*** Missing teeth? That would assume it HAD teeth to begin with!
The travesty of having a federal police force that killed a man (a white man on top of that) who had just arrived in Canada, lied about it from the get-go, conspired in the making of notes, tried to confiscate a bystander's camera who had recorded it, resisted efforts to charge the officers, have federal officers lie to a judge in an inquiry (Braidwood) and continue to support them --- is enough to tell any sensible, responsible administrator that there IS no watchdog, let alone one "missing" teeth. MS ***
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100919/national/rcmp_toothless_dog
OTTAWA - The former head of the RCMP watchdog says the body would still lack the bite needed to fully investigate scandals like the Maher Arar affair under recently tabled legislation.
Paul Kennedy says a long-awaited bill intended to modernize the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP gives the top Mountie and Public Safety minister too much room to meddle in sensitive probes.
Kennedy, who was commission chair for four years, says the bill tabled in June would give the complaints boss only limited access to the information he needs to see.
The current watchdog is widely seen as wanting because it does not have complete access to information in RCMP files, and it lacks the power to review or audit the police force's programs and policies.
The bill tabled by the Conservatives would give the commission greater access to RCMP information and beef up its investigative arsenal, including the power to compel witnesses, evidence and materials.
But Kennedy argues the legislation is so riddled with loopholes it could leave the watchdog in the dark.
Showing posts with label RCMP national security oversight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RCMP national security oversight. Show all posts
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
YET ANOTHER TOOTHLESS RCMP WATCHDOG
*** Lack of political will. Simple as that. MS ***
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100822/national/rcmp_toothless_dog
OTTAWA - New legislation still doesn't give the RCMP watchdog the bite it needs to fully investigate scandals like the Maher Arar affair, says the organization's former chairman.
A long-awaited bill intended to modernize the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP gives the top Mountie and Public Safety minister too much room to meddle in sensitive probes, Paul Kennedy said in an interview.
Bill C-38, tabled in June, would give the complaints commissioner only limited access to the information he needs to see, said Kennedy, chairman of the body for four years ending last December.
"With the current legislation, you wouldn't get through the door. The door is barred," he said.
"Now, you get through to the extent that the commissioner wants to let you through."
The current watchdog is widely seen as wanting because it does not have complete access to RCMP files and lacks the power to review or audit the force's programs and policies.
Kennedy, who also served five years as chief counsel for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, says the proposed model falls short of the powers held by watchdogs over CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, the electronic eavesdropping agency.
"Although it's an improvement, I don't think it goes far enough."
The bill would see the watchdog renamed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Review and Complaints Commission, reflecting its new and somewhat broader responsibilities.
Still, Kennedy doesn't believe the legislation would allow the RCMP watchdog to delve deeply into a matter such as the Arar case involving highly classified files.
It took a full-blown federal inquiry led by Justice Dennis O'Connor to explore the role Canadian officials played in opening the door to Arar being brutalized in a grave-like Syrian cell after he was falsely accused of ties to terrorism.
O'Connor found the RCMP passed inaccurate and unfair information to the United States that likely led to Arar's arrest, deportation and ultimate torture.
Among the changes O'Connor called for more than three years ago was an overhaul of the RCMP complaints commission that would give it new powers to keep an eye on the Mounties' intelligence activities.
The bill tabled by the Conservatives would give the commission greater access to RCMP information and beef up its investigative arsenal, including the power to compel witnesses, evidence and materials.
It would also empower the body to do policy reviews, carry out probes with other review bodies and provide reports to provinces and territories where the force does front-line policing.
But Kennedy argues the legislation is so riddled with loopholes it doesn't meet O'Connor's standard.
The law would allow the public safety minister to "make regulations" concerning the watchdog's access to "privileged information" such as classified intelligence or material about clandestine operations.
Following such a refusal by the top Mountie, the minister may appoint a former judge to review the material and make recommendations to help settle the dispute — something Kennedy calls a "bizarre apparatus."
All of this could create real obstacles for the complaints commission, he said.
In the Arar file, for example, the commission would have trouble obtaining material in RCMP files from Syrian and American sources, Kennedy said. "You'd have a devil of a time getting to even see that."
The new law also lacks time limits for the RCMP to respond to the commission's interim reports. That's problematic because, in one case, Kennedy waited over 800 days for the Mounties to reply, delaying his final report.
"That is just an intolerable situation, that someone can frustrate the process so easily," he said.
Critics of the Harper government maintain Kennedy wasn't renewed as commission chairman because he was too tough on the force, taking a hard line on issues including what he considered excessive use of Taser stun guns.
The commission, now led by Ian McPhail, is studying the bill and plans to provide detailed comments to the Public Safety Department and the Commons public safety committee in coming weeks.
Kennedy says the bill's problems are fixable. "I think it can be done through some judicious surgery at committee."
He hopes MPs pass a stronger version of the legislation, because it'll likely be another generation before they get a chance to revisit RCMP oversight.
"You're not going to see this for another 20 years."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100822/national/rcmp_toothless_dog
OTTAWA - New legislation still doesn't give the RCMP watchdog the bite it needs to fully investigate scandals like the Maher Arar affair, says the organization's former chairman.
A long-awaited bill intended to modernize the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP gives the top Mountie and Public Safety minister too much room to meddle in sensitive probes, Paul Kennedy said in an interview.
Bill C-38, tabled in June, would give the complaints commissioner only limited access to the information he needs to see, said Kennedy, chairman of the body for four years ending last December.
"With the current legislation, you wouldn't get through the door. The door is barred," he said.
"Now, you get through to the extent that the commissioner wants to let you through."
The current watchdog is widely seen as wanting because it does not have complete access to RCMP files and lacks the power to review or audit the force's programs and policies.
Kennedy, who also served five years as chief counsel for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, says the proposed model falls short of the powers held by watchdogs over CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, the electronic eavesdropping agency.
"Although it's an improvement, I don't think it goes far enough."
The bill would see the watchdog renamed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Review and Complaints Commission, reflecting its new and somewhat broader responsibilities.
Still, Kennedy doesn't believe the legislation would allow the RCMP watchdog to delve deeply into a matter such as the Arar case involving highly classified files.
It took a full-blown federal inquiry led by Justice Dennis O'Connor to explore the role Canadian officials played in opening the door to Arar being brutalized in a grave-like Syrian cell after he was falsely accused of ties to terrorism.
O'Connor found the RCMP passed inaccurate and unfair information to the United States that likely led to Arar's arrest, deportation and ultimate torture.
Among the changes O'Connor called for more than three years ago was an overhaul of the RCMP complaints commission that would give it new powers to keep an eye on the Mounties' intelligence activities.
The bill tabled by the Conservatives would give the commission greater access to RCMP information and beef up its investigative arsenal, including the power to compel witnesses, evidence and materials.
It would also empower the body to do policy reviews, carry out probes with other review bodies and provide reports to provinces and territories where the force does front-line policing.
But Kennedy argues the legislation is so riddled with loopholes it doesn't meet O'Connor's standard.
The law would allow the public safety minister to "make regulations" concerning the watchdog's access to "privileged information" such as classified intelligence or material about clandestine operations.
Following such a refusal by the top Mountie, the minister may appoint a former judge to review the material and make recommendations to help settle the dispute — something Kennedy calls a "bizarre apparatus."
All of this could create real obstacles for the complaints commission, he said.
In the Arar file, for example, the commission would have trouble obtaining material in RCMP files from Syrian and American sources, Kennedy said. "You'd have a devil of a time getting to even see that."
The new law also lacks time limits for the RCMP to respond to the commission's interim reports. That's problematic because, in one case, Kennedy waited over 800 days for the Mounties to reply, delaying his final report.
"That is just an intolerable situation, that someone can frustrate the process so easily," he said.
Critics of the Harper government maintain Kennedy wasn't renewed as commission chairman because he was too tough on the force, taking a hard line on issues including what he considered excessive use of Taser stun guns.
The commission, now led by Ian McPhail, is studying the bill and plans to provide detailed comments to the Public Safety Department and the Commons public safety committee in coming weeks.
Kennedy says the bill's problems are fixable. "I think it can be done through some judicious surgery at committee."
He hopes MPs pass a stronger version of the legislation, because it'll likely be another generation before they get a chance to revisit RCMP oversight.
