Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence

Issue 11 - Evidence - Morning sitting

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 10:30 a.m. to conduct an introductory survey of the major security and defence issues facing Canada with a view to preparing a detailed work plan for future comprehensive studies.

Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Our committee is the first permanent Senate committee with a mandate to examine the subject of security and defence. Currently, the committee is conducting an introductory survey of major security and defence matters facing Canada with a view to preparing a comprehensive work plan for future studies. We began our work last July with formal hearings in Ottawa, where we received detailed briefings on defence policy, on the current capabilities and future challenges of the navy, army and air force. In the fall, we focussed on security and intelligence matters as well as on defence operations.

Last November, our committee visited military bases in Esquimalt and Winnipeg and we learned first-hand about the Canadian Forces. Last week, we visited military bases in Halifax and Gagetown. We visited airports and seaports in Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax. Next week, we travel to Washington for meetings with members of Congress, administration officials and representatives of various institutions. We have several objectives for this visit, namely, to discuss Canada's contributions to the efforts since September 11; to understand the views of U.S. Congress and administration about current and future military and security issues and how Canada relates to them; to promote better understanding of bilateral cooperation for homeland security, as well as future Canada-U.S. defence arrangements; and to examine specific issues of NATO enlargement, the missile defence system, NORAD, joint command, questions relating to the border and measures to combat terrorism.

To discuss intelligence sharing between Canada and the United States, we have before us as our witness Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky of the RCMP.

Welcome, deputy commissioner. We are pleased that you are here with us this morning. The floor is yours.

Mr. Garry Loeppky, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: It is certainly my pleasure to appear in front of you this morning and to give you some perspective of the whole issue of intelligence sharing between ourselves and our U.S. colleagues. Some of the initiatives that are in place to promote that sharing of intelligence and to work in an integrated way, address not only the challenges ofpost-September 11 but, more importantly, look at the whole issue of organized crime, transborder crime and ensuring that our borders are safe.

With your concurrence, I propose to go through a deck and then I would be delighted to respond to your questions and provide you with the information that you might require for your upcoming visit to the United States next week.

There has been a high level of cooperation at the law enforcement level between Canadian law enforcement and U.S. law enforcement, whether that is with the FBI, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau or any one of a number of U.S. law enforcement agencies. That level of cooperation exists at the most senior level, at the commissioner level, and at my level, and on a day-to-day basis at the working level in joint operations. It extends across all program areas, whether that refers to customs, immigration or organized crime. Although a solid base of information sharing is in place today, there are areas where we are seeking to enhance that particular level of cooperation.

I will now address the more formalized programs that are in place. We have the Cross-Border Crime Forum, Project North Star, and the Integrated Border Enforcement Team concept, which was a Canadian initiative of several years ago and which we are expanding rapidly. Finally, I wish to speak about our information exchange that we have promoted and supported.

The Cross-Border Crime Forum has been in existence since 1977. Meetings take place annually. We are involved. It is chaired by the Deputy Solicitor General in Canada and the Deputy Assistant Attorney-General in the United States. I participate in those particular meetings to bring that law enforcementperspective to the table.

There are a number of working groups within that Cross-Bor der Crime Forum, including the following: intelligence andintelligence sharing and exchange; coordination and cooperation on a broader basis; prosecutorial issues, which relate primarily to jurisdictional challenges; telemarketing, which is a significant cross-border issue; and, of course, alien smuggling. It is a forum to allow us to flesh out the challenges in each of those areas.

The objective is clearly to increase effectiveness through greater harmonization of procedures and cooperation and to do so in a proactive way rather than waiting for the crises to arrive or the issues to crop up.

Despite the events of September 11 and some steps that have been taken, as a result, the movement of illegal goods and persons between our two countries remains a challenge. Wehave 5,000 miles of border between us, with a wide range of geography in all of those areas. Of course, in terms of numbers alone, it poses some significant challenges, as I suspect you heard last night.

At the most recent Cross-Border Crime Forum in June, 2001, it was agreed to undertake a joint threat assessment to look at the whole issue of cross-border movement of firearms. That has been a concern to us, so we have undertaken that initiative. That joint threat assessment will be brought back to the table at theJune, 2002 meeting. That is one example of the types of initiative we are looking at in terms of the way ahead. We have concerns about the ease with which firearms are acquired in the U.S. and the difference in their legislation, which allows broaderacquisition of firearms and possession of firearms, as well as how easily they are brought into Canada and very often diverted to the illicit market here. Those are the types of things that threat assessment will look at.

Another example is the explosives area, the theft of commercial explosives, whether in Canada or the United States, and other chemicals, and the fact that there is no tracking process in place today to monitor what is taking place in that environment within our own countries or between our countries.

Issues we look at when we do a threat assessment include the legislative issues surrounding our opportunities for enforcement, the impediments that we see, the jurisdictional issues that I discussed, and the whole issue of a combined identification of suspects and organizations - in other words, that common threat assessment that allows us to focus on common objectives. We look at trends in our threat assessment process and obviously the threat to national security. We look to the perimeter more than the border. We are looking at a threat assessment process between our countries that will look at issues more broadly than just those at a national level.

There are questions we constantly ask in our threat assessment process, and we do this not only for national security issues, but also to assess what the threat is, what the situation is, and what impediments confront us when we try to undertake investigations, whether those are legislative, jurisdictional issues, intelligence sharing or communication. A host of those is considered when we do a threat assessment process.

We need to address some of the issues that impact on cross-border enforcement, and we will see those more and more as we move forward with some of our initiatives pursuant to the national security initiatives.

That is the Cross-Border Crime Forum. It is at a high level. I represent law enforcement from an RCMP perspective. It is more strategically focussed than the second area that I want to touch on, which is Project North Star.

Project North Star is chaired by four people, one of those being a member of the RCMP, and it is more tactically focussed to look at some of the challenges that we face. It is made up not only of members of the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, and the Ontario Provincial Police, but also the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and Citizenship and Immigration. It has very much aligned Project North Star with the Cross-Border Crime Forum, but it is certainly more tactically oriented. It has a broad focus in terms of narcotics, organized crime and terrorism. Project North Star focuses on a number of components, and it allows lawmakers and senior managers to be alert to the issues happening on the ground at the front line. It has really a dual purpose. One is to inform up with respect to challenges, and the other is to coordinate the investigations that are taking place.

Third, I want to touch briefly on the Integrated Border Enforcement Team concept. This is a proactive approachdesigned to respond to real-time intelligence from a variety of agencies that participate in those teams. They are multi-agency, multi-disciplinary teams that are focussed on border issues and border integrity. Obviously, we take into consideration the various mandates and the various objectives and priorities of each agency as we undertake operations with the IBETs.

The United States, pursuant to some of our visits there and pursuant to September 11, has indicated an interest in and is eager to move forward on the development of its IBET program and to do so in a very integrated way with us. We are working closely on some challenges, including looking at shared and common radio systems and the shared use of technology along the border, integrating our intelligence in order to support these various teams along the border, and conducting an integrated post-case analysis to determine how we can improve our operations and, if there are gaps, where they are.

The IBET notion was a new way of doing business several years ago, but it is now becoming the way of doing business along the border on a day-to-day basis. Clearly some of the issues that we will continue to work on are the jurisdictional challenges along the border in terms of that true integration. On the Canadian side, much work has been done to bring the various federal government departments to the table to become involved in the Integrated Border Enforcement Team initiative, and we are encouraging a similar type of collaboration in the United States. The primary focus is to identify and investigate persons and organizations that are a threat to national security, that are using the border for their own purposes, or that are using it for other than legitimate purposes.

I want to touch on few recent initiatives with respect to information sharing. A task force has been put together in Washington. The Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force is currently in the process of being established. It will include representatives from all the United States law enforcement agencies, and we will be represented on that particular task force through the secondment of an individual to that function.

We have also committed to undertake a joint threat assessment with the U.S. border patrol and U.S. INS to look at the threats along the border and how they need to be addressed.

