Public Safety Committee on March 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee.

My friend Mr. Ménard is generally very non-partisan, and I appreciate his comments. But with respect to his comment about the will of the particular government today, I'd like to ask a couple of questions that might illustrate that these have been long-term—they haven't only occurred in the last three years—and issues have been raised.

Ms. Heafey, you indicated that you were involved for eight years as complaints commissioner and that during that time you brought a number of these issues before members of Parliament and before ministers. I think your suggestion was that nothing changed; that, as a matter of fact, perhaps roadblocks were put up. You indicated that you went to the court on at least two occasions.

Maybe this is an unfair question to ask, because you've been gone since 2005, but I think it's fair to say that this government has not put up any roadblocks. And maybe the other argument would be that changes have occurred—and I'm convinced they have, when I read what the RCMP have sent to this committee as their response to the O'Connor report, which I'm not sure my colleagues may have read entirely yet—but you spent eight years with a previous government, which you indicated did put up roadblocks.

[Shirley Heafey]

They didn't put up roadblocks as such. There was just no support for what I was doing, the difficulties that I faced. I talked about it in my annual reports for years and tried to talk to members of Parliament as well. The government did not support the commission, and it wasn't just the government. I also spoke to other members of Parliament to try to get some support, because it was very difficult, and I just never got any.

A lot of what was happening.... You know now what happened with former Commissioner Zaccardelli and everything that led up to it. Because I was dealing with complaints on a daily basis and was dealing with the commissioner on a daily basis for all kinds of reasons, it was clear that something was going to explode. I didn't know when, but I knew it would. A lot of what I did was to try to prevent that from happening by talking about it in my annual report—not explicitly, but talking to the government explicitly and talking to some members of Parliament about it. I was hoping that somehow or other somebody would have the courage somewhere along the way to tell the RCMP “enough already”, before things exploded.

[Kerry Pither]

I would just add that the problems continue today and that we're seeing problems emerging around Mr. Abdul Razzak's case. I don't think it's a question of which government has done the good things or the bad things, because the previous government called a full public inquiry into Mr. Arar's case and your government called an inquiry, which wasn't so public, into the other cases. Your government issued the very important apology to Mr. Arar.

It's not a question of which party and which government has done what. I think what has to happen now is that whatever government is in place, that government must have the courage to do what has been called for here, what has been called for in two judicial inquiries and, as Mr. Neve has pointed out, by the United Nations and in the International Commission of Jurists' report. This is something that's essential and has to be implemented no matter who's in power at the time.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

That's fair. I just wanted to have on the record that I believe this government will make the necessary changes, contrary to my good friend across the table.

Mr. Allmand, you were Solicitor General in the seventies for a period of time. I think you mentioned that this morning. At that time, what were the agencies you oversaw as Solicitor General?

[Warren Allmand]

They includued the RCMP, the National Parole Board, the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the Security Service of the RCMP, because—

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

It was pre-CSIS, is that right?

[Warren Allmand]

It was before CSIS.

Of course, I was four years as Solicitor General, and I saw mistakes then by the security service, mislabelling mistakes and so on. I could tell a lot of stories to the committee of personal instances when we ran into problems of mislabelling and so on. We tried to correct them, but that was a different period of time. We did take steps to try to do things.

It was only later, after my period as Solicitor General, that the RCMP got involved with the barn-burning and the theft of documents from the APLQ. Then there was the inquiry in the eighties by Judge McDonald from Alberta. He recommended that the RCMP stick to criminal law enforcement and get out of security, and that the new agency be set up. That was done by Mr. Mulroney's government in 1984.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Right.

During that period of time when you were Solicitor General with the RCMP, were there any calls then for civilian oversight? I mean, I do recall, and certainly I know, that municipal policing in Canada had civilian oversight. Were there any calls in those days for civilian oversight for the RCMP?

