Evidence of meeting #42 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parliamentarians.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stephanie Carvin  Assistant Professor, The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
John Major  As an Individual
Ian McPhail  Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Jean-Pierre Plouffe  Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
J. William Galbraith  Executive Director, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

November 15th, 2016 / 3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)) Liberal Rob Oliphant

Good afternoon, and welcome.

I'm calling to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which is our 42nd meeting of the 42nd Parliament.

We are continuing our study of Bill C-22, an act to establish the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to other acts that are implicated.

We welcome Stephanie Carvin, assistant professor at The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, and her class, which is with her today, both for learning, hopefully, and for moral support.

Thank you for joining us at our committee meeting today.

Justice John Major was meant to be a witness today as well; however, our time is Eastern Standard Time, and he is on Mountain Time, which puts him two hours out. We may be able to track him down, but if not, we will reschedule him at another meeting.

We will begin with Ms. Carvin. You have 10 minutes, and then the committee will ask you questions.

3:40 p.m.

Professor Stephanie Carvin Assistant Professor, The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual

I thank the committee for inviting me to speak today.

Before I begin, I would, in the interest of disclosure, state that from 2012 until 2015 I worked as an intelligence analyst with the Government of Canada. My views are shaped by this experience, as well as my academic research on national security issues.

However, with regard to the matter at hand, Bill C-22 and the question of intelligence oversight and review, I would like to speak to issues that have been somewhat less prominent. My presentation will therefore proceed in two parts. First, I will address three issues that I believe the committee should consider as this bill goes forward: efficacy review of intelligence analysis; counter-intelligence and foreign influence; and, communications with the public. Second, I will provide four recommendations.

The first issue is efficacy review and intelligence analysis. I am presenting these remarks almost two weeks after it was discovered that the CSIS operational data analysis centre, or ODAC, had illegally kept metadata and conducted assessments with it. While this issue largely refers to data collection and retention, it also speaks to the role of intelligence analysis within the Government of Canada.

We have frequently heard that CSIS's early 1980s mandate no longer reflects technological realities, but intelligence analysis was never discussed in the first place. Other than noting in subsection 12(1) that the service

shall report to and advise the Government of Canada

on national security threats, the role of intelligence analysis is barely given any consideration in the CSIS Act. There is no guidance as to how this role should be done, how intelligence should support operations, or in what way advice is to be given. There is no formal or consistent intelligence analysis review.

In short, there is little accountability within much of the intelligence community as to the delivery of intelligence products, how these products are produced, or whether those products are delivered in a timely manner. Additionally, there is no way of knowing how intelligence products are used, or if they adequately support internal operations or policy-making. Further, there is also no way of knowing if analysts have the proper equipment, tools, or training they need in order to produce their assessments.

I believe the committee proposed in Bill C-22 can play a role in helping to address these issues by becoming the first body dedicated to intelligence analysis efficacy review in Canada.

Second, thus far the discussion around reform of our intelligence agencies and oversight has largely referred to terrorism and surveillance, not espionage or foreign influence activities. Counter-intelligence work requires a different set of skills and activities than counter-terrorism does. For example, counter-intelligence activities can have an impact on foreign policy, and vice versa.

Therefore, the proposed committee could assess how well our foreign policy and national security agencies coordinate their activities, or whether intelligence services should be more frank regarding the activities of foreign governments on Canadian soil. Without a doubt, it is challenging to air these issues in public; espionage and foreign influence can be a source of diplomatic headaches and embarrassment. Nevertheless, they should not be left out of the conversation and the consideration of Parliament as Bill C-22 goes forward. This is especially the case as investigating these issues may require going outside the intelligence community in Canada as traditionally defined.

Third, the proposed committee has the potential to be one of the most important communication tools the government has with regard to providing Canadians information on national security. Unfortunately, at present, there are very few ways in which security agencies are able or willing to communicate with the broader public. Worse, in recent years, it has been a trend for national security agencies to publish their reports infrequently or erratically. For example, CSIS has not produced an annual—now a biennial—public report since May 2015, which covered the period of 2013-14. Public Safety Canada's public report on the terrorist threat, the sole multi-agency report on threat activity in Canada, appears on a more regular basis, but does not cover non-terrorism-related activity.

It is my hope that the committee's report will help remedy this gap and become a powerful communication tool that can help improve knowledge and generate trust. I see this manifesting in two ways.

First, it could become a central source of information on the current threat environment that Canada faces. That this would come from our elected parliamentarians would in my opinion contribute to an overall improvement in the understanding of national security issues in Canada. Second, an honest assessment of activities of our security agencies will generate confidence that our national security services are operating within the letter and spirit of the law.

For the second part of my presentation, I will now present four recommendations.

First, it is imperative that Parliament consider the wider context in which Bill C-22's committee will exist and the broader roles it can play in generating trust. Oversight and review of national security agencies is and should be the fundamental focus of the proposed committee; however, I would encourage parliamentarians to think broadly about the role it may play in communicating information and building trust.

Second, with regard to analysis, the committee should, as a part of its mandate, ensure the quality and timeliness of intelligence analysis to support the government and policy-making by holding the executives of national security agencies accountable. Additionally, it should also include review of innovative techniques, such as big data analytics. This would of course require a secretariat that is knowledgeable about these issues and that could advise committee members. This will help transform intelligence analysis from a second thought to core activities supporting policy-makers.

Third, while it might have to be done behind closed doors, the issues of counter-intelligence, foreign influence, and cyber-intrusions need to be given greater consideration in terms of how the committee will handle its mandate. This includes ensuring that these operations are well coordinated with other agencies and departments such as Global Affairs Canada, which might shape the scope and mandate of the proposed committee.

