Support for Combatting Transnational Crime

Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Support for Combatting Transnational Crime

(Chapter 2—2014 Fall Report of the Auditor General of Canada)

2 February 2015

Michael Ferguson, CPA, CA
FCA (New Brunswick)
Auditor General of Canada

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss Chapter 2 of our November 2014 audit—Support for Combatting Transnational Crime. Joining me today is Frank Barrett, the Principal responsible for the audit.

Many crimes that affect Canadians begin or end with actions taken beyond our borders; criminals and their organizations do not view borders as limitations on their activities. To advance investigations involving transnational crime, Canada’s law enforcement community relies on a network of RCMP liaison officers located in various countries. These officers interact with foreign law enforcement agencies to extend Canada’s investigative reach.

In our audit, we examined whether the RCMP established priorities for serious and organized crime and aligned its international programming to those priorities, and whether the RCMP and the Department of Justice Canada had in place the systems and practices necessary to address their international obligations. This included looking at information sharing practices between federal departments, as well as the RCMP’s cooperation with international policing organizations.

We found that the RCMP aligned the operations of the Liaison Officer Program to respond to priorities for serious and organized crime and that it did so through consultations with its partners and the work of various international and domestic committees. The RCMP was able to react to new priorities and changing circumstances by rapidly deploying staff temporarily when necessary.

However, we found that the RCMP had not yet developed a process to assess the overall performance of the Liaison Officer Program. Such an assessment would help the RCMP identify how best to use the Program’s limited resources to meet priorities in a changing environment.

Mr. Chair, our audit also looked at the RCMP’s information sharing practices and cooperation with other federal departments. We assessed whether the liaison officers had the information necessary to fulfill their operational requirements.

We found that liaison officers had access to the information required to support investigations both domestically and internationally. They had access to key case information that allowed liaison officers to react in a timely manner to requests related to investigations.

Many of the files we reviewed showed that liaison officers had been directed to share only selected information with partners. In all of the files we reviewed, the documentation showed that liaison officers adhered to the instructions on information-sharing provided by Canadian investigators.

We noted that some information on Canadians abroad who are arrested, charged, and convicted of serious crimes as well as their prison release dates are potentially valuable to law enforcement policing efforts. We found that the RCMP is generally not provided with this information from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development because of Privacy Act restrictions on the sharing of information about individuals as well as restrictions by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms about what can be shared with law enforcement agencies.

European countries are dedicating an increasing number of resources to Europol, which is becoming an important avenue for the sharing of information between police agencies. We found that the RCMP had not assessed the costs and benefits of greater participation in Europol nor the impact that this could have on the size and location of the Liaison Officer Program in Europe.

Mr. Chair, our audit also looked at the Department of Justice’s processing of requests for mutual legal assistance and extradition. We found that it often took over a year to process the requests that we reviewed. Justice Canada is the central authority in these matters but had not taken any actions to assess the reasons for significant delays in processing requests for extradition or mutual legal assistance.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer the Committee’s questions.