Evidence of meeting #18 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was csis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
There is another one in Mr. Justice O'Connor's report where he goes through all seven of our recommendations on our Arar study. One said that “CSIS examined its agreements and policies with the RCMP to determine whether they provide the necessary protection against third-party disclosure”. That's precisely from that issue you raised.
“CSIS amended its operational policy in relation to foreign travel proposals including consideration of human rights concerns”, which is in response to Mr. Cotler's question. As I said earlier, “CSIS amended its operational policy to require consideration of human rights issues when seeking to use information for targeting approval”.
These are all matters. Here's another one, number 5, that SLOs “maintain written records when requests for information are transmitted to foreign intelligence agencies”, and that formal letters be “sent to confirm verbal requests”.
This was in that period of time referred to by Mr. Holland as the time gap, with respect to CSIS trying to get information from the CIA on the detention of Mr. Arar.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
We'll have to conclude this round.
Thank you.
Mr. MacKenzie, briefly, you're sharing your time with Mr. Norlock.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Yes, I just want to clarify. Mr. Cotler was very challenging on the issue about what you should have done, or what CSIS should have known. Would I be right in my assumption that CSIS doesn't know what someone doesn't tell them? If the RCMP had the information and didn't tell CSIS, it would be very difficult for CSIS to know that, even though there may have been memorandums of understanding. If that in fact is the issue, then we should be asking the RCMP.
5:20 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I think it's even more complicated in that clearly CSIS was aware that they had shared a great deal of information with the RCMP with respect to a project that became part of the foundation of their information on Project A-O Canada.
What they didn't know was what had been added to this was an assertion that Mr. Arar was a suspected terrorist, as I understand it. I'm probably getting into information that I shouldn't be sharing. Probably I read it in material that I shouldn't be sharing.
But the fact of the matter is they may have been assuming that they knew what information was there and later found out that there was additional information, which may have come from another source that they didn't know about.
So information sharing is two-way for the most part, but in this particular case, matters were added and not fed back to the origin of the information. Then they were put in a very difficult position, as I interpret it.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you.
Earlier on you mentioned that you attended the International Intelligence Review Agencies Conference and that Canada is one of the most respected nations with regard to how we oversee our intelligence-gathering community. You made that statement. I'm a person who believes we need to, with other sister organizations, always share best practices, because you don't always think outside the box; you usually are very concerned.
I'm wondering what best practices did your committee learn while attending that conference? What, if any, Canadian practices do you think should be discontinued as a result of what you learned there? You may feel uncomfortable with it, but that's how we need to work; that's how parliamentarians work. If you don't share that with us, then we don't know how to help you get that enacted.
5:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
It's clear that one of the advantages that some of our counterparts have is that they aren't limited to dealing with just one of the elements of the whole family of security and intelligence gathering. In other words, in Norway and the U.K., among two, the oversight bodies would have the equivalent of CSIS, the police, the Communications Security Establishment, and border security all under their jurisdiction. That does give an advantage.
The disadvantage they have is that they can't go into the depth that we can and have the access to all of the top secret information that we do on the one agency that we are responsible for. So for every advantage, there's always a disadvantage.
So we learn and we try to sift and sort all of these things and say, should we be pursuing other things? At the moment, we have the wisdom of Mr. Justice O'Connor looking at whether or not he should do something with the RCMP oversight, and maybe that will give us some clue as to where we're heading.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Good.
I wasn't going to go here, but would it be, in your view, since some people sitting at home watching may say, yes, they're trying to protect their job, but I don't think that's occurring here.... Despite the fact that I dislike intensely adding additional layers of administrative bureaucracy, would it perhaps be, then, based on what you've just said, a good reason to have a parliamentary oversight in addition to what you do? That parliamentary overseeing body could then access your group as well as those other agencies, so there would be that umbrella group able to coordinate through a parliamentary process.
In other words, the legislators would then--being sworn to secrecy, of course--have an oversight. Do you see a value in that, based on the best practices you've just referred to?
5:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I think it is a matter that should be examined in its totality to see whether or not it is feasible and desirable to give that kind of direct access to all of the secrets of state, so to speak, in the whole security and intelligence field to a parliamentary body. I don't know of any country in the world that has done that, but it's obviously a question that parliamentarians and the government are going to have to consider.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Actually, we're out of time. They're playing our tune.
I would really like to thank you for coming before the committee. Do you have any concluding remarks? Do any of the witnesses want to make any final comments?
November 1st, 2006 / 5:30 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Only just that, as I indicated earlier, it was three years ago the last time our committee was asked to come before the parliamentary committee. We appreciate your courtesy, and we appreciate all of the information and the knowledge you are putting into this process. It's very evident that you've done a great deal of work and have examined many people in this whole area
We appreciate the time you're spending with us because we're here to serve this committee and Parliament in general; that's to whom we report. I think it emphasizes for us the importance of the work we do when we have an opportunity to report to you like this, so thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you.
I think I speak for everyone around here when I say that we have appreciated very much the feedback and answers you've given us; you've been very candid and honest with us, and that is much appreciated. I'm sure everybody who's watching on television feels the same way. So again, thank you very, very much.
I will turn the floor, very briefly, over to Mr. Holland. He has an issue to raise.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
If there's not consensus, Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to yield on the issue.
But if I could, the committee had previously agreed to hear from Shirley Heafey, the former chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, who launched a complaint against the RCMP on three different grounds. I stand to be corrected by the clerk if I'm wrong, but I believe we have a free hour on the 23rd. My suggestion is that would be a good time for her. So I'm just looking for the consent of the committee. If that is okay with the committee, we don't need to debate further.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
No problems?
Okay, it's agreed.
This meeting stands adjourned.