"You're not going to see this for another 20 years."
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
RCMP WATCHDOG ? HARDLY.
*** We've already seen the attitude towards those who staffed the previous watchdog - the principle of obfuscation will see to it quickly losing its credibility. Big deal - the watchdog can recommend but that's it. Wait for political intervention? That'll be the day. MS ***
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/823336--new-watchdog-to-have-more-bite-over-mounties
OTTAWA—The federal government is creating a new watchdog over the RCMP, but at least one critic says it lacks real bite.
The enhanced civilian review body, which replaces the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, will have new powers to subpoena witnesses and compel the production of documents.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced legislation Monday to create the new oversight agency. He called it a step toward rehabilitating the tarnished image of the Mounties in the wake of the Robert Dziekanski tragedy and other incidents.
However, the NDP says it doesn't go far enough to prevent another case like Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died after being Tasered by Mounties.
The new legislation would entrench into law an RCMP oversight policy that went into effect in February that calls on an outside organization to investigate the conduct of a Mountie involved in a death.
“All of us are concerned that the RCMP continues to be a premier law enforcement agency, not only in Canada but all around the world,” Toews said. “Giving this commission these types of powers will ensure that that reputation can be maintained and strengthened.”
There will be limitations to the oversight body's new powers. The recommendations of its investigations are not binding and are subject to the final say of the RCMP commissioner or the public safety minister.
If recommendations are ignored on a regular basis, Toews said, “that would then call for some kind of political intervention, and that is in fact allowed for under the statute.”
The Conservatives originally announced the new oversight agency for the Mounties in March when they tabled their last budget. The budget earmarked $8 million over two years to set up the body.
Toews said the new commission will receive $10.2 million a year, of which $5 million will be new funding that will help it hire independent observers, conduct joint investigations with other review bodies, and policy reviews of the RCMP.
New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen called the announcement a lost opportunity to create meaningful oversight of the RCMP. He said the new bill would have made little difference in the Dziekanski case or the fatal shooting of a constituent, Ian Bush, in his B.C. riding five years ago.
“This is a bigger watchdog, but (it) still has no teeth.”
Cullen and Toews clashed over the fact that the recommendations of the new body would be non-binding. Cullen said the government should have created an independent special investigations with its own investigators, while Toews pointed out that even the auditor general's recommendations are not binding on the government.
“While the minister says this is giving increased powers, it's increased powers to make suggestions rather than to change things. And what we need to do is change things,” Cullen said.
Justice Dennis O'Connor, whose commission examined the role Canadian officials played in the Maher Arar case, had called for an overhaul of the Mounties' complaints commission to give it new powers to monitor RCMP intelligence activities. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was deported to Syria by U.S. authorities in 2002, where he was tortured.
O'Connor's inquiry concluded that the Mounties provided inaccurate information to the U.S. that very likely led to Arar being sent to Syria.
Toews said the new commission would still be subject to national security exemptions, particularly Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act that allows the government to withhold evidence or information in the name of national security.
FROM: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/823336--new-watchdog-to-have-more-bite-over-mounties
OTTAWA—The federal government is creating a new watchdog over the RCMP, but at least one critic says it lacks real bite.
The enhanced civilian review body, which replaces the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, will have new powers to subpoena witnesses and compel the production of documents.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced legislation Monday to create the new oversight agency. He called it a step toward rehabilitating the tarnished image of the Mounties in the wake of the Robert Dziekanski tragedy and other incidents.
However, the NDP says it doesn't go far enough to prevent another case like Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died after being Tasered by Mounties.
The new legislation would entrench into law an RCMP oversight policy that went into effect in February that calls on an outside organization to investigate the conduct of a Mountie involved in a death.
“All of us are concerned that the RCMP continues to be a premier law enforcement agency, not only in Canada but all around the world,” Toews said. “Giving this commission these types of powers will ensure that that reputation can be maintained and strengthened.”
There will be limitations to the oversight body's new powers. The recommendations of its investigations are not binding and are subject to the final say of the RCMP commissioner or the public safety minister.
If recommendations are ignored on a regular basis, Toews said, “that would then call for some kind of political intervention, and that is in fact allowed for under the statute.”
The Conservatives originally announced the new oversight agency for the Mounties in March when they tabled their last budget. The budget earmarked $8 million over two years to set up the body.
Toews said the new commission will receive $10.2 million a year, of which $5 million will be new funding that will help it hire independent observers, conduct joint investigations with other review bodies, and policy reviews of the RCMP.
New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen called the announcement a lost opportunity to create meaningful oversight of the RCMP. He said the new bill would have made little difference in the Dziekanski case or the fatal shooting of a constituent, Ian Bush, in his B.C. riding five years ago.
“This is a bigger watchdog, but (it) still has no teeth.”
Cullen and Toews clashed over the fact that the recommendations of the new body would be non-binding. Cullen said the government should have created an independent special investigations with its own investigators, while Toews pointed out that even the auditor general's recommendations are not binding on the government.
“While the minister says this is giving increased powers, it's increased powers to make suggestions rather than to change things. And what we need to do is change things,” Cullen said.
Justice Dennis O'Connor, whose commission examined the role Canadian officials played in the Maher Arar case, had called for an overhaul of the Mounties' complaints commission to give it new powers to monitor RCMP intelligence activities. Arar, a Canadian citizen, was deported to Syria by U.S. authorities in 2002, where he was tortured.
O'Connor's inquiry concluded that the Mounties provided inaccurate information to the U.S. that very likely led to Arar being sent to Syria.
Toews said the new commission would still be subject to national security exemptions, particularly Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act that allows the government to withhold evidence or information in the name of national security.
Monday, February 22, 2010
RCMP REFORM NOT WORKING
*** The #1 organization that should be policed more than any other - IS the police. Of all the police agencies that do have oversight (like TPS and the OPP through the SIU - as well as various internal mechanisms) the RCMP - while still commanding great respect for the most part - has proven to be ineffective and lacking credibility when it comes to investigating their own members.
Without a proper oversight body, the RCMP can effectively do what it likes without any real apprehension of sanction. This is the absolute antithesis of policing in an advanced, democratic state like Canada and should be repaired immediately for the sake of our national honour and for the sake of the credibility of the RCMP itself. It may be you dislike a thing but in fact, it is good for you. MS ***
FROM: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100222/national/rcmp_revival
OTTAWA - Liberal members of a disbanded Senate committee have taken the unusual step of publishing a position paper while the Commons is shut down, recommending sweeping changes to the RCMP.
The paper by Liberal members of the Senate security and defence committee says rebuilding the national police force "makes far more sense than trying to stuff more people in Canada's already overstuffed jails."
Entitled "Toward a Red Serge Revival," the paper says any reputable criminologist knows good crime prevention is far more effective than sending more people to prison for longer stretches.
The paper acknowledges there's an RCMP reform process underway but it warns that if that process doesn't work, Canadians are in for more horror stories about the decline of what it calls a national treasure.
The Senators say they believe RCMP transformation is endangered and that genuine reform is unlikely unless some key changes are made.
They're calling for better oversight of the RCMP, more women and minorities on the national force, more money to expand its membership, and strong leadership from within its ranks.
The full Senate committee examined RCMP transformation for a year but its members failed to agree on a report before Parliament was prorogued until March.
Senator Colin Kenny, the committee longtime chair, says the six Liberals believe RCMP reform is too important for the government to stall it any longer.
"The RCMP needs to get moving if the public trust is to be restored," said the committee. "We sincerely hope that this paper helps stimulate that process."
Without a proper oversight body, the RCMP can effectively do what it likes without any real apprehension of sanction. This is the absolute antithesis of policing in an advanced, democratic state like Canada and should be repaired immediately for the sake of our national honour and for the sake of the credibility of the RCMP itself. It may be you dislike a thing but in fact, it is good for you. MS ***
FROM: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100222/national/rcmp_revival
OTTAWA - Liberal members of a disbanded Senate committee have taken the unusual step of publishing a position paper while the Commons is shut down, recommending sweeping changes to the RCMP.
The paper by Liberal members of the Senate security and defence committee says rebuilding the national police force "makes far more sense than trying to stuff more people in Canada's already overstuffed jails."
Entitled "Toward a Red Serge Revival," the paper says any reputable criminologist knows good crime prevention is far more effective than sending more people to prison for longer stretches.
