Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Anti-terrorism Act
Issue 10 - Evidence - Morning meeting
OTTAWA, Monday, May 9, 2005
The Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act met this day at 10 a.m. to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the Anti-terrorism Act, (S.C.2001, c.41).
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This is the twenty-first meeting with witnesses of the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act.
For our viewers, I will explain the purpose of the committee. In October 2001, as a direct response to the terrorist attacks in New York City, in Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania, and at the request of the United Nations, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. Given the urgency of the situation then, Parliament was asked to expedite our legislation, and we agreed. The deadline for the passage of this bill was mid- December of 2001.
However, concerns were expressed that it was very difficult to thoroughly assess the potential impact of the legislation in such a short period of time. For that reason, it was agreed that three years later Parliament would be asked to examine the provisions of the act and its impact on Canadians with the benefit of hindsight and a much less emotionally charged public.
The work of this special committee represents the Senate's efforts to fulfill that obligation. When we have completed this study we will make a report to the Senate that will outline any issue that we think should be addressed and allow the results of our work to be available to the Canadian public and, of course, to the government. The House of Commons is undergoing a similar process at this time.
So far, the committee has met with government ministers and officials, international and domestic experts on the threat environment and legal experts, as well as those involved in enforcement and intelligence gathering.
On April 11 we heard from the Commissioner of the RCMP, Giuliano Zaccardelli. Time constraints and a great deal of interest within the committee prevented us from having a thorough discussion, and the commissioner has agreed very cheerfully to come back and sit with us again to follow up on that initial conversation.
Colleagues, he is accompanied at the table today by Inspector Wayne Hanniman. We always tend to run overtime here, so please keep the questions and answers as brisk as they can be.
Have you got an opening statement?
Giuliano Zaccardelli, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Madam Chairman, I have a very short statement that I would like to start off with.
[Translation]
Madam Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today to continue the review of Canada'sAnti-terrorism Act.
[English]
When I was here on April 11, I had with me the OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface and the Chief of Ottawa Police Service Vince Bevan. During that discussion we highlighted three things from our perspective. First, that law enforcement's integrated and measured response to terrorism is consistent with the Anti-terrorism Act that respects the rule of law. Second, law enforcement fully respects the equality, rights and freedoms of all individuals while pursuing the goal of ensuring safe homes and safe communities in Canada. Third, law enforcement in this country views the Anti-terrorism Act as a Canadian solution to a global problem that aims to prevent, deter and disrupt terrorist acts from happening, and provides consequences for those who commit these criminal acts.
[Translation]
I believe that our responsibility here today is to ensure that we as a country and as police organizations have the legislative tools to protect the safety and security of all Canadians, to prevent and deter terrorist activity in Canada and to assist our international partners to do the same in their countries.
[English]
That is my very short statement, Madam Chairman, and I would be glad to answer all questions from the senators this morning.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: When you were last here I brought up the question of closing detachments in Quebec. I was tempted to bring that up again but in a different form. The matter was pretty well discussed in the house and in the committee, which made a report recommending the reopening of the detachments. That report was adopted by the House of Commons and supported by a number of police associations, mayors, Regional County Municipalities, MRCs, and so forth.
What disturbs me is during the discussion in the House of Commons, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said, regarding the motion of the committee recommending the reopening of the detachments:
In addition to challenging the legislated authority of the commissioner of the RCMP, the passage of this motion would have a detrimental impact on Canadians. There would be a serious impact on public safety and the ability of the RCMP to deal with current and emerging priorities in Quebec; namely organized crime, terrorism and the protection of our shared border with the United States.
Honourable members who support the motion put at risk the ability of the RCMP to address these priorities and are jeopardizing not only the safety of Quebec and Quebecers, but of all Canadians.
That is quite an accusation. The minister herself chimed in the following day when in answer to a question from one of her colleagues regarding the motion, she said:
More concerning is the fact that members of his own party, —
She meant a member of the Conservative party who happened to be the justice critic:
— with a separatist Bloc, are the ones asking the House to overturn the RCMP's deployment plan. They want to reverse an independently made operational decision of an agency which must and does operate at arm's length from the government of the day.
The member's outrageous comments are undermining the integrity of our national police force.
My question to you, commissioner, is do you agree with the minister and her parliamentary secretary that anyone, and that includes a member of this committee, who questions an RCMP operational decision is undermining the integrity of our national police force, putting at risk the ability of the RCMP to address priorities and jeopardizing the safety of all Canadians? This is not meant to be a sarcastic trick question. It is meant to determine fundamentally what the role of a parliamentarian is when it comes to questioning senior officials of our national police force. Must they be limited in questioning, particularly, the day-to-day operations of the force? If so, I have no more questions.
Mr. Zaccardelli: Thank you for that very important question, senator. As a public servant, as the commissioner of the RCMP, under the parliamentary system I am accountable to the minister and, through the minister, to Parliament. I have never had any question or any doubt about that, and that is 100 per cent of the time. That is why I am here today, and as the chair has said,I actually look forward to these sessions because these sessions allow me to exchange ideas and to hear from the elected officials of this country in terms of what is going on.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary and with the minister when it comes to the issue of deploying the resources of the RCMP in the most effective and efficient way. From the very beginning of our existence, we have been constantly deploying and redeploying resources throughout this country to meet the threats that we face. In 1876, our headquarters and our resources were at Fort Macleod, Alberta. Those resources were transferred to Fort Walsh, Saskatchewan, to meet the threat that was coming from the American side of the border. It has been going on ever since. Every day we do that.
We analyze and study to the best of our ability the intelligence and threats we face, and we try to align our limited resources to deal with them in the most effective way. In our common law system, it has been very clear that the commissioner takes his general direction from the government. However, the deployment of resources, how we deal with operational matters, the threats, whether they be criminal threats or terrorist threats, are then left to the commissioner to decide how best to deploy resources.
I do not do that in isolation. I do that with great consultation, and I listen to a huge variety of people. I have more advisory committees, I think, than any other public official in this country. I have an advisory committee that deals with visible minority issues. I have a national advisory committee that helps me deal with Aboriginal issues. We have a multitude of community groups, and they all give me information. However, at the end of that day, as the commissioner, I am charged under the act to make the best decision possible in terms of deploying resources.
Obviously, if my minister loses confidence in me, he or she has every right to ask that I leave that post. I would willingly do that, if that was the case; but that is my responsibility.
In this particular situation, I have consulted extensively. I believe, given the limited resources that we have and given the threats as we understand them to the best of our ability, the redeployment in Quebec at this time is the best thing to do.
I am not only doing this in Quebec, senator. I am doing this in a number of areas throughout the country. This is the challenge we face. I am giving my best opinion.
I appreciate the feedback I have received. I have appeared before the parliamentary committee several times, but after taking all that information into consideration, I, as the commissioner, truly believe this is the best thing to do.
We have been talking about border detachments an awful lot, and I think sometimes we misuse certain terms. If you will notice geographically, most of these detachments are not near the border, senator. That is almost irrelevant to the point. The point is, in my view, the regrouping of these resources actually is making Quebec safer, and indeed the rest of Canada safer.
Conversely, for me to leave those resources the way they were previously deployed heightens the threat that we face. As the commissioner, I cannot live with that. That is the reason I have come to this decision after several years of study and maybe the most extensive consultation, senator.
I hope I have given you a comprehensive answer.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Far be it for me to interfere in the day-to-day decisions of any police authority. I was on the public safety commission of the Montreal urban community years and years ago, and the last thing I want to do is exactly that. I think what many of us are looking for is reassurance that this was the right decision, and that reassurance has yet to permeate.
