Evidence of meeting #44 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 security.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate both of you being here to give testimony today.
I want to touch on the CBSA. You made two comments. You said that there's no oversight review body, and then you said that there are many review bodies for the CBSA. Are you speaking specifically about the civilian oversight? Can you clarify that comment?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
If you compare CBSA with other national security organizations, you'll find that there's no civilian oversight mechanism.
If you look at what CBSA does for a living, my contention is that it is not a tier one national security organization. It does not use the same methods as do CSIS and CSEC. It doesn't work in a top-secret environment. It collects taxes, it deals with immigration enforcement issues, and it secures the border. It is a net user of intelligence and not a net generator of intelligence.
When you dissect what CBSA does, you will find that its immigration role is closely monitored by the IRB, for instance. Its customs role is closely monitored all the way up to the Federal Court. If there is a gap in public confidence, it's around public complaints. It's around the actions of officers.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
That is different from having a SIRC or a commissioner of CSEC organization, so there's a sliver of public confidence lacking.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I understand that differentiation, but I would also suggest that the border integrity is key when you're looking at the importation of drugs and weapons and human trafficking, and all of those things. The intersection there, I would expect, should be.... The oversight should not just be a civilian oversight. I think there are other elements there whereby the information.... I guess I'll ask you this question. In terms of the sharing of information with CSIS, is that fairly integral or does it happen on an ad hoc basis?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I would say it happens on an ad hoc basis, but if you look at security at the border, you see a combination of information that CBSA receives from the RCMP, from CSIS, and from many others, which goes into the lookouts to protect Canada.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Right.
I'll ask you this question because you were the president of the CBSA for five years. When you said that an oversight body would have been greatly relevant to CBSA, were you speaking specifically of the civilian oversight or were you talking of a more integrated oversight?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
My view is that whether you call it civilian oversight or review, the one dimension of CBSA activities that is done in-house is around public complaints. Public complaints of misbehaviour by its officers, let's say, or about what happens in its detention centres, are handled in-house, unless it's a criminal investigation, when it then gets farmed out to the RCMP.
Annually, there are anywhere around 1,000-plus complaints that are handled internally in a very, very rigorous process, but I think public confidence seems to be lacking in terms of what is occurring internally. That portion of it, I believe, is the one that should be brought to a civilian organization.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay. The public complaints should be taken out of CBSA to the civilian oversight.
My question in terms of what you were saying, Mr. Kapoor, is about understanding the threat environment. I think the general public as a whole—or at least the people I've talked to throughout my life—doesn't have any idea in terms of what numbers there are, what a threat actually is, or the different levels of a threat.
There has to be some public education around this in terms of the national security piece as to why certain things are in place and why mechanisms need to be put in place. How would you address that? How would you roll that out in terms of education of the general public?
4:20 p.m.
Special Advocate, Kapoor Barristers, As an Individual
It's a controversial topic. From an intelligence perspective, you may or you may not want the threat level known.
4:25 p.m.
Special Advocate, Kapoor Barristers, As an Individual
Agencies around the world treat this very differently.
If the committee were to release a report about the threat level, I think it would have to be with the co-operation of the intelligence agencies involved, because they're the ones who will appreciate the extent to which risk is created by revealing the threat level. Or, on the other hand, you may be content to reveal the threat level.
That's something you would take your counsel on from the agencies involved, which are closer to that. I don't think there's one answer to that question all the time.
November 22nd, 2016 / 4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Thank you for being here and for the work you are doing. If it's okay with you, we will continue in the same order as for the previous questions. So Mr. Portelance could answer first, followed by Mr. Kapoor.
Should the committee of parliamentarians have the authority to issue subpoenas, require the presence of witnesses and the submission of documents?
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I have never thought about that.
Are you talking strictly about subpoenas concerning federal government employees?
If not, are you thinking of any other stakeholders, including provincial police forces?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't think it would be necessary in the case of federal employees. The situation becomes more problematic—and I don't know how much you have taken this into account—when national safety issues involve all stakeholders. I think that 17 departments were talked about. In reality, there is still some pretty close collaboration with provincial and municipal police forces.
If your committee was considering a major case, you would no doubt see that authorities outside the federal government were involved. As I am not a lawyer, I cannot tell you whether that requires subpoenas or other measures. I don't really have an opinion on that. However, I can see that testimony from outside the federal government could be desirable.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Portelance, as part of the Charbonneau commission, in Quebec, prosecutors had to go to court to obtain the videos of what was recorded by the RCMP. I understand the link you are establishing when it comes to other authorities.
Mr. Kapoor, do you have any comments on the possibility of the committee of parliamentarians issuing subpoenas for attendance and for documents?
4:25 p.m.
Special Advocate, Kapoor Barristers, As an Individual
Yes. I'm firmly of the view that the committee ought to have powers of compulsion. If there are particular pieces of information that you want to get from any one agency, hopefully they'll co-operate and give it to you, but on the off chance that they don't, for some reason, or if you feel that they are not compliant, you ought to be able to compel them. For example, there may be intelligence analysts that you want to ask questions of in any particular circumstance. You ought to be free to do that. It seems to me that there ought to be powers of compulsion.
In terms of civilians, non-government people, they of course could not appear in a secret or a closed process, but similarly, I see no reason in principle, if this committee is going to discharge its responsibilities, why it would not have that power.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Nicola Di Iorio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Clause 14 covers the identity of individuals. Subclause 14(d) allows for that identity to be withheld.
Yet both of you have alluded in your testimony to the ability to obtain all the information. Please enlighten us.
Why is it necessary to know individuals' names?
You are both fully aware of the extremely sensitive nature of some operations and the dangers they may involve for certain individuals. I would appreciate it if you could provide some clarifications.
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I think that you said it well: nothing is more sacred than the protection of informers' identity, especially for an intelligence service whose mandate is to recruit such individuals in order to be better informed. As soon as you undermine that protection, you're out of business.
I don't think it is necessary for the committee of parliamentarians to know those people's exact identity. That won't prevent it from doing its job, as long as it knows what the key elements of the case are. I believe that this principle applies both to the world of police and to that of intelligence. I completely agree on that issue.