With respect to information sharing, which is one of the keys of success, we have traditionally had a good workingrelationship, but we have obviously sought to enhance that, post-September 11. As recently as two weeks ago, thecommissioner was in Washington and met with the heads of every United States law enforcement agency on a one-on-one basis to talk about an integrated approach along the border in our efforts to deal with the terrorism threat. I must say that he received a high degree of support in terms of the collaboration we wish to undertake. This is an advantage in that the RCMP brings together many components that are somewhat more fragmented in the United States in terms of law enforcement mandates.We have an opportunity to build a very integrated approach, and there is much support for that.

Integrated national security enforcement teams have been created and are being staffed up to deal with criminal activity by terrorist groups. The intelligence from those integrated national security enforcement teams, which will be located in four major locations in Canada, will support the Integrated BorderEnforcement Team, IBET, and its initiatives. Where there is cross-border activity, there is tight integration of that sharing of information, domestically, to allow the Integrated BorderEnforcement Team to be more effective.

We have created a financial intelligence unit task force to look at the whole issue of terrorist fund raising and related activities. That unit was created shortly after September 11 through the secondment of some of our people from the field. The information from that unit is available to support the IBET and the national security enforcement teams in the major centres, who are undertaking the investigation away from the border in the major centres.

I look at September 11 as a great tragedy, but I also look at it as a great opportunity for the Canadian law enforcement community to integrate their own activities, and to integrate, on a close basis, with the United States and internationally. We have had meetings internationally to talk about dealing with terrorism. The need for an integrated, intelligence-led approach to deal with the new environment in which we find ourselves was recognized atthe G8 conference on terrorism in Italy and in other venues.

Senator Cordy: The first issue I would like to talk about is alien smuggling. In a presentation by an FBI agent who worked for Interpol, we were told that most monies are made from the trade in drugs; then from the sale of arms; and then from the trade in people. However, now people smuggling is rampant, and that activity will shortly bring more money into organized crime rings than arms smuggling. Would this be the case in Canada-U.S., or does this apply only to Europe and Asia?

Mr. Loeppky: I would agree that alien smuggling is becoming more of a problem. The reason for that is that millions of people are seeking entry to North America and, therefore, there is a significant challenge with respect to the global environment. It is important for Canada to start dealing with that offshore.

With respect to Canada and the United States, a significant number of claimants actually come from the United States into Canada. I am not sure of the exact percentage, but I believe approximately 40 per cent of our refugee claimants are from the U.S. We need to work out some agreements with them respecting the safe third approach, which immigration is working on.

Our intelligence of the global environment indicates that the reality is that we will continue to face mounting pressures respecting alien smuggling to Canada. Therefore, international cooperation is clearly the key to addressing that type of threat.

Senator Cordy: How are most illegal aliens coming to Canada? Is it by land or sea? We know that, when they arrive off the coast of British Columbia or Nova Scotia, they arrive in great numbers, and that attracts a lot of media attention.

Mr. Loeppky: I do not have the exact numbers. I do acknowledge that the high profile instances are those when they arrive in large numbers. However, I believe that most come by land. Obviously, the 40 per cent from the U.S. come by land. The other significant numbers of people come through the airport system. Sea arrivals are comparatively small. However, I do not have the exact figures.

Senator Cordy: Is this a case of intelligence gathering and sharing with other jurisdictions? Is that how we are fighting this particular form of crime?

Mr. Loeppky: It is a case of establishing those international relationships. At one level, we clearly have a role to play in the law enforcement community in understanding the pressures in other parts of the world. The commissioner has attended a number of international meetings, and he has hosted others, to talk about those specific kinds of pressures. The other level is the political arena where the environment of displaced persons is addressed at a higher level.

Clearly, not only must we embark on a more integrated approach to our intelligence sharing within North America, but we also must do so outside of North America to understand the pressures, where organized crime is involved, and to determine how to address those issues on a more global basis than is the case at present.

Senator Cordy: I can understand commissioners from the different countries getting together and sharing information. You talked about a commissioner in the U.S. meeting with law enforcement agencies from around the country to discuss the sharing of information. However, as I understand it, the nature of policing tends to be that you hold information closely to you. How do you encourage the sharing of information at the local levels of law enforcement?

Mr. Loeppky: Within Canada, we have the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which was created in 1966 to address the threat of organized crime and to promote the sharing of intelligence across the law enforcement community.

Obviously, since 1966, the challenges with respect to sharing have changed and have increased. However, events such as September 11 truly changed the landscape in terms of the urgency to do a much better job of sharing information. On a local level, in excess of 200 joint force operations work across the country. We are integrated with other police organizations, and other federal, provincial and local government security agencies. We are depending on that aspect of the operation.

In addition, we have undertaken regular telephone conferences with the various police chiefs across the country, either on a weekly or biweekly basis. These telephone conferences enable us to talk about the necessity of cooperating domestically so that we can demonstrate internationally that we have our house in order.

Senator Cordy: What are some of the impediments to cross-border law enforcement? It is easier if the jurisdiction is completely within either Canada or the United States.

Mr. Loeppky: We need to recognize that we have different types of privacy legislation and that, sometimes, the consistent use of provisions here might not apply in other places. One of the challenges, if I could use an example, is that we are working closely with Europol, which is the European police office, which has been in operation for several years. We are working with them at the strategic level, but in terms of the tactical level, it poses challenges because the privacy laws and access laws are different. We need to address some of those in terms of respecting the rights of Canadians and the information that exists. We continue to face the challenges of having different approaches to the criminal justice system and how those processes work.

Senator Cordy: We have been reading about telemarketing scams, which cross the borders. Within Canada, it is a concern because the telemarketing can originate here and targetAmericans, thereby causing great concern to them. How, in fact, do we deal with such operations?

Mr. Loeppky: We have a close collaboration with our colleagues in the Ontario Provincial Police in terms of their telemarketing centre, which also has a close liaison with the U.S. We have an integrated approach and so we share the information and the taskings that come forward.

On a more practical level, we have a number of investigations that have been reported in the paper, whether they are in Montreal or Vancouver, whereby we are focussed through a task force approach on telemarketing issues. Those teams that work on telemarketing issues are comprised not only of members of the RCMP but also of municipal and provincial police officers, members of provincial securities commissions, and foreign law enforcement representatives, who provide the intelligence input and the liaison with their particular jurisdictions but take no role in the active investigation.

To deal with telemarketing investigations, there clearly are task forces in place comprising multidisciplinary teams andmulti-agency teams; they bring their collective efforts together. We have had some excellent success. I do not have the exact statistics in terms of addressing those on a much more comprehensive basis than we could on an individual basis.

Senator Cordy: Are the laws for telemarketing scams the same across the country - the same in every province?

Mr. Loeppky: In terms of the Criminal Code aspect, they are consistent. When provincial securities legislation is applied, then some anomalies are found. However, I would say that they are relatively consistent.

Senator Cordy: You have set up a task force on terrorist fundraising. Would you expand on that for us?

Mr. Loeppky: The task force is focussed on examining the organizations that have been listed by the United Nations interms of fundraising activities. They also conduct open-source investigations to determine the organizations that are involved in terrorist fundraising. Consequently, they have had somesignificant success. The task force works closely with its U.S. counterparts, who are involved in similar initiatives. That task force was set up to put some emphasis on the United Nations resolutions on terrorist fundraising and to support our commit ment to the G8 terrorist fundraising initiatives.

Senator Cordy: It is a matter of differentiating between legitimate fundraising and terrorist fundraising.

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct.

Senator Banks: There are organizations that have legitimate ends as part of their functions, as well as suspected, putative or alleged illegitimate ends to what they do. Do we still buy the idea that we can "paint dollars pink" and determine that some of those dollars are designated for purpose A and some are designated for purpose B? Does that still exist? To the extent that does, is that an impediment to your efforts to stop the improper use of the money?

Mr. Loeppky: If I understood your question correctly, I would not want to send the message that we are randomly picking fundraising organizations and suddenly pursuing them. Rather, our actions are based on information that we receive from our colleagues, information that we develop from our owninvestigations, or international information on various groups that we know or believe to be involved in those types of activities.

