Public Safety Committee on June 10th, 2008

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

This is what the federal policy dictates as well.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

That it is signed out to a particular individual and somebody tracks that?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

The security officer must keep the log. The documents are numbered, or at least identified, the date and time it is taken out and the date and time it is returned, and who has it.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

In your experience, can you see any reason there would be documents missing for five weeks and no one would notice?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

That would be considered a security breach as well, and a breach in the policies.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Not to take issue with you necessarily, but simply because governments have always done it that way doesn't mean they have to keep doing it that way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank the witness for being here today. I think you bring some insight into the matter.

I listened very closely to your introduction and to many of your answers, and what I find most interesting is that some of what you've told us I think is the way it is, and some of what you've suggested to us is maybe the way it should be. In fact, if I understood you correctly, and I'm certainly open for you to tell me otherwise, the practices that are taking place today are no different from the practices that took place five years ago with respect to individuals filling those positions and the background checks that take place. That being the case, is there any difference in this situation from any other minister in the last several governments, in the background checks that would have applied to them?

Perhaps more importantly, in this case, when that minister was appointed to that position, in the background check, his friends and acquaintances have changed in that length of time. Would there have been any change in that position from previously to today?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

Thank you very much.

Technically, it's difficult for me to be capable of comparing information that I don't have on hand currently to see if there were any changes. As much as I can say, and as much as I can assess from the information that was publicly released, there is no reason to believe that there were any changes that occurred between previous practices and the current practices.

What I tried to stress in my introductory comments was the fact that unfortunately we are confronted with having a set of policies in place and the constraints or difficulties in implementing some of those policies, because, respectfully, the people in positions like Mr. Bernier's have a very, very public perspective.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Yes, but if I might suggest, there are policies that we have, and perhaps policies that we wish we had--whatever the case may be--but in fact those policies that are in place today are the same as they were.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Then when we get to the supposition about who knew what when, would it also be your opinion that if there's discussion taking place in places like beauty shops with other MPs or people in this House who claim to have a great deal of knowledge of the pasts of some people, they would still have some obligation to bring those issues forward? It's not only authorities like the RCMP or CSIS. If someone else knows that information, they may very well bring that information forward so it is known, as opposed to sitting on it.

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

I agree. It is the responsibility of the individual to reveal such information when they assess that it can be dangerous. If somebody comes in contact or in possession of information that could reveal that there is maybe a weakness within the system, it is also the responsibility of that individual to share that information with the proper authorities. This information should be transmitted and shared by anybody who receives a security clearance, at the time they receive their security clearance and when they are indoctrinated with such a thing.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

The issue we're dealing with here is the documents being left in an inappropriate place, which have now been returned. And now the review is being conducted by that ministry to determine the process of handling documents. Is that appropriate?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

Here I might have difficulty that the people of the department are conducting an investigation that obviously is tainted by allegations of links to organized crime, at least in the past. I suspect they might not necessarily have the experience to investigate, and they are unlikely to have the access that a similar police department, such as the RCMP, would have when it talks to a counterpart such as the Sûreté du Québec.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

But if they have the authority to contact other government agencies to assist in that process, that would then be appropriate?

[Michel Juneau-Katsuya]

Potentially.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll suspend for a moment to bring in our next witnesses. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We're pressed for time, so we'll reconvene. Let's clear the room and begin the second part of our meeting, please.

We'd like to welcome the RCMP. I will ask the assistant commissioner to introduce himself.

We welcome you all to the panel, and maybe you can introduce the people who are with you.

We have a slightly abbreviated session. Because of votes in the House, unfortunately we have to quit at 5:30.

If you have an opening statement of approximately ten minutes, we would welcome that, and then we will go to questions and comments.

Thank you very much for coming, sir. Any time you're ready, you may begin.

[Assistant Commissioner Raf Souccar, Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, honourable members. My name is Raf Souccar. I am responsible for federal policing in the RCMP. With me today is Mr. Bob Paulson, who has recently taken over as the assistant commissioner for national security criminal investigations, and Mr. Christian Roy, with the RCMP legal services.

At the invitation of the committee, we're here to outline the RCMP's role in conducting pre-appointment background checks on candidates for ministerial office.

I'm going to provide information to the committee and answer committee members' questions to the best of my knowledge.

For a number of considerations, including the privacy of individuals, the RCMP's comments will be limited. As you'll understand, the RCMP does not generally comment on cases or individuals, and does not disclose the content of its files on named persons. The purpose of that measure is to protect the integrity of the investigation process and the privacy of individuals who are not being charged and who have not been convicted.

You will understand that the RCMP does not generally comment on specific files or cases or otherwise disclose the contents of its files in relation to specific individuals. This is to protect the integrity of our processes and to protect the privacy of those individuals, including those against whom no charges have been laid. Therefore I will not discuss the results of any specific pre-appointment background check today.

The RCMP is involved in two types of background check processes, and it is important to distinguish between them. The first is pre-appointment background checks on candidates for certain public offices that take place in advance of an appointment to senior government office, and the second is the security clearance process. Our role in each is different.

It is also important to identify the specific roles that the RCMP plays in each of these two separate processes. In support of the Privy Council Office, the RCMP conducts pre-appointment background checks on a variety of senior public officials in advancement of their appointment, including ministers, senators, privy councillors, heads of agencies, heads of crown corporations, heads of Canadian missions, and directors of the Bank of Canada.

The entire process is defined by guidelines issued by the clerk of the council and managed by the Director of Security Operations at the Privy Council Office. Requests for checks are directed by the Director of Security Operations of the Privy Council Office to the RCMP Commissioner on behalf of the Clerk of the Privy Council.

These pre-appointment checks are held in utmost confidence and are conducted on the names provided by the director of security operations only, and not on any spouse, partner, immediate family member, or associate of those individuals named.

These checks are limited to database checks only, such as criminal record checks and criminal intelligence files. They would include, where applicable, checks with other provincial and municipal police forces. But these checks do not include additional investigative measures, such as neighbourhood inquiries.

Each check is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In the event that information suggests the possibility of criminal activity or involvement in a current or past investigation, the RCMP will analyze that information for accuracy, reliability, or relevance and will communicate this information to the PCO.

The general procedure for reporting the result of a check that identifies information or intelligence that may be of concern is to forward that information to the director of security operations at the Privy Council Office.

All additional questions of pre-appointment background checks are directed by the Office of the Privy Council, which directs and manages the process.

Security clearances are separate from the pre-appointment background check process. The security clearance determines an individual's reliability and loyalty before that individual is given access to classified information.

The security clearance process includes a number of additional steps. For example, in addition to a police record check, a security clearance also includes a reliability check of an individual's degrees, professional qualifications, and employment. Depending on the level of security clearance, it may also involve interviews with an individual's family members, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, former employers, and/or neighbours.

Security clearances are governed by the government security policy issued by Treasury Board, and each federal department is responsible for its own security clearances. This includes assessing the appropriate level of security clearance required for each position within each separate department.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, that completes my preliminary remarks, and I am prepared to answer your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We will now move over to the Liberal Party for the opening round of questions. We'll go to Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you, sir, for appearing before us.

Let me first deal with a misapprehension you may have. It was not my understanding, nor that of my colleagues here, that you are simply here to answer questions on the pre-appointment checks for security clearances. You are to answer questions on the Couillard and Bernier matter.

In that context, let me ask you the first question. Did you make yourself familiar, from all the RCMP information and files you may have, with any matters relevant to or related to the Couillard and Bernier matter before you came here?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I am familiar with this matter. I am familiar with Ms. Couillard. However, it would be inappropriate for me to be talking about a specific case before this committee.