The paper acknowledges there's an RCMP reform process underway but it warns that if that process doesn't work, Canadians are in for more horror stories about the decline of what it calls a national treasure.
The Senators say they believe RCMP transformation is endangered and that genuine reform is unlikely unless some key changes are made.
They're calling for better oversight of the RCMP, more women and minorities on the national force, more money to expand its membership, and strong leadership from within its ranks.
The full Senate committee examined RCMP transformation for a year but its members failed to agree on a report before Parliament was prorogued until March.
Senator Colin Kenny, the committee longtime chair, says the six Liberals believe RCMP reform is too important for the government to stall it any longer.
"The RCMP needs to get moving if the public trust is to be restored," said the committee. "We sincerely hope that this paper helps stimulate that process."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
RCMP PUBLIC COMPLAINTS : KENNEDY VS MCPHAIL
*** We all know the Conservative government is the patron party of the RCMP - and both of them abhor oversight, accountability and transparency. Not for much longer, I promise. MS ***
FROM: http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/17363_just-the-facts-rcmp-oversight-under-the-conservatives
The new interim chair of the independent RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Ian McPhail, is a long-time supporter of the Conservative party with no relevant qualifications for the job. The man he is replacing, Paul Kennedy, boasts considerable national and international public safety experience, but lost his position after making critical comments about the government’s public safety policies.
Paul Kennedy
Over 35 years of public service, past RCMP Public Complaints Commission Chair Paul Kennedy was the Canada’s Co-Chair of the Canada-U.S. Cross Border Crime Forum, Chair of the Canadian National Co-ordinating Committee on Organized Crime, Chair of the Assistant Deputy Ministers Committee on Public Safety and Chair of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Commission of the Organization of American States.
First appointed Chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission in 2005, during his tenure Mr. Kennedy investigated Taser use, in-custody deaths, and the internal investigation procedures of the RCMP.
Ian McPhail
Ian McPhail was named Vice-Chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission by Peter Van Loan on January 18, 2010. His appointment as “interim chair” is expected to last at least one year.
Mr. McPhail is a wills and real estate lawyer with no criminal law or policing experience.
He was appointed Chair of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Acting Chair and Director of TV Ontario, and Chair of the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal under Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris.
FROM: http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/media-releases/17363_just-the-facts-rcmp-oversight-under-the-conservatives
The new interim chair of the independent RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Ian McPhail, is a long-time supporter of the Conservative party with no relevant qualifications for the job. The man he is replacing, Paul Kennedy, boasts considerable national and international public safety experience, but lost his position after making critical comments about the government’s public safety policies.
Paul Kennedy
Over 35 years of public service, past RCMP Public Complaints Commission Chair Paul Kennedy was the Canada’s Co-Chair of the Canada-U.S. Cross Border Crime Forum, Chair of the Canadian National Co-ordinating Committee on Organized Crime, Chair of the Assistant Deputy Ministers Committee on Public Safety and Chair of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Commission of the Organization of American States.
First appointed Chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission in 2005, during his tenure Mr. Kennedy investigated Taser use, in-custody deaths, and the internal investigation procedures of the RCMP.
Ian McPhail
Ian McPhail was named Vice-Chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission by Peter Van Loan on January 18, 2010. His appointment as “interim chair” is expected to last at least one year.
Mr. McPhail is a wills and real estate lawyer with no criminal law or policing experience.
He was appointed Chair of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Acting Chair and Director of TV Ontario, and Chair of the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal under Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
LIBERALS PLEDGE EFFECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY OF FED AGENCIES
FROM: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100126/national/20100126_liberals_watchdogs
OTTAWA - Michael Ignatieff is promising to strengthen and respect the independence of federal agencies that protect the health and safety of Canadians and hold government to account.
The Liberal leader says his willingness to give real teeth to the watchdogs shows he's prepared to put limits on prime ministerial power.
Among other things, he says a Liberal government would "seriously consider" creating a public-appointments commission to ensure those chosen to sit on various tribunals are qualified and independent.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper once promised such a commission but it has never materialized.
Liberals heard today from three watchdogs muzzled by the Harper government - Linda Keen, former head of the nuclear safety commission; Paul Kennedy, former head of the RCMP's public complaints commission; and Peter Tinsley, former military police complaints commissioner.
Keen, who was fired by the Tories, told Liberals that federal watchdogs are "under attack" by the government and that supposedly independent commissioners are afraid they'll lose their jobs if they take tough stands.
OTTAWA - Michael Ignatieff is promising to strengthen and respect the independence of federal agencies that protect the health and safety of Canadians and hold government to account.
The Liberal leader says his willingness to give real teeth to the watchdogs shows he's prepared to put limits on prime ministerial power.
Among other things, he says a Liberal government would "seriously consider" creating a public-appointments commission to ensure those chosen to sit on various tribunals are qualified and independent.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper once promised such a commission but it has never materialized.
Liberals heard today from three watchdogs muzzled by the Harper government - Linda Keen, former head of the nuclear safety commission; Paul Kennedy, former head of the RCMP's public complaints commission; and Peter Tinsley, former military police complaints commissioner.
Keen, who was fired by the Tories, told Liberals that federal watchdogs are "under attack" by the government and that supposedly independent commissioners are afraid they'll lose their jobs if they take tough stands.
Monday, January 25, 2010
REVIEW OF RCMP POWER TO BREAK LAW
*** The RCMP has a serious problem with effective oversight, a foundation-stone of modern policing. Why? MS ***
FROM: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2384277
OTTAWA -- The outgoing RCMP watchdog says there should be a major review of a little-known police power to break the law when trying to catch lawbreakers, which he describes as an authorization to "burn the barn" with immunity.
Paul Kennedy, the commissioner for public complaints against the RCMP, said that it would have been one of his top priorities during his tenure, but that he lacked the legislative power to get relevant information from the Mounties to conduct a probe.
"If I had an ability to do a general review, that is the first one I would put on the table to look at," said Mr. Kennedy, whose four-year stint ends on Dec. 31. "It's an unusual power, so you want to make sure it is being used appropriately."
Mr. Kennedy noted that the 2002 enabling legislation called for a parliamentary review three years after the law was passed, but "that still hasn't happened."
While the Mounties are required to report to Parliament annually on their law-breaking, Mr. Kennedy said the reports are "threadbare and uninformative" because the RCMP does not reveal any information about its informants or ongoing investigations.
"If I had access to all the information, we could look at that program, and be able to articulate publicly in a document without disclosing any great secrets, that this is a credible program," he said.
Despite Mr. Kennedy's top-secret clearance, the RCMP does not have to hand over information to him involving ongoing investigations or techniques, he said.
Mr. Kennedy has called repeatedly for Parliament to enhance the commissioner's powers to enable independent investigations into the national police force, including the ability to subpoena RCMP records. Also, investigations involving national security are shielded from public scrutiny.
The 2008 annual report on law-breaking activity, tabled recently in Parliament, indicated that the RCMP scaled back last year, revealing only two instances in which the Mounties authorized agents to break the law during criminal investigations.
One case involved bribery of a police officer and another was an investigation into human trafficking and prostitution. Both cases were carried out by civilian agents of the police, who are typically undercover informants, rather than the police themselves.
Authorizations were at their lowest since the RCMP acquired the power in 2002 to be shielded from prosecution in certain circumstances.
In one case, while an agent was authorized to commit a crime, it did not happen, said the report, tabled recently in theHouse of Commons.
While there were no reports of crimes committed by police themselves, that does not mean they did not happen. The law only requires them to report activity that would likely result in loss or serious damage to property.
The power has been contentious, opposed by such organizations as the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which have said that no one should be above the law.
RCMP authorizations for law breaking peaked in 2006, when police made 16 approvals, during investigations into alleged terrorism, counterfeiting, credit card fraud and passport forgery.
The legislation was passed almost eight years ago following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that said police did not have carte blanche to break the law in the line of duty, but left it open to Parliament to spell out some powers.
A mandatory review began in 2006, but the House of Commons justice committee concluded that further study was needed before making any recommendations.
During brief public hearings, there was no evidence the power was being abused, but the civil liberties association called for the law to be repealed, in part because of its vulnerability to abuse.
The law requires that RCMP justification for law breaking is subject to "reasonableness and proportionality" when compared to the crimes being investigated.
