RCMP Watch

The Leader-Post (Regina)

In Brief: The latest report on the Maher Arar case presents suggestions to improve the monitoring of intelligence agencies.

Justice Dennis O’Connor’s recommendations to improve the way Canada’s intelligence agencies are monitored are — at least on paper — encouraging. But how effective they will be in practice is still very much in question.

Last week, O’Connor, in his second report reviewing the RCMP’s mishandling of the Maher Arar case, released a plan that would result in more comprehensive and co-ordinated oversight of not only the RCMP, but of all agencies involved in security operations in Canada.

Starting with the RCMP, O’Connor recommended the existing Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP be revamped and renamed, and given additional powers and resources.

O’Connor envisions a new agency, called the Independent Complaints and National Security Review Agency (ICRA) for the RCMP, that would be responsible for reviewing all RCMP activities, including those related to national security. It would also be responsible for reviewing the national security activities of the Canada Border Services Agency.

It would have broader power to not only review complaints, but also initiate investigations when warranted. And it would also have the legal clout to decide what information it needs and to compel officials to provide it so that it is “able to follow the trail wherever it leads, to ensure full and effective investigation or review.” O’Connor also recommends expansion of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), which oversees CSIS, so that it would also have authority to monitor security activities undertaken by Citizenship and Immigration, Transport Canada, Foreign Affairs and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (the body that looks at money-laundering activities).

A further recommendation would result in legislative changes allowing Canada’s three watchdog agencies (ICRA, SIRC and the commission overseeing the Communications Security Establishment, which monitors electronic transmissions) to share information, conduct joint investigations, and better co-ordinate their activities.

In his first report, O’Connor did a commendable job of looking into what went so wrong at the RCMP that Arar, an innocent Canadian citizen, could be detained by U.S. authorities, and then deported Syria, where he was tortured. O’Connor documented the RCMP’s mishandling of the case that was compounded when damaging, unsubstantiated and untrue information that Arar was a terrorist threat with links to Al Qaeda was passed on to U.S. authorities. Of note, what happened to Arar might not turn out to be an isolated incident — last week, the federal government launched an inquiry into three other Canadian citizens who say they were tortured in Syrian jails.

O’Connor’s second report, at more than 600 pages in length, is just as valuable and insightful. It includes an exhaustive examination of Canada’s various security agencies and how they have evolved over the past half century. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center, that evolution has included both an increase in security-related activities and a willingness by Canadians to give security agencies great latitude in keeping this country safe from terrorists. While there have been no terrorist attacks on Canada since 9-11, the Arar case suggests there has been an erosion of our individual rights and freedoms.

O’Connor’s recommendations should result in much better oversight of the often-secretive world of security agencies. These new committees might not prevent another Arar case from occurring, since, by definition, watchdogs review what has already happened, and do not necessarily prevent abuses of power or mishandling of files. But with independent and effective oversight committees in place, security agencies will be fully aware that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says he is generally pleased with O’Connor’s recommendations, but will need time to review them. The federal government would be wise to move forward with the O’Connor plan, but some caution is advised.

One challenge will be appointing competent and qualified individuals to these oversight committees, which will only be as good as the people appointed to them.

They will have the difficult task of ensuring our security agencies maintain the tricky balance of keeping Canadians secure while also respecting their rights and freedoms — a balance that was lacking in the Arar case. That said, Canada’s security agencies have generally done good work that might be jeopardized if they are unduly constrained in doing their jobs by overzealous watchdogs.

A balancing act, indeed.