Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fadden, for coming here today.
It wasn't long ago that you were before this committee. It was on May 11, in fact. The Honourable Gary Filmon, chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, also testified that day. And if you will indulge me for a minute, for the benefit of those watching today who did not see the testimony that day--and I'm sure you don't have it in front of you--I would like to quote Mr. Filmon:
Let me say first that having served on SIRC for nearly nine years, during which time I have been in regular contact with many organizations with similar mandates, I'm confident that Canada's model is, and is recognized to be, one of the strongest review functions in the world. This is not to say that changes and improvements are not possible, but simply that we have in SIRC an effective tool for helping to ensure the accountability of Canada's security intelligence agency, CSIS.
As I'm sure you are aware, SIRC came into being at the same time that 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 operation of its security service. It is equally significant that the CSIS Act created a framework to make CSIS accountable in exercising its powers....
Specifically, the CSIS Act defines the mandate and limits of state power to conduct 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 draw your attention to this because it's important to appreciate the context in which CSIS operates.
That same day you testified,
The central duties and functions of CSIS are defined in section 12 of the act. We are to “collect...analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities” that could reasonably be suspected of being security threats to Canada. We call this security intelligence. We are then to “report to and advise the Government” on that intelligence.
Based on those general powers, CSIS collects intelligence on a variety of specific threats to Canadian security, defined broadly in our act and refined by directives from cabinet and the Minister of Public Safety. These include terrorism, espionage, and foreign-influenced activities.
I think we can all accept that the people of CSIS are dedicated to the protection of Canada's national interests and the safety of all Canadians.
Director, my question is this: with that level of monitoring by outside actors, why would you feel it is necessary to speak about something as sensitive as foreign influence? What's to be gained?