Certain types of conduct, such as intentionally causing bodily harm, violating the sexual integrity of a person and wilfully attempting to obstruct justice are excluded from the law-breaking powers.
The Canadian Bar Association has called in the past for police to go before a judge to obtain authorization, just as they would have to obtain a search warrant or permission for wiretapping.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2384277#ixzz0dfreRKAa
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
FROM: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2384277
OTTAWA -- The outgoing RCMP watchdog says there should be a major review of a little-known police power to break the law when trying to catch lawbreakers, which he describes as an authorization to "burn the barn" with immunity.
Paul Kennedy, the commissioner for public complaints against the RCMP, said that it would have been one of his top priorities during his tenure, but that he lacked the legislative power to get relevant information from the Mounties to conduct a probe.
"If I had an ability to do a general review, that is the first one I would put on the table to look at," said Mr. Kennedy, whose four-year stint ends on Dec. 31. "It's an unusual power, so you want to make sure it is being used appropriately."
Mr. Kennedy noted that the 2002 enabling legislation called for a parliamentary review three years after the law was passed, but "that still hasn't happened."
While the Mounties are required to report to Parliament annually on their law-breaking, Mr. Kennedy said the reports are "threadbare and uninformative" because the RCMP does not reveal any information about its informants or ongoing investigations.
"If I had access to all the information, we could look at that program, and be able to articulate publicly in a document without disclosing any great secrets, that this is a credible program," he said.
Despite Mr. Kennedy's top-secret clearance, the RCMP does not have to hand over information to him involving ongoing investigations or techniques, he said.
Mr. Kennedy has called repeatedly for Parliament to enhance the commissioner's powers to enable independent investigations into the national police force, including the ability to subpoena RCMP records. Also, investigations involving national security are shielded from public scrutiny.
The 2008 annual report on law-breaking activity, tabled recently in Parliament, indicated that the RCMP scaled back last year, revealing only two instances in which the Mounties authorized agents to break the law during criminal investigations.
One case involved bribery of a police officer and another was an investigation into human trafficking and prostitution. Both cases were carried out by civilian agents of the police, who are typically undercover informants, rather than the police themselves.
Authorizations were at their lowest since the RCMP acquired the power in 2002 to be shielded from prosecution in certain circumstances.
In one case, while an agent was authorized to commit a crime, it did not happen, said the report, tabled recently in theHouse of Commons.
While there were no reports of crimes committed by police themselves, that does not mean they did not happen. The law only requires them to report activity that would likely result in loss or serious damage to property.
The power has been contentious, opposed by such organizations as the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which have said that no one should be above the law.
RCMP authorizations for law breaking peaked in 2006, when police made 16 approvals, during investigations into alleged terrorism, counterfeiting, credit card fraud and passport forgery.
The legislation was passed almost eight years ago following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that said police did not have carte blanche to break the law in the line of duty, but left it open to Parliament to spell out some powers.
A mandatory review began in 2006, but the House of Commons justice committee concluded that further study was needed before making any recommendations.
During brief public hearings, there was no evidence the power was being abused, but the civil liberties association called for the law to be repealed, in part because of its vulnerability to abuse.
The law requires that RCMP justification for law breaking is subject to "reasonableness and proportionality" when compared to the crimes being investigated.
Certain types of conduct, such as intentionally causing bodily harm, violating the sexual integrity of a person and wilfully attempting to obstruct justice are excluded from the law-breaking powers.
The Canadian Bar Association has called in the past for police to go before a judge to obtain authorization, just as they would have to obtain a search warrant or permission for wiretapping.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2384277#ixzz0dfreRKAa
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
SENATORS SCRAP OVER RCMP REPORT
FROM: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2479656
OTTAWA -- Liberals and Conservative senators are locked in a dispute about the pending release of a report that is deeply critical of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and calls for at least 5,000 new officers to help boost the national force.
The Liberal majority on the Senate national security committee, which is dissolved while Parliament is prorogued, is planning to make their report public early next month.
Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the longtime committee chairman, said the findings will be based on a draft committee report that was still in the works when the committee recessed in December.
Mr. Kenny is expected to be replaced by a Conservative chairman in the next Parliament, after Prime Minister Stephen Harper appoints more Conservative senators to end the Liberal domination on committees.
Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin said it is "shocking" that the Liberals on the committee would publicize the contents of an unfinished report while Parliament is prorogued.
"That is a completely irresponsible and unprecedented thing to do," Ms. Wallin said. "These reports are confidential until everybody has signed off on them and we are in the middle of that."
Mr. Kenny countered that he and his colleagues are not releasing the committee's actual draft report, but a recrafted "position paper" of their own.
The Liberal report is expected to contain numerous recommendations, including a call for about 5,000 more officers over seven years and increased civilian oversight of the force -- an element of several other reports on the RCMP.
The position paper also touches on Taser use and another "big time" component deals with the force's often-criticized management structure, Mr. Kenny said.
"There are a lot of problems within the RCMP and our report comments on whether the right problems are being addressed," he said.
Ms. Wallin questioned the value of another report on the RCMP, which she said already has been studied to death. She said that the report to be released by Kenny and his colleagues is nothing more than a "Liberal press release."
The committee's last meeting in December, in which they discussed whether to approve a draft report they had worked on for three months, was an acrimonious gathering in which Conservative senators accused the Liberals of going out of their way to disparage the RCMP.
Ms. Wallin chastised the "offensive language" of the draft report, which she said amounted a "drive-by" smear of the Mounties.
"We did not like the tone, which assumed that every member of the RCMP engaged in the misuse of Tasers or engaged in some illegal behaviour," she said at the meeting.
"We did not want the RCMP to be side-swiped by concerns about problem members or issues that years ago were a problem and that the RCMP have been working on actively."
Conservative Senator Daniel Lang said that adding 5,000 RCMP officers would increase the existing complement by 25% and would cost taxpayers "in the neighbourhood" of $500 million.
"I am not saying there should not be increases, but I am also saying that I do not think we heard anything to that extent that should be done," said Mr. Lang, who asserted the report went "well beyond" what was discussed at committee hearings.
There have been several reports on the RCMPin recent years, including two reports in 2007 when the Conservative government commissioned special investigator David Brown to examine the force following revelations of a pension scandal. Mr. Brown made numerous recommendations on how to rebuild the force's "horribly broken" management and governance structure.
The Liberals in the Senate are not the only Grits planning to do business while Parliament is shut down -- Liberal MPs say they are also reporting to work Monday in protest, even though the doors do not officially open until March.
OTTAWA -- Liberals and Conservative senators are locked in a dispute about the pending release of a report that is deeply critical of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and calls for at least 5,000 new officers to help boost the national force.
The Liberal majority on the Senate national security committee, which is dissolved while Parliament is prorogued, is planning to make their report public early next month.
Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the longtime committee chairman, said the findings will be based on a draft committee report that was still in the works when the committee recessed in December.
Mr. Kenny is expected to be replaced by a Conservative chairman in the next Parliament, after Prime Minister Stephen Harper appoints more Conservative senators to end the Liberal domination on committees.
Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin said it is "shocking" that the Liberals on the committee would publicize the contents of an unfinished report while Parliament is prorogued.
"That is a completely irresponsible and unprecedented thing to do," Ms. Wallin said. "These reports are confidential until everybody has signed off on them and we are in the middle of that."
Mr. Kenny countered that he and his colleagues are not releasing the committee's actual draft report, but a recrafted "position paper" of their own.
The Liberal report is expected to contain numerous recommendations, including a call for about 5,000 more officers over seven years and increased civilian oversight of the force -- an element of several other reports on the RCMP.
The position paper also touches on Taser use and another "big time" component deals with the force's often-criticized management structure, Mr. Kenny said.
"There are a lot of problems within the RCMP and our report comments on whether the right problems are being addressed," he said.
Ms. Wallin questioned the value of another report on the RCMP, which she said already has been studied to death. She said that the report to be released by Kenny and his colleagues is nothing more than a "Liberal press release."
The committee's last meeting in December, in which they discussed whether to approve a draft report they had worked on for three months, was an acrimonious gathering in which Conservative senators accused the Liberals of going out of their way to disparage the RCMP.
Ms. Wallin chastised the "offensive language" of the draft report, which she said amounted a "drive-by" smear of the Mounties.