There are other, equally broad questions to be brought up, and let me stop on this one question.
As I understand it, border service guards are unarmed. We discussed that when you were last here, and you indicated quite strongly you were against arming them. We will talk about that another time. I understand they are limited, when they see someone running the border or they want to go after someone suspicious, to about 100 feet from their posts. They cannot go any further than that. For that reason, they have to call in the RCMP.
The RCMP, by closing certain detachments, is further away from the border than they were before, so it would take them longer to get there. Is that correct? If so, where is the increased security to those along the border, if my conclusion is correct?
Mr. Zaccardelli: Senator, I am not certain about the 100 feet from the border.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: There is a limit, I think.
Mr. Zaccardelli: They are responsible at the border. The policy is that it is not just the RCMP. It is the police of local jurisdiction that is called to respond — whoever is the closest police force. In Quebec, for example, or in Ontario, often that will be the Sûreté de Québec or the Ontario Provincial Police.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They are no closer.
Mr. Zaccardelli: That is right; but again, I have to weigh all this. My challenge in weighing is where I deploy my resources to get the most effective results in terms of providing public safety and security. I have serious organized crime threats and I have serious terrorist threats, so I have to try and put them where I can best respond to that.
Where possible, whenever we can, we also respond to calls from the border. We do that; but even now, even before we made these changes, it was difficult at times to respond immediately.I did not have that capacity to respond. I would literally need a detachment of members dedicated full time by the customs office to respond to 100 per cent to those concerns.
I have never had those resources. I have never been given those resources, so I try to place them strategically so I can best respond to calls from the border and also deal with some of the other priorities. It is a risk assessment issue. Policing is very much doing risk assessments against the greater threats, and deploying to the best of your ability.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I think you have given the answer, or a part answer, and that is the resources.
In the second round, I want to talk about the integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs. Maybe we will have some reassuring news.
Senator Jaffer: Again, thank you for appearing before the committee, Commissioner Zaccardelli. On behalf of all, I thank your men for the exceptional work they do in protecting our communities. As a young lawyer, I worked with the RCMP andI found the officers to be very sensitive to community issues.
My first question concerns oversight. When Ms. Shirley Heafey, Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, appeared before the committee, she talked about an oversight process for national security modeled on the Arar inquiry, which would give to all departments and agencies of government that touch on national security the power to investigate. Certainly, the RCMP would be involved in that. When the Privacy Commissioner appeared before the committee, she recommended in her brief to the committee that judicial oversight be reinstated over the surveillance powers granted in the Anti-terrorism Act. Mr. Zaccardelli, you have stated that you would be open to some kind of oversight. I would be interested in your views on the kind of oversight you would recommend.
Mr. Zaccardelli: Obviously, the issue of review or oversight is a popular discussion these days. As you know, in respect of the Arar inquiry, Justice O'Connor has been given two questions fundamentally to answer. The first is to look into the activities of Canadian officials in terms of what happened to Mr. Maher Arar and, of course, the RCMP is included in that review.
The second speaks to the issue of oversight in respect of the RCMP. Obviously, it would be wise for me not to state my view or my position publicly at this time, given that Justice O'Connor is actively looking at that issue with a team of researchers. He will make recommendations to the government on that.
Whatever recommendations come from Justice O'Connor's findings and whatever recommendations the government wishes to adopt, modify or put into place, I will accept without question. I have some views on the matter but I have not testified before Justice O'Connor yet. I believe it would be prudent for me to wait until I have the opportunity to give Justice O'Connor the benefit of my thoughts on that question.
Senator Jaffer: I accept that wholeheartedly, Mr. Zaccardelli. I am remiss in my question because you have not appeared before the inquiry yet. I will leave my question on that for another day.
On my second question, you and I have had an exchange before. You will not be surprised by my angst about racial profiling. You have told the committee that the RCMP does not racially profile.
However, this issue arises repeatedly across the country.I know you have been following the questioning of this committee carefully and many senators have asked these questions before. I was in Saskatoon last Friday, and that community feels very much racially profiled. As well, we have seen in the report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission that racial profiling exists; and we have heard about it at the Arar inquiry.
Two municipal police forces, Kingston and Montreal, have adopted policies on racial profiling. The other day, the Ottawa Citizen said that 75 per cent of Ottawa area Muslims fear being labelled ``terrorists'' by the RCMP. Why is it that the Muslim community can not work with the RCMP? I am the only Muslim senator, and so I feel I carry a heavy burden for these communities. Why can we not be heard by the RCMP when we say that we think racial profiling exists? Why can we not have good community relationships like you have with other communities? The views of the Muslim community need to be heard. If they think that they are being racially profiled, why do you not say to them that you will put something in place, as Kingston and Montreal have done, so that they feel more comfortable working with the RCMP?
Mr. Zaccardelli: Obviously, this is a major issue that we are dealing with. I have no disagreement with what you are saying.I have always been open to discussing any issue at any time. We are working towards a policy of bias-free policing. That is a current, active initiative. You were in Saskatoon and I was in Regina last week. I had my national visible advisory committee with me. There is a Muslim on that committee, and we talked about these issues. We are actively talking about these issues. As you know, I met and spoke with the Muslim Canadian Congress in Toronto. Across the country we are actively talking about racial profiling. I agree with you. I have made it very plain. It is not for me whether I think there is racial profiling. If there is a perception in the minds of certain people, then I have to deal with that, and I have taken that approach. We are trying to be proactive, and I am open to any meeting, at any time, in any place to talk with anyone about these things. The question is how to deal with this, and we are trying. I appeared before the national council dealing with diversity. I will appear before the council again in Vancouver in the fall. We are actively talking about this.
We invited the Kingston City Police to talk to us. They came to Ottawa and we have talked with them about this. We are actively involved, and I am very concerned, because there is no tolerance in the RCMP for any kind of profiling or racial bias. From the first day that cadets show up in Regina, they are lectured on this issue. There is a series of modules that they are required to work through during the six months in training. Everyone that works on national security files must be exposed to training that deals with the issue of recognizing and being aware of the diversity, and sensitivity to diversity. It is very much a part of what we do. I am highly aware of some of the private members bills. We are working actively on this and it is a major concern for me. When you say that perhaps we are not open to discussions on this,I hope I have not given anyone that inmpression. If I have, thenI apologize for that. Certainly, I would be willing to meet with you or any groups that you think we should meet with anywhere at any time to discuss it. There is no room for racial profiling and the issue is extremely important for policing. It is being discussed in great detail. I am aware of the draft paper and, to be honest,I am a little concerned about it. I have not read all of it butI understand that it is based on American information only, andI worry about that.
We need to come to terms with racial profiling because it means many things to many people. We have done some research on this, and have found that there were some complaints about the RCMP. The question is whether it was racial profiling or did the person feel that they were treated in a way that did not respect their diversity. It is hard to actually define that. I do not have all the details on what Kingston is doing now. The other thing about racial profiling is the gathering of information when you are dealing with an area of police work where officers have considerable discretion. For example, highway patrol officers on the road have the discretion to determine whom they will stop. Obviously, if each person an officer stops is a person of colour, then there is a problem. However, they have that discretion.
In the area of national security, we do not have that discretion. We may receive information or a call that says we believeso-and-so may be involved with some activity related to national security. I do not have the discretion to say I am not going to go and knock on that door or try to find out some information, because to do so would be a dereliction of our duty. If it happens that I get five calls and five people that we actually talk to, or five people of colour or of a certain religious background, you might say I made five calls, therefore I am profiling. I have no choice. Once I get information, I must follow up, whereas, if I am doing discretionary work in terms of policing, whether it is highway patrol or whatever, there is a difference. We have to distinguish where this comes into play. We need a good discussion on this.I am glad that we are participating in it. This will be flushed out here as we deal with a member's private bill, or a number of other discussions that we need to have.
