Evidence of meeting #17 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
If you're telling me an individual has told you that it was not possible to determine in some cases whether or not...then you have to accept their word. But that doesn't mean they weren't given clear direction.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fimon and Ms. Pollak, thank you both for being here. Ms. Pollak previously appeared before the committee in 2008 or 2009, if my memory serves me. You said at the time you had doubts about the torture allegations and CSIS, but that's not what I want to talk about.
I would like us to talk about the case of a Canadian citizen, a journalist and author. This is someone who denounced the Islamic extremists and filed a complaint against CSIS. I'd like to talk about that complaint. She filed a complaint because CSIS looked at her credit file on August 24, 2004.
The complaint was considered by your services and a number of meetings were held. The citizen in question is Ms. Djemila Benhabib. You must be familiar with the file since you signed a number of reports. Ms. Benhabib filed a complaint against CSIS, which apparently investigated her and submitted a request to Equifax Canada concerning her credit. Judge Speaker came to the conclusion that everything was fine.
I read the report and saw that there was a lot of complacency. I got to the point where I asked myself whether the Security Intelligence Review Committee handled complaints properly. Let me explain. On the one hand, one document contained an interview with the various parties in English, because Ms. Benhabib was unable to obtain service in French. That's unacceptable for a federal institution. So I'd like to know why she was unable to obtain service in French.
On the other hand, according to that document, Ms. Roussel, representing the Security Intelligence Review Committee, told her in French that there would be an interview and that CSIS would testify without her being present. So it was to be an ex parte hearing. At that ex parte hearing, a summary would be declassified and handed over to her, to the extent that was possible. That would give her an overview, having regard to the security constraints and legal obligations to protect classified information. So she was told she would get a summary.
I saw the judge's report. With regard to the evidence submitted by CSIS, the only thing you could read was bits of sentences like: "The witness submitted", "The witness added", "The witness testified", "She indicated that, based on her experience", and "The witness said". What did she say? We don't know. It's so shaded out that we don't even know what they have against Ms. Benhabib. We absolutely do not know what CSIS has against Ms. Benhabib to warrant an investigation of her.
My question is simple. Did CSIS have grounds to investigate Ms. Benhabib? Did CSIS have reasons to suspect a threat to Canada's security within the meaning of section 12?
What do you think about this, Ms. Pollak?
Mr. Chairman, I hope this silence isn't included in my time.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
For the moment, I haven't obtained an answer and time is passing.
Ms. Pollak, do you have an answer?
3:55 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
If I may, I'll respond on behalf of the committee.
Obviously there was a complaint that you're aware of. It was heard by a member of the committee and a decision was rendered. The information that can be made public has been made public.
We are subject to all of the requirements of national security with respect to what information can be made public from an in camera discussion. You have the information that can be made public.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Filmon, nothing has been made public, absolutely no information has been given. There was an ex parte hearing and Ms. Benhabib received no information. Judge Speaker's report contains nothing, only the words "the witness filed" or "the witness said." I very frankly wonder whether the review committee is properly playing its role with regard to CSIS. I doubt it, Mr. Filmon; I have serious doubts.
I would like to know one thing. Section 12 clearly provides that CSIS must conduct investigations solely of persons or organizations that it believes constitute a threat to the security of Canada. Is that correct?
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
So why was Ms. Benhabib investigated? Does she constitute a threat to the security of Canada?
3:55 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
We cannot give you that information, but we can assure you that the information was available to Mr. Speaker, who was the member who conducted the inquiry. There was no information withheld from him.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I therefore understand that CSIS is above the law and rights and that the review committee is not doing its job. That's what I understand, because Ms. Benhabib, if—
3:55 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Our job is to give assurance that CSIS is not above the law, and that's the assurance we give after doing the investigation.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
If CSIS isn't above the law, under section 12, Ms. Benhabib constitutes a threat to the security of Canada, doesn't she? You can't answer. Very well, I'd like to know why—
4 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
The answer is that an investigation was made, and we can give the assurance that CSIS acted within the law.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I understand that CSIS takes the liberty of investigating everyone in any way it wants.
Do I have one second left, Mr. Chairman?
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I'd like to know why she wasn't allowed a francophone judge for a case as tough and as important as this one. Why?
4 p.m.
An hon. member
There was a consultation.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
To know whether there was a francophone judge? Something's wrong, Mr. Chairman!
4 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
If I may, I will have Ms. Roussel, our senior legal counsel, explain the issue to you.
4 p.m.
Sylvie Roussel Acting Senior Counsel, Complaints Section, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I'm going to answer your first question.
The committee has an obligation to keep its investigations secret. Section 48 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act specifically provides that the committee's investigations are conducted in private. The act also states that, when they are before the committee, the parties do not have an absolute right to know the submissions of the other party. The committee has rules that provide that, when the evidence is before them, members must try to determine how they will ensure a balance between the rights of the parties and national security. This exercise is conducted in all complaints cases, but no one has an absolute right to know the information the other party will bring. In all cases, in all files, the committee tries to communicate as much information as possible to the complainant. Shading is done, and we try to provide as much information as possible to the complainant.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Why wasn't she granted the right to a francophone judge? No one's answering my question.
4 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Complaints Section, Security Intelligence Review Committee
With regard to the matter of francophone judges, that depends on the availability of members. Furthermore, there is simultaneous interpretation when the members request it or when a party or witness requests it.
