Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Jim Judd]

If I could, sir, let me just say generally that our practices and policies on information sharing, in terms of the caveats that are attached to them, apply generally to any foreign partner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Make it a brief question, Mr. Chan.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Since the Maher Arar issue, the Americans have not shared the information on Mr. Arar with us. I would say that is really odd. Are they being protective of their liability? Did this incident sour the cooperative relationship between Canada and the United States?

The question is for both gentlemen.

Thank you.

[Ward Elcock]

I don't find it odd. There are lots of occasions when countries don't share information with us or we don't share information with other countries. It is not particularly a surprise.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Did it sour the relationship between the two?

[Ward Elcock]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Judd, do you have a comment on that?

[Jim Judd]

No. I'd just say that, as I tried to state before, our organization has become substantially more conscious about information sharing generally with foreign partners. It remains a pre-eminent consideration for us in our operations. In many instances, we neither accept nor give information to foreign partners. It is very much determined on a case-by-case basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

The last questioner in this fourth round is Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presence here today, to answer some very difficult and pointed questions.

Carrying through with some of the questions with regard to information sharing with the United States, in particular, you mentioned at the beginning that you do share information with foreign entities and that this information sharing goes back and forth. Yet in the Arar case, you did not share information with the United States. I suspect some people would think that's because the RCMP said they were going to be the Canadian agency that was going to share this information, that they would take the lead on it.

So first, is it strange for you not to share certain kinds of information that would be going back and forth to Canada? Second, in this case, did the RCMP tell you to stay hands-off because they were handling this one?

[Ward Elcock]

Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't have been unusual for information not to have been shared, as Mr. Judd indicated. There are lots of occasions when information is not shared. Certainly, at the time, it was not a case of the RCMP telling us not to share because they were going to share. That certainly wasn't part of the plan.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Going to caution and the changes CSIS has made to its policies, one of the strengths that Mr. Judd mentioned with regard to Canada's information gathering unit, CSIS, was that our standards and our policies are far superior to those of other countries. In other words, we're more open, we're very cautious, etc.

From the standpoint of being able to get the job done, do you feel there is an appropriate balance? This goes to Canadians feeling not only safe that our rights and privileges are being protected, but feeling that we're not being so cautious as to put in jeopardy the safety of Canadians because we're reticent to get involved in the nitty-gritty, the dirt of information sharing, and various information technologies that give us an ability to protect citizens.

It is easy to say yes, but when you compare us to other agencies throughout the world, wouldn't Canada want to have the best not only in protecting our freedoms, but the best in making sure the bad guys out there don't use that as a tool to get us?

[Jim Judd]

I think that's a set of determinations that are applied every day in our organization, the balance between the benefit of sharing information versus potential risk of the information being misused. I don't know that I can say we have a handy-dandy formula that applies across the board; we tend to deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis. It's always a matter of trying to get the balance right. But certainly we like to think that we take due diligence with regard to any risk to Canada or Canadians, here or abroad, and act on that. But we're also conscious of the potential downsides from other vantage points of being too collaborative with some foreign partners.

I'm sorry, that's a very awkward answer, but I think it's about the best I can do on that.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Do you feel that in Canada, as opposed to other countries, there may be too much political interference with the ability with which you go about your daily job? In other words, do you find that in our zeal to protect Canada—and I'm not saying this is bad or good, this is a question that I think all Canadians need to hear you answer—there's an overzealous desire by politicians to second-guess your agency?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You just have time for a brief response.

[Jim Judd]

I'll make two quick points on that, sir, if I may.

I don't believe that we are hampered by anything in the realm of political interference that affects our operations. In respect to the second-guessing, I think you're defining the second-guessing community much too narrowly. It may actually be quite a lot broader than just the political circle.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay, Rick, thank you.

We will now begin from the beginning again with the Liberal Party for five minutes, followed by the Bloc and the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Holland, please.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, normally I resist the temptation to add commentary through the question process, but I'm not going to right now because this is staggering to me.

First, that you would start off hiding behind a government line in refusing to apologize, and then that you would go one step further in saying, directly in the face of what Justice O'Connor's report said, that CSIS had no role in what happened to Maher Arar, and leading to him winding up in Syria and facing torture, is unbelievable.

But then, Mr. Elcock, for you to say to this committee that you have not read Justice O'Connor's report.... As a former director, as somebody who is a witness before this committee, that you would not even have a passing interest to read that report before appearing at the committee today is deeply upsetting.

I'm going to go back to a couple of questions that I have, the first dealing with the Syrian officials. Syrian officials stated that on three separate times CSIS had provided them with information that they did not want Mr. Arar back. And they relate specifically to perhaps the meeting in November 2002 that took place. Can you tell me what role CSIS may have played in leading to that assumption by the Syrian government, and moreover what you could have done to prevent that or avoid that interpretation?

[Jim Judd]

I think Mr. Justice O'Connor addressed that issue in his report and came to the conclusion that he could establish no basis on which he could determine why the Syrian authorities would have come to that conclusion on the basis of information from anybody in CSIS or anybody in the Canadian government.

With respect to the meeting that took place in Syria, Mr. Justice O'Connor also looked at that matter in some substantial measure and concluded that the meeting with the Syrian authorities was in the circumstances an appropriate one that had been more broadly endorsed by other federal agencies and that CSIS provided absolutely no information whatsoever to Syrian authorities about Mr. Arar or, for that matter, anything else that I can recall.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Going back to questions I had earlier on the information exchange, it was stated that CSIS was not aware of the RCMP using its information and sending it to the U.S. Presumably, you found out through this process. What about leaks? Clearly, the information that was being leaked out of the RCMP was being given to the RCMP in many instances by CSIS. What actions did CSIS take at that point in time to discuss these leaks and to discuss how the RCMP was using CSIS information?

[Jim Judd]

Can I clarify again? The information that the RCMP had at its disposal in respect of this investigation, if you read Justice O'Connor's report, was to a large extent the result of an RCMP investigation. It had nothing to do with us. The case in point, the investigation at CSIS at the time, you may recall from Mr. Justice O'Connor's report, had in fact been turned over to the RCMP as having potential basis for a criminal investigation. The RCMP then proceeded with its own investigation in that regard, which in turn led to the production of information that they may have shared with the United States authorities.

With respect to the issue of leaks, Mr. Justice O'Connor cites eight instances of leaks that took place in the course of his inquiry. As I said in my opening statement, our organization participated in the investigation of those leaks. They were done internally or as part of an investigation led by Privy Council Office into the leaks. The conclusion, absent the ongoing criminal investigation in one instance, seems to have been that there was no evidence that any of the leaked material emanated from CSIS or CSIS employees.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to the Bloc, Ms. Bonsant.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

I will ask you one question, and then I will turn the floor over to Mr. Ménard.

I came here to try to understand the role played by the RCMP compared to your role in the Maher Arar matter. I am not familiar with your systems, and the more you talk, the more confused I get..

You say you work with the RCMP, but that you do not share files; you have information that you do not share with the RCMP; you are not responsible for Mr. Arar's deportation, the RCMP is.

Do you work together or not? Do you work in parallel to the RCMP? Are you competitors who are trying to get into the Canadian government's good graces?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Judd.