Yes, that's correct.
Evidence of meeting #61 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #61 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Darryl Hirsch Senior Policy Analyst, Intelligence Policy and Coordination, Department of Public Safety
Yes, that's correct.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Are there benefits to having former intelligence officers knowledgeable in the area provide this type of oversight? I realize you've said that in some ways it is not oversight. But are there advantages to having former intelligence officers from the security establishment in this role?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
There could be advantages. It could also be advantageous to come from outside the security intelligence community—it could result in a different perspective. The important thing is to make sure the analysts who work in the secretariat have the right skills to do the job.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I've read that this change, abolishing the Inspector General, will save about $1 million a year.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
The target under the deficit reduction action plan for this mission is about $800,000.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Does the government plan to reallocate these savings to the budget of SIRC?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
No, the budget for the Inspector General is part of the Public Safety budget. When you cost out the nine staff and the associated operating costs, it comes to more like $1 million, so there's a bit of a differential there, and we're exploring how to reallocate it within the Security Intelligence Review Committee. We're looking at that.
Liberal
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Make sure it's the differential. You said it was a reallocation of the differential. I just wanted to clarify that.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to have a clearer understanding of the inspector general's role. Here we see, in particular, that:
CSIS activities have complied with legislation and Ministerial Direction
That is one of the functions of the Inspector General?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
Yes.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
So who will now look at whether or not the obligations have been fulfilled?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
The Security Intelligence Review Committee.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
Yes, essentially.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Were there cases where the report would differ in terms of what the Inspector General was saying versus what SIRC was saying?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
I think SIRC's reviews might differ with, say, those of the Inspector General. They might look at other things, and they might be a bit more operationally focused. Usually, though, it's more of a duplication or an overlap—there's no substantive difference in the findings that we've observed.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
The question for us has to do with accountability and transparency. We are taking out someone in the system whose role is to make sure that the activities comply with legislation.
You were talking about duplication. So basically, everything the Inspector General has done so far was useless? What was the original reason to have an Inspector General?
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety
I think it was in 1984 or 1985 that the CSIS Act was put in. Probably at the time it was to give independent eyes and ears for the minister, different from the external review body of SIRC. I think, though, what's going on here is no change to the proportion or amount of review that's going to be done. Two-thirds of the CSIS Act still deals with accountability and reporting and review. That proportion stays the same. It's one function that is done in many ways already by SIRC, but it's going to be done specifically in a different place.