Senator Jaffer: Everything you have said I accept without any question because your sincerity on this issue is not somethingI question. I accept everything you say. This is the third time I have asked you this question. You have moved a lot from the first time you and I spoke about this issue. I thank you for that.
I travel a lot across the country. Nobody questions you when you say you have no discretion about terrorists. We are behind you on this. We want you to make sure those terrorists are taken out of our community so Muslims stop being identified as terrorists. We are with you for that, but the perception is there.
The Kingston Police have set out guidelines. They are setting a higher standard for Kingston police officers in that they are being asked to acknowledge and understand the existence of unlawful profiling, bias-based policing, and the need to prevent it. While my offices and this service have never condoned this practice, the publicity generated by the allegation has cast a shadow over the Kingston Police.
This is what I come to you saying. I have worked with the RCMP for 30 years, and I will be the first to say it is the best police force in the world, but there is a shadow now. We have to find a way where the communities feel that they are being heard, not about those places where you have no discretion. I agree with you, but I could give you many examples where there is discretion and the community is being stopped.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I agree we have to continue to work. Some of the challenges we have, even with the Kingston study, for example, the Canadian Center for Justice Statistics will not look at Kingston statistics because they say they are concerned about how that information is being gathered. We have to continue to work on that, to make sure that we look at what Kingston has done, and then possibly how to improve on how that information is collected. Then, we see where we go from here, but there is a lot being done.
I agree with you. I am not saying we have never had a case where members have discriminated. We looked at 11,000 files recently on public complaints. To my understanding, there has never been anything that has come to us from the public complaints perspective. We had a number of investigations of code of conduct where somebody has said, ``I was not treated appropriately by a member.'' We have investigated four or five in the last five years where the allegation was that it was discrimination — we could use this term racial profiling — so we are looking at that.
My biggest concern is making sure that we instill the values right from the very first day to ensure that I do not have to put a leash on people, that they understand the need to respect everybody's diversity, regardless of where they come from, and provide a service that is bias-free. That is what I am striving for. That takes education and a lot of work, not just with the police, but with the communities.
I appreciate your offer and what you are doing to help us get there. We are not there yet, but we are working towards that.
Senator Fraser: An observation as a follow up to Senator Jaffer's line of questioning, I suggest you might consider holding a series of town hall meetings. You take the initiative to do that kind of outreach, and I mean you, personally, commissioner. As I am sure you know, nothing beats human contact for the growth of understanding on both sides. Taking the initiative is often a very helpful step. I wanted to ask about something else.
Mr. Zaccardelli: On that point, a little over a year ago, there was a convention in Toronto and there were 9,000 Muslims there. I was invite to speak. I will be honest with you. People said, ``Commissioner, are you crazy? Do you want to throw yourself into the lion's den?'' I said, I have to go, and I went there. I got several standing ovations during my presentation. I agree with you, we have to do more. Nothing beats that interpersonal connection. As the commissioner, I have a special duty to do that, and we are doing that. We need to do more.
Senator Fraser: Not only to explain to them, but to listen.
Mr. Zaccardelli: Absolutely.
Senator Fraser: The fact that people are willing to listen to you is often very helpful.
I wanted to ask about sharing information with foreign agencies or governments because terrorism is an international activity. We know you have to, but at the same time there are very great concerns.
At what step in an investigation do you deem it necessary to share information with a foreign body? What are the rules, the safeguards that exist when you get to that point?
Mr. Zaccardelli: Senator, there are general rules under common law that allow us to share information from a criminal perspective. There are protocols with certain countries and so on. We share that on a regular basis. Often, we have policies that dictate when and how you share that information. I believe you are more concerned with the information relative to national security issues, which is more sensitive.
Before 9/11, sharing information in this area was very much the same as it was on the normal criminal investigative side. Since 9/11, there have been a number of changes that have come about.
First, all investigations that we undertake in the RCMP relative to national security issues are totally centralized. That means no investigation is started, no inquiry is started, unless the center headquarters, my deputy commissioner of operations, makes sure that he is aware, and he gives the authority to initiate. That is totally different. Even though I am the commissioner, I do not know about a lot of the investigations other than the most sensitive and serious ones. In national security issues, those are all controlled by the center. We have a policy that controls that.
Since 9/11, I have received three ministerial directives that deal with national security issues. One of those directives deals specifically with countries that we may have concerns about, potentially, in terms of their human rights record and so on. Before we can embark in any exchange of information in that area, it is important that we consult with the Department of Foreign Affairs, and we must have a sense of assurance that the information will be used in an appropriate way relative to the investigation we are conducting.
Every case is a judgment call. Since 9/11, we have not entered into any agreements with any countries dealing with national security issues. There have been no new agreements signed by the RCMP with anyone.
The exchange of information is on a case-by-case basis. It is never done unilaterally by the RCMP. It is done in speaking with the Department of Foreign Affairs, and in the best interests of Canada.
The best interests of Canada always include the need to respect the human rights of the individual. It is a very tightly held process, and it is very serious. It is never done unilaterally. I am always at a table with a number of senior officials from the Department of Justice and so on, to look at the case and say, are we going to exchange information? Are we going to work with another country or a foreign agency?
It is a process that is very tightly held.
Senator Fraser: To what extent do you, or can you, control how the foreign government or body uses information once you have decided it should be transferred?
Mr. Zaccardelli: That is a very important issue. We cannot guarantee what happens. You apply your best judgment to the case. Obviously, you evaluate the record of the country. You consult extensively with the Department of External Affairs, CSIS and other justice departments. Then a decision is made to exchange it. In some areas, there is a risk in terms of what happens, but each case is dealt with on an individual basis.
It is the same thing when we might receive information from some country that has a questionable reputation or history. That is the world we are living in. I wish I could say I could guarantee that every exchange or every piece of information we receive comes from the right source and we can verify it. There are times where you simply cannot, and you have to apply the best judgment because we still have to be able to act. The one thing that we cannot avoid is having to act. What we try to do is consult extensively, get the best advice and then, hopefully, take the prudent decision that is respectful of individual rights and also enables us to discharge our obligation to keep Canada safe and secure.
Senator Fraser: Would it be helpful if there were guidelines to assist in reaching these decisions rather than having to do it all on a case-by-case basis?
Mr. Zaccardelli: We do have guidelines. For example, the Department of External Affairs will provide us guidelines or their opinions in terms of where certain countries are at. The ministerial directives are guidelines from the minister saying, before you do this, you must consider this, including human rights.
Could they be enhanced? I would have no problem with that.
Senator Fraser: Could we see those ministerial directives?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I am assuming I can give them to you. I will check and provide those to you as soon as I can get them.
Senator Joyal: Mr. Zaccardelli, you testified on April 11. On April 18, we heard the Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Did any of your advisers have an opportunity to go through the testimony that we heard that day and the points that were raised with the commissioner?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I have a general awareness of what the commissioner said, yes.
Senator Joyal: Do you want to make any comment? Many points were raised during that testimony. I would like to hear what you have to say, and then see what we can go on.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I am preparing, and I hope to have ready by the end of the week, a small paper that responds to a number of the issues with respect to the relationship between the RCMP and the public complaints commission. It is my intention to give that to my minister. I also would be more than happy to provide a copy to you so that you can have a copy of this, which deals in general terms with that relationship.
I can get into some of the specific issues if you wish. I do not know if you want to raise them.
