Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Sous-comité de la Sécurité publique et nationale du Comité permanent de la justice, des droits de la personne, de la sécurité publique et de la protection civile
EVIDENCE NUMBER 28,
TÉMOIGNAGES DU COMITÉ NUMÉRO 28

UNEDITED COPY/COPIE NON-ÉDITÉE
Wednesday November 16,2005 / Mercredi le 16 Novembre, 2005
* * *

[SNIP]

The Chair: Thank you, both ministers, for your presentation this afternoon.
We'll now begin with Mr. MacKay.

(1715)

Mr. Peter MacKay:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to both ministers and your staff. We appreciate your presence here and your testimony, also your acknowledgement, Minister Cotler, of the work this committee has done. We've travelled extensively, as you know, and heard from many witnesses already whom you've referenced, and have seen the example of other countries and their legislation as to what they're doing; most notably, in Great Britain, where there have been court decisions on their legislation that have had impact on things like the equivalent of the security certificates.

I want to ask both ministers two questions. I'll allow you to respond. With respect to the rule of law and the paramount obligation to protect the public that Madam McLellan referred to and also the reference to the charter.... There's no party that has as much respect or embraces the charter as the Conservative party. We also recognize the origins of the charter. It came from John Diefenbaker's first bill of rights in this country. So that charter applies to all Canadians regardless of their political stripe.

I want to ask you specifically, Minister, with respect to your view of the deportation of failed refugee claimants and the current practice where there is still the ability and the risk that they may be deported to countries of origin that practice torture, and whether in fact you believe, in particular with your own human rights background, that there is the need for legislative protection in that regard. I know that there has been some discussion about this in our deliberations. I would like to get your view of this. The Canadian Council for Refugees makes that recommendation. It is consistent, as you referred to in your testimony, with international law.

I'd also like to ask you, Minister, with respect to the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner, they have both expressed concern about the length of time that the Attorney General, you, has in the ability to enforce a security certificate 15 years. They recommend that if the provision is to be retained, that the length of time should be reduced. I would like to get your comment on that, again, in the context of what happened recently in a court decision in Great Britain.

To you, Minister McLellan, two questions. There was evidence that we heard and there has been some public discussion about the RCMP public complaints commission and the commissioner that referenced the RCMP's involvement in national security matters where they were not able to investigate. I would like your response to that and how that is going to be resolved.

It relates specifically to an ongoing issue of resources and the ability of the police to now meet the growing demand, as you referred to, yourself, and the expanded powers, and responsibilities, and expectations that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police now have in this country since the proliferation of terrorism globally and its effects here in Canada. Those officers clearly have an even higher calling now, in addition to their domestic crime-fighting duties.

With respect to the RCMP and those security duties, these additional security duties, it would be expected, one would expect, that the normal course would be that there would be a requirement for more officers. With those additional duties would come the need for more officers.

There was an order paper question filed by my colleague from Yorkton--Melville that he recently received an answer to. That answer from the government, in that document you stated, your department stated quite clearly there were no, to quote, “unfulfilled requests for RCMP officers in Canada”. Yet, in the very same document, the charts that were attached--and I'd be glad to give them to you--indicated there was a net shortage of 1,059 RCMP officers in the country today. There's a regional breakdown that accompanies it.

Can the minister explain this discrepancy between the answer that was contained in the answer to the order paper and the charts themselves? There seems to be a blatant contradiction here where provinces were calling for more officers and yet you stated in that statement that there were no unfulfilled requests for RCMP officers. How many RCMP officers are now devoting their time to national security matters? Is that information available as to how many RCMP officers devote themselves full-time to national security matters and are therefore not involved in current domestic investigation?

Hon. Anne McLellan: First of all, let me say.... I think I'll take a first cut at your security certificate question because it is I and the Minister of Immigration who sign those certificates, not the Minister of Justice. As I made plain when I appeared before the Senate, we have not removed anyone to a country where they face a substantial risk of torture. We are in full compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Suresh and with international obligations.