It becomes a matter of conducting an investigation, whether it is open-source or whether it is a covert operation, to assess exactly what types of businesses are involved. Obviously, once an investigation is undertaken - a covert operation - then it is done with the objective of criminal prosecution. I want to emphasize that it is not a "flock shoot" in terms of simply looking at all organizations. Rather, the operation is based on information that we receive or where we have reasonable grounds to believe that there is illicit fundraising taking place by an organization.

Senator Banks: Do you think you have succeeded, or Canada has succeeded, in shutting down most of the organizations, as of today, who have collected money for nefarious purposes?

Mr. Loeppky: That is difficult to answer, because many of the organizations, as we have seen, do not necessarily use one type of legitimate banking system. Instead, they use different kinds of approaches that do not lend themselves easily to the tracking of assets or financial transactions. We have had some success, but certainly more work needs to be done to truly understanding how money might flow in some of these organizations so that they can support terrorism. That is one of the objectives in respect of the learning that needs to continue.

Senator Banks: From anecdotal observation of the effects telemarketing has had on people who I know and from reading the newspaper, it seems to me that a disproportionate amount of the telemarketing scams in this country are based in Montreal. Why do you think that might be?

Mr. Loeppky: It may be because Montreal was one of the initial areas, if my memory serves me correctly, where a major telemarketing fraud investigation was undertaken. When you undertake an investigation such as that, it leads to other types of information. It leads to the development of a knowledge base of what is involved in those types of operations, understanding the approaches that are taken and then allowing one to move forward more quickly, recognizing that it is important to move that knowledge across the organization and across the country. Clearly, Montreal is a major metropolitan centre.

Information came forward about a major telemarketing fraud, and we then created a task force. I believe that Montreal was the first area where we created a task force to look at telemarketing fraud, so the profile may be higher but the activity may not be any higher than in Vancouver or Toronto where we also have groups looking at that now.

Senator Meighen: Commissioner, you mentioned that you had a particularly close working relationship with the Ontario Provincial Police in the area of telemarketing. Given that we have just learned that many telemarketing scams apparently originate out of the Montreal area, how is your relationship in that regard with the Sûreté du Québec?

Mr. Loeppky: We have an excellent relationship with the Sûreté du Québec. They are involved in a variety of joint projects, including telemarketing investigations. Without resurrecting an older file, Project Springtime, which took place last spring, was a Sûreté du Québec-led operation in close collaboration with the RCMP and with approximately 26 other police forces.

The level of collaboration at the law enforcement level is excellent. They are excellent partners whether we are talking about organized crime investigations or their commitment to supporting us in terms of national security initiatives, post September 11. Both the Sûreté du Québec and the Montreal Urban Community Police have been very solid partners.

Senator Banks: Have they always been solid partners? Do you recall any initial reticence on the part of those police forces to get involved in examining telemarketing?

Mr. Loeppky: At the operational level, at the front line, there is excellent collaboration. I believe that that has existed throughout the years, despite any other issues that may have arisen, be they driven by the political environment or by senior management factors. At the working level, there has been a good level of cooperation and collaboration.

Based on my discussions with the deputy in the region and with the commanding officer in the province of Quebec, we have very strong ties and a very strong working relationship with the police forces there.

Senator Banks: Since you are directly involved, you know about many of the international efforts at cooperation with respect to anti-terrorism, border security and so on. Are there any areas of friction between the Canadian and American views about which you might be able to inform us which would help us in our dealings with our American counterparts? I am assuming there must be some differences because our laws and societies are different. Are there particular areas of friction on which you could you could shed some light for us?

Mr. Loeppky: There is an area clearly in which we need to make progress, and we have spoken about it over a period of time. We must bring our collective efforts together to talk about common threat assessments, whether it is terrorism or organized crime. We must do that in a much more collaborative fashion than we do today.

I certainly cannot pass judgment on their approach to structuring their law enforcement community. We have excellent relationships, but we deal with organizations very much on a commodity basis, whether it is the Drug Enforcement Agency, alcohol, tobacco and firearms agencies, the FBI or U.S. customs.

We need a much more integrated approach, that is, having all the agencies at the table, putting aside any types of issues, and that includes ourselves, that relate to ownership. In bringing that intelligence together, we should to do so without the traditional stovepipes that might exist. We need to develop a threat assessment that brings to the table all the information that is available. Collaboration is important, and sometimes there is a challenge in dealing with many agencies when you are trying to do that.

We do not share intelligence that needs to be protected for privacy rights in Canada, but there should be an interoperability of systems. We need to move that forward so that there is access to database systems and they can support investigations.

For example, we need systems in place so that an individual who is listed as a terrorist in one country, or has a record in one country, is recognized and accessible across the border to ensure that we are working from a common standard and at a common reference level in terms of perimeter security. The interoperability of systems is an issue. It is more of a technical issue but it also deals with legislative challenges as they relate to privacy.

On an agency-to-agency basis, as I mentioned, the level of cooperation is excellent, but there is always a challenge in dealing with a multitude of agencies when you are trying to resolve particular issues.

Senator Banks: You have talked about two frictions. First, there is the sort of turf war among the respective American enforcement agencies. Second, there is the question ofcommunication among all agencies, international and otherwise.

Is there anything by way of a third regime of friction having to do with philosophy? For example, do you think that there is an understanding on the part of American enforcement agencies about our different national attitude towards guns? I do not want you to limit your answer to that particular example; it is just one that came to mind.

Mr. Loeppky: Speaking from the perspective of the law enforcement level, there is a common vision that we have an obligation to ensure that we provide a safe environment for our citizens, whether they are north or south of the border, and that we work collaboratively to ensure that that takes place. There is no disagreement there.

Where the issues do arise, however, is with respect to the border and the operations along the border - the jurisdictional issues that arise with respect to law enforcement working on each side of the border and across the border. Those are not thorny issues, but they are issues that require further review and study to look at questions of simple things like the carrying of firearms and those types of things. There is no divergence in a commitment to safety, in a commitment to doing what is right for the citizens of North America, but clearly there are those issues around the border that continue to pose a challenge.

Senator Banks: Let us follow up "the citizens of North America" part. Let us assume that the Americans and the Canadians could get past the turf jurisdictional questions, both within our respective nations and internationally. Let us assume that we could fix the communications problems, the IT questions. We then come to the question of threat assessment in North American terms. In your view, do we have agreement in that respect? Would the things that we perceive to be threats match, for all intents and purposes, the things that our U.S. partners would see to be threats? Do we agree on what are the threats?

Mr. Loeppky: Again, at the law enforcement level, because we really operate in the same environment, we target the same types of individuals and we share intelligence well. I believe we do have a good common understanding of what are the threats. What I believe needs to happen is - and this goes back to one of your earlier questions - not only more sharing of information between Canada and the U.S. but also the information that comes from offshore. We should make sure that that information is integrated into the overall picture because we simply cannot address border issues without taking into consideration the global issues that are taking place out there, and especially with the transitory nature of individuals in today's environment.

Senator Day: Have you any indication that there is a link between telemarketing fraud and fundraising for terroristpurposes?

Mr. Loeppky: I do not have any information to support that at this point.

Senator Day: I suppose that is one of the things that you are looking at and keeping control on in terms of the telemarketing fraud. I am wondering where the funds are all going.

Another item that flowed from yesterday is that we are told that there were 27,000 documented refugees, and you used a figure of 40 per cent coming from the United States. Whose responsibility is it to try to locate these overstaying refugees who have disappeared?

Mr. Loeppky: Do you mean within Canada?

Senator Day: Yes.

Mr. Loeppky: It is a joint responsibility between Immigration Canada and the RCMP. We have specific team that we have created to deal with outstanding immigration warrants. As a result of recent national security enhancements, we will be bolstering those teams. For example, the team in the Greater Toronto area includes not only us, but partners from the Ontario Provincial Police, the Toronto Metropolitan Police and other policedepartments in that particular area. We certainly are pursuing those warrants and arresting as opportunities permit. We work closely with Immigration Canada to deal with that outstanding issue.

Senator Day: Is the primary responsibility an RCMPresponsibility in terms of personnel to do the job?

Mr. Loeppky: In terms of the actual arrests that we are undertaking based on their information, that is correct.

Senator Day: When you and I first met, you were working in New Brunswick in a contract arrangement. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police looks after policing on the provincial level and, in some instances, in towns and cities. There are also these other many teams that you have described for us today that would be outside of the contract role of the RCMP, I would assume. In terms of personnel and budget, can you help us with respect to each of these activities?

Mr. Loeppky: One of the strengths of a national police force is that we provide a policing service at four different levels: at the municipal level, where we provide contract services tocommunities like Moncton, Surrey, Hamilton; at the provincial level in eight out of the ten provinces and the territories; at the national level, where we are the national force and we have a big component of people committed to the federal mandate; and, of course, at the international level, where we have liaison officers. Bringing together those four levels of policing and the informa tion that flows from each one of those is, in my view, a critical benefit of a national police force that provides a variety of policing services across the country.

In terms of the allocation of people, I can give you numbers. In terms of how many people we have dedicated to contract policing, I believe it is approximately 9,500; we would then have approximately 6,000 dedicated to what we call federal policing, and that includes everything from the IBET programs to the drug programs to a variety of those other initiatives. With the national security enhancements, I should also say that that includes a significant component of the criminal intelligence area, and pursuant to national security enhancements we will be bolstering that component of the operation to enhance investigations with respect to national security. It is a very collaborative type of approach.

The other benefit is that there is a process where we are a mobile organization - and we do move people into different functions if they have the right competencies - which contributes to having an integrated approach in terms of people understanding the broader demands of the law enforcement community.

Senator Day: You mentioned national security enhancement. Is that an initiative resulting from the last budget just before Christmas?

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct. That includes the initial announcement with respect to the allocation to the RCMP of $59 million, and then the budgeted announcement onDecember 12, which I believe was approximately $576 million over six years.

Senator Day: Is that inclusive of the $59 million?

Mr. Loeppky: That is inclusive, yes.

Senator Banks: Would that be approximately $80 million a year.

Mr. Loeppky: Approximately, yes.

Senator Banks: How many RCMP officers are there all together?

Mr. Loeppky: There are approximately 16,000 swornofficers and a total complement of 21,000 employees, or almost 22,000, which is made up of civilian members who work in our labs and who provide technical support, and then the public service component.

Senator Day: Are you able to make an estimate for us of how many government agencies there are in Canada that gather intelligence that would relate in some way to security?

Mr. Loeppky: I am familiar with the major ones that have their own processes in terms of gathering intelligence, such as Canada Customs, Immigration Canada and CSIS, in terms of national security intelligence. There is a small component in some other government departments. One of the initiatives that we have undertaken within the public security environment is a committee chaired by Paul Kennedy from the Solicitor General's department that is meant to ensure that we harmonize and bring that intelligence together.

Criminal Intelligence Service Canada has representatives from Canada Customs, Immigration Canada, Corrections Canada and the Department of National Defence who actually provide on-site support. Those would be the major areas that are involved in at least the criminal intelligence area.

Senator Day: Did you say it was Mr. Paul Kennedy from the Office of the Solicitor General who is trying to draw together all of these different intelligence agency activities?

Mr. Loeppky: Drawing them together is probably not the right phrase. We committed at that committee to try to assess who is doing what in terms of having information and how that was being shared, with a commitment that there would be greater sharing. That is really the focus of that initiative. That ties in with the interoperability initiative that is under the direction of Canada Customs in terms of integrating systems more broadly than we do today.

Senator Day: What is the role of Mr. Kennedy in the Office of the Solicitor General?

Mr. Loeppky: Mr. Kennedy chairs the public safety commit tee meeting within the Solicitor General's portfolio. That is made up of representatives from a broad sector of government, including the RCMP, Environment Canada, Immigration and CCRC. The objective of that committee is to look at cross-cutting issues in terms of public safety and to develop solutions in an integrated way. There are many issues that we address in terms of public safety. One of the initiatives was to look at how we can catalogue who is doing what and how can we better look at working together and sharing that. That is work that is still in progress, and is being pursued.

The other committee I referred to is a group that is focussing on more integrated approaches to information and technology. That is being chaired by Canada Customs and involves a host of federal government representatives to flesh out some of the challenges and to develop some solutions.

Senator Day: Is that in relation to security?

Mr. Loeppky: That is being done in relation to intelligence and information exchange.

Senator Day: We have been told that Agriculture Canada is gathering intelligence in relation to their activities. Does that surprise you? Is that another group that you did not mention?

Mr. Loeppky: That is another group, of which I was aware, that gathers information on areas in their particular area of responsibility. Those are exactly the types of organizations where we need to bring together what everyone is doing so that there is that understanding and sharing.

Senator Day: Is that part of the initiative of the public safety Solicitor General, Paul Kennedy group that you were telling us about?

Mr. Loeppky: Yes, that is correct.

Senator Day: You did not mention the Canadian Security Establishment and electronic intelligence gathering. Do they participate in this sharing of information with you?

Mr. Loeppky: The Public Safety Committee meeting is more focussed on the side of criminal intelligence, rather than the area that CSE forecasts. Our mandate is public safety and looking at various intelligence that would support criminal operations and that type of thing. CSE is represented in terms of bringing their views to the table.

Senator Day: In terms of sharing information, is there a good flow of information between the RCMP and the Canadian Security Establishment?

Mr. Loeppky: We need to be very judicious about that relationship. Information gathered by the RCMP has the objective of criminal prosecution. We gather intelligence to support criminal investigations with the ultimate objective of going to court. We also recognize that there are significant disclosure requirements with respect to criminal prosecution. We certainly respect that requirement. Therefore, we do not necessarily have an interest in some of the information that the Canadian Security Establishment might be gathering for other reasons. Ours is focussed on criminal prosecution.

Senator Day: Am I correct in assuming that there will be a closer relationship between CSIS and the Canadian Security Establishment?

Mr. Loeppky: Yes, that would be my understanding.

Senator Day: In your presentation, you spoke about the movement of illegal goods and persons between Canada and the United States. Am I right that, subject to certain peculiarities, such as firearms, what illegal goods there are in one particular country, they are illegal before they come across the border and they are illegal when they come in here? Let us assume the product is coming North. When you say "illegal goods," they are illegal irrespective of which country they are in; is that correct?

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct. Drug transactions, such as amphetamines, or firearms on the black market in the United States are the types of issues we are talking about.

Senator Day: Would illegal firearms be firearms that might not be illegal in the United States that are coming into Canada and are illegal here because of our different national law, or are we talking about a firearm that would be illegal in either jurisdiction?

Mr. Loeppky: We are talking about both. Primarily, with the appropriate documentation, an individual can be in possession of a firearm in the United States. As soon as that firearm is brought into Canada, it is illegal under our legislation. There are a few cases where there is simply a lack of knowledge about the different laws, but often those firearms are diverted to the black market. Those weapons can derive from legitimate gun owners in the United States, but more often from the black market in the United States - for example, stolen firearms.

Senator Day: That means they are illegal in the United States as well. You are talking about restricted or prohibited firearms in the United States; correct?

Mr. Loeppky: Yes.

Senator Day: This sharing of information with respect to firearms and explosives is the area you are working on, correct? The collective problem with respect to guns is not the focus, but where the gun would be illegal in either jurisdiction; is that correct?

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct, in either jurisdiction.

Senator Day: You have explained Project North Star in your presentation. Is the Integrated Border Enforcement Team an evolution or an application of Project North Star, or are they two different types of initiatives?

Mr. Loeppky: The Integrated Border Enforcement Team grew out of discussions in the early stages of Project North Star where it was recognized that we should focus our energies on ensuring that we have a multidisciplinary, multi-functional team to address border issues in Canada. That is how the IBETs were created.

Senator Day: Are you able to estimate how manyintelligence-gathering agencies there are in the United States with which you share information? They do not have the convenience of an RCMP and a CSIS. They separate their intelligence gathering and enforcement much more than we do into different types of applications and activities.

Mr. Loeppky: They have a significantly larger number of organizations that are involved in intelligence gathering, primarily focussed on their mandates, but also, in many cases, on cross-cutting criminal activity. We deal primarily with the large federal agencies, but layered on top of that are the many major police departments and the various state police departments.That certainly creates challenges with respect to having one comprehensive network of information.

I sit on the Organized Crime Committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The issue of doing a better job of sharing criminal intelligence has been a focus of somediscussions. Post-September 11, the focus has been very much on national security types of information. It is fair to say that those are challenges with a number of agencies.

As I mentioned earlier, we have certainly made some progress with the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs; however, there is more to do.

Senator Day: There are 50 to 100 organizations that attend these meetings?

Mr. Loeppky: Yes. As I mentioned, we primarily deal with the federal agencies, but there is a question as to how much information that is available at the state and the large municipal level is integrated into that. I do not want to point the finger totally outward because we need to enhance our own integration within Canada in terms of the information we share with other law enforcement agencies and their contributions to that system to ensure that we have it all.

Senator Day: My final question is about the term "geographic choke point" in relation to the Canada-U.S. border with regard to controlling criminal activity. That term was used yesterday in response to a question I asked about open borders. It seems to me that you are saying that the border between Canada and the United States, for national and historic reasons, provides a convenient method of enforcing the laws that are very similar between our two countries and for intercepting criminal activity.

Is that in effect what you are referring to when you say a "good choke point"?

Mr. Loeppky: It creates an opportunity to focus on a specific common point simply because of the nature of a border, which has traditionally been a sovereignty issue. Its purpose has been to keep people in, to keep people out, to act as a fence. When we talk about a choke point, it is simply an opportunity for us to focus our energies in an area where there has historically been a reporting requirement; it is an opportunity to bring together our collective energies.

Senator Day: If you were able to implement another one between Ontario and Manitoba, for example, that would provide another convenient choke point where you could have people reporting, where you could check on them and enforce your laws.

Mr. Loeppky: Theoretically that would be possible, but it would not have nearly the same impact because we have one national approach to criminal law enforcement here. We have similar disclosure requirements across Canada. You are right, however, that it would create that type of an environment for provincial tobacco and tax legislation.

Senator Day: There are quite a few different laws from province to province; we do not have free flow of labour between provinces. We are having progressively fewer tariff issues between Canada and the United States and we are moving toward a much freer flow of people. If it ever happened that the border choke point no longer existed, and you are moving in that direction with coordination, your activities would be Canada and United States wide.

Mr. Loeppky: We clearly need to focus our efforts on perimeter security. As I mentioned earlier, with a 5,000-mile border I am not sure that we can ever have a shoulder-to-shoulder response at the border, and I am not convinced that that is necessarily a very efficient or effective approach. I believe we need to go beyond the perimeter and address the issues offshore that are contributing to the challenges we face here, whether that be in the area of terrorist-related activity or in relation to organized crime activity.

Senator Day: That is the direction you are going.

Mr. Loeppky: Yes, that is very much the direction we are going.

Senator Atkins: We talked about telemarketing and about fundraising. Is money laundering a big challenge to the RCMP these days?

Mr. Loeppky: Money laundering is certainly a challenge. We have seen the creation of integrated proceeds of crime units across the country to address this issue. I believe we have made significant progress. However, the complexity of moneylaundering investigations and the fact that money can be transferred, within one or two minutes, around the world and through a variety of banking systems create significant challenges. That is certainly not to say that they are impossible investigations, but they are complex, long and costly and require significant resource deployment. While we have been very successful in some money laundering operations, we cannot underestimate how complex they are, especially with the technology today that allows the movement of funds within seconds. Following that trail is very complex.

Senator Atkins: What happens when people innocently arrive at our border from the United States with a weapon?

Mr. Loeppky: From my knowledge, and I believe I am accurate, when someone arrives with a firearm that is restricted in Canada, meaning a firearm that the individual cannot possess here without a registration form, that firearm is then seized and retained by customs. Providing that the individual legitimately has a right to that firearm in his or her country of origin, it is then returned to that individual by customs upon departure from Canada. That is the process that I believe is followed. That process is in place.

The Chairman: That is if the firearm is declared. What happens if it is found in a search?

Mr. Loeppky: If it is found in a search and has not been declared, then the firearm is seized and retained because it is then a concealed firearm. It is not a question of an innocent mistake. Everything depends on the surrounding circumstances, but clearly the process is in place. If the firearm is legitimately declared, it is returned. Otherwise, the process depends on the circumstances.

Senator Atkins: Many Americans who have firearms would not know about our gun control laws.

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct, but when one looks at a variety of customs forms and advisories, there is sufficient notice that we do have different firearm legislation in Canada from the United States. Where there are cases of purely innocent possession and failure to declare, each case is weighed on its own merits. I suspect that there would be cases where a firearm would be returned even if it was in a vehicle, but there would have to be an investigation to determine whether an effort was made to conceal it deliberately and to determine the purpose and the background of the individual. Many factors would come into play.

Senator Atkins: I gather that the U.S. border customs agents carry weapons.

Mr. Loeppky: Yes, they do.

Senator Atkins: Do you believe in having our customs agents carry weapons?

Mr. Loeppky: It is obviously a broad philosophical question, but if I can refer to the intervention model that we use in our organization, it starts right at the moment of first contact with the individual, the complainant, the caller or the client who shows up at the counter. There is a continual assessment from that point on in terms of the level of threat or the level of confrontation that could arise. Then the officer is trained to implement the intervention model.

There is a range of options that go right from verbal discussion - and we teach negotiation skills - to such things as pepper spray and the baton, culminating at the end with a deadly use of force if there is no other option.

There are a number of issues around firearms, not the least of which is the situation where a firearm has been taken from the officer and used against him or her. Looking at the legislation, a police officer has many restrictions, and rightly so, in terms of the use of force. It is clearly spelled out in the Criminal Code. He or she is authorized to use deadly force only as a last resort. If there is an opportunity, for example, to back away from a situation where life is not in jeopardy, then our intervention model indicates that this is the appropriate decision to take.

Arming a significant number of individuals is, in my view, a discussion that goes well beyond the actual use of force. There is also the image of Canada. We are perceived internationally as a peaceful nation. We are not seen as a nation that has supported the rapid proliferation of firearms. Many factors come into play.

Senator Atkins: We heard last night that any aircraft flying into Reagan Airport requires an air marshal, who is an RCMP officer, we are told.

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct. Under the air carrier safety program initiative, we do have armed police personnel on aircraft.

Senator Atkins: Is that a whole new division or department of the RCMP?

Mr. Loeppky: It is an area within our protective operations that is being ramped up, if you will, or being created. It is supported by an intelligence component within our criminal intelligence area to look at the threats. Obviously, putting armed individuals on aircraft is based on the threat; it is based on the profile; it is based on many other things, with the exception of Reagan International Airport, where there have been clear requirements for armed personnel on aircraft.

Senator Atkins: This area could develop into a fairly large component.

Mr. Loeppky: It is an initiative where we clearly need to employ the intelligence-led approach, having a good intelligence component that really supports where we dedicate our efforts. There is an obligation on ourselves and, obviously, on Transport Canada to work collaboratively to identify where the highest risks are and where to dedicate our resources in the most effective and efficient way. It is up to us to manage that program and do so in a way that is acceptable to the Canadian travelling public and the Canadian government.

Senator Atkins: That leads to the question of manpower. Do you consider that you are up to strength in terms of manpower, or are you, as they say, thin?

Mr. Loeppky: Several years ago we had some human resource challenges. Two years ago we ramped up our depot area and trained just over 1,100 people, where traditionally we would train 500 to 600 per year. Currently, there is no significant vacancy pattern in the organization. However, having said that, we are also responding to the national security initiatives. We have recently engaged another five troops in our academy and depot to be prepared for when the new challenges arrive, recognizing that a training process must be followed.

