigations. There are, however, over 18,500 regular members, maybe even approaching 20,000, throughout Canada, and in a host of criminal investigations at the national, provincial, and municipal levels.
Some of the work at those levels would, for example, include investigations of national and international organized crime and crimes on the Internet. Some of those crimes would be investigated through joint force operations with other police forces or through standing integrated units such as the integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs; the integrated market enforcement teams, IMETs; and the integrated proceeds of crime teams, IPOCs, just to name a few. These units are multi-jurisdictional and multi-departmental in nature and employ long-term covert investigative techniques not unlike the cooperation and investigative techniques that characterize national security investigations.
In my opinion, there is a need to enhance the current legislative review model for activities undertaken by the RCMP generally. Following my appointment on October 24, 2005, I called for such action. I have provided the clerk with copies of speaking notes for a presentation I made to Justice O'Connor on November 17, 2005.
In my annual report for 2005-06, I restated my call for an enhanced legislative mandate to address not only national security investigations but all RCMP investigative activities. In October 2006, at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, which is called CACOLE, I outlined the key attributes of civilian oversight of policing.
It is important to provide Canadians with a national standard of civilian review of policing activities. As the RCMP is present throughout Canada, from sea to sea to sea, such a standard is all the more important. I have provided as well a copy of a deck that I used at that time, giving details of the presentation I made.
I fully realize the difficulties of envisaging what legislation embodying those key elements would actually look like. Accordingly, I have taken the liberty of having a proposed draft legislative model prepared that would be a straw man for further public discussions in this important area. I've provided you with a copy of that legislative model. I do not pretend that it is a perfect solution; however, based on over 33 years of experience in public safety issues, I believe it is balanced, effective, credible, and cost-efficient.
Features of the draft legislation that will be useful in examination of the witness protection program would be those that provide unfettered access, as of right, to all information but for cabinet confidences subject to the appropriate safeguards; create a positive obligation on law enforcement officers to account for their actions; enlarge the scope of review to include actions of retired law enforcement officers and non-officers who act under the direction or supervision of such officers; create a new audit review power and a new right of complaint about the inadequacies or inappropriateness of the policies, procedures, guidelines, and the ability to respond or provide a service or training program; provide the Minister of Public Safety with the right to request special reports concerning any matter; and allow for the creation of more than one report, i.e. a classified and a non-classified report.
The draft legislative model, I believe, has all the powers required to provide effective and credible civilian oversight review of RCMP activities and would be of great use to the minister and to members of Parliament in the discharge of their respective duties to the Canadian public.
Thank you.
