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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Filmon, you were laudatory in your opening remarks about the legislative and operational framework of CSIS and the parliamentary oversight that SIRC provides for us here. Do you believe that, if properly resourced, CSIS has adequate, sufficient powers legislatively to do its job?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I ask that question because recently there was an article by a former director of CSIS, Mr. Reid Morden, who stated, exactly as you had said, that that was correct, and he felt that preventative arrest and investigative judicial hearings in fact cross the line between the security of the state and the rights of the citizen.
Let me move on to another question. My understanding is that CSIS no longer interrogates prisoners in Afghanistan. Is that correct?
4:15 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I think that's something you'll have to ask the director.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay. If you're not sure of an answer, it can always be provided to the committee afterwards.
Would you have any idea how many prisoners have been interrogated by CSIS during our Afghan operations?
4:15 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
As I said, we're just doing our Afghan detainee review this year as part of our work plan, so I don't have that information right now.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
When that information becomes available, could you pass it on to the committee?
Could you also provide the number of the prisoners who were sent to the National Directorate of Security, as it was labelled earlier, the notorious NDS?
4:15 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Subject to national security constraints, I'd be happy to provide you with that information.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'm not asking how many CSIS agents we have on the ground, just how many people they've actually interrogated. Considering that other NATO partners, in fact, post the numbers of people they detain and pass on, I wouldn't see what the security implication might be there.
You produced the Khadr report. Is a report on Mr. Abdelrazik in process? There were indications that a report would be produced.
4:15 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
We are just discussing this, because generally speaking we don't speak about specific individuals who are being reviewed or investigated by us.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Is there an ongoing investigation at this time of a Canadian citizen who was detained in Sudan, one of the worst countries in terms of human rights records? In fact, President al-Bashir was indicted by the International Criminal Court.
Is there an investigation of allegations that he was arrested in Sudan as a result of CSIS making that request to the Khartoum government?
4:20 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Complaints Section, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I can answer that. The committee does not comment or acknowledge generally whether there are complaints before the committee. Because of section 48, all investigations of complaints are conducted in private. We normally don't acknowledge that we have complainants in front of the committee, and we don't comment on the investigations.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Let me try this. If there were a complaint of that sort made in the spring of last year, and indications were that SIRC would begin a report, normally what would be the timeframe within which one could expect a report, as was done in the Khadr case?
4:20 p.m.
Acting Senior Counsel, Complaints Section, Security Intelligence Review Committee
The Khadr report was not a complaint. With respect to complaints, the delay for getting reports out will vary according to the nature of the complaint and the nature of the allegations that need to be investigated.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So you're supposed to provide oversight for Parliament and you can't even let us know whether or not SIRC is investigating when there are serious allegations that CSIS may have been complicit in the arrest of the Canadian citizen who alleges two years of torture? The complaints have been ongoing for a long period of time. We can't even find out whether or not there may be a report at some point in time. That then leads me to question whether SIRC is working as efficiently and in such a laudatory manner as was presented to us at the start of the session.
Let me move along to another topic--
4:20 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
The response is yes. Perhaps the difference is that we're not on a political timetable.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Borys, I'm sorry. We only have time for one more questioner.
Ms. Glover, please.
May 11th, 2010 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
I want to thank you as well for appearing today.
I understand very well the need to have a cloak of secrecy, particularly when we're talking about national defence. I commend you on the work you do. It is difficult work, and we very much appreciate that you're patient with our line of questioning today.
I would like to talk a little more generally. I'm going to try to extract from you a comparison today, Mr. Filmon. You have stated in your opening remarks that our system is one of the strongest. I would like you to take a moment to assess and provide us with a comparison with other nations—maybe a little bit of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Can you just do a small comparison with other nations?
4:20 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I'm not sure that this is anything more than an experienced opinion, but that's the only thing I can give you.
We meet regularly, at least every second year, with bodies that do similar work from all over the world—typically 10 or 12 countries with whom we have good relationships. You've heard of the “five eyes”, and there are many others with whom we have good relationships, from countries that are well-established democracies and have very well-established security and intelligence functions. We get a chance to compare and contrast how our systems work versus those of others.
One of the things they say they really like about Canada's system is that basically we have attempted to remove, and have been very successful at removing, the politics from our review of what is probably the most sensitive and potentially intrusive aspect of security and intelligence anywhere. The possibilities are, of course, that people could very seriously, personally, be damaged and that human rights, individual rights, could be negatively affected. It is a very sensitive area. We've managed with our system to remove politics as much as possible. This has gone through more than 25 years now of a very effective, non-partisan process. They like that about us.
They like the fact that our people are able to get into all of the elements of the operation of the security intelligence service, that aside from a cabinet confidence, there's nothing that can be withheld from us. That goes beyond almost any other similar oversight or review body that we encounter amongst our counterparts. They say that's a very positive thing about it that is lost, for instance, in a congressional committee, where partisanship gets in and they're not able to get at a lot of the information because of the fact that these organizations can keep secrets from them.
In those two regards, and in the ability to develop an experienced staff that over the years gets to really know the inside workings, and so in terms of review can be very incisive in getting at the information and the conclusions—for all those reasons—we are told by our peers that they really feel we have a great system in Canada.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
What are the criticisms? We've talked about the good. Let's talk about the bad. Are there criticisms from other nations of the way our civilian oversight system works?
4:25 p.m.
Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I'm not sure what criticisms we've heard. There's always a desire, I would say, on the part of people in elected office to be able to get at the information they would like to with respect to the inner workings of the security intelligence establishment in every country.
Some countries have managed to find some hybrid system to do that, but it brings in another element to the process, in which parliamentarians, congressmen, and so on can only be given access to certain things, or if they are given it, then they have to bear the same cloak of secrecy that we do.