Fourth, the committee should be required to publish its findings every 365 days without exception. Everyone sitting here today knows how easy it is for government reports to fall through the cracks and miss deadlines. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, the committee's report will be a crucial tool in communicating to Canadians. The more frank and honest these reports are, the better informed the debate over measures to counter Canada's national security threats will be.

In this sense, I'm very much supportive of MP Murray Rankin's proposals regarding the committee, as stated in his speech to the House on September 27.

Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions or hear any comments you may have.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you very much.

As you were speaking, I was thinking that we've had a number of witnesses who have not been able to come because they were teaching classes. That excuse is gone.

3:45 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

We'll begin with Mr. Mendicino for seven minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Carvin, for your presentation.

I want to pick up on your last recommendation, the fourth one, and turn your attention to subclause 21(1) of Bill C-22, which on the face of it would indicate that

the Committee must submit to the Prime Minister a report of the reviews it conducted during the preceding year.

Do you see that as sufficient assurance that there is a reporting obligation on the committee of parliamentarians to provide information to the Prime Minister, and through the Prime Minister, to the House of Commons, about their activities for the preceding year? Or are you suggesting that there needs to be something else?

3:45 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

I would hope for something else, something a little bit more, almost statutory in terms of the regulations. I see that it's here in terms of how it must submit to the Prime Minister a report of the reviews in the preceding year, but there's no timeline on this.

I think it should say “every 365 days”, quite frankly, or, I suppose, 366 days in a leap year. I think that having it as clear as possible that this needs to be released on an annual basis, in law, is important, because this is going to be one of the few tools we have so that the government to communicate what it's seeing and what it believes Canadians should know.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

You're saying, if I understand your recommendation, that after that first sentence, under subclause 21(1) the words “within 365 days of the preceding year” should be included.

3:45 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

Yes.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Or something to that effect?

3:45 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

Yes, I think that would be a great idea. I support it.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

To get back to some of your testimony regarding operational activities, how do you interpret the proposed mandate of the committee of parliamentarians as articulated under clauses 4 and 8?

I took several notes during the course of your evidence, which would seem to suggest that you don't think there are sufficient tools currently within any of the existing civilian oversight—for example, SIRC—to shed some light on the intelligence products, as you've described them.

This is a two-part question. One, do you think the mandate of the committee of parliamentarians under Bill C-22 captures the exercise that you think needs to be there in the review of intelligence products? Two, if not, what do you recommend we do with the bill?

3:50 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

Thank you for your question.

It's an issue that as a former analyst I feel very passionate about. Why I spoke to this issue is that intelligence analysis has tended to be a second thought in member organizations. These organizations are rightly focused on collecting intelligence, but over time they have developed analytical bodies that provide intelligence products to policy-makers with the appropriate clearances, but increasingly, they're also providing unclassified reports to their partners, such as police forces and provincial police forces, and we have no way of knowing how effective this is. As long as the committee understands its mandate to include efficacy review as part of its mandate.... You'll have to bear with me for a second as I flip through the—

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

To maybe give you some assistance, clause 8 says:

The mandate of the Committee is to review (a) the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence; (b) any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence;

and it continues, and

(c) any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the committee.

As we've said before at this committee with other witnesses, the parameters are quite wide.

3:50 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

The parameters are wide, I would agree, but are people thinking about intelligence analysis?

I raise this issue because I haven't seen it raised prominently yet by a number of commentators on the subject. I can understand that. There are great concerns about other aspects of this bill with regard to what information MPs can see, who will be on it, and who will be the chair, but in making this as specific as possible, there's no harm in that. I would agree that it could technically be in there, but it's hard for me to see that these issues are being considered, because I haven't heard them discussed.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Am I right in interpreting from your answer that your concern is less about the language and more about the culture of accountability and oversight as we embark on this new era? Is that a fair statement?

3:50 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

I think that is a fair statement. To be fair, I'm not a lawyer, so speaking about the legalities is not my particular area. One of the things that I hope I conveyed in my talk today was that I want this committee, when looking at this bill, to not just look at the functions of oversight or even efficacy review, but to think about the kind of broader purpose that I think this committee can have in being a communication tool and in perhaps providing oversight for some of the things that just simply don't really take place right now.

Those are the two issues I feel particularly passionate about, which I tried to speak to today.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Lastly, before my time expires in our exchange, what do you say that the secretariat, the staff side of this committee, should be turning its mind toward in creating this culture that moves beyond the specific language of the bill, such that the committee starts to dig into some of these other facets of oversight like intelligence products? What should they be thinking about?

3:50 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

What they should be thinking about is talking to policy-makers and asking them how they are receiving the products. To be honest, we don't even know. As an analyst, I didn't know who was even receiving my products. Who is receiving the products? Who is using the products? Did they play a part in policy-making? If so, to whom?

Then, of course, they should be talking to the executives of the intelligence analysis bodies, or those who are responsible for them, whether it's the ADI at CSIS, or the head of ITAC, to ask them about—

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

I'm sorry, but what is ITAC?

3:50 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

It's the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Okay.

3:50 p.m.

Prof. Stephanie Carvin

They produce reports meant for the general public, but they also write very high-level documents as well. It's worth trying to find out how products were generated. Who was asking for them? Were they being used by more than one person? Were they all high-level products? Should we be thinking about distributing them more broadly?

Also, are the channels for distribution that we have effective? Sometimes as an analyst you have the feeling that perhaps your products are going into a black hole. You have a lot of smart people in these outfits, and I want to make sure that their knowledge is at least being seen, if not considered.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you, Dr. Carvin.

Mr. Clement.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you.

Thank you for being here, Madam Carvin. Marco stole almost my entire thunder, but I'm going to build on—