[Warren Allmand]

No. The big call in those days, when I was Solicitor General, was for the potential unionization of the RCMP. We spent several years on it. There was a strong push, especially by the RCMP in Ontario. The big issues in the RCMP were for unionization. We finally set up, when I was Solicitor General, the “div rep” system. It wasn't quite a union, but it provided representation to the rank and file in the RCMP.

As well, there were a lot of problems in the rank and file on the disciplining of men by sending them to the Northwest Territories or some base when they didn't do exactly what.... So we set up a new system, which is still in place, to review the discipline decisions against the men in the RCMP. But there was no major problem at the time that called for that kind of oversight.

By the way, the parliamentary committee--I was a member of the committee--was much more involved in checking up on the RCMP through the estimates. And I as Solicitor General was often called to the committee. At that time, I think it was the justice committee. There wasn't a public safety committee. But we were called quite often on various problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Ms. Mourani, please.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You have given us a lot of information and a lot of questions have come up. I have two quick questions for you.

Last March 5, the executive director of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Susan Pollack, came to this committee. I asked her if CSIS had used, or still uses, information obtained by torture. She answered, a little timidly, I felt, that, on occasion, CSIS does use information obtained by torture.

I would like to know if you have any information to confirm that, despite the reports that have been produced and the recommendations that are still not implemented, CSIS or the RCMP still, occasionally or regularly, use information obtained by torture in their investigations? If so, are those agencies simply subcontracting torture?

[Alex Neve]

I can't give you specific illustrations--for example, here is this piece of information obtained under torture, used by CSIS in this way--but I can certainly indicate that you're right; we have not heard a clear repudiation of the use of torture by CSIS. We have instead heard indications that they wouldn't use it on its own, that they would certainly want to make sure that it was confirmed or corroborated by other information.

It's very worrying. I think we're all united in a commitment to ensuring that we do everything we can to eradicate torture around the world. One of the very crucial ways of doing so is to make sure that the torturer has no market for his or her produce, that any information a torturer does obtain from someone can go nowhere. No one wants it. No one will touch it.

As long as security and intelligence agencies continue to be willing to receive it, even if it's with caveats--they wouldn't really make use of it unless they were able to confirm or corroborate it through other sources--it validates torture. It suggests to the torturer that they should continue to do their work. We absolutely need an unequivocal repudiation of the use of information obtained under torture by any law enforcement and security agencies in Canada, in any context.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

In your opinion, is this subcontracting torture? In Canada, it is illegal to torture detainees in order to obtain information. Is this a backhanded way to obtain information? Do you think that we are subcontracting torture, in fact? In a way, are these agencies not putting Canada's national security in jeopardy by using information obtained by torture, which, as we know, is unreliable? People being tortured will say everything the torturers want to hear; they will say anything.

[Alex Neve]

Well, absolutely. There are many reasons we should stand firm against the use of torture in interrogation sessions. Above all else, we should stand firm because torture is so abhorrent. It is absolutely illegal, and we should just never allow it in any circumstances. But there is a very practical consideration, that when law and security agencies make use of torture, the information they're obtaining is unreliable. The use and furtherance of torture is creating more and more victims and marginalization and resentment, which in itself contributes to insecurity. Torture is bad for justice, but it is also very bad for security.

[Kerry Pither]

I'm not sure that everyone is aware that when you put the pieces together from what Justice O'Connor and Justice Iacobucci found in their reports, Justice Iacobucci confirmed our suspicion that Mr. Elmaati's confession was shipped back to Canada and became the basis of the application for justification for search warrants, which were executed against Mr. Elmaati's family home and Mr. Almalki's family home. The fruits of those searches were then used to make up new questions, which were then sent back to the torturers to ask, for those interrogators to ask of Mr. Elmaati and Mr. Almalki. When the RCMP applied for that search warrant, they did not inform the judge that this may have been the product of torture. Then the answers from those interrogations come back again and get leaked to the media, and all sorts of things happen with them. So I think torture does beget torture, but it also begets sloppy practices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll go over to Mr. Norlock, please, for five minutes.

