Evidence of meeting #8 for Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nds.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Okay.
I guess it's fair to say, when you're asked a question you don't feel is appropriate to answer, that deals not only with CSIS but also with our international partners, or even with our national partners. Would that also be a fair assessment?
5 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
It is a fair assessment, but it does have a direct impact on CSIS or our ability to fulfill our mandate. If by answering a question we lose the confidence we need from a partner and that partner stops sharing information that would be relevant to our national security, there is a direct impact on us--on CSIS, but also on Canadians in general.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Could there also be a direct impact on civilians, in both Canada and other countries, in revealing some of that information?
5 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Mr. Chairman, there is a direct impact, in the sense that, again, if it impedes our ability to fulfill our mandate, it could increase the risk for people living in Canada or Canadians living abroad.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. MacKenzie.
We'll move to Mr. Harris, please.
5 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, sir, for joining us today.
I'm interested, and maybe you can clarify something here. You referred to an agreement with the NDS and our partner, the Afghanistan government. Was it a department of the government or a department of the NDS? Can you clarify that?
5 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the service, the partner is the NDS, the security intelligence component of the NDS.
5 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
Now, again, to get that straight, you talked about the intelligence side and the corrections side. We've had some evidence that the Canadian Forces, for example, might interview somebody and then pass them over to the NDS for further questioning. Do you have any idea who would do that kind of questioning? Would that be the intelligence side or the correctional service side? It can refer to two.
5 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Mr. Chair, I am not exactly sure who at the NDS would be able to further question individuals.
5 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
You indicated you played no part in the decision to transfer prisoners, or your organization didn't, but I do note that CSIS is actually copied on some of the documents that Mr. Colvin referred to in his testimony last fall, which talked about transfer arrangements and concerns raised by Mr. Colvin, for example, and about what was happening there.
Why would CSIS be copied? And would they have any role in advising with respect to the NDS, for example, and their ability to comply with international obligations?
5 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
No, Mr. Chair, the service does not have any role in advising the NDS on how to fulfill its mandate, with respect to detention, for example. Why would the service receive copies of those documents? The service is part of the whole-of-government mission. The service needs to be kept aware of what other departments are doing and of the overall situation in Afghanistan. We do not work in isolation, we are part of the government-wide mission.
5 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
As an intelligence agency, if nothing else, your organization would have been well aware of the notoriety of the reputation the NDS had for using torture methods in conducting interrogations. Given that, what did your agency do to ensure that any information it was receiving from the NDS wasn't achieved by those means?
5 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
As I said earlier, Mr. Chair, the service has clear ministerial directives on the use of information that might have been obtained through torture. Furthermore, the service has internal policies on how to handle information that might have been obtained through the torture or ill-treatment of detainees, and we adhere to those policies. I should also point out that all of the service's activities, including the use of information obtained by any foreign agency, are subject to review by either the inspector general or SIRC.
5 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
That really is not an answer to my question. I understand that there are policies. I'm aware of them.
What I wanted to know is how do you determine, how do you assure yourself, that the information you have received wasn't obtained by those means on an individual case, or is it like the government has said, that it's unless we have evidence that this particular piece of information was obtained by a particular form of torture? Did you have to have that level of knowledge? The reputation is very clear. It seemed to be well known. How did you make that judgment?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Mr. Chair, that does not necessarily mean that every piece of information that comes to us from an agency and that raises questions about human rights was obtained through torture. There are other techniques. The information could have been obtained from communications intercepts, physical surveillance or the agency's files. Sometimes, by reading the information, we can determine that it comes from an intercepted telephone conversation, for example. But, in the case of information obtained through questioning, if it is clear or if there is a suspicion that the information was obtained by means of torture, there are various things we can do. We can go back to the source to try to obtain more information on the conditions in which the information was obtained.
At the end of the day, if there is still a doubt, the ministerial directive is clear: the service cannot rely on that information. The information then becomes the subject of what we call a caveat, indicating that it cannot be used because it might have been obtained through torture or ill-treatment. The information is then labelled as such to ensure it is not used in the future.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Did you have any such doubts and were there any procedures used with information received from the NDS?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Yes, Mr. Chair.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I was interested in your question, and I'm glad to see that intelligence collected by CSIS was able to lead to disruption and dismantling of insurgent networks planning IEDs—I think that's obviously one of your roles—and car bomb attacks against military and civilian targets.
My question, and I'll not ask you to reveal your source, but did CSIS directly undertake this disruption or dismantling, or was this being done through passing information onto the Canadian Forces, or to the NDS, for example?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
No, dismantling or any enforcement action wouldn't be done by CSIS. We would pass the information to the Canadian Forces. It could be to the local authorities to do what they have to do to act upon the information. Our role is only to collect that information.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Did I understand you to say that you did at times obtain information from the NDS on Canadian detainees after they had been passed over to the NDS? Maybe I misheard you. I don't know.
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Director, Foreign Collection, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I just said it was possible, but I cannot say if we did. I would have to check, but it is a possibility.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Thank you very much.
We'll go to Mr. Abbott, please.
May 5th, 2010 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
The discussion by Mr. Harris and our previous discussion about SIRC has raised a couple of questions in my mind.
I note that you have confirmed that your policies do not permit the transfer of individuals for the purpose of interrogation by unlawful means. I'm just concerned.
I'm not trying to put Mr. Rae on the spot here, but here we are with SIRC.... He was with SIRC from 1998 to 2003.
You were collecting information from 2002 to 2007, so there's obviously an overlap there. I would think that Mr. Rae would be interested in possibly verifying the kind of position...when we receive information from an organization like SIRC. You have said in your testimony that your activities are also subject to the full review of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, and the inspector general of CSIS, both of which report regularly on the activities, either to Parliament, in the case of SIRC, or to the Minister of Public Safety, in the case of the inspector general.
I would really think that with the verification, particularly, of somebody who sat on SIRC, the veracity of the kind of information you're giving to us would be of the highest possible value to this committee. We have received an opinion by the previous witness and we've received an opinion by Mr. Colvin and others--and they have been valid opinions, I'm sure. To put that opinion on the same level as someone like yourself, testifying on behalf of CSIS, particularly with the support you have, the absolute total control of the Canadian people through SIRC and through the inspector general.... This is of the highest value.
I just wanted to make a comment. I find it a little frustrating that when we receive opinion from people, which is totally valid opinion, that's fine...but then we have a tendency, or some people in this room have a tendency, to take that opinion and not put your position at a significantly higher place. I just wanted to underscore that, because I think the comment, the testimony, that we have received from generals, from the chief of staff, and from generals who have been on the spot, from top civil servants who have years and years and years of history and training and dedication to our great nation, has never received the value against the other testimony and opinions of other people. I simply wanted to put that on the record.
My friend Mr. Obhrai has some good questions for you, but I did want to make that statement. I don't know that you would necessarily want to comment on my statement, but you're welcome to, I'm sure. I did want to put that on the record. It is not a question of equal value to testimony. Your testimony and the testimony of people like the generals, in my judgment, is of a significantly higher value and carries far more weight.
Thank you.