Senator Joyal: Since we are still in an early stage in our review of the functioning of the anti-terrorism legislation, it would be helpful for us to have a general reaction without entering into the details of the proposal. It would be helpful for us to have an overview of your relationship with the commissioner and where the system can be improved, because the commissioner raised points where we expect that there will be recommendations. It would be helpful to get from you at least a general reaction to the points raised.
Mr. Zaccardelli: Without being exhaustive, I would like to make several comments.
At the last meeting, Senator Fraser asked me questions about that. If we read some of the previous annual reports that the commissioner has put forward, and even including the report that the commissioner sent to Justice O'Connor dealing with the Arar inquiry, the commissioner states very clearly that there is a very good relationship between the public complaints commission and the RCMP.
She says that the few disagreements that take place aregood and healthy because, she says very clearly, we would not want 100 per cent agreement between the two agencies all the time.
What disturbs me, in some way, is that statements have been made clearly indicating that things are well. The commissioner has stated to me personally that she is very happy with our relationship and that it has never been better in the history of the two organizations. Then I get feedback that tells me that she has made comments that are totally contradictory to that. I am baffled.
In some cases, I do not want to go too far here, but I cannot help but think that you may have been misled. I have some serious problems when someone says that they are denied — or imply they are denied — access on a regular basis to information relative to public complaints that they have to deal with.
To the best of my knowledge, in the area of national security files, there are two files to which the public complaints commissioner has not been given total access. The reason the commissioner has not been given total access is because the information that is being requested is sealed by court order. We are talking about affidavits and so on, court documents that have been sealed by the court.
My understanding is you were led to believe that I am preventing them from getting that information. That simply is not the case. I do not know of any file relative to national security issues where we have denied information. I have issued a very strict policy to my commanding officers that we will share the maximum amount of information with the commission, but it has to be relevant information. It has to be information that I am allowed to give. When the court seals a certain document or affidavit, I cannot unseal that. I have no authority to do that.
The other issue is a little bit disturbing to me, and I hope we can correct it. It goes back to Senator Fraser's comments last time that statements have been made that the commission has no authority to undertake any review of unless a complaint is made to that office. Senator, you asked that question.
It is clear in the legislation and in a number of cases that are before me that the commissioner has every right to initiate her own complaint or her own inquiry. For example, in the Arar case, there was no public complaint but the commission chose to defer that to Justice O'Connor in an inquiry. The public complaints commission had every authority to initiate their own investigation. To allege that they were not receiving the information is simply inaccurate.
There have been a number of cases in which they have started their own public interest and made a number of inquiries. I could go through a list and provide the information to the committee.I hope I am not overstating the case. To imply that they cannot initiate an inquiry or investigation on their own is inaccurate because they have done that repeatedly. This disturbs me.
I have the document on the report with me. She has clearly stated a number of times that the relationships are very good. I do not know where this issue originates that we are not providing information because we provide the maximum amount of information and we are cooperative.
We have had our disagreements but that is part of the process. In all cases, we have provided that information. One of the two cases that she raised entailed a sealed affidavit that I could not give to her, so she took us to federal court. The court said that she was not entitled to that information. The case is now before the Federal Court of Appeal.The law on informants is clear all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada in that such information is very tightly held and protected. There are rules in respect of that. It is one thing to say that you want the information but the process to obtain the information must be respected.
I would like to stop there, senator. You probably have specific questions to which I could provide more specific responses.
Senator Joyal: Your comments have been helpful. You have identified this in a way that allows us to see the whole picture.A list of the cases to which you referred would be helpful to the members of the committee.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I would like to point out what Ms. Heafey said about the submission to Justice O'Connor's inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials in respect of Mr. Arar:
Disagreement, in our submission, means there is a healthy tension and a true dialogue between the CPC and the RCMP. Both are required to consider and express their positions carefully. The public would not be well served if 100 percent of the CPC's findings and recommendations were rejected, or accepted.
By the way, I accept 85 per cent of her recommendations that come to me. The document continues:
It is our position that the current acceptance/rejection rate demonstrates that the public complaint process is functioning exactly as Parliament intended: The Commissioner of the RCMP is responsible for the performance of the Force, is receptive to the civilian perspective represented by the CPC, and maintains his view when he thinks it necessary.
Those are two statements by Ms. Heafey, and so I am a little perplexed about some other statements.
Senator Joyal: In Commissioner Heafey's presentation, she suggested that, according to section 45.41 of the Anti- terrorism Act, you have the sole authority to determine whether a document or piece of information is pertinent to an investigation. That puts you in a difficult position, being the object of the investigation as well as the judge to appoint the elements of information to which the commissioner should have access. I do not see this as an issue between you and Ms. Heafey but rather as a systemic institutional kind of element. Ms. Heafey has suggested that it should be reviewed so that there is an authority to determine whether the decision should be under the review of a third party. For that reason, in respect of differing opinions on the necessity to provide a document in the daily operation of investigations, she seems to be of the opinion that the section of the act should be reviewed. Do you concur? Having an arbitrator would put you in a better position than being the arbitrator when the institution you head is under investigation after a formal complaint has been lodged.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I understand the point well, senator. My clear instructions on this have been, short of a legal impediment to my providing that information, they are to have access to all the information they need. I cannot reveal informant information, and that is the issue. This is the case that is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. We can look at the legislation which was put in place to deal with public complaints against the behaviour of our members. My practice has been, and I have given clear instructions, that we will share everything.
As I said, there are times when there are disagreements and disputes, and that is healthy. What is truly relevant at the end of the day? My practice is to share everything short of a legal impediment to my sharing any information.
Senator Joyal: My question might seem trivial but I think it is important. What level is the security check on the commissioner of public complaints, given the sensitive nature of the office and the role that the commissioner has to play in relation to the RCMP?
Mr. Zaccardelli: Ms. Heafey has my full trust in dealing with the information. We have had some cases where there was concern about the security applied to certain documents. We have worked with the commission on that and we have shown them the kind of equipment there is to protect documents. I have no problem with exchanging and providing any information that would help her to make that decision.
Senator Joyal: One of the other issues that she raised in her testimony following the amendments to the Criminal Code, is that now anti-terrorist activities are in the Criminal Code and you are charged with intelligence gathering — you now have that responsibility formally following the anti-terrorist legislation — that aspect of your activities is not part of any review mechanism, as with the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. You have been given important added responsibility in relation to anti-terrorist investigation, but the act has not been amended correspondingly to submit that kind of activity to a review mechanism, as the other agencies active in the anti-terrorist initiative are reviewed under the Act. Would you have any objection in principle for the act to be amended to cover those activities in one way or the other, to be reviewed by a third party, as the other agencies are reviewed according to the act?
Mr. Zaccardelli: Again, I will accept whatever amendments or changes are made, but I think we have to look at what authorities are there right now. In my view, there is nothing that we are doing now, post-Anti-terrorism Act that the public complaints commission cannot look at. We keep talking about these greatly enhanced powers of the police. I do not believe they are greatly enhanced powers; they are balanced powers. The two main principal powers are the investigative hearings and the detention perspective.
As you well know, those two powers — they are in the law so we have to apply them — apply only to national security. They do not apply anywhere else. For us to exercise anything there, we must have the approval of a judge. It is not I who decides to detain, or to have an investigative hearing. It is the judge who must decide that, and it requires the approval of the Attorney General. The legislation was written with very severe limitations on the ability of the police to use those provisions. I do not decide to have an investigative hearing. I present facts to the judge, and the judge says you can have an investigative hearing.