The Supreme Court of Canada has two cases before it presently in which they are reviewing security certificates. We will obviously await the outcome of their deliberations for any guidance they might provide us. Both the Minister of Justice and I have been clear: we have not deported anyone to a country where they have faced a substantial risk of torture.

You can then, and if you want to pursue this perhaps in another round, we can talk about more complex issues around when one wants to remove, and the seeking of assurances, the independent monitoring by an international agency, or so on, of those assurances. But you didn't ask that question. We can return to that if you want.

(1720)

Mr. Peter MacKay: What I did ask, minister, is whether you felt and also whether the Minister of Justice felt that it should be codified, that it should be in writing, that it should, in fact, be included in this legislation that we're currently reviewing?

Hon. Anne McLellan: Well, as you know, colleague, the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in decisions such as Suresh are as much a part of our law as anything that would be codified and we believe that the Supreme Court was clear in Suresh. We await any further guidance and the international covenant is there which, in fact, we have signed and ratified. I suppose you could treat that or see that as some kind of code.

At this point we are not anticipating codifying anything further into our domestic law. But if you have advice on that, we would certainly take it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm not a big fan of Cartesian thinking.

Hon. Anne McLellan: But we believe the law is clear and we have not removed anyone to a situation where they faced a substantial risk of torture.

In terms of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission has full powers to investigate both traditional law enforcement and national security matters. I think that has been made very plain by the acting chair of the public complaints commission. You might want to call him if you so wish to have him articulate his views of the mandate of the public complaints commission. But it is a broad interpretation of their mandate and one I completely agree with.

In terms of resources as it relates to the public complaints commission, clearly, I await any advice from the acting chair of the public complaints commission, as well as the new vice-chair as to whether they need more resources to be able to carry out their important independent civilian oversight function.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So, minister, you're indicating that the public complaints commissioner did not say that their mandate precluded them from looking into complaints about RCMP security measures--

Hon. Anne McLellan: The previous commissioner did say that--

The Acting Chair (Mr. Peter MacKay): The previous commissioner said that.

Hon. Anne McLellan: --and I disagree with that as does the new acting chair of the public complaints commission upon review of the mandate. But, as I say, you might want to call him and the new vice-chair and have discussions around the mandate.

In terms of the RCMP as it relates to resources, the RCMP has had its resource base increased dramatically since 9-11. We certainly understand the pressures under which the force presently carries out its functions. They're the same pressures every national police force in the world is under. We have the additional pressure, because our national police force does contract policing in eight provinces and three territories.

In terms of officers, let me say this, as far as I am aware, except and I am not sure, I've received a formal written request from the Minister of Justice in Manitoba for an increase in complement, but we did talk about it in Whitehorse last week. We are moving on the requests that we have received. For example, my colleague, Harvey Cenaiko, the Solicitor General in the Province of Alberta, after the Mayerthorpe tragedy, asked for a significant increase in complement because--

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can I just stop you there. I'm sorry, I--

Hon. Anne McLellan: --and we are fulfilling that request. We need a formal request--

(1725)

Mr. Peter MacKay: But this document says you received no requests for RCMP officers. It says it specifically, “no unfulfilled requests for RCMP officers”. You've just told us there were requests.


 

Hon. Anne McLellan: No, you're saying no unfulfilled requests.
We have a request, for example, from my colleague, Harvey Cenaiko in Alberta. We're fulfilling his request.

 

Mr. Peter MacKay: So there are requests for more RCMP officers. In fact, there are 1,000 requests.

Hon. Anne McLellan: I think the key word is probably “unfulfilled” and whether they are formal requests that we have received. The province has to activate the request. I have to receive a formal, in writing request indicating the number and the fact that the province has the resources to put their share of the funding on the table, and you know what the formula is.
In the case of the Province of Alberta, we have indicated to Minister Cenaiko, we are moving on that--

 

 

 

Mr. Peter MacKay: So you're telling us now there are 1,000 unfulfilled requests. Is that correct?

 

The Chair: I'm jumping in and I'm going on to another....
I'm sorry, Mr. MacKay, you're way over your time. I'm going to move to Mr. Ménard, please.