"We did not like the tone, which assumed that every member of the RCMP engaged in the misuse of Tasers or engaged in some illegal behaviour," she said at the meeting.
"We did not want the RCMP to be side-swiped by concerns about problem members or issues that years ago were a problem and that the RCMP have been working on actively."
Conservative Senator Daniel Lang said that adding 5,000 RCMP officers would increase the existing complement by 25% and would cost taxpayers "in the neighbourhood" of $500 million.
"I am not saying there should not be increases, but I am also saying that I do not think we heard anything to that extent that should be done," said Mr. Lang, who asserted the report went "well beyond" what was discussed at committee hearings.
There have been several reports on the RCMPin recent years, including two reports in 2007 when the Conservative government commissioned special investigator David Brown to examine the force following revelations of a pension scandal. Mr. Brown made numerous recommendations on how to rebuild the force's "horribly broken" management and governance structure.
The Liberals in the Senate are not the only Grits planning to do business while Parliament is shut down -- Liberal MPs say they are also reporting to work Monday in protest, even though the doors do not officially open until March.
NEW RCMP WATCHDOG (STILL TOOTHLESS)
FROM: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2483342
OTTAWA -The Harper government has appointed former Conservative organizer Ian McPhail as a new watchdog for the RCMP to muzzle criticism of the government's public safety policies, said the Opposition Liberals on Monday.
Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland accused the government of replacing the former chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Paul Kennedy, because he was causing political headaches for the government with his scathing reviews in files such as the use of Tasers as well as internal investigation procedures.
"I think it's a way of covering up all of that criticism by putting in somebody who's very clearly a Conservative and doesn't have the job qualifications," Mr. Holland said in an interview.
A spokesman at the commission said that Mr. McPhail was just getting his feet wet as he started the new job.
The Liberals have argued that Mr. McPhail doesn't have any criminal law or policing experience to bring into the position and that he also donated close to $5,000 to the provincial Ontario Progressive Conservative party from 1995 to 2008.
"It certainly looks like patronage, and there could be no worse position to have somebody who's a crony than an independent watchdog."
But a government spokesman stressed that Mr. McPhail would be an interim chair over the next year to give the government a chance to search for a suitable candidate through a fair and open competition.
"All government appointments are based on merit and ability," said Christopher McCluskey, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
Mr. McCluskey added that Mr. McPhail was a lawyer who demonstrated success in a diverse range of appointments, including acting as a chair of quasi-judicial bodies such as the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.
OTTAWA -The Harper government has appointed former Conservative organizer Ian McPhail as a new watchdog for the RCMP to muzzle criticism of the government's public safety policies, said the Opposition Liberals on Monday.
Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland accused the government of replacing the former chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Paul Kennedy, because he was causing political headaches for the government with his scathing reviews in files such as the use of Tasers as well as internal investigation procedures.
"I think it's a way of covering up all of that criticism by putting in somebody who's very clearly a Conservative and doesn't have the job qualifications," Mr. Holland said in an interview.
A spokesman at the commission said that Mr. McPhail was just getting his feet wet as he started the new job.
The Liberals have argued that Mr. McPhail doesn't have any criminal law or policing experience to bring into the position and that he also donated close to $5,000 to the provincial Ontario Progressive Conservative party from 1995 to 2008.
"It certainly looks like patronage, and there could be no worse position to have somebody who's a crony than an independent watchdog."
But a government spokesman stressed that Mr. McPhail would be an interim chair over the next year to give the government a chance to search for a suitable candidate through a fair and open competition.
"All government appointments are based on merit and ability," said Christopher McCluskey, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
Mr. McCluskey added that Mr. McPhail was a lawyer who demonstrated success in a diverse range of appointments, including acting as a chair of quasi-judicial bodies such as the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.
Friday, December 4, 2009
CSIS TRUMPS RCMP ON NATIONAL SECURITY
Ron Atkey
Special to Globe and Mail Update Published on Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009 7:16PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009 7:18PM EST
There could not have been a starker contrast between the visions of our security intelligence agency and our national police force, described by Wesley Wark in The Globe and Mail last week (Post-9/11 Fatigue Sets In – Nov. 23). Surprisingly, Mr. Wark ignores history by throwing in his lot with the RCMP and dissing CSIS.
There are four fundamental points: (1) preventing terrorism through good security intelligence is preferable to relying on criminal prosecutions after the event; (2) almost every time the RCMP gets into serious trouble, it is over its activities in the security intelligence field; (3) CSIS was created by Parliament 25 years ago as a separate civilian body as a result of botched work by the RCMP in the 1970s; (4) CSIS operates under law with full accountability, while the RCMP still does not have full accountability.
Virtually everyone agrees on the need for national security in this age of international and domestic terrorist threats. Human rights have been given new meaning by our courts and various commissions of inquiry, extending the notions of fairness and freedoms not only to individuals but to society as a whole. Security is a human right, as the new CSIS director, Richard Fadden, has noted. Canadians yearn for both civil liberties and security, and have a right to both.
But then the discussion gets murky. Mr. Wark criticizes Mr. Fadden for not being as transparent and open to dialogue as former CSIS chiefs. But that's exactly what Mr. Fadden did in his first public outing on Oct. 29, when he candidly described the turbulent legal environment in which CSIS finds itself. He set forth the underlying assumptions of the original CSIS Act of 1984: CSIS would be separate from the police and would not collect evidence; to protect privacy, information would only be retained if strictly necessary; and CSIS agents would rarely appear in court.
With all the criminal cases, commissions of inquiry, resulting civil litigation, immigration cases and specialized review bodies requiring CSIS's attention these days, it was refreshing that Mr. Fadden would publicly discuss the impact of recent judicial rulings regarding retention of information in the context of the legislative mandate given to it by Parliament. Whether one agrees with him, he certainly was transparent and open to dialogue.
On the issue of disclosure, he was equally forthright: CSIS has worked hard to compromise but, in the Charkaoui security certificate case, was pushed to withdrawing information that caused the case to collapse rather than providing would-be terrorists a virtual road map to tradecraft and sources. And he acknowledged government support for this decision. No cover-up here.
There were two other areas where he encouraged public debate. He spoke of the ongoing reality of terrorism in Canada that is based on religious and political extremism, with the Internet allowing people to use social networking technologies to recruit, plan and execute acts of terror. And he made it clear what intelligence agencies do – hire the right people who are superb at technology and information and who will analyze and interpret intelligence that serves to actually protect.
Contrast this approach with a rare speech by RCMP Commissioner William Elliott the next day. While he offered a valuable glimpse into the world of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Somali pirates, Tamil Tigers, Sikh terrorists, espionage, weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking and the Canada-U.S. border, he left the impression that the RCMP would like to get fully back to the security intelligence field. He complained about the enhanced focus on security intelligence overshadowing the role of law enforcement in protecting national security and groused about the fact that, since 9/11, government anti-terrorism expenditures of billions of dollars have gone to bolster Canada's intelligence capacity through CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment rather than the RCMP.
What was most disturbing is what he didn't say. There was no acknowledgment of past wrongdoings and no embracing of any true accountability or review body other than to reject the supervision of an intelligence czar currently being considered by the Air India inquiry.
Most curious was his historic view of the role of criminal law enforcement and his apparent acceptance of increased scrutiny and judicialization of intelligence information. What he may have missed is that the courts or commissions of inquiry or the media and the public will scrutinize not only intelligence information but the checkered conduct and track record of the organization that does the collecting, analysis and retention. History has a way of repeating itself, particularly if it is forgotten.
Ron Atkey is a security law specialist who teaches at Osgoode Hall and the University of Western Ontario. He served as chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee from 1984 to 1989.
SOURCE: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/csis-still-trumps-the-rcmp-for-national-security/article1387887/
*** Look, if prevention is better than cure, then it follows that CSIS is better than the RCMP
Or, if you would like it another way, an ancient Chinese proverb has it that an excellent doctor prevents disease, a mediocre doctor treats it, and the lowest is the one who actually has to cure it (after the fact).
However you take it - the point is that CSIS has a bigger job to do and rightfully deserves the lion's share of funding and support. CSIS is not the CIA and this should not be about which agency has the front seat in the theatres of power.