Senator Meighen: Could you indicate what a troopconstitutes?

Mr. Loeppky: A troop is comprised of 30 individuals, so that is 150 in addition to the number who were already in the training process.

Senator Atkins: Since 9/11, have there been more demands on the RCMP?

Mr. Loeppky: Immediately post-September 11 we redeployed approximately 2,000 individuals. They were redeployed to initiatives such as the aircraft arrivals on both coasts and in the North. Obviously, there was a considerable number in terms of enhanced protective measures for Canadian government officials and for foreign diplomats in Canada. There was a significant pressure on the organization.

Senator Atkins: When we were in Nova Scotia, we heard that the coastal patrol is spread pretty thin. For instance, there may be one or two officers for the whole of southern Nova Scotia. How can we be assured that we are protecting our interests in this country, given that information? Also, there is the problem of those border crossings where there is very little traffic and very little surveillance in terms of border control.

Mr. Loeppky: With regard to Nova Scotia, we have recently approved the deployment of another significantly large vessel that will be available for coastal patrols. They did not have one that was capable of managing that type of environment before. It will be in place in the next year. It is currently being constructed.

Where we obviously have to focus our efforts is in the whole area of intelligence collection and information development. We have totally revamped our whole criminal intelligence program over the last two years to become more professional, more focussed, and to ensure that that information is shared. While that not only applies to the coastal areas, it also applies to the border points that are not manned 24 hours a day. Technology is one way of responding; but, obviously, intelligence, which leads to investigations, is another key area on which we continue to focus.

Senator Atkins: In the business of black marketing, we are pretty vulnerable, are we not?

Mr. Loeppky: Trying to have a shoulder-to-shoulder border response, where there will be full deployment of people along the border, in my view is not practical. We need to have a world-class intelligence component that involves sharing our intelligence with our foreign partners, including the U.S. and our global partners. That is where we need to focus. In that way, we can concentrate on a perimeter approach as opposed to necessarily protecting the 49th parallel.

The Integrated Border Enforcement Teams are focussed on the border. They are focused on port security and airports. They will certainly provide a significant level of enhancement to our ability to deal with the border issues. I believe that the objective is to move that out, to move that beyond that particular border and to the perimeter areas.

Senator Atkins: Some of us on this committee think that the Port of Montreal is a sieve. I am not sure that port police was the answer, because of the unions. How can we deal with that problem? It is not getting any better.

Mr. Loeppky: Ports are one of the national priorities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have a number of national priorities, and that is one of them.

In my view, the answer in terms of addressing issues at the ports lies in bringing our collective intelligence, our collective efforts and our collective will together with the law enforcement partners and the federal government partners in those particular areas, and looking at that as a national issue as opposed to a particular port in Montreal or Vancouver. I think we would discover that there are some issues that we need to address on a national basis. Those types of collaborative efforts are underway in terms of investigations. Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, for example, has as one of its priorities intelligence with respect to the national ports. There is a lot of collaboration that is taking place in terms of addressing the issues that we know exist.

Senator Atkins: Does the RCMP have any kind of special unit or task force that, in a situation like the Port of Montreal, they can go in and try to address the challenges that are there?

Mr. Loeppky: In all national priority investigations and projects, we bring together multidisciplinary teams. I am talking about representatives from customs, our drug enforcement units and our proceeds of crime units. As the investigation takes place, no matter what the target group, they do not necessarily focus on one commodity. They are involved in a variety of activities that support their business. You need that expertise from a broad sector of the law enforcement community, which includes other federal and provincial government departments. Bringing those together and having that common objective is where the answer lies. That is the manner in which we undertake investigations. I believe I referred earlier to well in excess of 200 joint force operations across the country. In some of those operations, we take the lead, while in others we do not, which is fine, as long as we are working together.

Senator Atkins: I think the presence of the RCMP is the most important one. They always get their person.

Senator Banks: Respecting what Senator Atkins has just asked you, let us assume there is a problem, for example, in the Port of Montreal, or wherever, that is a demonstrable and identifiable problem. I suspect that you would know of some. Let us say we will have meetings to discuss integration. Today is Tuesday. When will it get fixed?

Mr. Loeppky: If I can use an example, when we look at Project Springtime or Project Shadow, which is a Calgary project to target the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, they develop the intelligence. Once you have the intelligence, you develop a tight operational plan, obviously with some specific timelines and resource deployments, because it really demands good planning and good business practices. You then undertake the investigation, recognizing that investigations are not all cast in stone in terms of turning out widgets. There are many variables that arise during a criminal investigation that can extend the timeframe of the investigation if it gets bigger than you anticipated, or that can lead to a number of international connections. Obviously, the objective is to sever those ties. We want to do more than simply put that local individual out of business. The objective is to put out of business the organized crime entity or to disrupt them to the point where we have removed their assets and where they are not capable of simply operating from the inside. Those are the approaches that we use.

For that reason, in terms of our planning process - and I speak for the RCMP - we use a strategic framework. We identify the priorities and then we put forward our resources, based on the intelligence, along with the tight timeframes. It is a matter of running a good business.

Senator Banks: Everything is fine and it is being done in good and prudent time. Nothing is keeping it from going faster, apart from proper procedures. That is to say, you do not need more money or resources and there is no bureaucratic red tape in the way of achieving those ends. Is that correct?

Mr. Loeppky: We can always use more dollars but we have the responsibility to look at every one of these operations and at what threat they pose to Canadians, to Canadian society and to the Canadian economy, and then to target those that pose the greatest threat, those that are at the top of the list.

We have a very sophisticated threat assessment process that, in fact, has been adopted in Australia and in a number of other countries, which allows us to be able to measure the threat that an organized crime group poses to public safety and to the economy. They are assessed against a number of ratings and then we target the ones at the top of that scale.

Senator Meighen: My first is question is prompted by Senator Atkins' question about vessels and your new vessel approved for the East Coast.

In Canada, as compared to the United States, the Coast Guard is not responsible for the prevention of criminal activities. That is your responsibility and, in extreme situations, the navy can be called in to help.

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct.

Senator Meighen: Is this vessel that has been approved the only one on the south shore of Nova Scotia or the whole East Coast?

Mr. Loeppky: No. We have a number of vessels across the country, including the Maritime area, that are capable of operating both offshore and close to shore. However, this specific vessel is a major one. We have one in Newfoundland and we have several off the West Coast. This one will now be deployed in Nova Scotia. It has the capacity to operate in all types of seas and it will certainly more fully meet our needs.

In the past, when we have had a major operation or a major demand either in Nova Scotia or in New Brunswick, we have had to bring the vessel over from Newfoundland. That poses some issues there as well. This vessel will address that problem.

Senator Meighen: I assume that some of the officers on board are armed, but is the vessel armed?

Mr. Loeppky: The vessel is not armed beyond the armament of the individuals on board. However, in any type of an operation where we will be doing an interdiction or where we have information that we will be confronting a high-risk situation, then we will have the emergency response team available and on board to take action.

Having personally been stationed in New Brunswick, I have confidence that the armed ship-boarding team that we have there is second to none in the law enforcement community. They have completed a number of successful operations at sea boardings, whether it is on major drug interdictions or alien smuggling vessels.

Senator Meighen: In the aviation world a rogue aircraft - that is, one that has neither reported in nor indicated a flight plan - would be tracked normally by American and Canadian authorities if it were flying, for example, from the south. I presume that does not apply to vessels in that you would rely on information from your sources or from tips from citizens if the vessel came into shore and some suspicious activity was going on.

Would it be helpful if there were a greater requirement for vessels to file plans of where they plan to travel?

Mr. Loeppky: You have a valid point. Currently there is no requirement that I am aware of to file any type of routing. While we collaborate with customs, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and with the Department of National Defence on vessel movements, our inquiries are primarily based on our information and our intelligence which drives us to ask questions about their information with respect to particular vessels or particular incidents on the water.

Would there be a benefit to having an inventory of vessel movements that are controlled? Obviously, there would be a benefit in that.

