Evidence of meeting #34 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
All right.
Does each one of you has his own data bank?
5:20 p.m.
Bob Paulson
Yes, we each have our own a databank.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
5:20 p.m.
Bob Paulson
No, never. At the RCMP, information is used as evidence. That is our interest.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
You look for evidence, they look for suspicion. Is that it?
5:20 p.m.
Bob Paulson
Yes.
5:20 p.m.
Bob Paulson
No. It is true.
5:20 p.m.
Bob Paulson
Yes.
5:20 p.m.
Advisor, Operations and Legislation, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
You have touched on a very important point. I sometimes think that after the terrible events of 9/11, 7/7 in Britain, and so on, part of the cry that went out was for information sharing über alles. If we just broke down all the walls and shared all our information, the world would be a safer place.
I don't agree with that. I frankly believe that walls and differences are important, and our country should be prepared to exchange, for intelligence purposes, information--properly controlled and reviewed when you know what it's going to be used for--that you would not be prepared to share for law enforcement or enforcement purposes.
The intelligence world deals with and in the world of suspicion, as you say. We often ask, “What do you know about...? Has this person come across...?” and you don't want someone to do something about it. You don't want someone to take action or make life difficult for someone. You simply want to put together the pieces of the puzzle. It's terribly important that the same information you might want to exchange for some purposes, you might not want to exchange for different purposes.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I have just one.
Mr. Paulson, you suggested earlier that you didn't support recommendation ten because you couldn't foresee or envision every instance when there might be a need to share information with a friendly nation. I heard from you--and also Mr. O'Brian--that many of the agreements you have with these other nations are in writing; some of them are not. Some of them have caveats that would prevent the information you share with the other nation from being shared with a third party; some of them don't. As I read it, recommendation ten from the Privacy Commissioner is just asking for consistency--that all the agreements be in writing, and that all these countries have these third-party caveats.
Considering that some of them already have them, would it not be reasonable to expect every agreement to be in writing and every country to have a caveat to prevent them from sharing the information?
5:25 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
It's reasonable to expect we'd apply a caveat to that information when we share it, that we do a qualitative assessment of the information when we share it, and that we get assurances from the receiving country on its intended use.
But let me give you an example. I'm told that last year Interpol requested information from us 4,000 times. Our liaison officers around the world exchanged information, under a multitude of circumstances for a multitude of reasons, roughly 3,000 times. That's just a little hint of the volume we are dealing with.
Particularly in serious cases where we must make these decisions and assessments quickly because all the facts are different, I cannot envision a process or a registry that could service the sort of volume in which we are engaged in sharing information.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I think you're misconstruing my question.
5:25 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Perhaps I am, because you keep asking it.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I'm just saying you both indicated that you have agreements with these other nations when you share this information. Sometimes they're in writing; sometimes they are ministerial notes. I'm not trying to suggest there be constraints on the kind of information or what it's used for. I'm suggesting that the Privacy Commissioner is simply saying let's make sure they're all in writing. Even if they're broad, why not put them all in writing, and why shouldn't all have caveats?
5:25 p.m.
Advisor, Operations and Legislation, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
The problem is, you're dealing with only one side of the equation, our side. Frankly, there are countries—for reasons good and bad—that will not and do not as a common practice reduce these kinds of arrangements to writing.
Some very civilized countries interpret agreements in writing as treaties and require them to be brought before their legislatures. It would be difficult to do this for a whole range of things. Some countries have this rule, and make it a practice not to do this. Some follow this practice for other reasons.
We reduce what we do to writing so that the people reviewing it know exactly what the terms are. We separate our arrangements into three kinds: security screening exchange, intelligence exchange, and technical exchange. We reduce it to an understandable form, two ministers of the crown approve it, and the provision of intelligence and information is reviewed under these arrangements.
To insist that other countries cooperate with us only when the terms are reduced to writing seems a bit of a “bridge too far”—though I suppose we could say we will not do business with people who won't sign things.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Or we could say that we will continue this practice, but for our part we're going to put it in writing.
5:30 p.m.
Advisor, Operations and Legislation, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
That's what we do.
5:30 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
Yes, when we exchange the information, we put it in writing.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Gentlemen, your input has been very good. It's so good that I want to ask you something formally. We'd like you to provide your opinions to us on the ten areas, and to give this some consideration. Now that you've heard a little more, you will have a sense of where we're going.
We've heard a little too much of one side of the story. You have brought to the table some other thoughts for consideration on some of the items. Some are not terribly applicable, but it's nice to know that this is something you don't have strong feelings on one way or the other.
Some of the points you have raised are significant, and our practice is always to refer to representations from witnesses as we lay out the rationale for our recommendations and our reports. We want to be comprehensive, and I want you to have the opportunity to push the point home on those matters you feel strongly about.
This is not something we need tomorrow, but if we could have it within a reasonable period, we would much appreciate it. We would like the researchers to continue to work with us. Within a week to ten days would be great.
No? Two weeks?
5:30 p.m.
C/Supt Bob Paulson
I'm happy to summarize my program's interests there, but there is a broad police community. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have an interest in this, as do other organizations. I'm happy to try to canvass them all to help you.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I think what you have said today pretty well got it, but I want you to be sure. We don't have it in writing, but we do have a transcript, and we could get it to you. We could send the transcript of this meeting to both of you.
That's what has whetted our appetites. We would like to see anything more that can put a little meat on those bones, anything to drive home your point, because I think this is important.