It helps no one to have competition between agencies rather, ALL must live by the following: Unity of Thought, Purpose of Action.
Now carry on. ***
Special to Globe and Mail Update Published on Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009 7:16PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Dec. 03, 2009 7:18PM EST
There could not have been a starker contrast between the visions of our security intelligence agency and our national police force, described by Wesley Wark in The Globe and Mail last week (Post-9/11 Fatigue Sets In – Nov. 23). Surprisingly, Mr. Wark ignores history by throwing in his lot with the RCMP and dissing CSIS.
There are four fundamental points: (1) preventing terrorism through good security intelligence is preferable to relying on criminal prosecutions after the event; (2) almost every time the RCMP gets into serious trouble, it is over its activities in the security intelligence field; (3) CSIS was created by Parliament 25 years ago as a separate civilian body as a result of botched work by the RCMP in the 1970s; (4) CSIS operates under law with full accountability, while the RCMP still does not have full accountability.
Virtually everyone agrees on the need for national security in this age of international and domestic terrorist threats. Human rights have been given new meaning by our courts and various commissions of inquiry, extending the notions of fairness and freedoms not only to individuals but to society as a whole. Security is a human right, as the new CSIS director, Richard Fadden, has noted. Canadians yearn for both civil liberties and security, and have a right to both.
But then the discussion gets murky. Mr. Wark criticizes Mr. Fadden for not being as transparent and open to dialogue as former CSIS chiefs. But that's exactly what Mr. Fadden did in his first public outing on Oct. 29, when he candidly described the turbulent legal environment in which CSIS finds itself. He set forth the underlying assumptions of the original CSIS Act of 1984: CSIS would be separate from the police and would not collect evidence; to protect privacy, information would only be retained if strictly necessary; and CSIS agents would rarely appear in court.
With all the criminal cases, commissions of inquiry, resulting civil litigation, immigration cases and specialized review bodies requiring CSIS's attention these days, it was refreshing that Mr. Fadden would publicly discuss the impact of recent judicial rulings regarding retention of information in the context of the legislative mandate given to it by Parliament. Whether one agrees with him, he certainly was transparent and open to dialogue.
On the issue of disclosure, he was equally forthright: CSIS has worked hard to compromise but, in the Charkaoui security certificate case, was pushed to withdrawing information that caused the case to collapse rather than providing would-be terrorists a virtual road map to tradecraft and sources. And he acknowledged government support for this decision. No cover-up here.
There were two other areas where he encouraged public debate. He spoke of the ongoing reality of terrorism in Canada that is based on religious and political extremism, with the Internet allowing people to use social networking technologies to recruit, plan and execute acts of terror. And he made it clear what intelligence agencies do – hire the right people who are superb at technology and information and who will analyze and interpret intelligence that serves to actually protect.
Contrast this approach with a rare speech by RCMP Commissioner William Elliott the next day. While he offered a valuable glimpse into the world of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Somali pirates, Tamil Tigers, Sikh terrorists, espionage, weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking and the Canada-U.S. border, he left the impression that the RCMP would like to get fully back to the security intelligence field. He complained about the enhanced focus on security intelligence overshadowing the role of law enforcement in protecting national security and groused about the fact that, since 9/11, government anti-terrorism expenditures of billions of dollars have gone to bolster Canada's intelligence capacity through CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment rather than the RCMP.
What was most disturbing is what he didn't say. There was no acknowledgment of past wrongdoings and no embracing of any true accountability or review body other than to reject the supervision of an intelligence czar currently being considered by the Air India inquiry.
Most curious was his historic view of the role of criminal law enforcement and his apparent acceptance of increased scrutiny and judicialization of intelligence information. What he may have missed is that the courts or commissions of inquiry or the media and the public will scrutinize not only intelligence information but the checkered conduct and track record of the organization that does the collecting, analysis and retention. History has a way of repeating itself, particularly if it is forgotten.
Ron Atkey is a security law specialist who teaches at Osgoode Hall and the University of Western Ontario. He served as chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee from 1984 to 1989.
SOURCE: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/csis-still-trumps-the-rcmp-for-national-security/article1387887/
*** Look, if prevention is better than cure, then it follows that CSIS is better than the RCMP
Or, if you would like it another way, an ancient Chinese proverb has it that an excellent doctor prevents disease, a mediocre doctor treats it, and the lowest is the one who actually has to cure it (after the fact).
However you take it - the point is that CSIS has a bigger job to do and rightfully deserves the lion's share of funding and support. CSIS is not the CIA and this should not be about which agency has the front seat in the theatres of power.
It helps no one to have competition between agencies rather, ALL must live by the following: Unity of Thought, Purpose of Action.
Now carry on. ***
Saturday, November 28, 2009
CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE RCMP
*** The RCMP is badly in need of effective oversight. Something like a parliamentary office that oversees national security operations of CSIS and RCMP (in real-time) is certainly warranted. Given the Conservative government's inability to hold themselves accountable to the Canadian public, the obligation upon parliament is thus, clear. ***
Historical Context
Prior to 1984, the RCMP Security Service was responsible for providing security intelligence services to the Government of Canada. However, the Service’s involvement in illegal activities led the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (McDonald Commission) to recommend that a new civilian security intelligence service be established.(1) Parliament disbanded the RCMP Security Service when it created the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1984. CSIS is subject to a high level of civilian oversight.
On 11 September 2001, terrorists hijacked several aircraft and attacked civilian and military targets in the United States. These attacks resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, caused extensive property damage, and had a disruptive effect on air travel and the global economy.
Following these events, Parliament passed the Anti-terrorism Act. This statute enacted the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act and amended 20 other laws. By defining terrorist support as a criminal offence, it changed the RCMP’s role and provided an opportunity for the organization to be more involved in matters of national security.(2)
Although Parliament expanded the role of the RCMP, it did not subject its national security functions to comprehensive civilian oversight. This has created a disparity between the review mechanisms for CSIS and the RCMP, whereby the RCMP is subject to less rigorous scrutiny.
Recent Events
A series of incidents have drawn attention to the expanded role of the RCMP. American authorities at New York’s Kennedy Airport arrested Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, in September 2002. Mr. Arar was then deported to Syria, where he spent 10 months in captivity and was tortured.(3) It has been reported that the RCMP provided information to the United States that may have contributed to his initial detention.(4) The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade attempted to clarify this point in a series of hearings in the fall of 2003, but had limited success.(5) However, a public inquiry later found that “it is very likely that, in making the decisions to detain and remove Mr. Arar, American authorities relied on information about Mr. Arar provided by the RCMP.”(6)
In January 2004, RCMP officers used search warrants issued under the Security of Information Act (SOIA) to raid the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O’Neill. It was reported that they were “looking for evidence that one of their own officers may have leaked damaging allegations in the … Maher Arar case.”(7) Following this event, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that sections 4(1)(a), 4(3) and 4(4)(b) of the SOIA violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered that the seized items be returned to Ms. O’Neill. The court also found that the issuance and execution of the warrants constituted an abuse of process by the RCMP, and ordered that they be quashed.(8) The Government of Canada decided not to appeal the court’s decision.(9)
Also in January 2004, the Government of Canada announced a public inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials dealing with the deportation and detention of Mr. Arar (O’Connor Commission). The terms of reference were issued the following month, and included a mandate for the presiding judge to “make any recommendations that he considers advisable on an independent, arm’s length review mechanism for the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to national security.”(10)
On 18 September 2006, Commissioner O’Connor issued his findings on the handling of the Arar case, repeatedly criticizing the RCMP’s conduct. Specifically, he found that the organization had breached its own policies on information sharing, provided American authorities with inaccurate information about Mr. Arar, given unclear and misleading direction to its own investigators, failed to properly oversee its own investigation of Mr. Arar, refused to support efforts by the Government of Canada to secure Mr. Arar’s release from jail in Syria, and when briefing the Privy Council Office and other senior government officials had omitted key facts that could have reflected adversely on the Force.(11)
Review Mechanisms for Canada's Security and Intelligence Agencies
A. RCMP
The RCMP is Canada’s national police service. It came into existence in 1920 when the Royal North West Mounted Police and the Dominion Police were merged into a single entity. The RCMP was involved in the provision of security intelligence services to the Government of Canada during World War II. Its security operations were expanded after the war with the establishment of the Special Branch (1950), the Directorate of Security and Intelligence (1962), and the Security Service (1970). In 1984, Parliament disbanded the RCMP Security Service and transferred its functions to the newly created CSIS.
