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.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Fadden, do you believe that CSIS has sufficient legislative powers in place to do its job, of course, with the caveat, should adequate resources be provided to CSIS?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Broadly speaking, I do, Mr. Chairman.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you.
Would that, then, mean that preventive arrest and investigative hearings are not required for you to be able to do your job?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Interesting question. I would say that that question would be more appropriately answered by my colleague, the Commissioner of the RCMP.
From our perspective, what we try to do is to collect information and make it available to the police and others, and it's for them to decide whether they're going to do something to disrupt or counter. From my general perspective, these would be additional tools that would be useful, but it really is I think more on the police side that they would make use of these additional tools.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Your predecessor, former director Mr. Morden, stated that he doesn't believe these powers are necessary and that in fact they cross a line—“the imposition of these two powers crosses that line...between the security of the state and the rights of its citizens”. He made it quite clear in regard to CSIS: CSIS does not need to have those additional legislative powers to do its job. Do you agree, generally, with that statement?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
In the context that they are not powers for us to use. They would be used by the attorneys general or by the RCMP, so we would not use them. They would use intelligence that we would produce and decide whether or not it would be useful to use.
In a general sense, I think they're useful because it points out to people that if there's a real problem—and if I understand correctly, these powers were never used in the first five years—and if you can get a judge and an attorney general to agree, we can force someone to testify in a particular circumstance. It's a useful tool to have. But again, I want to repeat, from my limited perspective, that it's not a tool we would use; others would use it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you very much.
We'll go over to the government side now.
Mr. McColeman, please.
May 11th, 2010 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Thank you, and thank you for coming today.
There has been talk about Afghanistan and the CSIS role there. I'd like to first read into the record part of your presentation that didn't make it because you didn't have enough time. It's in the latter part of your presentation, and I read:
...CSIS plays a critical role in supporting ail three pillars of Canada's efforts in Afghanistan—defence, diplomacy, and development.
As my Assistant Director Foreign Collection stated last week, information collected by CSIS has saved lives. Our work has led to the disruption and dismantling of insurgent networks planning imminent IED and car bomb attacks against military and civilian targets.
We are very proud of our role in force protection, and our employees are willing to share the risks faced by CF personnel while in Afghanistan....
CSIS intelligence contributes to the success of Canada's overall mission in Afghanistan.
Now, Director Fadden, in the context that has been described by some here today, you would think that some of your work is simply to be harsh on people in an undue way. We've lost 143 Canadian lives, men and women, in Afghanistan. You're there protecting Canadian lives, as far as I can tell. Tell me about some of the people you interview.
And from another part of your earlier comments, I'll quote again from your presentation: “CSIS is investigating over 200 individuals in this country”—meaning Canada—“whose activities meet the definition of terrorism as set out in section 2(c) of the CSIS Act”.
Let's talk about what's really important in terms of public safety and saving Canadian lives and what you're doing in Afghanistan. When you are getting intelligence, are you not talking to people who are even terrorists themselves, criminals, murderers, to gather information? Are these the types of things you're doing to protect our people in Afghanistan?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Basically, what we do is try to talk to people in Afghanistan who would have some intelligence, some information, about threats to both Canada and to our allies. By definition, those people are either terrorists themselves, Taliban insurgents, or they're people who know something about them. So our job is, in one shape, form, or another, to try to acquire that kind of intelligence.
One of the categories of people that we talk to, Mr. Chair, is suspected Taliban insurgents taken into custody by the Canadian Forces through some sort of operation that they have run. Initially, when we were first in Afghanistan, over the first few years the Canadian Forces were not organized to interview these people. So in the context of a quite structured Canadian Forces interviewing program, we were frequently brought in to ask them questions, usually to try to ascertain their identity, to try to find out what they had been up to. In most cases, these interviews lasted less than 15 or 20 minutes. They were then transferred, at the call of the Canadian Forces or not, to the Afghan authorities.
So, yes, our job involves talking to people in Afghanistan who potentially would do harm to Canadians and to try to use that information, to provide it to both Canadian authorities and the Afghan authorities, to forestall harming Canadian and allied lives.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
So you're working alongside our Canadian Forces, rooting out the information you need to protect Canadian soldiers' lives. Is that what you're saying?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
That's correct, and there are specific examples, which I, unfortunately, can't talk about, where we've actually done that. We have saved Canadian lives.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Can I say it in a different way, then? This isn't a pretty business. This is a business of getting the intelligence you need so that you can protect our Canadian soldiers as they drive out of Kandahar on a mission or whatever they're doing, and that's part of your role and why you are in Afghanistan. You're not there to be the bad guys. You're there to help protect our lives.
5:10 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
No, absolutely not. We're there to gather information. We don't have any executive authority. We don't arrest, detain, or imprison people. Our job is to collect information that the Canadian Forces, ISAF, and our other allies can use to save Canadian or allied lives. The only way we can do this is by communicating with people who know about potential plots to harm Canadian and allied lives. That's not doing any harm. To my mind, that's doing a great deal of good.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I want to thank you for that.
If I have any remaining time, I'd like to pass it over—two minutes—to Mr. MacKenzie.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I think it's fair to say that's the essence of what Canadians expect you to do, and we thank you very much for that.
One of the things that we see with our closest neighbours to the south.... The area you operate in, nobody wants to know you're there, particularly when everything is safe. I see our American neighbours having a couple of recent incidents, looking at their intelligence agency, and making the suggestion that it broke down because it didn't gather the information that may or may not have saved these last two incidents.
I think Mr. McColeman has that essence. That's what Canadians expect. That's what they want to do. I think we would see that your work in that area is like that of police officers. If they're going to catch bank robbers, they have to talk to bank robbers and so on.
In addition to what you're doing in Afghanistan, those 200 people that you've already mentioned...those are potentially issues that would happen in this country. I'm just wondering if there's anything you can expand on without being specific.
5:10 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Included in this grouping are a number of people who are involved in espionage and a few who are involved in foreign interference, but I guess the group I'd like to talk about a little bit are those who have been radicalized domestically. It's a characteristic that we're finding in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
Usually, second- or third-generation Canadians, who in some ways are relatively well integrated into Canada economically and socially, for one reason or another develop connections with their former homeland. They become very disenchanted and are led to contemplate doing violence either in Canada against Canadians or against someone else overseas.
The public example of this is the Toronto 18, most of whom have either pleaded guilty or are on the road, I hope, to conviction. These are people who have become appallingly disenchanted with the way we want to structure our society. They reject the rule of law, they want to impose Shariah law--they want to do a whole variety of things.
There are a number of such groups in Canada that we're investigating, as there are in the United States and the United Kingdom. That's the most worrisome part, I think, of our work today. It's the people who have been in this country for quite a while who are rejecting the very essence of what we are in Canada.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you very much.
This is an abbreviated session. We have to vote in 15 minutes. I thank you very much—
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, there are 16 minutes. It takes 30 seconds to get to the House—
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't like to do it, but I disagree with that ruling. There's no reason for that. We're 30 seconds away from the House.
5:15 p.m.
An hon. member
I think if there's a consensus around the table.... It takes us a couple of minutes to get to the House.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
It takes a couple of minutes, but some of us have some things we have to do.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. If we have things we have to do.... This meeting is scheduled to 5:30. The bells haven't even started. When the bells start, we have 15 minutes. We're 30 seconds away.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative