Good morning. I'd like to begin by thanking you for inviting me to appear before you today on behalf of the chair and the other committee members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC. As SIRC's executive director, I will be speaking on their behalf.
It is a privilege for us to be here today to address you. I have with me our senior counsel, Sylvie Roussel, and our research director, Steve Bittle.
The last time SIRC appeared before this committee was in November 2006. As the membership of your committee has changed significantly in the interim, I'd like to use this opportunity to remind you briefly of SIRC's role and responsibilities. Then, of course, I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Having been in regular contact over the years with organizations that have mandates similar to SIRC's, I'm confident that Canada's system is recognized as one of the strongest review functions in the world and as a model that has much to offer other countries that are still in the process of developing such systems. This is not to say that changes and improvements are not possible, but that we have in the SIRC model a solid basis on which to build.
As I am sure you are aware, SIRC came into being at the same time Canada created CSIS, its Civilian Security Intelligence Service. With the passage of the CSIS Act in 1984, Canada became one of the first democratic governments in the world to establish a detailed legal framework for the operations of its security service. Equally significant, the CSIS Act created a framework to make CSIS accountable in exercising its powers, a framework that, by and large, has stood the test of time.
Specifically, the CSIS Act defines the mandate of and the limits on state power in conducting security intelligence. It also spells out how the service's work is to be monitored through a rigorous system of political and judicial controls, including two review bodies, each with a distinct mandate to watch over the new agency.
I'm not going to describe in detail the role of the Inspector General of CSIS. Simply, this is an internal body that provides the Minister of Public Safety with a knowledgeable set of eyes and ears on CSIS operations. SIRC, on the other hand, is an external review mechanism that reports not to any minister but rather directly to Parliament and therefore, ultimately, to all Canadians.
While our role is relatively easy to describe, it's rather complex, at times, to execute. We have two basic functions: to conduct reviews of CSIS operations and to investigate complaints against CSIS. SIRC has, in law, the absolute authority to examine all of the service's operational activities and has full access to all of its files, no matter how highly classified that information may be. The sole exception to this is cabinet confidences.
Our reviews are done by assessing the service's past activities and operations against four instruments that together form a legislative and policy framework for the service. These are the CSIS Act, ministerial direction, national requirements for security intelligence, and CSIS's operational policies.
In each of its reviews, the committee examines certain fundamental questions. Did CSIS have reasonable grounds to suspect a threat to the security of Canada? Was the level of investigation proportionate to the seriousness of that threat? Did exchanges of information between CSIS and domestic or foreign partners respect the agreements and caveats that govern information sharing? Last, but not least, did the service's investigation respect the rights of individuals who were involved in lawful activities, such as protests or dissent?
Normally our reviews take several months to complete and involve examining thousands of pages of documents and having numerous discussions with CSIS personnel. Once a review is completed, copies are sent to the director of CSIS and to the Inspector General. In some special cases, we send our reviews directly to the Minister of Public Safety.
Declassified summaries, with any national security and privacy concerns removed, are also included in SIRC's annual report to Parliament. Although the annual report is our main communication vehicle for informing Parliament and the public about our work, SIRC does carry on a modest communication program as well. The chair and senior staff respond to media inquiries and participate in domestic and international symposia with relevance to our work. I'm regularly invited to the universities to explain SIRC's role to students who are pursuing studies in this or related fields.
SIRC's website is another useful source of information for the public. There you can find all of SIRC's annual reports, speeches, presentations, backgrounders, and other publications as well as descriptions of who we are, what we do, and how we do it.
Moving now to the subject of complaints, you are no doubt aware that SIRC investigates complaints about CSIS brought by individuals or groups. These complaints fall into one of four categories. They can be about any act or thing done by the service; denials of security clearances to federal government employees or contractors; referrals from the Canadian Human Rights Commission in cases where the complaint relates to the security of Canada; and, very infrequently, ministers' reports in respect of the Citizenship Act.
When SIRC accepts jurisdiction, the complaint is investigated through a quasi-judicial hearing presided over by a committee member whose role is similar to that of a judge. At the conclusion of the investigation, the member issues a decision containing findings and recommendations to the minister, the director of CSIS, and, in cases concerning security clearance, the deputy head of the government department involved.
We also provide a declassified report on our investigation to the complainant, in which we provide to that individual as much information as we can without breaching our obligation to protect national security.
As far as SIRC is concerned, having review and complaints under one body has proven advantageous. Our reviews give us the expertise to evaluate and investigate complaints more fully. At the same time, complaints give us another window into CSIS operations, particularly their impact on the lives of ordinary Canadians. In some jurisdictions, these functions are kept separate, but our experience suggests that there are real benefits in having them under one roof.
Whether we are speaking about reviews or complaints, SIRC's recommendations are non-binding. The scheme of review that Parliament created was not meant to have SIRC substitute for either the director of CSIS, who is accountable to the minister, or for the minister, who is answerable to Parliament.
Nevertheless, CSIS has implemented the majority of SIRC's recommendations over the years and has publicly acknowledged that SIRC has made it a better organization. In late 2003, then director Ward Elcock said at a major public conference:
Twenty years of constant review activity have resulted in many recommendations on how we could run things differently, and many of these recommendations have mirrored adjustments that have been made to the Service's management procedures. SIRC's comments have extended into the heart of how the organization is run, including matters of source-handling, investigative methods, targeting decisions and other core functions....
Do we always share SIRC's views? No in some cases, yes in some...but that is not the point. The point is that the review process remains an ongoing debate on ways to ensure that the principles of the legislation are sustained as we evolve and adapt to new threats. That is what the legislators intended.
Having given you a very brief overview of SIRC, I would now like to take just a few more minutes to describe some of the issues that are preoccupying the committee members and myself.
On future challenges, first and foremost, the findings and recommendations of the policy review of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar quite evidently could have a significant impact on SIRC's work. In September 2006, Mr. Justice O'Connor released his report on the events relating to Maher Arar. This seminal report contained 23 recommendations on various aspects of the RCMP's and other agencies' national security activities. Three months later, Mr. Justice O'Connor released a companion report summarizing the work of his policy review.
Although nine of its recommendations dealt with an independent, arm's-length review mechanism for the RCMP's national security activities, it also proposed that independent review and complaints investigations be extended to encompass the national security aspects of the Canada Border Services Agency, Citizenship and Immigration, Transport Canada, the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre, or FINTRAC, and Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Mr. Justice O'Connor concluded that SIRC was the logical body to review the national security activities of the latter four entities.
It is now up to the government to respond to Mr. Justice O'Connor's recommendations. SIRC has stated that it is ready to assume an expanded role, subject to a full assessment of the mandate, workload, and resource implications. If, for example, SIRC were asked to investigate complaints against the other agencies identified, we would need to acquire in-depth knowledge and expertise concerning the national security activities and governing legislation of CIC, Transport, FINTRAC, and DFAIT.
As each of these organizations' work extends well beyond national security, unlike CSIS, whose entire raison d'être is to protect national security, the challenge of distinguishing the national security role of these four agencies from their other activities would in our view be considerable.
In conclusion, let me say that for more than 24 years SIRC has strived to carry out its work in an objective, fair, and balanced way. We recognize that in a free society we have to use every available resource to counter threats to our national security, the most significant today being terrorism. But at the same time, we must uphold the principles of accountability, fairness, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for individual rights.
I will admit that this task has become more challenging since 9/11, as allegations of human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism have surfaced in many countries. Canada has not been immune to such controversy. The case of Maher Arar, which SIRC reviewed before the government appointed a separate commission of inquiry, serves as a case in point.
The committee and SIRC staff take great pride that, since 1984, we have helped to make CSIS a more professional organization. We remain as committed to this objective as we were then.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.