The federal intelligence watchdog says senior Royal Canadian Mounted Police officials incorrectly considered the importance of strategic ties with foreign organizations when determining whether sharing information posed a risk of torture.
The purpose of the Avoiding Complicity in Abuse by Foreign Entities Act is to prevent the cruel treatment of people detained overseas through information exchanged by Canada with overseas entities.
The RCMP and other federal agencies subject to these provisions must assess the risk of abuse and determine whether they can manage the risk.
In a report released Thursday, the National Security Intelligence Review Agency strongly warned against including other considerations, such as fostering strategic relationships, in its assessment of significant risks.
The intelligence review body recommended that if the RCMP deputy commissioner does not agree with the commission’s recommendation not to share information, the case should be automatically referred to the police commissioner.
The heavily redacted report is the institute’s latest to examine the Protocol against Torture and covers 2021.
The watchdog group concluded the RCMP has a “robust framework” in place for screening and handling cases related to the law that aims to avoid complicity.
But the committee raised serious concerns about one case handled by the Foreign Intelligence Risk Advisory Board, an advisory body to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s senior management.
The report released Thursday redacted details of the case, including the foreign companies involved.
The Commission concluded that there was a significant risk of unfair treatment if certain personal information was shared, and said that risk could not be managed by warnings and assurances.
As a result, the committee recommended against exchanging information and suggested that members consider additional options to mitigate the potential risks of torture so that they could reconsider the cases.
RCMP officers reject recommendation
But the RCMP’s deputy commissioner rejected the commission’s recommendation and “authorized the sharing of information,” the investigative agency’s report said.
He argued the RCMP should consider the consequences of not sharing information because it would damage relationships, adding that “engagement brings insight and influence.”
In the end, senior officials decided the risks could be mitigated, despite the committee’s objections.
However, federal directions for implementing the act clearly state that if officials are unable to determine whether they can adequately manage the risks, the matter must be referred to the RCMP Commissioner for a final decision.
The intelligence agency concluded that “the case should have been referred to the commissioner for decision.”
In a response attached to the report, the RCMP opposed the call to automatically refer such cases to the commissioner, saying the intelligence and investigation agency “misunderstands the role and responsibilities” of the deputy commissioner with regard to the process.
The RCMP agreed that decisions to share information “should not include external purposes.”
But police added that in assessing significant risk, external objectives such as relationship building “have been and will continue to be important to the overall intelligence considered.”
Investigators also found the RCMP did not have a centralized system for documenting assurances and did not regularly monitor and update its assessment of the reliability of assurances.
Additionally, the watchdog noted that the Mounted Police had not developed a mechanism for updating country and entity profiles in a timely manner: “In many cases, these assessments are more than four years old and rely heavily on the aggregation of open-source reports.”
In its response, the RCMP said it was “establishing a centralized system to track warnings and assurances provided by foreign entities.”
The RCMP’s record-keeping system includes information from any follow-ups made with foreign entities in their respective operational files, such as warnings or concerns about non-compliance with assurances, the force added.
