Public Safety Committee on June 10th, 2008

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

My understanding is that Ms. Couillard and Mr. Bernier were at a reception with the President of the United States, and that the Americans would expect that anybody who was part of a Canadian delegation would have been checked here, obviating the need for a check on the American side. Who would do the checking here if it was somebody taking a partner with them? Would it be you, CSIS, or who?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I don't believe it's us. Our job during such events would be to provide physical security for ministers who require it.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

You would not be doing any of the checking of other people who were going?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Not to my knowledge.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

I think it's important for each department to have a departmental security officer and for that officer to be responsible for looking at the background and reliability of people accompanying dignitaries. As the deputy said, we look after the security and the site security.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

What is the process? Does this information work its way up to you from whoever has brought it to the RCMP? Does it then go from you up to the Privy Council? What does the chain look like?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I'm sorry, I don't follow your question. Which information?

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I mean information that you think might need to be passed on to government because there might be a risk. Are there designations of people in the RCMP who would receive the information and decide that it should move on to the commissioner and then on to the Privy Council?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

If it was something that would go back to Privy Council, it would go through the commissioner's office. However, it could come in at any level. Any member of the public could complain to any member of the RCMP and it could work its way up. Once a decision is made that PCO needs to be notified, it would go through the commissioner's office.

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I want to thank the panel for being here. I think you bring a very important view to this committee. I couldn't agree more with what you had to say about people making decisions based on a little bit of information instead of all of it. Certainly we're seeing some people jumping to some conclusions both around this place and in the media. So I think all of our panel and all the people who are watching this appreciate the tenor of what you presented to us today.

There are always people who don't want to look at the law as it is but look at the law as it should be. In the last five or ten years, has anything changed with respect to what your organization does with security checks for cabinet ministers?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No. In fact, I believe it goes much further back than that. That's been the process in place, and that's what's been asked of us.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

The other thing I have a serious problem trying to comprehend is that we have a number of people, particularly around this House, who talk about having had the information for some time, having heard things in different places, and they didn't bring that information forward. If they'd had that concern, they could have brought that information forward. You tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure in my mind that they could have brought that information forward to the RCMP, who could have evaluated that information and then, based on the strength of the information and the evaluation, acted upon it.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Absolutely, and that was my initial point. We're more than willing to look into any situation that could cause a security concern; what we have to do, though, is not simply accept it, but verify its accuracy, reliability, and validity, and deal with it from that point on.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

My friends have talked about intelligence information, and some of us on this side are not totally devoid of some practices. A great deal of intelligence information is developed from innocent gossip or conversations that take place in places like restaurants and beauty salons and get passed to the police. The information is then verified and becomes something that's workable for the police agency.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Correct, and that's basically the difference between information and intelligence; it's whether it's verified as accurate. There is an objectivity process that it goes through, and then it becomes actual intelligence.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Just to be final on it, there is a process: if somebody has a legitimate concern--if they think they know, if they believe they know, or if they've only heard--they have that ability to pass it on and then have the information verified one way or another.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

We rely on that to some extent in our day-to-day work.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay.

The other part is, when these checks take place for the PCO, it hasn't been a practice to go back in six months and redo them. When you talked about spouses, I'm not sure if that involved friends or acquaintances, but nothing has changed with respect to that whole process in a number of years.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Nothing has changed as far back as I remember. I believe it goes back to sometime in the mid-1980s. The name of only the individual who is subject to the background check is provided to us, and we do our criminal record check, we do our database checks, we do checks with municipal and provincial police forces only on the individual--not on spouses, not on children, not on friends, not on neighbours.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Very good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you sharing your time?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Do you want some time?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

No. I have no questions.