Public Safety Committee on May 11th, 2010

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

There was no translation in this case. There was no judge from what I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Mourani, you'll have to respect the rules of the committee.

We'll go to Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests today for their presentation.

I'd like to ask, first of all, a general question about your role in overseeing the work of CSIS. Of course, we respect the fact that SIRC is a civilian oversight program, which, together with the inspector general, we see as vital. In fact, it is a model that could be used for the RCMP or as a similar type of civilian oversight model for the military.

In terms of your oversight of CSIS, can you just expand slightly on the fact that in its overseas role, CSIS has, as you say here, moved from a strictly liaison role to what you're calling operations of a clandestine nature? That is a significant departure from their long-standing focus. Is that something you actually oversee?

We had Monsieur Coulombe testify before the Afghanistan committee last week, and they actually had an agreement or a partnership with the NDS, an organization of some notoriety because of its human rights activities and violations in Afghanistan. Is that something you would take it upon yourselves to ensure was in keeping with what CSIS is supposed to be doing outside of this country?

[Gary Filmon]

Thank you.

First, we are a review body, the distinction being that if we were an oversight body, we would be involved with their active day-to-day operations and the examination of their activities. Rather, we review all their activities on a post hoc basis. We selectively look at issues in their operations that are of concern to us and we examine them. Over a period of time, every element of what they do, in a major sort of principled way, is examined.

With respect to your question about their activities in terms of foreign operations, the point we're making is that over time, they have been collecting information and are involved in activities that I think are fairly well known publicly with respect to Afghanistan. In the interests of the security of our personnel over there, they are gathering information that's of critical importance with respect to kidnappings that have taken place over recent times that involved Canadians. Even, I think, when there was a major Hamas uprising in Lebanon, there were many Canadians there, and it was important to have information on the ground that was of critical importance, from a security standpoint.

Things of that nature have evolved over the years as a requirement of intelligence gathering for the betterment and security of Canadians. So in that respect, we have, in at least three different reviews, examined that to see whether they are adhering to their legislation, their own policy structure, ministerial direction, and national security requirements.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Let me tell you that I, for one, as a Canadian, have concerns about a Canadian intelligence force having an agreement or a partnership with an organization like the NDS, given its notoriety. I would hope that SIRC would use its independent review power not just to respond to complaints but to have a look at that and see whether it has concerns about how it's operating.

[Gary Filmon]

I should say that we examine all their agreements--their cooperation and interchange-of-information agreements. They now have, I believe, 278 of them, with more than 140 countries.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Is there any distinction, then, between what CSIS is doing internationally and what might be done by a Canadian foreign intelligence service? Or are we now saying that CSIS is our foreign intelligence service as well as domestic intelligence?

[Gary Filmon]

I think that's a question you'll have to ask the director in terms of their operational activities and the extent to which he can share that with you.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

In terms of national security and the security of Canadians, we have agreements with 140 different countries and we're operating all over the world. This hardly seems to be the CSIS that was devised in 1984.

[Gary Filmon]

I didn't say we were operating all over the world. I said we had 278 agreements with over 140 countries. I said that is for information-sharing and exchange. As I think you're aware, in the aftermath of 9/11, virtually every analysis and report that was done said it was a failure to share information, to connect the dots, that a lot of knowledge and information was available in a variety of different places but wasn't put together, which might have stopped it. So I think information-sharing has been accepted by security and intelligence agencies all over the world as being an absolute must.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Okay. Let's talk about information-sharing for one second.

Mr. Justice Iacobucci found that information about a truck driver with a visitor's map of Ottawa was shared with a foreign intelligence service, which contributed to the ill treatment of Ahmad El Maati in Egypt and potentially Syria. Is that something that you would also review and say whether these problems had been fixed?

[Gary Filmon]

Yes. In our investigation into Maher Arar, which took place before the judicial inquiry, we certainly said there were concerns, not on the part of CSIS, but clearly information had been communicated to other foreign powers without perhaps, as he ultimately did find out, proper caveats and restrictions on it.

All these agreements call for appropriate caveats, restrictions, and limitations, and third-party....

All these issues are within the agreements. So it's not a matter of whether the agreements are there; the agreements are there, and from our investigation they're appropriate, but it's whether they're respected by other people, other agencies, or other partners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie, please.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Norlock.

