In one case, officers at one of the RCMP national security units quit their jobs after being asked to make an arrest without giving a reason, according to the revised report, which was released through a request for access to information. The document is the end result of a behind-the-scenes review of how the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the National Police share information – or not. In 2018, at the request of both services, two non-national security lawyers – Anil Kapoor and Dana Achtemichuk – were summoned to look into the issues, conduct interviews and make recommendations. A copy of their final review was recently released on CBC News a year after the request. The incident that led police officers to resign occurred during a “catch-and-release” case – a technique that sees police arresting a person to prevent a national security incident or attack, even if it means killing them. released later without charge. The report states that catch-and-release companies require information exchanges between stakeholders. This did not happen with the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET) involved in the incident mentioned in the report. INSETs are multi-service teams – sometimes made up of RCMP officers, members of the provincial and municipal police services and federal services – scattered across the country to investigate cases involving national security, extremism and terrorism. “We learned of a case in which INSET was in charge of the arrest, but no reason was given. This caused a major clash with the investigating team, with the result that some police officers resigned,” the report said. “In general, the morale of INSET was depressing.” Details of this case are given in the report. RCMP officers use binoculars to monitor protesters on September 6, 2021. The report noted a lack of trust between RCMP headquarters and field officers. (Nathan Denette / Canadian Press)
The authors said that while police officers in a national security investigation may not know all the details, they should be looped by their counterparts in the secret services. “Being a player in the world of national security also means respecting the ‘need to know’ principle and understanding that more RCMP officers actually ‘need to know,’” they wrote.

“Held in the dark”

University of Toronto professor Kent Roots, who studies national security and counterterrorism law, described the incident as worrying. “The report acknowledges that RCMP officers are often held in the dark by CSIS and this could affect the validity of the arrest,” he said. He said tactics such as catch-and-release, the “Al Capone” strategy (named after the infamous gangster jailed for tax evasion instead of the more serious charges against him) and peace bonds are poor substitutes for real persecution. . “There is not the same public or judicial scrutiny of either the CSIS or the RCMP as there would be in a counter-terrorism prosecution,” Roots said. “Certainly there are legal and legitimate alternatives to criminal prosecution. But I think from the public point of view, it is really the criminal prosecution that sheds more light, both on how the state acted and on the real danger or lack of danger. presented by the accused “. The report said part of the problem (sometimes referred to as “evidence information”) was that CSIS was under pressure to protect operational information – its tactics, methods, where its spies were – while police and prosecutors are expected to ensure prosecution and protection of the accused’s right to a fair trial. “It simply came to our notice then [CSIS’s] “information unused when it could be used to bolster a national security criminal investigation,” the report said. The CSIS is under pressure to protect operational information — its tactics, methods, where its spies are located — while police and prosecutors are expected to prosecute and protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial. (Sean Kilpatrick / Canadian Press)
“Also, [CSIS] “It must be acknowledged that there is always the risk that certain information may not be protected at trial, but the benefit of assisting in the investigation and prosecution of persons who pose a threat to the country is worth the risk.” One of the report’s recommendations is for CSIS to seek advice from criminal justice experts to better understand the risks and benefits of exchanging information and to identify when a crime has been committed. “For [CSIS] “In order to take a more proactive stance, there must be a shift in attitude and culture from considering themselves as a traditional Cold War intelligence service to a modern intelligence service that actively manages threats to national security.” exhibition.

CSIS adopts a number of recommendations

Keira Lawson, CSIS spokeswoman, said work was continuing to implement the recommendations “as appropriate”. This project, he said, will include a memorandum of understanding with the RCMP. He acknowledged that more could be done. “There remains an urgent need for ongoing scrutiny by all parties, including Public Safety Canada, to continue to identify areas for legislative reform that would address … the issues of information and evidence that the government is facing in various legal proceedings. “while maintaining full respect for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Lawson wrote in a statement to the media. The RCMP did not escape the review unscathed. The authors shouted “a belief in some quarters within the RCMP that taking any [CSIS] information will jeopardize police investigations. “The basis of this belief is not entirely clear.” The report also noted tensions between the INSET regional offices and the Federal Security Service (FPNS) based at the RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. “Often, the FPNS does not provide INSET with the framework for why certain actions are taken. The result has a corrosive effect on the relationship between the FPNS and the INSET,” he said. “There is also a lack of trust in INSET, which serves to suppress morale with potentially dangerous consequences.” The RCMP did not respond to a request for comment.