Evidence of meeting #40 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was csis.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Yes, in fact all Bill C-44 would do in terms of.... Section 21 is the one that deals with acquisition of warrants. We're just adding “outside”, so it is the same article, the same criteria, that would be used.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Good.
There have also been concerns raised regarding the rights of terrorists to a fair trial if they don't know who their accuser is or from where the information is being sourced. Can you maybe just expand on that a little bit and comment on that; also whoever feels they want to?
Mr. Guimont I don't mind if you comment on that as well.
4:45 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Again, I think what's in the bill is exactly equivalent to the class privilege protection that police informants have. As was mentioned earlier, that has been tested a number of times in court, so that's not different. Plus, there are exceptions if it is believed that it is essential to reveal the identity of that source to prove the innocence of the person accused.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Okay. In situations where we have to identify our source, do we provide witness protection programs going forward?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
We could certainly look into it, if we get there. With what's proposed in Bill C-44, if we come to a point where we would have to identify our source, I guess with discussion there's either the option—and it's a crown decision—to pull the information and possibly the case would collapse, or we disclose the identity of the source and then there's the question of assessing the risk to the security of that source and what we can do to mitigate that.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
But they've provided the information to us on the basis that we will respect—
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
It was in confidence, yes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
—their confidentiality. That creates a difficult situation in some scenarios.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
It does, and it goes back to my earlier comment that I truly believe there's also a duty on the part of the state, when it makes that promise of confidentiality, that it has the measures in place to assure the promise it has with that person.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
When we're using the resource of a confidential informant, is there a practice or procedure in place that confirms the information that's provided?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
We always try to corroborate information coming from sources, and not just the human sources. We always try to corroborate in order to better assess the validity of that information, and it doesn't matter if it comes from partners or others.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Okay. These laws that we currently have on the books and that we're proposing to strengthen and clarify, are they consistent with laws that our allies would be applying?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Again, it is difficult to compare because of different legislation, but yes, they are consistent in terms of being able to operate overseas. Again, the regime of obtaining warrants might be different, but overall it is consistent.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Some concerns we've heard regard the ability of the Federal Court to issue warrants within the scope of relevant Canadian law when issuing warrants to authorize CSIS to undertake certain activities to investigate a threat to the security of Canada, outside of Canada. Some may wonder why warrants would not be more appropriate coming from the nation where the activities are taking place. Could you comment on why this is important, as some of those countries may not exactly have a court system that can be approached for a warrant, as well as the transnational nature of these investigations?
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I'll answer your question the same way as when I appeared in October and we talked about Canadians who are currently overseas involved in threat-related activities. I mentioned countries like Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, so you can just imagine going through the court system or the judicial system of those countries to try to get authorization. I'm not sure it would be practical.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Ms. Clairmont, I have a question for you. You're representing cybersecurity here this afternoon. Cybersecurity is something that can be done anywhere. Is it necessary to operate outside of Canada to completely provide the security we require here? Or do we do everything here?
November 24th, 2014 / 4:50 p.m.
Lynda Clairmont Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No. Cybersecurity is borderless, I would say. So it can be done within the country and outside of the country.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Do you anticipate any changes affecting your operations, with any of the legislative issues here?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
No, we don't.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.
We will now go to Mr. Easter for seven minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The minister said we had robust oversight for security agencies. I want to put on the record, Mr. Chair, that I sincerely disagree. The fact is that we're the only one of the so-called Five Eyes that does not have parliamentary oversight for security agencies. I think the government, if it were thinking about bringing in a balance, would bring in such a body. In a report from 2005 all parties agreed on such a body. I'd just make that point. As Ms. Girard said, related to the revocation of citizenship, Canada is alone compared to other democratic countries when it comes to that issue. We're also alone on parliamentary oversight when it comes to the Five Eyes.
I think probably the nub of the issue, in terms of this bill, is the substantive changes to CSIS on its extraterritorial activities, if I could call it that. The deputy or head of CSIS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think originally when CSIS came in it was envisioned that we'd depend on our foreign relations or liaison relations with other countries to provide us information, and that's how we'd operate, rather than having agents abroad. In today's reality the world has changed. We're dealing with a stateless world to some regard.
Doesn't this bill, in terms of CSIS, now give wide extraterritorial applications for Canadian judicial decisions abroad in how we operate?
Do you understand what I asked?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Not the last part, I'm sorry.
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That's fine. That's not a problem.
In this bill, if I can put it this way, with judicial decisions, judges authorizing certain activities for CSIS abroad, aren't we now getting into the extraterritorial application of what CSIS does from where we were?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
First of all, in terms of CSIS conducting activities outside Canada—and you talked about the McDonald commission but I'm not going to quote it—I'm pretty sure the report does talk about the creation of CSIS and that you would have to be very careful, but they were already seeing the possibility that we would have to do this. It has always been our understanding that we have that authority. That's why this is just a clarification, making it explicit in the act that we can do what we've been doing for 30 years, because that was the interpretation of.... If you look at section 16, there's a clear restriction: it's within Canada, which you do not find in section 12.