I'd like to thank the panel for being here.

First off, all of us understand that this is not 1984. The world has changed, and so must CSIS.

But I'd like to set the record straight about what was said at a previous committee--not this committee, but the Afghan committee--with respect to dealing with issues in Afghanistan. I would ask the press and anyone at home who has an interest to go to the blues from May 5, where the CSIS people appeared here. Prior to 17:15, they will find that one of the members of the panel, Mr. Dosanjh, asked the CSIS representative a hypothetical question. He persisted in asking the question, even though the member from CSIS said he didn't like to answer hypothetical questions.

It went on and on, and finally, I think, people will find that Mr. Dosanjh said:

But if you try to seek similar evidence from sources not tainted by torture and you're unable to get that because you're in a battlefield in a country torn asunder by war, but you have this nagging feeling that something may happen to our forces, you indicate that if you try, but if you can't find it, you do act on that original information if you think the lives of our troops are at risk.

I don't think there's a Canadian out there who would expect CSIS or anyone else to ignore the information if people's lives are at risk.

My friend talks about whether we have arrangements with NDS. We have 143 Canadians killed in that country. Surely he wouldn't expect CSIS not to seek the information they can, not from torture, but to deal with colleagues around the world. I would hope that SIRC, in doing its job, overviews and oversees those kinds of situations.

I wonder if any of you would like to comment on what I've just said here.

[Gary Filmon]

As I said just a moment ago, we have examined those agreements. We're satisfied that the agreements are appropriate in the circumstances, that they cover the issues of how the information is exchanged, what kind of information is exchanged, the use of appropriate caveats and limitations, and all those things that mean that, in the exchange of the information, we are doing it for the benefit, safety, and security of Canadians as opposed to any other purpose.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much to the witnesses, and thank you very much, Mr. Filmon, for your testimony so far today.

I have a few other questions. They are somewhat general in nature, and I'm asking these on behalf of Canadian citizens who are watching this televised proceeding.

You've mentioned that we have 278 agreements with 140 countries. You used to be in a very partisan.... As premier and as a political leader, you're very much aware of the partisan attitude that can erupt in certain areas, such as we're seeing here in this place. I'm asking you this quite frankly in plain English. Do you feel as a loyal Canadian citizen, a man who has the Order of Canada, a man who is vested with a very important job, a man who I believe is above politics now...do you believe Canadians can hold their head up and be proud of CSIS and of the job that your organization is doing to make sure that we protect the human rights of Canadian citizens, and above all else their safety?

[Gary Filmon]

I think that's leading the witness, but--

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

Excuse me sir. It may be leading the witness, but people out there are not getting the right information.

[Gary Filmon]

I appreciate what you're saying. I would just say that I believe, in the nine years that I've been both a member and chair of SIRC, that I've conducted myself in a totally non-partisan vein.

I'm sure that members know that I was appointed to the committee by the Liberal government of Mr. Chrétien, that I was appointed chair by the Liberal government of Mr. Martin, and that we have people of many different political persuasions on the committee. It's always been a multi-party, non-partisan committee.

We take our responsibilities very seriously, and I would say to you that we regard our relationship as being one in which we're protecting the best interests of all Canadians in our examination of service. In so doing, we have to be as independent as we possibly can, both from them and from any other motivation. Along the way, from time to time, regrettably, it's been our responsibility to find fault with them. Having said that, we don't in any way judge poorly their motivation or their professionalism. It's just like any organization. From time to time they have made mistakes, in our judgment, and we've pointed that out in our reviews and in our annual reports.

That having been said, I believe it is fair to say as well that over time they've become more professional and better able to do their work, so that if you believe in continuous improvement, they probably are a good example of people who have striven to get better and better at what they do, and I think they're recognized for that.

That doesn't make our job any easier, because it means we still have to be very alert to the fact that it's a human service and from time to time mistakes are made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have a half a minute yet.

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

Thank you very much. Also, current members of Parliament have been on SIRC. Is it not true that the Hon. Bob Rae was a member of SIRC?

[Gary Filmon]

That is correct.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I think my next question is going to be too long, so we'll wait for our next turn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please.