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

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

We need to be constantly on guard to make sure people's human rights and civil liberties are guarded and protected.

I must admit that at the beginning, when you first made your presentations, I began to think Canada was in really bad shape. We should be ashamed. Compared to the rest of the world, we're in terrible shape. But as you began to flesh out your presentation, I felt a little bit better.

I do look at the rest of the world, and we watch the newscasts and we see what's happening in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And while we Canadians shouldn't rest on our laurels and while we should listen to good folks like you and take into account your backgrounds and your concerns, I think we also need to say—and tell me if I'm wrong—that we live in a pretty good country as to adherence to law and human rights and protections. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; many countries don't even have such a thing. We have a Constitution that the mother of our institution of Parliament doesn't have. I just wonder if you could comment on that, Canadians compared to other western democracies. Are you suggesting...? And these need shorter answers. Are we in good shape? We need to know where we are in sort of the human-rights-o-meter, if you will.

[Alex Neve]

That's a good phrase, the human-rights-o-meter.

We're not suggesting we're the worst of the worst. I don't think we can assume we're the best of the best. I think there are two things to keep in mind in response to that question.

Number one, whenever abuses happen, whether they're isolated or whether they are symptomatic of something larger and more systemic, they must be addressed. Victims deserve justice, and if those point to reforms that can avoid victims in the future, then we must do so.

I think another reason it's very crucial that we as Canadians are particularly scrupulous in taking action against injustice of this sort is that we want Canada's voice to continue to be able to ring loud and true, internationally. One of the best ways of ensuring that is by being able to demonstrate the degree to which we are taking action at home, such that when we speak out with respect to human rights abuses in other countries—including abuses happening in a national security context—we can do so with our head held absolutely high.

[Warren Allmand]

I would like to add that when I was president of the International Centre for Human Rights, at one point I was trying to convince the Peruvian government, under Fujimori at that time, to make some improvements in human rights, and his officials came back to me saying, “You're not doing this in Canada, so don't preach to us.”

While I think we are better than many countries, we have to correct many of the shortcomings. For example, people internationally know about the Arar case, they know about the cases raised under Judge Iaccobucci, they know about the security certificate problem. We have a difficult time in doing democratic development around the world unless we are shown to be serious about still improving on the problems we have, because they're raised against us when we try to raise them with other countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Allmand.

I would like to explore a little further your time as Solicitor General. If I recall, there was a Marin commission, and it dealt with discipline and grievances and complaints. If I can recall, didn't the Marin commission envisage a people's watchman, which in today's terms would be considered civilian oversight? I wonder how you and your government approached that.

[Warren Allmand]

If I remember correctly, we had set up the Marin commission to basically deal with the complaints of men in the force and some of the practices being used for discipline against the men. It's 30 years now. I'm more up to date on these recent cases.

We had good results with the Marin commission, and we also brought into being, with the consent of the men across Canada and the women in the force, the “div rep” system, which allowed for some negotiation on issues the rank and file were concerned with. But we didn't get into the public complaints issue at that time.

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

Am I correct that in answering one of the previous persons--it may have been my colleague Mr. MacKenzie--you said it was in 1986 that SIRC was brought in to provide the oversight?

[Warren Allmand]

It was 1984. The McDonald commission report was in 1981, and then it took a while for the government to respond. There was a change of government in 1984, actually. I think they started working under the Trudeau government from 1980 to 1984 and then Mr. Mulroney came in in 1984 and the legislation was finally passed. But it had been in process for a number of years. I was on the justice committee at the time.

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

Thank you.

Mrs. Heafey, I was particularly interested in your comparison to Calgary, to the RCMP and the civilian oversight body, and your feeling that Calgarians were better served with an oversight body.

In particular, you were rather scathing to RCMP management. When there's a person who is in the rank and file and who aspires to be a manager in the RCMP, how do you reconcile the fact that they were doing a fine job in the rank and file but then when they become management they become this other sort of creature of policing? Could you talk about that a bit?