Relative to any of that, which we have not used, by the way, if there is any complaint by anyone, any group or any individuals, or if the commission wishes to look at that, they have the authority within the act right now. I do not understand this notion that we received more powers — there is a piece of legislation that we use if the courts allow us to use it — and therefore there is a corresponding need to increase the powers of the body that looks at public complaints. They can look at any area there. They can look at anything. SIRC did not get new powers because of the Anti-terrorism Act. No other review body received increased powers because those powers are there to review whatever we do. It does not matter. The public complaints commission can look at the activities of any employee of the RCMP, regardless. Whatever area we work in, they have every right to ask for the files, to ask us to do an investigation, or to hold an inquiry themselves.
The Arar case is a perfect example. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents the commission from holding a public hearing, or doing their own investigation. They chose to give that to Justice O'Connor, but they could have had this hearing. I am a little baffled when someone says, ``You received more powers and therefore I need more powers. If I do not get more powers,I cannot review.'' The argument does not hold up.
Senator Joyal: I understand your point of view, but on the other hand, the role of the commissioner, which is based essentially on public complaints, and the role of SIRC versus CSIS are not exactly similar on an institutional basis.
The role of the commissioner in relation to the public complaints is essentially triggered through someone feeling aggrieved, and expressing a formal complaint in a written form so that there is a clear case in hand. In the case of an oversight, it is necessarily triggered by the fact that someone complains somewhere. In other words, it is essentially a monitoring of the various levels of responsibilities and decision making, in order to be sure that the institution remains true to its original mandate. You understand that quite well, and I do not need to expand more on this.
As I understood the commissioner's point of view, she made a distinction between the two bodies, the public complaints triggered mechanism and another one, which is an oversight mechanism. I am speaking about your activities and intelligence-gathering in relation to anti-terrorism. I am not talking about the other responsibilities you have in terms of having to implement the various laws of Canada at the provincial or federal level. That is not at all what I am looking for. I am essentially focusing on the anti-terrorism activities that you have been charged with following the amendments of Bill C-36.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I understand that, senator. As I said before, obviously Justice O'Connor is going to look at exactly that point. That is the second question. As I said before, I owe it to Justice O'Connor to give him my views on that.
The notion that somehow the RCMP or law enforcement has been given a new mandate in this area is an erroneous assumption or position that is being peddled around. When Justice David McDonald and the McDonald commission looked into the wrongdoings of the RCMP, clearly when they recommended that there be a new agency set up said: Yes, we will create a new agency but they must work very closely with law enforcement because law enforcement has always had and will continue to have the responsibility of investigating the criminal aspect.
Nothing changed after 9/11. Nothing changed after theAnti-terrorism Act. We still have that mandate. There was no new mandate given to us, because who is going to investigate the criminal aspect? CSIS does not have that mandate. They are a security agency. They do not have law enforcement powers. Nothing has really changed from an investigative perspective. Yes, we have a few more powers which are balanced by the need to go to a judge and get the Attorney General's permission. Again, the review body can look at all of that.
If Justice O'Connor decides that there is a need to put in some type of mechanism to review that, I am a realist. I am already working on the fact that something is going to be coming down, so I will live with that. I want to put it in perspective. I do not subscribe to the position that somehow law enforcement has these new mandates and powers, they are using them and nobody is out there looking after them. We also are subjected to the reviews of the courts and all the other processes that the security agency does not have.
The balance is there, but I accept Senator Jaffer's position that when there is a perception there we have to deal with it. Whatever Justice O'Connor recommends and the government agrees with, we will accept that and work with it.
The Chairman: I am very anxious to get to the second round where our lead-off questioners were quite brief in their questions and would like to have a second chat.
Before I go to Senator Mercer, colleagues, we have some guests here from the Swedish Parliament who have just come into our committee. They are part of the defence committee in their parliament. They wanted to pop in. They have come at a very good time. We have our Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before us today.
Senator Mercer: Commissioner, with respect to the recent redeployment of resources that you talked about earlier in response to Senator Lynch-Staunton, has this redeployment had a positive or negative effect in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia? What would your assessment be of any changes that have happened there?
Mr. Zaccardelli: We have not had a significant redeployment of resources in Nova Scotia, although there is some consultation in a number of areas to look at redeploying some resources. Nothing has been done; no final decisions have been taken. There is a significant amount of consultation going on. The same principle applies whether it is Nova Scotia, British Columbia or Quebec. I view our federal resources as strategic deployment throughout the country. The nature of our federal work, more and more, is such that you need a critical mass of bodies to undertake these types of investigations. Whether it is organized crime or our major federal work in customs, copyright, child pornography, or terrorism, you need a critical mass of people.
For historical and valid reasons at the time, we had small deployments of resources in a number of areas. The problem is, wherever you may be, we have two or three members. The nature of the work requires them to have a greater number of people to undertake the work. Instead of having two or three people in a number of areas, I have regrouped them strategically in fewer areas to undertake that work. There is no point in having two or three members in an area if they do not have the resources to undertake those files. That is what we are doing.
It looks like a community might lose one or two members, but in reality, that larger group with the sufficient critical mass is able to do much more effective work and cover the area in a much more effective way. That is what we are doing, senator.
Senator Mercer: My next question follows that. The recent cutbacks in port authorities across the country have led to criticism that ports such as Halifax, Saint John, Montreal and Vancouver may be more vulnerable for the entry of terrorists and increased smuggling. Have you beefed up your presence on the waterfronts of our major ports; if so, what are the results?
Mr. Zaccardelli: That is a very important issue. Through resourcing from the federal government, we have increased our presence post-9/11 at the ports. We have created what we call integrated teams, not just the RCMP. In Halifax, for example, we have an integrated team where the RCMP is the lead, but Halifax and the border agency are working with us. We have CSIS members. These are multidisciplinary, integrated teams.
I am worried that we do not have enough, but we have actually improved since the resources policing the ports were disbanded.I agreed with disbanding the ports police. I know people do not like to hear that, but they were not being used in the most effective and efficient way. We are much more effective now than before. We are concentrating on the major ports. Again, we have critical mass with multidisciplinary teams to be able to respond in a proactive way.
Senator Mercer: With respect to my first question on the deployment of resources and your talk about moving people around, one criticism I heard in Nova Scotia was, as you reallocate, ensuring services be available in both official languages. In certain communities they would be much more readily available than in others, as geography would dictate.
My final question is a simple one. The Deputy Prime Minister has appointed an eminent person to conduct consultation on the Air India disaster, and come back with a recommendation on whether there needs to be further investigation. I do not need to know if the answer is yes. That discussion is between you and the eminent person, who is Mr. Bob Rae. Have you or any other members of the force been contacted by Mr. Rae in the pursuit of his duties?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I have had one discussion with Mr. Rae with the intention of having more.
Senator Andreychuk: I wish to return to Senator Joyal's point about a different oversight mandate. Would you agree that most of your powers, and those that were increased, were in a pre-terrorist situation, when we were talking globally about organized crime, criminality, and the use of new technologies by these groups, but our old Bill C-36 is certainly much more pervasive in Canadian society. There are tools that while you may think they are the same investigative skills, certainly the effect on Canadian citizens is much greater. Do you not think that an increased oversight is necessary, not because of increased powers, but because of the effect and intrusions on Canadian citizens? Is that not where we looked at CSIS differently? You reminded me of the Justice Macdonald situation. When we saw the RCMP, we saw the RCMP on the street helping us. We then found out about their investigative role, which was entirely different. We now have the two separated services. CSIS at that time was the one we noted that needed greater oversight. Would you agree that because of terrorism everyone needs a greater oversight because of the consequences to Canadian citizens and others?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I think you mentioned that these powers were pre-9/11?