The RCMP now provides federal police services throughout the country. In addition, the organization also provides services to provinces, territories, municipalities and First Nations communities on a contract basis. Passage of the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001 provided an opportunity for the RCMP to be more involved in matters of national security, as this law defined terrorist support as a criminal offence.
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (Commission) was established by Parliament in 1988. It is an independent civilian body that reports publicly to Parliament through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The Commission investigates public complaints regarding the conduct of RCMP members. In most cases, complainants must first approach the RCMP. However, the Commission Chair does have limited authority to commence his or her own investigation or may proceed directly to a public interest hearing. The RCMP is not obligated to follow recommendations made by the Chair or by a public interest hearing panel.
Shirley Heafey, former Commission Chair, repeatedly called for new powers to better enable the Commission to review the RCMP’s anti-terrorism activities. This call has been echoed by her successor, Paul Kennedy. A rebalancing of the relationship between the RCMP and the Commission might also preclude further litigation between the two bodies regarding the sharing of information.
B. Canadian Security Intelligence Service
CSIS is a civilian agency that does not have any law enforcement powers. Its role is to “investigate threats, analyze information and produce intelligence”(13) and it may gather information only on those individuals and organizations suspected of engaging in espionage and sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, political violence and terrorism, and subversion. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act prohibits the organization from investigating lawful acts of advocacy, protest or dissent.
To ensure an appropriate level of accountability, CSIS activities are subject to scrutiny by an Inspector General. Appointed by Cabinet, and answering to a deputy minister, the Inspector General is to be “the Minister’s eyes and ears in the Service … and to maintain an appropriate degree of ministerial responsibility.”(14) The Inspector General is charged with monitoring compliance with operational policies, reviewing operational activities, and evaluating reports provided by the Director of CSIS to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
The Inspector General does not accept public complaints. However, he or she may conduct research and inquiries at the request of the Minister or the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). The Inspector General is entitled to have access to all CSIS information except Cabinet documents. However, he or she may not convene public hearings or make binding recommendations. In certain cases, the Inspector General’s reports are conveyed through the Minister to SIRC.
SIRC is an independent, external review body that reports publicly to Parliament through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on an annual basis. It is empowered to examine CSIS’s performance of its duties and functions, and to investigate complaints made by any person regarding any act performed by the organization. SIRC is entitled to have access to all information held by CSIS and the Inspector General except Cabinet documents, but cannot hold public hearings or make binding recommendations.
C. Communications Security Establishment
The CSE was established in 1946. Originally, it was the Communications Branch of the National Research Council. In 1975, however, it was transferred to the Department of National Defence.
The role of the CSE is to “provide the Government of Canada with two key services: foreign signals intelligence in support of defence and foreign policy, and the protection of electronic information and communication.”(15) This role is set out in the National Defence Act.
The Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner was created in June 1996. The Commissioner is independent and has authority to review CSE activities to ensure they comply with Canadian law, and investigate complaints against the agency. Although the National Defence Act empowers the Commissioner to undertake any investigation that he or she considers necessary in response to a complaint, only complaints made by Canadian citizens and permanent residents, including CSE employees, are accepted at present. The Commissioner has access to all CSE information holdings; however, he or she may not convene public hearings or issue binding recommendations.
The Commissioner submits an annual report to the Minister of National Defence that is tabled in Parliament. Results of reviews of certain CSE activities are also submitted to the Minister; these, however, are not made public as they contain secret information.
Options for Oversight of the RCMP's National Security Functions
A. Strengthening the Role of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
The table above points to a number of similarities between the Commission and SIRC. Both operate independently, receive public complaints, and have the power to initiate and conduct their own investigations, and to make recommendations. Key differences remain, however.
First, SIRC has a broader mandate. The Commission is devoted to receiving and investigating complaints of misconduct made by members of the public, while SIRC is charged with reviewing the performance by CSIS of all of its duties and functions. The receipt and investigation of complaints, while important, is but one part of a much larger oversight function.
Second, SIRC has broader powers to carry out its mandate. The most important of these is the right of access to information. The Commission may have access only to information held by the RCMP that is relevant to a particular complaint, and this has caused disagreement between the two organizations. SIRC, however, is entitled to all information held by CSIS and the Inspector General, except Cabinet documents.
There is a certain logic to the arguments that favour an expansion of the Commission’s role over the establishment of a second review mechanism. After all, the Commission is well established, already familiar with the RCMP’s duties, functions and organizational culture, and known to the public. In the second report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, Commissioner O’Connor recommended that the Commission be restructured and renamed the Independent Complaints and National Security Review Agency for the RCMP (ICRA).(16) The ICRA would have jurisdiction to review all of the RCMP’s activities, including those related to national security.(17) Specifically, the Commissioner recommended that the ICRA have the authority to conduct self-initiated reviews using comprehensive new powers including the power to decide what information is necessary to fulfil its mandate, and to subpoena documents and compel testimony from any federal, provincial, municipal or private sector person or entity.(18)
B. Establishing a New Review Mechanism for the RCMP
Alternatively, the Government of Canada could opt for a two-tiered review mechanism for the RCMP. This mechanism could take a variety of forms, including:
1. retaining the Commission in its present form (i.e., primarily a complaint review mechanism) while granting a new agency powers to review the RCMP’s national security functions;
2. maintaining the Commission as a review mechanism for most complaints while granting a new agency powers to review the RCMP’s national security functions and process a limited number of complaints (i.e., only complaints of misconduct against RCMP personnel involved in investigating matters of national security);
3. abolishing the Commission and adopting the model used to review CSIS’s activities (i.e., an Inspector General or equivalent plus an oversight committee).
It is suggested that in the event that a two-tiered model is selected, care will have to be taken to ensure that the roles of the two agencies are complementary.
C. Leaving the Existing Review Mechanism for the RCMP Unchanged
Finally, the Government of Canada could opt to leave the existing structures in place. After all, the mandate of the Commission does not preclude it from investigating complaints of misconduct against RCMP personnel involved in investigating matters of national security. While the Commission’s oversight powers are more limited than those of either SIRC or the CSE Commissioner, most of the federal departments and agencies with national security functions currently operate without scrutiny by any review mechanism. Nonetheless, the RCMP’s apparent reluctance to fully cooperate with the Commission where matters of national security are involved,(19) coupled with the recommendations of the O’Connor Commission, make the status quo an unlikely choice.
*References cited can be viewed at the source document at:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0409-e.htm
Historical Context
Prior to 1984, the RCMP Security Service was responsible for providing security intelligence services to the Government of Canada. However, the Service’s involvement in illegal activities led the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (McDonald Commission) to recommend that a new civilian security intelligence service be established.(1) Parliament disbanded the RCMP Security Service when it created the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1984. CSIS is subject to a high level of civilian oversight.
On 11 September 2001, terrorists hijacked several aircraft and attacked civilian and military targets in the United States. These attacks resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, caused extensive property damage, and had a disruptive effect on air travel and the global economy.
Following these events, Parliament passed the Anti-terrorism Act. This statute enacted the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act and amended 20 other laws. By defining terrorist support as a criminal offence, it changed the RCMP’s role and provided an opportunity for the organization to be more involved in matters of national security.(2)
Although Parliament expanded the role of the RCMP, it did not subject its national security functions to comprehensive civilian oversight. This has created a disparity between the review mechanisms for CSIS and the RCMP, whereby the RCMP is subject to less rigorous scrutiny.
