Evidence of meeting #43 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 activities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Roughly $5 million, yes.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Oh, I'm sorry. Our standard if you want to call it A base, or our standard budget, is in the order of $2.5 million to $3 million.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Operating budget.
We received capacity funding—
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
That means additional funds. I'm sorry.
This year, we have additional funds in the order of $2.5 million.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
That's for expert review, to increase our ability to review CSIS. Those funds will expire at the end of March 2017. We're currently working diligently to have capacity funding extended past this fiscal year.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Okay. I'm just putting it in the perspective of the secretariat budget. There is budget capacity for $3.2 million as the secretariat's budget, which would be higher than SIRC's budget for its expertise, so there would be the ability to hire good people.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I appreciate the presentations.
Mr. Doucet, I have a couple of questions on some of the comments that you made, that your mandate is specifically with CSIS, of course, and CSIS activities only, and you lack the capacity of all security agencies. If you're following an investigation, has that hampered you in any way?
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
It has hampered us in the sense that in our post-9/11 era, our intelligence agencies are working much more closely together, and they co-operate much more than they have in the past. As they're co-operating more, we cannot follow the thread of information when it goes from CSIS to another one of the agencies. It doesn't necessarily hamper our view of CSIS or CSIS activities, but it hampers our view broadly on the intelligence community.
My understanding, in looking at Bill C-22, is that the committee of parliamentarians will have that broad access across the 17 agencies that deal in national security information. They probably won't go to the depth we go to.
We're on record at various committees saying that we are hampered, and we call it following the thread of information from agency to agency.
November 17th, 2016 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
To that point, in some of the discussions we've had across the country, it's been brought up many times that the committee of parliamentarians can't get into the weeds on a number of issues, as you can, and that we should have a look at broadening that mandate so that there's the overarching parliamentarian group and then the one that's underneath. I want to get your comments on that.
With the human rights safeguards, Mr. Neve, you mentioned that Bill C-22 is lacking those safeguards. Can you let us know what it is you would specifically want to see embedded in there?
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
I'll address the question of parliamentary review of the 17 agencies with the national security nexus and what I would refer to as a horizontal review by an expert review body that would look at all 17 agencies. My opinion is that expert review at that horizontal level would be beneficial to accountability in national security. You would have the committee of parliamentarians that looks at certain levels, such as the strategic level, financial level, and so on. Expert review horizontally could not only dig into information at any one of the 17, but as information transits from one national security organization to another, you could follow that thread of information.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Right, and then that would feed up to the parliamentarian committee.
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
Potentially it would feed up, depending on the operational nature, and so on.
5:10 p.m.
Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada
The point about human rights safeguards was a broader point about the need for there to be human rights safeguards for our entire national security framework. In the submission we made to this committee more broadly about the national security review, we highlighted five human rights safeguards necessary for our framework. One is that we have in place strong parliamentary review combined with, exactly what you were just discussing with Mr. Doucet, integrated agency-wide expert review. The two go hand in hand. I guess that would be one of the things we would say is missing here.
The other is that we've also made a recommendation that a key human rights safeguard across the entirety of our national security legislation needs to be to embed clear references to our international human rights obligations. That's why we've made the recommendation that with respect to Bill C-22, the mandate of the committee should be amended to make it very clear that one of the things the committee is looking for is to review for compliance with our international human rights obligations. The activities of national security agencies need to have that kind of a human rights review.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Monsieur Doucet, I want to ask about access to information, because I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling.... Monsieur Coulombe has said many times that there is no hampering of their operations with the information they give you, but you stated that the committee of parliamentarians would have access to less information.
Before I get into some of the comments you made further to that, can you see any justification for this committee of parliamentarians having less access than existing bodies such as your own already have?
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Security Intelligence Review Committee
That's a good question, and let me begin with our unfettered access to information, minus cabinet confidence. I always have to say that. We tend to do review of past operations, or historical review, and that does not hamper a typical ongoing operation of those sorts of things. We're looking retrospectively. We're looking in the past.
In the legislation there are potentially limits on information that the committee of parliamentarians can get. I don't necessarily feel comfortable in commenting on that, other than saying an accountability system is more than one organization. You have ministerial accountability; you have Michel Coulombe's accountability as the head of CSIS; you have our position in accountability, as you would have potentially the committee of parliamentarians. If you look at it as a complete framework, I think you're pretty well covered.