Evidence of meeting #40 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sharing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Even if we are buddies.
12:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
We identified that to the government. The government is aware of that. It's complex. It's easy to see the problem, but the means to address it are complex.
As you know, they're looking at this. That's why there is a consultation process right now to review all of that by the government. We expressed our views on that. I speak for myself, but I think Jean-Pierre and I both agree, and our colleagues in the RCMP as well, that we need more co-operation to help us, but it's up to the government to make the decision on that and find the right way to do it, and there's no magic solution.
12:25 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
I have just one comment on this point. It is true that right now there is no explicit authority to co-operate, but there's no explicit prohibition either. Therefore, practically speaking, over the past five years my predecessors and I have provided 10 or more letters to SIRC referring to specific issues that have arisen in my review of CSE that have implicated CSIS. It just means that even if we don't have the explicit authority, there's a certain amount of co-operation that could be done, and we are doing it.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Okay.
Mr. Blais, the next question I have for you is again on another article I read. It said that 80% of SIRC recommendations were implemented by CSIS. Again, I'm quoting Mr. Doucet. He believed that the recommendations should be non-binding. I'll just quote the article here, where he says:
If we were at 100 per cent, it would be like your kid coming home with straight A's. My initial reaction would be: 'School's too easy.' We want to put out challenging and thoughtful recommendations, but at the end of the day...Coulombe at CSIS will see them and prioritize them as he sees fit.
Is there something wrong with that, when you're satisfied that only 80% of your recommendations...? Square that for me.
12:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
All of our recommendations are in our report, and what is in our report as well is the response by CSIS. Sometimes they agree and sometimes they do not totally agree. It depends when the operations allow them to.
To give you an example, you remember what happened last year? We made a recommendation that they should go to the Federal Court. They said, “No, we're not going to Federal Court.” What happened? Federal Court—
12:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Finally, even though they didn't agree, we were successful.
12:25 p.m.
Chantelle Bowers Deputy Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Can I add something very quickly?
It's true that there's the Thomson decision of the court that says that our recommendations are non-binding. However, we do have a tracking tool at SIRC for the recommendations we make to the service, and we take it very seriously. We follow up with that, and we do have that tracking mechanism.
12:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
We review that every three months.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Another point I want to make is that obviously we're in a new era now. You used to identify individuals and collect data on them. Now we collect data and identify individuals. One of the comments Mr. Doucet made was that this was okay, as long as you were conscious of protecting security and privacy.
Again, from your perspective, do you feel we have the right balance there?
12:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
We should remember, as we mentioned, that years ago we were collecting documents like this, printing copies and so on. Now it's changing to electronics, and sometimes with electronics we cannot collect just one piece; sometimes we need to have a bulk of information to find out what we need from it.
This is the problem that we face with the metadata question. I think it will be there for a while, in the sense that my friend and I have to look into two agencies and scrutinize them to make sure they will not abuse that and take more information than they need. At the same time, we have to allow them to make sure that they gather the information. If they don't have the information, lives could be at stake and problems could arise in other ways. Sometimes we have to balance that.
It has to be looked at on a regular basis. We cannot say it's this way or that way. We will have to follow up. I'm very prudent on that personally. I said it's important to make sure that we protect individuals, but at the same time, we have to protect the large community as well. Sometimes we need to have a bulk of information and find out where it is.
Before, it was easier; now it's more difficult.
12:30 p.m.
Deputy Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Could I add very quickly to what the chairperson added?
12:30 p.m.
Deputy Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
When we are reviewing CSIS's activities, we want to make sure that they're complying with the law, the ministerial direction, and policy. That also includes the charter. That also includes making sure that the privacy rights are being addressed as well. When we're looking at it globally, we're reviewing all of CSIS's activities.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you very much.
To finish off the formal part of our questions and answers, we have Mr. Blaikie for somewhere around three minutes.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thanks.
SCISA is, obviously, relatively new on the scene, and your organizations would have experience reviewing information sharing prior to SCISA. In your opinion, did SCISA really address some concrete problems? I know that two of your organizations are currently conducting a review of SCISA. In your organizations' experience with information sharing prior to SCISA, were there problems that you saw in your reviews of information sharing, problems with the agencies that you were providing oversight for not being able to do their job well, which you see SCISA as potentially addressing?
12:30 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I am speaking for my organization. We were in favour of sharing information because it's helpful for CSIS to know more and to be well prepared to face the challenge.
On the question, we should know that our organizations are accustomed to confidentiality. Some of those 17 departments are maybe less accustomed to work in a confidential context, so there's a risk sometimes of something falling through the cracks and being published, but in our case, we're accustomed to that. We've had confidential documents for 31 years. We know that; we know what it is.
CSIS gathers information very easily, and we do look into matters. Other organizations will have to get accustomed to it and be well prepared and well organized to treat this information to protect people's privacy.
12:30 p.m.
Senior Director, Operations, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
From the RCMP's perspective, the answer to your question is in the terms of reference of the review we're doing. Justice O'Connor's report is 10 years old, and the recommendations were made with respect to RCMP information sharing. As my colleague says, it's been going on. Information sharing is the lifeblood of law enforcement, and that's why we're looking into making sure that it's done in a way that's consistent with the law. Regardless of what rules are in place, that's going to be the yardstick that we're using to measure it, whether it's SCISA or the Privacy Act or anything else.
12:30 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Since CSE has neither received nor shared information under that law, I don't have any additional comments to make, unfortunately.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Okay. I guess that's just what I'm trying to get at. In our review of this legislation, we've had other witnesses say SCISA was a solution looking for a problem, as it were. I'm trying to understand better what the problems were in information sharing. What kind of information wasn't able to be shared under existing authorities, such that SCISA is representing an improvement?
I don't want you to prejudge the outcome of your reports in terms of whether SCISA's working or not, but can you give a concrete example of a type of case—not a particular case—where attempts at information sharing were frustrated, and the security purposes of the agencies that you review were being hindered because they didn't have adequate authority under the previous regime prior to SCISA?
12:35 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Well, in speaking for us, we will know more when we get to our report.