Evidence of meeting #63 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I have.
December 3rd, 2012 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Up until now, the idea has been that it should remain undisclosed on the grounds of a specific public interest, or because it relates to or would be potentially injurious to international relations, national defence, or national security. I believe the Federal Court has found this approach to be a little too restrictive. The bill amends part of the Canada Evidence Act to institute a presumption of more transparency.
I was wondering if you've looked at those aspects of the bill, because I'm having trouble understanding them. For example, we talk about disclosure risk, that agencies such as yours will now face greater disclosure risk. I was wondering if you could speak to what that really means.
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
In responding to that question, when CSIS was created I don't think the occasion to disclose classified information in an open forum was originally envisioned. We've had to move down toward that reality. At the same time, the federal courts that usually deal with open information are struggling with dealing with classified information, which in an intelligence organization, by definition, the intelligence is secret. Moving into an open forum has been difficult for us, but not something we have failed to do. The success we've had in some of the counterterrorist investigations, working with the RCMP, is to find ways to transpose what we call intelligence and move it more into the evidentiary sphere. It has been done, but it hasn't been easy.
I think the clauses you're referring to provide an opportunity for certain hearings to be done in secret and others, the predominant number, to be done in an open forum, if I'm correct, Mr. Scarpaleggia. For our purposes, obviously, it allows us to divulge more information of a classified nature if it's in a secure environment. If it's in an open forum, it's very difficult for us because we have to ensure the protection of our service sources, their identities in particular.
We often have to protect allied information that comes to us. Canada is a net receiver of intelligence from allied agencies. They share that information under the expectation that it will remain secret. The information that we receive from our allies, from our human sources, helps protect Canadians and Canadian interests, so having an opportunity to present that information in a secret forum is a good thing, from our perspective.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I'm trying to understand the process. An investigative hearing would be, of course, a closed hearing, would it not? It's not going to be out in the open, I presume. Am I correct in assuming that? An investigative hearing is always behind closed doors; it's simply that the information will have to be made public at some point. Is that what we're talking about?
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think there are two options in that regard, but the Justice officials would probably be better to ask.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Okay.
So you've had to change the way you operate because of the fact that there's a greater presumption now of transparency. You said that you've had to turn intelligence into evidentiary information. Could you expand on that?
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think the issue is around disclosure. Certainly, we can disclose to law enforcement. We can provide investigative leads. It does get complicated when we're trying to protect our human sources from identification. Obviously, in a counterterrorism investigation where we have human sources, their lives are at risk if we have them identified in a public forum. Also, depending on the organization we've targeted against, we want to use those individuals on a repeat basis, not in a one-off case.
Where we've changed our activity is in terms of the eventual leads we've provided to the RCMP. We try to make them as fulsome as possible, but with the intent that the RCMP will then initiate their own law enforcement investigation, we will continue down a parallel track in an intelligence investigation.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
You're basically going to point them in a certain direction.
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
That's correct.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Without giving up your sources and saying that you've heard this and you've heard that, you find the answer for yourself and build up a case for yourself.
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
That's a fair assessment. Obviously, there have been other occasions where we've provided them with our human source who they've turned into a government agent, for court purposes, but those situations are rare. Our preference is that they will engage in their own investigative process.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Scarpaleggia.
We'll now move back to Mr. Scott.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
I was just wondering, Ms. Beauregard, if you could confirm that CATSA at the moment is not part of ITAC. Is that correct?
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Are there any discussions about it becoming involved, especially because we're talking so much about exit issues around this leaving the country offence?
Director, Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre
That's a good point, but there aren't at the moment, no.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay, thank you.
I was wondering if both of you, but in particular, Mr. Yaworski could comment a little on oversight.
I think you know that a certain set of recommendations came out of the Arar commission from Justice O'Connor, about the need for more integrated oversight mechanisms, partly because of the nature of cooperation.
With this bill, we're getting into all sorts of insights about the world of cooperation you guys live in. It's not in this bill and it certainly isn't in any other bill we have before us to have that kind of oversight mechanism.
What if we were to suggest that for the provisions in question that are being resurrected to be sunsetted there has to be a fulsome report to Parliament on where the system is with those Arar commission recommendations and to provide justification if the system hasn't yet implemented those recommendations? What would you think of that as a condition to sunsetting?
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Well, from a CSIS perspective, I would suggest to you that the Security Intelligence Review Committee can see everything that we are engaged in.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
It can see what you are engaged in, but not necessarily others?
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Exactly.
I don't want to get drawn down the path of what other agencies may or may not require in terms of oversight. Certainly, that's not something within my expertise, nor do I think it is appropriate that we should comment on it. However, I can emphasize that the Security Intelligence Review Committee would see everything, both historically and moving forward. If there is a change in the legislation, it would obviously have access to everything to do with our involvement in that.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Do I take it from the way you've answered that you feel the loss of the inspector general function, with the direct advisory role to the minister, is no loss at all, that SIRC can do everything needed?
Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think the specialized functions of the inspector general have now been inherited by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. At the same time, the government has managed to save $1 million of taxpayers' money. I think overall it's been a very good thing. From our perspective, it's eliminated duplication.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Okay, thank you.
You brought up the example of phones. I'm just going through the process of association. I read the business section of either The Globe and Mail or the National Post today, and they were talking about a company called Roam Mobility, which has now started to market burner phones into the U.S. For the reason of not being able to strike deals with telecoms yet, they're not yet here in Canada in this extended fashion. Do you see the existence of burner phones as a big problem in the world that we currently live in?