Senator Meighen: With respect to so-called air marshals, yesterday the minister announced in the House that not only would they be on all aircraft going into Reagan International Airport, but also that they would be randomly placed on other aircraft, depending on risk assessment.

Where is the money for this coming from? Is it part ofthe $7.7 billion or the $1.2 billion for border control that was announced in the recent budget?

Mr. Loeppky: Yes. The funding comes out of the allocation for national security enhancements. The clear direction was that there would not be an aircraft flying into Reagan airport without an air carrier safety program attached to it. For that reason, the program was implemented at an early stage to accommodate the needs of the Canadian industry.

More importantly, domestically and internationally, there is an intelligence component attached to the whole air carrier safety program. The unit will liase with their colleagues in the United States and with other intelligence organizations, both domestically and internationally, to develop profiles on the high-risk flights, recognizing that simply having air marshals on every aircraft, when you consider the number of movements, is impractical. It must be based on risk assessment. That is the purpose of this unit.

Senator Meighen: You dealt with the joint firearms and explosive assessment and the Canadian concerns in those two areas. In your brief you state that presently there is no consistent reporting system in place or required for Canadian and American authorities, both with respect to explosives and with respect to firearms. Can you amplify that for me and indicate what you would like to see in place and whether we are we are moving quickly to have any measures in place?

Mr. Loeppky: With regard to the purchase of ammonium nitrate and other types of chemicals and agents that are used in the manufacture of explosives, the Oklahoma City bombing is a classic case where ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel were used. There is a real benefit in having a process in place to identify those types of purchases. Currently a minimal information base is available that allows anyone to determine where those types of materials are purchased and who purchased them. I am not sure if there is any formalized record-keeping system in place. If you want to develop a profile of organizations that are involved in those types of activity and if you are trying to assess the threat, then having access to information that would point to where those particular chemicals are being purchased or sold would certainly be an asset.

While there are significant diversions of firearms in the United States to the black market, whether through theft or diversion, it would be beneficial to have direct access to that kind of information, which speaks to the interoperability of systems and the access to databases.

Senator Meighen: If a large store of dynamite were stolen from a site in Canada, that theft would be reported and go into your information system. Would that information be shared with American authorities?

Mr. Loeppky: You have hit on one of the issues. Obviously, if there is a large theft, we record it as a theft and place it on our system. However, as a matter of course, that information would not be shared unless it is such a significant theft that it would catch everyone's attention. Small quantities are investigated, but they have not been shared on a broad basis to date. That is an area that we need to fix.

Senator Meighen: Are you suggesting that even small thefts or medium-sized thefts, which, if repeated, might constitute a pattern, are worthwhile reporting and sharing?

Mr. Loeppky: Yes.

Senator Meighen: Before I leave the firearms issue, we explored the fact that there are firearms that are illegal both in the United States and in Canada, which, relatively speaking, is easy to deal with. However, then there are firearms the possession of which is perhaps legal in the United States but not here. We touched on the fact that there is a different culture in our two countries.

I am asking you to help us communicate when we go to Washington next week. In your experience, have you found any particular way that you can get through to your American counterparts? They view the possession of a handgun differently than do we, providing it is legal in the United States. It was suggested to us that we could merely say to our American counterparts, "Look, it happens to be the law in Canada that one cannot have a handgun in one's possession without particular and specific authority." We do not have to explain it. That is simply the way it is. Do you find that your law enforcement counterparts across the border respect that fact when you tell them that this happens to be the law in this country? Do you have to go around explaining it to them?

Mr. Loeppky: I believe they understand it is the law, but I think it is somewhat at odds with their cultural views and their philosophy with respect to the right to bear arms and to carry firearms. While the law enforcement community respects the Canadian position, I am not sure that it fully understands the objectives that we are trying to achieve by firearms legislation and the restrictive approaches we take to firearms possession.

There is a very powerful lobby in the United States that supports that view. Despite our discussions and our comments with respect to the necessity for firearms legislation, it is a message that perhaps is heard but not necessarily understood as well as we would like it to be.

Senator Meighen: I will let you know how we make out with the legislators.

In the post-September world, are we doing more or about the same in terms of sharing of information with law enforcement authorities other than in the United States?

Mr. Loeppky: My position is that we are doing a lot more through a variety of venues. As I mentioned, our Director of Criminal Intelligence is a key player on the G8 Counterterrorism Task Force. We have had meetings with a variety of partners in the United States and other countries with which we are closely allied in terms of sharing information and intelligence on terrorism-related issues, but more importantly on alien migration and on all types of organized crime activity. Much terrorist activity is funded through criminal activity, so we have enhanced those partnerships significantly. Organizations such as Interpol have recently, post-September 11, taken an interest in the whole terrorist-related issue. We have someone who is a vice-president at the Interpol level, so we are clearly aligned through those types of contacts and venues. More important, we are closely engaged in broad consultation well beyond the United States.

Senator Meighen: Since we do not have a covert external intelligence gathering operation, presumably we are mainly receivers rather than givers of such information.

Mr. Loeppky: That is correct. Offshore, we merely receive information. We are not collecting it. At the same time, we are the providers of information with respect to the intelligence that exists in Canada, but that applies offshore to individuals in their countries.

Senator Meighen: It seems worthy and laudable that we, the Americans and everyone else seek to share more information. Everyone would support that, but I have a question as to how the decision is made to share and what to share. I could wish to share, but surely I need approval from someone to share. Are the lines clearly delineated as to what I on my initiative or you on your own initiative can share and what permission one needs to share?

Mr. Loeppky: In terms of criminal intelligence as it relates to terrorist-related activity, we clearly share that information and that intelligence at the law enforcement level. We work very collaboratively. I suppose you can look at the Ressaminvestigation. We collaborated in gathering evidence and provid ing the witnesses in Los Angeles.

Senator Meighen: That was ex post facto, as we say around the old courthouse.

Mr. Loeppky: That is right. It was an example where we went out of our way to support their investigation here in Canada. At the law enforcement level, the barriers that exist are barriers of disclosure. For example, a foreign organization may receive information from a high-level source. Fully disclosing the contents of that information results in a criminal prosecution and a further disclosure obligation. There are some barriers in terms of what can be disclosed for criminal prosecutions, and those are the things that we are working our way through.

Senator Meighen: Who decides? When Ressam was heading for the border, suppose that we had come to the conclusion that he was a dangerous individual and was up to no good. Who makes that assessment? I presume it is a collective assessment, but who then decides that, yes, we should get on the phone and tell the Americans that there is this suspicious character heading for Port Angeles? How does that process work?

Mr. Loeppky: At the operational level, there is a day-to-day collaboration between the working levels. More important, at the very senior levels of the organization, there must be an understanding and a commitment to share information.

I spoke earlier about meetings with respect to the commissioner and the heads of all the organizations, where we have given our commitment and they have given their commitment to share relevant information that impacts on safety and security in each other's country. These meetings are really paramount.

When we talk about barriers to sharing, it is more cultural. It is sometimes having that information in one area, rather than it being somewhat fragmented, as it may be today. Hence, there are some systems that need to be fixed. However, when we are talking about public safety, there are no barriers to sharing.

Senator Meighen: If an individual who we believe is a danger to public safety disappeared, would it be a logical thing to alert the Americans that we have lost track of a person we think is a threat to public safety?

Mr. Loeppky: In Canada and the United States? Absolutely.

Senator Meighen: Would it take long to come to that determination, that it is wise to get the word out?

Mr. Loeppky: No. If we are involved in an investigation where there is any indication that there are foreign connections or there is an interest by a foreign organization, we involve them at the very front end because they may have information that is of benefit to us.

Senator Atkins: It is good news that you are building a vessel for Atlantic Canada and for the Maritimes. As I understand it, there is one helicopter for the RCMP in all of Atlantic Canada. Is there anything in your plans to increase that fleet to more than one? I get the impression that you could use more than one.

Mr. Loeppky: Obviously, we constantly re-evaluate the fleet needs in terms of air support. Within the last month, we placed a Pilatus aircraft in the Moncton to service the needs of that area. It will allow surveillance on coastal areas and allow for operational deployment. It has a broad range of uses.