Recent Events
A series of incidents have drawn attention to the expanded role of the RCMP. American authorities at New York’s Kennedy Airport arrested Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, in September 2002. Mr. Arar was then deported to Syria, where he spent 10 months in captivity and was tortured.(3) It has been reported that the RCMP provided information to the United States that may have contributed to his initial detention.(4) The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade attempted to clarify this point in a series of hearings in the fall of 2003, but had limited success.(5) However, a public inquiry later found that “it is very likely that, in making the decisions to detain and remove Mr. Arar, American authorities relied on information about Mr. Arar provided by the RCMP.”(6)
In January 2004, RCMP officers used search warrants issued under the Security of Information Act (SOIA) to raid the home and office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O’Neill. It was reported that they were “looking for evidence that one of their own officers may have leaked damaging allegations in the … Maher Arar case.”(7) Following this event, the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that sections 4(1)(a), 4(3) and 4(4)(b) of the SOIA violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ordered that the seized items be returned to Ms. O’Neill. The court also found that the issuance and execution of the warrants constituted an abuse of process by the RCMP, and ordered that they be quashed.(8) The Government of Canada decided not to appeal the court’s decision.(9)
Also in January 2004, the Government of Canada announced a public inquiry into the actions of Canadian officials dealing with the deportation and detention of Mr. Arar (O’Connor Commission). The terms of reference were issued the following month, and included a mandate for the presiding judge to “make any recommendations that he considers advisable on an independent, arm’s length review mechanism for the activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to national security.”(10)
On 18 September 2006, Commissioner O’Connor issued his findings on the handling of the Arar case, repeatedly criticizing the RCMP’s conduct. Specifically, he found that the organization had breached its own policies on information sharing, provided American authorities with inaccurate information about Mr. Arar, given unclear and misleading direction to its own investigators, failed to properly oversee its own investigation of Mr. Arar, refused to support efforts by the Government of Canada to secure Mr. Arar’s release from jail in Syria, and when briefing the Privy Council Office and other senior government officials had omitted key facts that could have reflected adversely on the Force.(11)
Review Mechanisms for Canada's Security and Intelligence Agencies
A. RCMP
The RCMP is Canada’s national police service. It came into existence in 1920 when the Royal North West Mounted Police and the Dominion Police were merged into a single entity. The RCMP was involved in the provision of security intelligence services to the Government of Canada during World War II. Its security operations were expanded after the war with the establishment of the Special Branch (1950), the Directorate of Security and Intelligence (1962), and the Security Service (1970). In 1984, Parliament disbanded the RCMP Security Service and transferred its functions to the newly created CSIS.
The RCMP now provides federal police services throughout the country. In addition, the organization also provides services to provinces, territories, municipalities and First Nations communities on a contract basis. Passage of the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001 provided an opportunity for the RCMP to be more involved in matters of national security, as this law defined terrorist support as a criminal offence.
The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (Commission) was established by Parliament in 1988. It is an independent civilian body that reports publicly to Parliament through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The Commission investigates public complaints regarding the conduct of RCMP members. In most cases, complainants must first approach the RCMP. However, the Commission Chair does have limited authority to commence his or her own investigation or may proceed directly to a public interest hearing. The RCMP is not obligated to follow recommendations made by the Chair or by a public interest hearing panel.
Shirley Heafey, former Commission Chair, repeatedly called for new powers to better enable the Commission to review the RCMP’s anti-terrorism activities. This call has been echoed by her successor, Paul Kennedy. A rebalancing of the relationship between the RCMP and the Commission might also preclude further litigation between the two bodies regarding the sharing of information.
B. Canadian Security Intelligence Service
CSIS is a civilian agency that does not have any law enforcement powers. Its role is to “investigate threats, analyze information and produce intelligence”(13) and it may gather information only on those individuals and organizations suspected of engaging in espionage and sabotage, foreign-influenced activities, political violence and terrorism, and subversion. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act prohibits the organization from investigating lawful acts of advocacy, protest or dissent.
To ensure an appropriate level of accountability, CSIS activities are subject to scrutiny by an Inspector General. Appointed by Cabinet, and answering to a deputy minister, the Inspector General is to be “the Minister’s eyes and ears in the Service … and to maintain an appropriate degree of ministerial responsibility.”(14) The Inspector General is charged with monitoring compliance with operational policies, reviewing operational activities, and evaluating reports provided by the Director of CSIS to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
The Inspector General does not accept public complaints. However, he or she may conduct research and inquiries at the request of the Minister or the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). The Inspector General is entitled to have access to all CSIS information except Cabinet documents. However, he or she may not convene public hearings or make binding recommendations. In certain cases, the Inspector General’s reports are conveyed through the Minister to SIRC.
SIRC is an independent, external review body that reports publicly to Parliament through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on an annual basis. It is empowered to examine CSIS’s performance of its duties and functions, and to investigate complaints made by any person regarding any act performed by the organization. SIRC is entitled to have access to all information held by CSIS and the Inspector General except Cabinet documents, but cannot hold public hearings or make binding recommendations.
C. Communications Security Establishment
The CSE was established in 1946. Originally, it was the Communications Branch of the National Research Council. In 1975, however, it was transferred to the Department of National Defence.
The role of the CSE is to “provide the Government of Canada with two key services: foreign signals intelligence in support of defence and foreign policy, and the protection of electronic information and communication.”(15) This role is set out in the National Defence Act.
The Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner was created in June 1996. The Commissioner is independent and has authority to review CSE activities to ensure they comply with Canadian law, and investigate complaints against the agency. Although the National Defence Act empowers the Commissioner to undertake any investigation that he or she considers necessary in response to a complaint, only complaints made by Canadian citizens and permanent residents, including CSE employees, are accepted at present. The Commissioner has access to all CSE information holdings; however, he or she may not convene public hearings or issue binding recommendations.
The Commissioner submits an annual report to the Minister of National Defence that is tabled in Parliament. Results of reviews of certain CSE activities are also submitted to the Minister; these, however, are not made public as they contain secret information.
Options for Oversight of the RCMP's National Security Functions
A. Strengthening the Role of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
The table above points to a number of similarities between the Commission and SIRC. Both operate independently, receive public complaints, and have the power to initiate and conduct their own investigations, and to make recommendations. Key differences remain, however.
First, SIRC has a broader mandate. The Commission is devoted to receiving and investigating complaints of misconduct made by members of the public, while SIRC is charged with reviewing the performance by CSIS of all of its duties and functions. The receipt and investigation of complaints, while important, is but one part of a much larger oversight function.
Second, SIRC has broader powers to carry out its mandate. The most important of these is the right of access to information. The Commission may have access only to information held by the RCMP that is relevant to a particular complaint, and this has caused disagreement between the two organizations. SIRC, however, is entitled to all information held by CSIS and the Inspector General, except Cabinet documents.
There is a certain logic to the arguments that favour an expansion of the Commission’s role over the establishment of a second review mechanism. After all, the Commission is well established, already familiar with the RCMP’s duties, functions and organizational culture, and known to the public. In the second report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, Commissioner O’Connor recommended that the Commission be restructured and renamed the Independent Complaints and National Security Review Agency for the RCMP (ICRA).(16) The ICRA would have jurisdiction to review all of the RCMP’s activities, including those related to national security.(17) Specifically, the Commissioner recommended that the ICRA have the authority to conduct self-initiated reviews using comprehensive new powers including the power to decide what information is necessary to fulfil its mandate, and to subpoena documents and compel testimony from any federal, provincial, municipal or private sector person or entity.(18)
B. Establishing a New Review Mechanism for the RCMP
Alternatively, the Government of Canada could opt for a two-tiered review mechanism for the RCMP. This mechanism could take a variety of forms, including:
1. retaining the Commission in its present form (i.e., primarily a complaint review mechanism) while granting a new agency powers to review the RCMP’s national security functions;
2. maintaining the Commission as a review mechanism for most complaints while granting a new agency powers to review the RCMP’s national security functions and process a limited number of complaints (i.e., only complaints of misconduct against RCMP personnel involved in investigating matters of national security);
3. abolishing the Commission and adopting the model used to review CSIS’s activities (i.e., an Inspector General or equivalent plus an oversight committee).
It is suggested that in the event that a two-tiered model is selected, care will have to be taken to ensure that the roles of the two agencies are complementary.
C. Leaving the Existing Review Mechanism for the RCMP Unchanged
Finally, the Government of Canada could opt to leave the existing structures in place. After all, the mandate of the Commission does not preclude it from investigating complaints of misconduct against RCMP personnel involved in investigating matters of national security. While the Commission’s oversight powers are more limited than those of either SIRC or the CSE Commissioner, most of the federal departments and agencies with national security functions currently operate without scrutiny by any review mechanism. Nonetheless, the RCMP’s apparent reluctance to fully cooperate with the Commission where matters of national security are involved,(19) coupled with the recommendations of the O’Connor Commission, make the status quo an unlikely choice.
*References cited can be viewed at the source document at:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0409-e.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
