Public Safety Committee on June 10th, 2008

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

We shouldn't make any comments on that case.

It wouldn't be appropriate and it wouldn't be fair to make comments on the particular facts—

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Then let's talk about hypotheses, despite the lack of time we have. Supposing you come to the conclusion that this person may indeed be a mole or that there may be other risks, such as blackmail, do you think that type of risk is serious enough to inform the Privy Council Office?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Let me tell you this, Monsieur Ménard. We are alive to what organized crime does. We're alive to what terrorist organizations may do. Organized crime and terrorism has been a priority for the RCMP for a number of years. We would look at every case with that in mind and we would use whatever resources are available to us in order to be able to determine whether or not there is a threat either to the government or to individuals. The checks that are requested of us to do at the outset, the pre-appointment checks, are only on the individual, not the individual's associates. In the case of a minister, it would be on the minister alone.

Knowing that, and with the hypothetical situation that you have put forward, if it were to come to our attention, and knowing what we know based on what we do, we would conduct all those checks. There are many options. As Commissioner Paulson said, there are many options. It could be that we do nothing. It could be that we do something. So we go from doing nothing to notifying PCO as to the results of our investigation, if you will.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Can we agree that, apart from these three extreme situations, the greater the risk, the more you will tend to inform the Privy Council?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Absolutely.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Obviously, that must also depend on the number, duration and quality of relationships that the individual has had with organized crime.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

That depends on the nature of the threat and the nature of the relationship.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

In that case, did you inform the Privy Council?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

It would not be appropriate for me to speak about this specific case, as it would put the integrity of any action that we take in jeopardy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You'll have to pose your final question. Do you have another short question? No?

Ms. Priddy, please.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, let me ask about the criminal intelligence file. Does it include people who have not had convictions but have been under surveillance because of who they are acquainted with, who they are spending time with, etc.?

I know there's a bank of people who've been put in CPIC and they have a criminal conviction, etc. Does the other criminal intelligence bank have people who simply have, if you will, a watching brief on them?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Yes.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Secondly, it was mentioned earlier “if it is brought to the attention of the RCMP”. Could you tell me what “brought to the attention” means? I'm trying to think about whether somebody has to make a phone call to bring it to the attention, or a written complaint. Or what about an RCMP officer who knows who Ms. Couillard is quite well and sees the front page of the paper with Mr. Bernier being sworn in? Or what about somebody--moving it along, not on that story--who sees someone in a public environment with someone who they know is part of a criminal intelligence file they have information on? Do they have a responsibility, and would that be bringing it to someone's attention? Or would someone simply wait until it had taken a couple steps forward in terms of a more formal “brought to the attention of police”?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I think the answer is pretty well yes to all. We all have a responsibility for public safety, public security, and it could come to our attention in a number of ways. It could come to our attention through a media article that could be completely false and we could check it out and discount it. It could come from human sources that we have. It could come from individuals such as yourselves, complainants, from an officer observing it. It could come from a variety of ways.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

In your description of the security clearance process, you say that it may also involve interviews with an individual's family members, friends, etc. What does the “may” depend on?

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

I think you're referring to, if I may use the term, the full-blown security clearance. We distinguish between the pre-appointment background checks--

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Yes, I understand.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

--and then the security clearance at the top-secret level, for example, which would feature the most robust canvassing of the associates of the person in question to include field interviews perhaps with neighbours, with associates, with former employers, with references. So that's what it refers to.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

As a background investigation unfolds and you scratch and something comes up, you may decide to look a little deeper and interview a second or third person until the person conducting the interview is satisfied that he or she has canvassed all possibilities. The “may” may also depend on this.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Would ministers who have access to an even higher level of security documents—the Minister of Public Safety, Foreign Affairs, etc.—be subject to a security check higher than the pre-appointment one?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I'm not aware of that. You'd have to ask either PCO or the Department of Public Safety.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Do you have any feelings about whether partners of politicians or cabinet ministers should be checked out?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

This is a matter of government machinery, government policy. It is something that PCO might be better able to answer. All of you might have a say in whether this is something you would want to expose yourself to.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Do you have an opinion?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to give an opinion. Every process can be improved, and improving on a process would have to balance confidentiality, security, public policy, public machinery, and so on.