We have one helicopter in Fredericton. One of the areas we are looking at is whether we can use more support. Are there opportunities for partnership with, say, the military out of Gagetown for a variety of things that we can work together on? We need to look beyond the notion of necessarily having that equipment ourselves if there is an opportunity to collaborate and make better use of the equipment in a partnership way.

Although I have no specific knowledge of consideration for another helicopter in the Maritimes, that is an area that we look at, as evidenced by the deployment of an aircraft there recently.

Senator Atkins: It is true that you only have the one?

Mr. Loeppky: One, yes.

The Chairman: I should like to return to the discussion of the constables you are putting on aircraft. Could you describe, for the benefit of the committee, how the continuum of force that you were talking about earlier might work in an aircraft situation? Although it is preferable to have an armed constable onboard an aircraft than to have to shoot it down if it has been taken over, there are inherent risks in having someone armed onboard.

Have there been changes in the type of ammunition that constables normally use? We are told that you have the Emergency Response Team currently in this occupation. Do they have weapons that are different than what a constable might have for doing contract work?

Mr. Loeppky: They do carry different equipment from what a member on the street would carry.

We have travelled to a number of places around the world to look at air carrier safety programs. It is common knowledge that El-Al has an air carrier safety program that has been in existence for a number of years. It is based on a very solid training regime that looks for exacting physical attributes and high skill sets. We have looked at a number of those types of programs around the world.

We have developed a training program that will address the various strong points of each one of those programs. The training program will provide training beyond the levels we currently have as a basic requirement for people onboard. A program has been established now, and we are training people through that. That program will involve the use of a force continuum as it pertains to an aircraft, as well as enhanced skills in terms of negotiation. There will also be training in terms of the hard skills, such as shooting, and the different equipment that would be used on an aircraft, as opposed to that of a front-line general-duty constable. We are not taking our responsibilities lightly in terms of being prepared with the best trained and the most highly skilled individuals, because it is a big responsibility.

The Chairman: How do you deal with the problem of depressurization if a bullet goes through the skin of an aircraft?

Mr. Loeppky: Part of the training program speaks to that issue, in terms of the vulnerable areas of an aircraft, wheredepressurisation would occur more quickly if a shot were fired through a particular area as opposed to another area. I do not want to get into the actual description of where those would be, but the members will be trained on the location of the points that would create the most critical situation for the aircraft and how to avoid directing their activities in that particular direction.

The Chairman: What advice do you have to passengers who are flying with a constable who then finds himself in a threatening situation?

Mr. Loeppky: My first piece of advice is that these constables are highly trained to address those types of situations. The constable will take action to seek to deal with a situation and to protect the safety of those onboard, to be very careful about injury to them. Given the post-September 11 environment, I suppose that self-preservation will dictate that if passengers determine the situation to be out of control after the air marshal is engaged, they would certainly attempt to take the situation into their own hands. I certainly do not support that, but I understand that action, when every other step has been taken.

The Chairman: I am getting a mixed message here. You were saying something would happen, but you do not support it?

Mr. Loeppky: The air marshals are welltrained, andpassengers need to understand that. They are trained to deal with a terrorist or a threat to the aircraft. They understand their responsibilities, and their primary mandate is the safety of the aircraft and its passengers. Therefore, my advice would be that the constable would address the situation in an effort to return the situation to a safe environment.

However, beyond that, assuming that the situation remained out of control, then the sense of self-preservation would dictate to me that they would take action.

The Chairman: On the border issue and our concerns about organized crime in ports, you gave us the impression that everything is in good shape. I do not think this committee has that impression. Rather, we have the impression that organized crime is alive and well in our major ports and that the police services are having a great deal of difficulty addressing that crime. We have the impression that, through hiring practices, it is possible for organized crime to move at will through our major ports. It is extremely difficult for the police forces to address the issue and deal with it.

You talked about a business plan as though it is possible to do a calculation of a projected profit or loss at the end of the day, or a return on investment dealing, relative to these crooks that have been around for decades.

How can you give us an answer like that, commissioner, when our travels tell us that there is something rotten in our ports, and that it has been present for a long time?

Mr. Loeppky: The ports and their surrounding issues, as you point out, are not new. Historically, problems in the port of Montreal have been dealt with by the local police force. At least that has been the perception. Perhaps the problems in Vancouver ports have been dealt with by the Vancouver police force. However, the reality is that ports are simply a conduit for criminal activity, which reaches well beyond the ports.

In conjunction with our other law enforcement partners, we have undertaken an integrated approach where we combine our efforts, rather than one organization dealing with one initiative. When you read in the newspaper that an enforcement action has been taken at a particular port, it will generally have involved an integrated approach. We are now consider ports to be a national challenge and that partners we bring to the table should lend assistance in a much more comprehensive way than in the past. That obviously reaches beyond the enforcement community and includes other federal government departments. It also involves the private sector, that is, those who run the ports and those who want to restore the integrity and confidence of Canadians in our ports across Canada.

The integrated approach and the collaboration involved in intelligence sharing have changed. It has been enhanced over the last number of years. There is a willingness to share information and that is not restricted to systems sharing. We have a database in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that examines those issues. More importantly, there is the cultural issue, that is, breaking down the "stovepipes" so that we have the complete involvement of all of our partners in national security. We have had excellent collaboration from the police forces in Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa and so on. That serves to build bridges to deal with the broader issues that we face, including the ports.

We are not where we want to be, but we are working together much more closely than ever before. We are sharing information, and we are looking at the biggest threats in a partnered way rather than in an individual manner.

The Chairman: Two years ago, one of your colleagues estimated that between 85 and 95 per cent of the cigarettes exported from Canada were being smuggled back into the country. They appeared to be coming back through the Akwesasne Reserve. He continued to suggest that when they were not smuggling cigarettes, there was traffic in alcohol and in human beings. Press reports state this is a "no-go zone" for police. Could you bring the committee up to speed on that issue and tell us what is happening there? Is it, in fact, a no-go zone? What is the situation on our side of the border and what is the situation on the American side of the border? How are we policing this area? How are we ensuring that illegal goods do not cross the border at those points and that we do not have national security problems in those areas?

Mr. Loeppky: While we have not formalized it with an IBET in place, there is an integrated enforcement team in Akwesasne. It comprises not only the various law enforcement agencies such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the OPP and the local police force, but also the Akwesasne Mohawk Police. They work together to address the threats that may arise, whether they relate to tobacco smuggling or people smuggling. I am not certain that was always the case.

Additional funding was provided by the government to support that integrated approach. There is not a no-go zone, and that is evidenced by the collaboration between the police forces, including the Akwesasne Mohawk Police. We work closely with them not only on reserve issues, but also on initiatives such as the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. At that time, they provided support to us by taking action at the border to prevent the entry of people who were intent on disruptive activities at the summit. They work in collaboration with us on a broad variety of issues.

The Chairman: The final discussion point is the question of civilian oversight for your intelligence activities. CSIS has an oversight group within the body of SIRC; the communications establishment has an oversight agency; and the RCMP is in the intelligence collection business. What are your views on an oversight agency similar to SIRC? Would it be useful? Would it serve a public policy purpose? Does the force have a position on this?

Mr. Loeppky: One important point differentiates us from CSC and from CSIS. Our intelligence is collected with the objective of criminal prosecution. Of course, criminal prosecution results in accountability to the courts, and the commissioner hasaccountability to the minister. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission governs us when there is a concern about our activities. Individuals can present complaints to the commission, which will initiate an investigation.

Going back to my original point, there is a significant difference in the purpose for which we collect intelligence, and it is always focussed on the objective of criminal prosecution, such that transparency is before the courts, the criminal justice system.

The Chairman: It has been an instructive morning, and I thank you on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Loeppky: I certainly applaud your initiatives in advancing some of the issues from a Canadian perspective to our American colleagues. As I mentioned earlier, we need to surpass some of the cultural challenges and move to commitment to true collaboration.

The committee adjourned.