Public Safety Committee on March 10th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

No we don't.

Mr. Norlock, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I have several areas I'd like to hit upon, so through you I would ask the witnesses that I'm about to ask questions if they could be succinct unless they feel it necessary to expand on their answers.

My first question will be for Mr. Coulombe, the head of CSIS.

Mr. Coulombe, in the 30-year history of CSIS, how many times has SIRC chastised or found you and your organization to be in breach of the rules under which you operate?

[Michel Coulombe, Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

From memory, I wouldn't do it justice. Prior to that, the certification of the director's annual report to the minister was done by the inspector general for two or three years. Now it's done by SIRC. Again, from memory, in all of those annual reports, the certification was always that our activities were done in conformity with the CSIS Act ministerial direction and it was never an abusive or excessive use of our powers.

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

May I take it from that, that's zero?

[Michel Coulombe]

There has been criticism and recommendation on ways to improve the way we do things but not in terms of breaking the laws.

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

Thank you very much.

Also, we heard mention in some of the questioning that Judge Mosley had some concerns with regard to the activities of CSIS. What have you done, sir, to address those concerns?

[Michel Coulombe]

Back in the fall of 2013 when the decision came down, the first thing we did was we stopped doing the activities that were caught in that process. It is very difficult for me to talk about some of the issues because there are still questions that are now in front of the Supreme Court and it would be improper for me to comment on this.

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

Thank you very much.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

If I may, Mr. Norlock, as you know, I came in front of this committee to respond to the invitation of the Supreme Court which is to define clearly that CSIS has the mandate to operate here and abroad, to exchange information, to include a witness protection program, and also to protect the confidentiality of a member of CSIS operating. This bill is now in front of the Senate; the Senate is moving forward on it, and I am confident that this bill, which is simply maintaining the existing capability of CSIS, will be approved.

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

Thank you very much.

We heard some of the questions from the opposition, a lot on process, etc., etc., but there were no real questions concerning the law.

My next question would be concerning real-time oversight. As far as I'm concerned, being in the law enforcement community, real-time oversight means somebody standing over you watching what you're doing.

Commissioner Paulson, do you have real-time oversight over you, somebody following you around, making sure that every move your members make is being verified by some other agency?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

It seems like it sometimes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Yes.

I'm asking you, are you aware of any police force in Canada that has real-time oversight?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

No, other than the internal processes that we have for supervision and leadership.

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

Right, it's internal.

Thank you very much.

I would like to go back to my friends in CSIS.

You were very clear about serious breaches in the 30-year history where you were criticized. Madam Ablonczy mentioned some of the criticisms by some of the very people who are criticizing this legislation, saying that we're in a police state.

Going back to the activities of members of CSIS, do you feel your members have the oversight that is appropriate to their duties?

[Michel Coulombe]

I've testified a number of times that in my opinion SIRC is a robust review mechanism that has proven over 30 years its value, its impartiality. I've said publicly again a number of times that our organization is a better organization because of the work of SIRC.

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

Thank you very much.

When your members are being trained and being told what their duties are, they are specifically guided by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how far they can go with regard to the authority given to them. Would I be correct in saying that this is part and parcel of their training, and a major part of it?

[Michel Coulombe]

It is part of the training.

It goes from the charter, flows into the CSIS Act, ministerial directive, and then operational internal policy. They're all linked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock and Mr. Coulombe.

Now Mr. Garrison, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Norlock opened up an interesting line of questioning, which I'd like to continue with, when he talked about the RCMP and its internal monitoring of activities. We used to have an inspector general of CSIS who did internal monitoring of observance of the law and CSIS activities, and that was eliminated by this government in 2012.

I'd like to ask the minister, given the broad expansion of powers and activities contemplated for CSIS in this, why not bring back the inspector general's position? The former inspector general said quite clearly, and she actually used the word “ridiculous”, that it was ridiculous to think the review committee known as SIRC could do the same job of probing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. She said:

They don't do the same kind of work at all.... They don't go into the same depth, the same detail. And they're basically part-time people.

Instead of passing these powers to SIRC, which has basically had the same flat budget for the last 10 years, why not bring back the inspector general to help provide that internal oversight?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I thank you for you question.

You are right in saying that there were some concerns when the office of the inspector general was closed, that it could have an impact. Well, it's the opposite that took place. For this I would refer you to the last annual report from SIRC, which clearly says:

As required under the CSIS act, SIRC's interaction with the Minister have become more frequent. Far from compromising its independence...this relationship has substantially added to [the security and intelligence review committee's] role in the system of accountability and has, if anything, deepened SIRC's ability to reassure Parliament and Canadians regarding the activities of the Service.

This action was taken two years ago, and we can now say who has benefited: the whole Canadian society and the protection of their rights and their freedoms.

Let me just add that it's not only SIRC that can review all CSIS activities, but it is also possible by the Auditor General and the Privacy Commissioner.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

You raised two interesting points there. One, the last annual report of SIRC said very clearly that it had problems in receiving complete information in a timely manner from CSIS. They themselves have said that they've had problems doing the oversight because of a failure of cooperation in a complete and timely manner. How does that square with your argument that this is an improvement in robust oversight?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I'm glad to see you are supporting our great Security Intelligence Review Committee. Let me just say that Canada is one of the first democratic governments anywhere in the world to establish a statutory framework for its security service. We are pioneers in a totally independent institution. Is it critical sometimes of the work of CSIS? Absolutely. Actually, you just have to review their report. Indeed, they've done many reviews on counter-intelligence investigation, sensitive CSIS activities, namely the carrying of firearms—it's in the report—use of an emergency area, and they also have, as you know, a complaint process. We really have a robust system.

What is also important is every year they are delivering a certificate to me.

The question is, has CSIS operated under Canadian law? In most of its reviews, SIRC was satisfied this year with the manner in which CSIS carried out its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada and they gave this certificate of approval. Do they have good recommendations? Yes. Are they making CSIS a better security intelligence agency? Yes, they are.

In Bill C-51, for which I'm seeking the support of this committee, there are provisions that will mandate SIRC to review the threat diminishment activities that are in the provisions. We are increasing the mandate of SIRC the same way.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Very briefly, at the end you mentioned the Privacy Commissioner, who unfortunately is not going to appear before this committee. Did you have a review of this legislation from the Privacy Commissioner before you introduced this legislation? What do you make of his concerns that this bill involves a significant loss of privacy rights?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Very briefly.