Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the invitation and the opportunity to appear before the committee. I believe the last time the Security Intelligence Review Committee was invited to appear before this committee was three years ago. So we're pleased to be here today and to respond to the issues you would like to cover.
It is a pleasure for me to introduce my fellow members. All four are here today. We have Roy Romanow, the former premier of Saskatchewan, someone who's probably familiar to most of you. We have Baljit Chadha, a prominent businessman from Montreal. We have Ray Speaker, a former member of Parliament and probably a familiar face to many of you. And we have Aldéa Landry, a former deputy premier of New Brunswick.
As well, we have a number of staff with us: our executive director, Susan Pollak; deputy director, Tim Farr; our legal counsel, Marian McGrath; and one of our researchers, Sacha Richard.
I'll begin by giving a little bit of background. I was appointed to the committee three weeks after 9/11. I was named chair just over a year ago. So I have been immersed in the challenges of security intelligence for some time now. Over the past five years, the Canadian intelligence security landscape has changed dramatically, but the framework that defines the powers and authority of both CSIS and SIRC has stood the test of time, in our view.
I'll give you a brief overview of SIRC's mandate and operations. Our role is relatively easy to describe, if rather complex to execute. We have two basic functions: one, to conduct reviews; the other, to investigate complaints. SIRC has, in law, absolute authority to examine all of the service's activities, and has full access to all of its files, no matter how sensitive or classified the information may be. The sole exception is cabinet confidences.
SIRC's reviews are designed to yield assessments across a wide range of CSIS activities. Our reviews cover all of CSIS's key program areas, although we recognize that counter-terrorism is CSIS's number one priority. We also examine CSIS's arrangements with foreign and domestic agencies, as well as the advice and assessments they provide on an ongoing basis to the Canadian government.
All of SIRC's reviews are done by assessing CSIS activities against four instruments, which together form the service's legislative and policy framework. These are: one, the CSIS Act; two, ministerial direction; three, national requirements for security intelligence; and four, CSIS operational policy. Each review includes findings and recommendations, which are sent to the director of CSIS and the inspector general. Occasionally we submit special reports under section 54 of the CSIS Act directly to the Minister of Public Safety. Our most recent such report examined the case of Maher Arar.
SIRC also investigates complaints about CSIS brought to us by individuals or groups. These complaints can be about CSIS activities, security clearances, citizenship, or human rights issues. We issue reports and make recommendations to the director and the minister, and we also report the findings of our investigations to the complainant.
I will not describe these two responsibilities in more detail because I'm sure you are already familiar with these topics, although I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'd also invite you to visit our website at www.sirc-csars.gc.ca if you want more information.
SIRC uses a number of mechanisms to reassure Canadians that CSIS is playing by the rules. We maintain a comprehensive website, participate in conferences and symposia, and visit universities. But perhaps our most visible vehicle is our annual report, which is also our primary means of reporting to Parliament on what we do. It's a sanitized public summary of the much more detailed, highly classified reviews and complaints investigations that we undertake during the year.
Our 2005-06 annual report was tabled in Parliament on October 26. This year's report provides highlights of seven reviews, as well as four decisions rendered in complaints cases. Among the more noteworthy reviews was an examination of CSIS's relationship with agencies in four countries suspected of human rights violations and an examination of CSIS's electronic surveillance and information-gathering techniques to gain a better understanding of how rapidly changing technologies are being used by CSIS and exploited by terrorists and foreign intelligence agencies. Our annual report outlines the 14 recommendations stemming from these reviews.
In 2005-06, SIRC also dealt with 63 complaints, a significant increase over recent years, and we issued four new decisions. In addition to our annual report, SIRC, like all other federal departments and agencies, prepares an annual report on plans and priorities, which was tabled in Parliament in September. It underlines that although we are a small organization—just 20 employees with a budget of $2.9 million—we are pursuing an ambitious agenda.
I know this committee has devoted considerable effort over the past month discussing the results of Mr. Justice O'Connor's factual inquiry concerning Maher Arar. As you know, SIRC conducted its own review into the matter, although we only examined CSIS's involvement, consistent with our mandate. A report was prepared pursuant to section 54 of the CSIS Act, which means that it was submitted directly to the Minister of Public Safety.
Shortly after receiving our report on May 19, 2004, the minister provided the full classified version to Mr. Justice O'Connor. We were very pleased he was made privy to our section 54 report, and we trust he benefited from our work in completing his own investigations of this case. I would also note that after examining our own findings in light of his report, the committee found them to be consistent with Mr. Justice O'Connor's factual inquiry.
Needless to say, SIRC does not lack for work, and in these turbulent times, several ongoing initiatives will likely impact us, such as the government's response to Mr. Justice O'Connor's eventual recommendations on an independent, arm's-length review mechanism for the national security activities of the RCMP and the proposal to create a committee of parliamentarians to review the activities of all of Canada's security and intelligence organizations.
In the meantime, however, we will continue to work to ensure that Canada has a security and intelligence service that acts within the law, honours our democratic values, and fully respects Canadians' rights. Our objective is even more important since 9/11, as we struggle to find the traditional Canadian balance between protecting public safety and upholding our civil liberties.
Once again, thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. My colleagues and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.