Senator Andreychuk: You have received many additional powers throughout the years, based on criminal law. They were based on increased powers of organized crime, gangs and so forth. It is true, you did not receive as many powers because ofBill C-36, but the consequences of the changes in Bill C-36 are much greater on the citizens. For this reason, is the oversight not necessary because of the consequences of the act, not because of your different attitude to policing?
Mr. Zaccardelli: The law is always evolving. Ever since Canada was created, the law has evolved and we receive powers that enable us to respond to the nature of crime and threats that we face. That has always been an evolution.
In terms of the investigative work that we do related to national security matters, we approach that in the same way as we approach any investigation. If there is information or intelligence that an individual or a group of people may be involved with any type of potential terrorist activity, we are subjected to the same laws and procedures. That is the same standard when we go for a search warrant or a wiretap authorization. We are subjected to the same standards of law. There has been no diminution in the high standard that we have to meet. We investigate those as we investigate anything else.
I am not sure I can agree that what we do in this area somehow has a greater impact on society. Obviously, it has an impact on those we investigate. For example, we have not used the detention provisions. We have charged one person under the Anti-terrorism Act. There is one case before the courts. We have been very careful in how we have used this act.
I sometimes have the impression that people think we have had this sweep of searches of people's houses that belong to a certain ethnic group; that has not happened. I certainly am not aware of that. We have applied the same high standards that the courts oblige us to meet, whether it is an organized crime investigation or a terrorism investigation.
I understand the perception. Senator, I agree there is a perception that we have used this legislation massivelysince 9/11, and that we have invaded people's privacy.I understand that perception. Frankly, it worries me a great deal.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you saying it is only a perception? Do you not believe that even if the legislation has been used on one person only, the consequences to that person, compared to those in your other work, is not more pervasive?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I do not think so. If we interview someone relative to a national security file, I understand what that person feels. When we do a search of someone who is involved in organized crime, it has a huge impact on them. When we interview someone who is being investigated for a possible sexual assault, we understand the consequences of what might happen.
The fact is, when the police act, it has a huge consequence in the community. There is no question about that. However, I do not distinguish the work in anti-terrorism from that of other areas.
Senator Andreychuk: You say you have used this act only once. How many times have you used it inside your investigations?A charge has resulted on one occasion, but how many times has it been part of an investigative procedure?
Mr. Zaccardelli: We have carried out many investigations and inquiries throughout the country. That is right, senator. Again, those inquiries have not been based on profiling or whatever. They have been based on information or intelligence that we have received mainly from agencies in the national security area or from other partners around the world. It is always based on information and intelligence on which we have an obligation to follow up.
Senator Andreychuk: I do not believe there is racial profiling, as has been alleged by some people, nor that your RCMP officers are in any way trained outside of the country, as has been alleged. I have been involved in police investigations, so I understand.
You received, however, a definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 that includes: ``in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause.''
We have never had a definition where part of the elements involved proving a political, ideological or religious motive. Some of the angst felt in these communities might flow from the fact that you are going after someone who has a certain profile: a certain religion, a certain political aspect and perhaps an ideological aspect. People in those communities who share that ideology, religion or politics might begin to feel uncomfortable knowing the police are looking into those three aspects. In the end, it is almost a profiling. Is the definition part of the problem that has led the RCMP to get that taint, I would say inappropriately?
Mr. Zaccardelli: That is a very interesting point. It has been discussed a great deal. The way the legislation is written, the reference to religious and ideological issues is actually a limitation on us, on the law enforcement, because we do not profile according to religious beliefs or ideology. The act of terrorism, the act of conspiring to commit a terrorist act, must come first. That may then be connected to a certain ideology, yes. However, we do not profile based on religion, ideology or beliefs. If we did not have that reference, I could charge anybody involved in organized crime, such as the Hell's Angels, under the same act. That reference actually limits our ability to intervene in this area.
It is actually a limitation. I know it has caused confusion in some places. If there is a recommendation to change the definition, we will deal with that, but the intent was to actually limit the ability of the enforcement agencies not to go specifically after religious or ideological beliefs.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to follow up on that point. You have to prove a motive, and either the act must be committed or some steps to begin the act, and then you determine whether the motive falls within that act.
Permit me to go back to the years that I was at the depot, taught RCMP constables and worked with them as a prosecutor. For the life of me, I do not know how I could fine-point this step by step without referring to religion, politics or ideology somewhere in that mix. How can you try now to separate the motive from the act when, in fact, all our criminal law indicates that motive is irrelevant? There must be a temptation to say that you have heard that someone is doing something questionable. He is a Muslim. He went to such-and-such a mosque. He is part of such- and-such an association. Do those not all get mixed up together? Would you not need a great deal of retraining to get away from the perceptions?
I go back to the years of communism, if there was nefarious activity, how did police find out about it? They saw certain people at a hall where people congregate. Many of those people went for social reasons. One or two might have gone for political reasons and negative reasons, but the whole group was tainted. Years later, we were still trying to absolve people. Is that not where we are going again with this definition?
Mr. Zaccardelli: Senator, you raise an excellent point. That is an issue that could come up. We spent much time in training. The members who work in this field must be very experienced police officers who are well educated and have a broad view of things. We talk a lot about these issues on the course.
I can give you an anecdote from my own experience. I was a young investigator in Toronto. I was in the car with another member. We were driving along St. Clair Avenue in an Italian area. There was a man on the street. It was about three o'clock in the afternoon. He was well dressed, outside a little coffee shop. The member beside me said, ``That guy must belong to organized crime. What is he doing at three o'clock in the afternoon outside a cappuccino shop?'' I said, ``He's Italian. They love to stand around the coffee shop.'' There was no ulterior motive.
I agree with you. Some of that thinking was going on. I do not think we are there. We work very hard to make sure it is not part of the thinking of our members today. I think we have sensitized them and educated them beyond that.
Do we have to guard against that type of thinking? I agree with you, senator, but I still support the legislation the way it is written because it enables us to really limit the areas we go into. I hope we do not have anybody out there who starts from what mosque he or she goes to. That is totally irrelevant. The question is, what are they doing? Are they involved in some act or conspiracy that deals with national security? The fact they may go to a mosque becomes relevant at some point, but you start with the act. That is what we concentrate on.
I understand your concern on that issue. That is why we limit the people and the decision-making process in this area.Decision-making in this area comes back to headquarters: The most senior people make the decisions.
The investigator does not get to make those decisions because we fear for the concerns that might arise. Have we got it 100 per cent right? I do not know. Maybe you will have some recommendations or changes that will help us, senator.
Senator Andreychuk: I certainly do. We should profit from our history. We have had other groups who felt the same way.
On the one hand, you are trying to make Canada secure. I do not want that compromised. On the other hand, I do not want certain people feeling that what they can do in a free and democratic society is now tainted because of this overlay of the definition. That profiles them: Better I should not go, better I should not be seen. I do not want Canadians to live that way.
Mr. Zaccardelli: All our key allies around the world have that problem.
Senator Andreychuk: We have to tackle it because it exists.
Senator Christensen: I do not know whether you can address my question fully. Since 9/11 with the heightened security and the implementation of the Anti-terrorism Act, what change is the force addressing? There are limited resources in the north for customs and immigration. There are three highway border crossings in the Yukon which are all-season, with an extra one in the summer. There are only two airports that have entry points.
With stronger surveillance and enforcement in the lower B.C. ports, the concern is that the smaller Alaskan fishing ports will become vulnerable to persons coming in, for a variety of different reasons.
We have a very long western border which is unprotected. As global warming takes place and the season is much longer, the northern border is becoming vulnerable. What steps is the force taking in that area?
Mr. Zaccardelli: You have raised good points. The North is on our horizon. The North used to be the Sleepy Hollow of Canada. I do not mean that in a negative sense.
