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.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
No, no. We were thinking along the same lines.
In my seven minutes, I want to engage with you on the practicalities of this.
This is going to be a committee of parliamentarians, parliamentarians who have other things to do in their lives, such as other committees to be on, or travelling around the country and sometimes around the world. Then we have this very specific role that you have identified in terms of the importance that it has. You've said that we have to get into data analytics and cybersecurity and that our findings have to be timely.
In your mind, how does that actually work? How are we going to be qualitatively able to do this? Also, what's the interaction? You mentioned the secretariat, and I'd like you to build upon that a little bit, but what's the interaction? How does this work? We're not there 24/7.
It's an open-ended question.
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
I think it speaks to the issue of how over even the last five years we have seen this transition to where everyone is talking about big data. I know that the intelligence services are also struggling with big data, and not just for the reasons we saw last week, controversially, but also for cultural reasons. People who were from the first classes of CSIS, perhaps, don't understand how big data or Bayesian statistics work.
What I think we need is a kind of cultural shift. In terms of this particular committee, you're going to need to have a secretariat that is familiar with data analysis and analytic techniques generally. When I was an analyst, we used to talk about structured analytic techniques—that was one way—but it's also about having just a broad understanding of the way the intelligence cycle works. Third, it's about having some kind of background, hopefully, in how big data can be used and how it can support.
You wouldn't necessarily have to be an expert in it but be familiar enough with it so that if you saw it you would know what you were looking at. This is why I'm so pleased that the bill has considered a secretariat that could support the work.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Right. Yes, your point is—I'm dumbing it down for me—that the secretariat isn't there just to schedule meetings and compile a stack of briefing binders. It actually has to be engaging, maybe even on a proactive basis, with the security establishment in this country and developing their own expertise separate and apart from the security establishment expertise. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but is that where you're leading?
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
I appreciate it. I think you're saying it somewhat more eloquently than I did, but that's exactly it. The secretariat cannot be people who assemble briefing binders all the time. It has to be people who are actually knowledgeable about the intelligence cycle and process. I would agree with that. They have to be able to support the parliamentarians who are on the committee and be able to say, “This is some big data analysis, so I'm going to break it down for you in 30 seconds, and this is what it means, and this is what you need to know about it.”
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Where do we find people like that? Would they be people who have already had some experience in the security establishment, or are they former academics, or...? Do I go to Jobmonster and monster.ca to find people like that? How does this work?
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
I don't know if this is the part where I'm supposed to suggest the Carleton Career Centre, but—
3:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Oh, there they are. Look, my email is ringing already.
3:55 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
Right.
I believe that increasingly what we're seeing is particularly a part of professional policy programs, with students who are trained in these kinds of activities: quantitative and qualitative methods in statistics. I believe you could look for individuals who have that kind of professional training.
In addition, if the secretariat isn't necessarily staffed by former analysts, I would encourage you to at least talk to them about their experiences and some of the things they saw going forward, or to at least have some kind of mandate to go outside and ask former analysts for their advice on certain questions.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Put yourself in a parliamentarian's shoes just for a second. You're an MP and you've been appointed to that committee. What sorts of things would you charge the secretariat with doing? How would you comport yourself with this committee? Just give me some tips on that.
4 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
Some of the things I tried to highlight in my talk are issues such as timeliness. When were products started and when were they released? Were intelligence analyses produced within six weeks? Maybe they were sat on for some period of time, so why was that? It's important that we brief people as quickly as possible so that Canadian policy-makers can make the best decisions possible. Timeliness is certainly one of the issues.
The second one is whether they are actually supporting policy objectives. Were people writing about relevant things that people needed to know? They talk about intelligence requirements, so were those products produced to meet what the government actually needed? Alternatively, did—
4 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
Timeliness, relevancy, and I would also look at distribution. I think that needs to be examined by this committee in particular. Who is getting these products, why, and how are they being used?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Right, because you as an analyst sometimes didn't.... You went into a black hole or a black box in the sausage factory.
4 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
It sometimes felt that way, if I'm honest.
4 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Carvin, I think you know one of my former professors quite well, Professor Saideman, and as a McGill alumnus I will forgive you for poaching him, although I'm sure he's very happy here in Ottawa. I haven't had a chance to see him since, but I thought I would put that out there. I'm sure he'll be happy that he's in the committee Hansard now.
4 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
He will be.
4 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Absolutely. I know the man well.
Kidding aside, I do appreciate your stated support for the amendments of my colleague Mr. Rankin. We do want to work positively on this bill. I think it's a good first step. We do think there are some things that need to be fixed.
If you don't mind, I want to get into some of the more technical details. In some of the stuff that came out of the testimony from two weeks ago, if we look at Ron Atkey's testimony, for example, there is the idea that in paragraph 8(b) of the bill the minister can veto an investigation by the committee, which is actually a barrier that is not even there for SIRC. We're having a difficult time understanding why this committee of parliamentarians would have an additional barrier imposed on it that's not already there for SIRC. Could I perhaps get your thoughts on that?
4 p.m.
Prof. Stephanie Carvin
There is one thing I neglected to say. I did mean to congratulate the parliamentarians here. I can sometimes be a harsh critic of government, but I think the debate over this bill has been excellent, and I think the feedback on it has been constructive. As someone who observes these events and teaches about them, I think it's been absolutely wonderful. I want to make sure that I put that in the testimony.
With regard to the suggestions of Murray Rankin, I believe they're very good. In particular, to reiterate, I think his proposals on the committee's report are essential and should be incorporated.
With regard to paragraph 8(b), speaking as someone who has worked in a classified environment, I can understand the concern. In my notes that I have here, for the second part of the sentence, I believe there needs to be more guidance, if nothing else, where it says:
unless the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security
I can understand why that line is there. If there is an imminent arrest or an imminent investigation, I can understand why you would need to perhaps say, okay, just hold on for a minute. That being said, I think it behooves the committee to put more guidance on that particular clause, perhaps by stipulating the conditions when that would be an appropriate move to make. Right now, I would agree with you that it seems to be unclear.
4 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Speaking of the enumeration of the points that are injurious, one of them, which you have talked about in your remarks, is this idea of international relations and diplomacy and the headaches that can come out of that. I guess the thing I'm having a difficult time reconciling is this notion that just because a lot of what the bill states is what the parliamentarians can investigate, it doesn't mean that's going to be public.
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why we would prevent the parliamentarians from receiving this information in camera and confidentially, when there's no guarantee that it will be in the report. What I'm getting at is that even if a parliamentarian is not a minister or the Prime Minister, we understand this notion that not everything can be public.
Is there any reason, really, for preventing the parliamentarians on that committee, who have sworn oaths, who have gone through this whole process, and who would face legal ramifications if they divulge this information, from having full access to that information?