Much of our work in the North historically was more on the social side than enforcement side. There have been disturbing changes in the North, especially in the influence of organized crime. Drugs and alcohol have had a major effect. There is serious growth and expansion in the Northwest Territories.
Senator Christensen, you come from the Yukon. We have instituted an integrated border enforcement team in the Yukon. That was part of the strategic deployment throughout the country. We launched a new boat that does a lot of patrolling. We have done some work. The reality is, we are very vulnerable in the North. With the climate changes, we are seeing illegal refugee claimants in the north. My job is to look after the whole country and ensure that those resources are strategically deployed. Our resources are federal and the South tends to suck up most of the resources, but we are improving. The diamond industry is ripe for serious infiltration by organized crime.
Our diamond lab and mapping is doing some world leading work there. We have deployed some of the $9 billion that the government has put out there in the North. There is a need to do more.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I would like first of all to thank you for your courtesy concerning the letter that you have sent me following a regrettable incident that happened on Parliament Hill.
In 1984, there was a great debate in the House of Commons in which I took part. That was under Mr. Trudeau. Following some difficult events that had happened in Canada, the MacDonald commission had been created. I will not get into the details of that commission since I was directly affected by it. I have never been able to swallow it, but I was affected. One of the commission's recommendations was that another force be created. That's how in 1984, we came about to create the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
[English]
I violently opposed the creation of CSIS, to put it mildly. Nothing has happened since to make me change my mind.I wanted to modernize the RCMP. Even though I had a big clash with the RCMP, I have always defended them, and I shall do so until I die. We need one security force in Canada. In my view, the RCMP could fit the bill well, if we gave them the tools.
Now we are faced with a different world, a tough and difficult world. When Senator Kelly asked for an inquiry on terrorism, I seconded the motion. I do not apologize for that. We therefore received the commissioner of the RCMP and the director of CSIS. Senator Joyal and I are the only members of the Privy Council, so we were given much information.
We live in a difficult and sophisticated world, and there should be an assessment as to the ``rentabilité'' of having two forces.
I suppose I have the answer to this question. What is the degree of intimacy in the sharing of information between CSIS and the RCMP? I believe the RCMP should have priority. Contrary to some of my colleagues, I am not as afraid as some of them are.I can defend my position in multicultural groups, but we exaggerate the question of racial profiling. When you have an inquiry, you must start somewhere. There is a pattern that could be developed, as long as you are sophisticated.
If you prefer, you can reflect on my question rather than give me a blunt answer by saying absolutely, without the shadow of a doubt, as we were given on the committee on security under Senator Kelly.
Would there be, if we returned to one force, an amelioration or improvement? We live in an increasingly difficult world. In spite of the assurances from the security services of CSIS and the RCMP that Canadians get the best return for every dollar invested, it still costs immensely to have two forces. If I have to conclude that they do not cooperate, then Canada is not well served.
Mr. Zaccardelli: You raised a number of issues, senator, and I assure you that, in today's world, and for a long time, the relationship between CSIS and the RCMP is excellent and has been excellent. I know you have read a lot, especially since the Air India decision. We have to go back 20 years and talk about whether there was friction. I can assure you today that it is absolutely a great relationship.
The other thing that is important to understand is that in today's world we talk about public safety as a global continuum, because it is not about one agency, one department or one level of enforcement that is more important. It is important to understand that we have to look at local, provincial, national, and international enforcement, and create a seamless integration. That is why we strongly believe in the philosophy of integration.
I am glad our Swedish friends are here. It is not enough to work in a seamless integrated way in Canada. We have to work in a seamless integrated way around the world. The threats that we face by organized crime or terrorism are not just Canadian or North American; they are global issues. We have gone beyond Canada. We are integrating and working collaboratively around the world.
One of the challenges we face today, and we have not talked about it here, but you are talking about amendments to the legislation, is the ability in certain cases to exchange information between agencies and to protect that information and its sources. This committee should consider that. Sometimes there are privacy issues that almost inhibit us from sharing or we cannot exchange all the information, which causes us problems. We have to look at that in terms of our ability to be seamless and to be able to exchange information while still respecting the privacy of the individuals and the Charter. One of the challenges where perhaps friction may occur between agencies is when they are grappling with this need to protect the privacy of individuals while also discharging their obligation to protect the country. It is a difficult issue. In certain cases, we have to find the means to overcome some of these difficult challenges. It is not easy, and I do not have the answers, but I hope that some of these issues will be looked at as part of the review of Bill C-36.
In terms of the relationships between our agencies, I think it is excellent, and we work at it everyday. Our senior management meets on a regular basis. We work at identifying the most important threats, and collaborate — not just amongst ourselves but also with our municipal and, equally as important today — with our key friends around the world.
Senator Prud'homme: You keep talking about key friends around the world. Not here and now, but sometime we should have a private discussion about how you define ``key friend.'' Some friends could be your friend but not mine, and vice versa. That is the third time you used the words ``key friend.'' Sometimes I mistrust information we get from key friends. I will not pursue that further. I am very concerned about the term ``key friend'' and about the source of our information.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I understand that, and that is why they pay me a lot of money to make those hard decisions. Each case has to be looked at individually. It is tough sometimes. We live in a world where we have to make those decisions in very difficult situations, sometimes with less than perfect information or intelligence. Our obligations oblige us to act and to make the best decisions we can at the time.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I want to stay on the same topic, because I am surprised that you have given the impression that all is well in the intelligence business in Canada. I express surprise because the United States has found it necessary to recently name an intelligence coordinator to try to bring together 15 separate agencies, not the largest of which is the CIA. The largest is the U.S. Department of Defense, with some 40,000 employees and a budget in the billions of dollars. We have seen the breakdown of American intelligence over the years through many reports, particularly the one on 9/11 and, more recently, some congressional ones — false and distorted information and unreliable sources.
You give the impression that it is seamless, all is well, and we get along well with our partners. It cannot be that black and white, can it?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I hope I did not lead you to believe it is 100 per cent perfect.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You did.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I can put it into context. I gave you 1985 as the Air India situation, and it is very clear that the relationship was not the best that it could have been. That is public, and I have made that public statement. I am telling you now that our relationship with CSIS is excellent. We share information. We work together. We work in a seamless way, given our diverse mandates, and not just with CSIS, but with our other agencies, whether at the federal, provincial or municipal level. We have our integrated enforcement teams around the country. For the first time in our history, we have the RCMP, we have our provincial partners, and we have municipal partners. This is unheard of, senator. When I talk about excellent, I talk about that.
I also talk about our relationships with our key friends around the world, and I believe our relationship is very good because we face common threats and more and more we are working as one seamless team. There is a global movement around the world, whether we like to accept it or not, where we have moved to a seamless integration. It is not there yet, but we need to because these problems do transcend all of us. I am saying we have very good relations. That does not mean we do not have disagreements and so on.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: How many federal intelligence agencies are there? There is CSIS, RCMP —
Mr. Zaccardelli: We are not an intelligence agency; we are a law enforcement agency.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You are involved in criminal intelligence, and CSIS is involved in security intelligence. There are two entities involving various forms of intelligence, but which are linked. How many other federal departments or agencies have their own intelligence?
Mr. Zaccardelli: The border agency is involved. You have Transport Canada. A number of departments receive information and have intelligence.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am asking about actual intelligence work.
Senator Prud'homme: Such as communication.
Mr. Zaccardelli: There are a number of federal agencies, yes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: How many are there?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I do not know.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You said you work all together, so you must know how many there are.
Mr. Zaccardelli: We do work very closely. CSIS is our closest partner.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I know that. We are running out of time. Maybe you can communicate this to us. How can you bring all these intelligence units — provincial, municipal, and federal — together, and work as ideally as you appear to be working? I am not talking about good relations such as shaking hands at social events. I am talking about the exchange of accurate information to lead to proper conclusions. In the United States, it has been an absolute scandal. I cannot believe that here we have been able to find a formula which has removed us from occasional inaccuracies in our assessment of intelligence.
Mr. Zaccardelli: The fact that there may be inaccuracies does not mean there is not good cooperation.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It means that good cooperation should be secondary to accurate intelligence.
Mr. Zaccardelli: It means that intelligence is often imperfect, and we deal in an imperfect world.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I hope you can tell us some day. How do you put all this together to reassure us that the intelligence you are receiving is being shared, compiled, analyzed and not used until there is a huge degree of certainty that it is the right intelligence?
Mr. Zaccardelli: For the first time, we have a national intelligence group that was put together recently, which has all the key federal agencies — CSIS, RCMP, defence, and transport. That is the first time that has been created. At the provincial, territorial and municipal level, we have this integration taking place more and more. For the first time in our history, we are coming together. Is it perfect? Absolutely not.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am not asking for perfection.
Senator Prud'homme: Who is the boss of all that?
Mr. Zaccardelli: We have a minister; Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan brings it together at the federal level. Constitutionally, as you know, there is a federal level and a provincial level. As the commissioner, I bring together,as much as I can, the provincial and municipal forces. I have a telephone conference call with all my key interlocutors at the provincial-municipal level. There are many levels at which we work to get this to one area to have the best assessment possible.
Senator Jaffer: If I may get agreement from the commissioner, I have a number of questions that I will put on the record, and perhaps we can get the answers in writing.
My first one is that the government recently announced its action plan against racism, part of which is the lead program in which the RCMP will participate, along with other police organizations across the country, to help the multiculturalism community. Again, I want to commend you for that step and ask that you give us details of this program, and also details of how you will communicate with the multiculturalism community.
Mr. Zaccardelli: We are co-sponsoring a national conference, as you know, next year on that very point.
Senator Jaffer: Yes, I do and I hope that I will be there too.
The other question, which has been raised before by you, concerns your visible minority task force. I would like to know what its mandate is, how often it meets, if anybody is assigned full time to it and do you have a member from my province?
You mentioned you will be appearing in front of Justice O'Connor, and I wonder if you would share these recommendations with us because we will also be providing recommendations after you have testified in front of Justice O'Connor.
I do not want to leave this impression on the record that you felt going to the Muslim community was going into a lion's den.I think you meant that, at that particular time, it was a difficult situation. I would like you to clear the record because we have an audience that is watching. I do not want there to be an impression that the Commissioner of the RCMP feels that meeting with the Muslim communities is like going into a lion's den.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.I said I willingly went. In the lead up to that, some folks said commissioner, do you want to go and speak? I said absolutely, that is my role; that is my job, as Senator Fraser said. I had a wonderful time there. I never got as many standing ovations.I usually do not get standing ovations, but I got about three of them in front of that group. That is what I meant.
The Chairman: As Senator Jaffer has requested, if you could send us a response, we will circulate it and it will be placed on the record.
Senator Joyal: I have two questions. Maybe I should put the two of them at the same time.
The first one is a follow-up of an earlier question that we have been putting to you in terms of making sure that there is proper oversight of activities that might be related to the powers that are granted to the RCMP in the performance of its duties.
You will remember that three years ago, Parliament adopted anti-organized crime legislation, and this legislation received a thorough study by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. For the first time, it gave formally to police forces, in the Criminal Code, the capacity to commit an act that would otherwise be deemed a criminal offence. There was a procedure, as you know, that was proposed by the government. The Senate amended that procedure to be sure there would be civilian oversight on those authorizations given by the police authority to commit an act that otherwise would be deemed a criminal offence within the Criminal Code.
Are you in a position to tell us the authorization that you might have been given in the implementation of those special powers? How many of those authorizations have you been given since the act has been adopted?
Mr. Zaccardelli: I do not have that specific information. According to the legislation, we have identified members who then are approved through the minister. Those members are allowed then to act in that capacity as undercover operators and to undertake acts which would otherwise be illegal, but are required for the need to carry out certain investigations. I can get you the numbers of members that are so designated in the process.
Senator Joyal: I would appreciate that.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I believe that was Bill C-24.
Senator Joyal: This is a very sensitive issue; you have raised the Macdonald commission, which was essentially about that reality in the mandate of the police. In the context of anti-terrorist investigations that you might want to undertake, this power is a very significant power, and it is a difficult one to exercise. There should be some civilian oversight in the way the Senate proposed at that time, that it be followed up within the context of the balance of powers and the rights of citizens to make sure the aims of justice are satisfied.
The last question is in relation to the point that SenatorLynch-Staunton has raised. The government seems to recognize that there is a need for a capacity in the overall institution of government to monitor all activities related to anti-terrorist initiatives.
The Minister of Public Safety announced a month ago that the government is considering establishing a special committee of Parliament to monitor three agencies. Among the three agencies that would be monitored are CSIS, the telecommunication service agencies or centre and the RCMP.
How do you see the capacity to enhance the system to provide what we call the silo operation of those agencies? It seems that even though you claim to have a good relationship with CSIS and the other agencies, the government is not yet satisfied that this is enough to meet the target of efficiency on the basis of the American experience. All the investigations in the United States have proved that the information was there, but it was not passed on to the appropriate people and not dealt with at the appropriate level.
What do you suggest that would be an improvement over the operation of those three agencies, and other agencies such as the Financial Transactions Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC? We have heard other witnesses here. What would improve the capacity to operate, with due respect to the autonomy of each of the agencies, to make sure that there is a symbiotic efficiency to see the overall picture and not just the targeted aspects of the individual activities of each one?
Mr. Zaccardelli: Whatever legislation or whatever process is put into place, we will cooperate fully with it.
My experience tells me more and more that it is not structures or policies that have the greatest impact on positive change. What I find is that it is getting people to understand and change their behaviour that will lead you to the positive outcomes that you need.
I have seen too many times where we rush to a policy, a law or a structure, yet the behaviour does not change, because fundamentally, until commissioners such as myself, directors or whoever, are held accountable to deliver on that new model of behaving and interacting, it will not happen as quickly as we want. We need structure and guidelines in policy, but I would invest much more time in making sure people understand why we have to move to this much more integrated and seamless way; the importance of making sure that we are interconnected, not just in Canada, but indeed with our friends around the world.
That takes a fundamental behavioural change, and I think in the past we have not spent enough time on that issue. You can issue a directive, but as you know an organization of thousands of people can often subvert that direction, not because they do not want to follow the directive but because they simply have not understood the need to change fundamentally.
That is what I work on. I have come to that conclusion after many years of being commissioner and many years of being in law enforcement. That is why, when I became commissioner, my vision was the philosophy of integration. When we do that, then we leverage our collective resources, and we can maximize the security of the country and minimize the threat. That principle applies whether it is in Quebec, Nova Scotia, or at the federal level, as what we are trying to do. I would welcome the opportunity to participate in any process that really enhances that. If you do not change the behaviour, all the policies and directions are probably going to fail.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Commissioner Zaccardelli. We are very grateful that you have come back a second time, and who knows, you might come back a third before we are finished. We have until December.
Mr. Zaccardelli: I always enjoy coming here, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Honourable senators, we will be back here in our seats at 12:30 precisely, and we will be hearing this afternoon from our privacy commissioner, and also the President of the Canada Border Services Agency.
The committee adjourned.