Public Safety Committee on Feb. 6th, 2018

[Richard Fadden]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said in my preliminary remarks, I would change the powers granted to the commissioner. I think those powers are more than what is necessary and are too similar to the powers or basic responsibility of a minister. Let me be very clear: Mr. Goodale is not in question here. I am speaking from an institutional standpoint.

I would give CSE the very clear and unambiguous power to assist the provinces. The current wording of the act generally limits what CSE can do to federal government institutions. Everything is connected these days. Failure to give CSE the power to intervene in the provinces and the private sector—something it currently does—sends a somewhat unclear message.

I am not necessarily suggesting a change to the bill. As I said, it is generally speaking a good bill. Having worked at CSIS and been a national security advisor, I am starting to be concerned about what is being asked of the institutions subject to review by Mr. Blais and his colleagues, as well as the Federal Court. Taken together, the new committee of parliamentarians, the new SIRC, the commissioner, and the Federal Court place a significant weight on government institutions.

When I went to CSIS, I was really surprised to see that most applications made to the Federal Court ran to some 150 pages, even the shortest ones. I'm not saying that too much is demanded in any particular case, but rather that this requires a lot of resources. I am not convinced the government provides its institutions with enough resources to conduct the effective review for which Mr. Blais is responsible.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you for your answer.

Part 4 of Bill C-59, which concerns CSIS more specifically, contains a point respecting the thresholds of what is authorized. It concerns new measures and ways of making applications. Do you think these changes proposed in Bill C-59 can reduce CSIS's ability to disrupt threats?

[Richard Fadden]

It's hard to answer that question.

Ultimately, only experience will show whether that's the case. On the whole, I would say no. I agree we should slightly raise the basic level required to enable the agency to act, but I think it gives us enough room to manoeuvre.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Fadden, you mentioned the various threats that Canada faces. What three countries currently represent the greatest threat.

[Richard Fadden]

That's hard to say. In espionage and foreign interference—this won't surprise you—I would say it's China and Russia. Those two countries are not really comfortable in the current international equilibrium, which they want to change. They also employ tools that we would never consider using. The third country is—

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

What kind of tools you mean?

[Richard Fadden]

For example, they use their cyber capabilities without any control, as we discussed with your colleague. We assume that China has more than 200,000 persons operating in cyberspace in one way or another. Some are in government or in the armed forces, while others are in the private sector. This reveals a frame of mind that is entirely different from our own.

I find it hard to say what the third country would be. I prefer to say the third entity consists of groups that focus on terrorism.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blais, each of your statements revealed a communication problem that might arise.

Many agencies and sub-agencies must cooperate, such as the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the national security review agencies, the intelligence commissioner, and the national security advisor to the Prime Minister. All these groups must intervene in decision-making on measures that must be taken with respect to national security. Since so many people are involved, aren't you afraid that leaks might occur or that information might not be protected? We are so eager to establish protections that we are creating a problem.

[Pierre Blais]

I might look at the problem the other way round. The entity that has been added to the limited group is the committee of parliamentarians. I hope you're not suggesting that it's parliamentarians who present a threat.

This new committee of parliamentarians will take a more direct approach to the facts. CSIS has been around for 30 years, and I believe in all modesty that our experience has shown that we haven't been in the news for the wrong reasons. We have managed to maintain confidentiality.

Confidentiality is still a very important factor, but trust is as well. We need to establish that trust and a sense of responsibility among the organizations not here contemplated.

Consider this example. The Department of Finance is not used to seeing someone come in to determine whether something isn't right from a national security standpoint. If that department, or the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food or Transport or any other federal government entity, is concerned by a national security issue, it should be glad that independent organizations are verifying whether its work is being done right and that it isn't making any mistakes in its national-security-related actions.

You must have noticed that Canadians would like to know more about what is going on. They also want to be certain the law is obeyed. I think Bill C-59 meets that demand.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here.

Mr. Blais, I would like to ask you a question about the presence, or rather absence, of various review mechanisms for the Canada Border Services Agency. Several witnesses have said it would be important to have some kind of committee or organization that would review that agency's activities, considering that it plays an increasingly important national security role.

Do you agree with that view?

[Pierre Blais]

The minister also raised that point. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I believe Minister Goodale, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, previously stated clearly that he wanted an organization to review the activities of the Canada Border Services Agency. The only question we consider will be the activities of the National Security Agency. I think that meets a need.

Previously, when we researched a national security issue at CSIS, the secret services, and we needed to go and see the Canada Border Services Agency, we couldn't do it. Now we're allowed.

You can confirm this with the minister, but I think he has already committed to creating an organization that will oversee the Canada Border Services Agency for all matters not pertaining to a national security issue.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

You mentioned national-security-related issues. How do you make that distinction?

You could say that border security is always and inevitably a national security issue.

[Pierre Blais]

I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of people fly every day, but the number is astounding.

Not all those who leave or enter Canada present a national security threat.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I agree.

In the circumstances, should we follow the indicators? You usually conduct a review because you believe that information could have been shared with CSIS, for example. That is why you are reviewing the actions the agency has taken. Is that an appropriate conclusion?

[Pierre Blais]

I find it hard to answer your question because that's a hypothetical situation.

If someone shows up at the border who, according to the agency of another country, presents a threat, an alarm is sounded somewhere. Border Services generally then communicates with the secret services or the RCMP to check and see whether the individual should be arrested, investigated, and so on. Measures are taken, but the law must be complied with. We can't just detain anyone at any time. Border Services will therefore take action.

Our role is not to intervene at that point. However, once measures have been taken, we will determine whether the act has been complied with. The departments currently have mechanisms designed to help them report national security threats. It is up to the organization to make that determination.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

So that's another reason for an organization to examine the agency's activities specifically.

[Pierre Blais]

Some agencies are more likely than others to experience situations involving national security. The risks are greater given the number of people who arrive at the border every day.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I understand. I also think our discussion clearly shows how difficult it is to determine when that's important and when it is not.

Now I would like to talk about Global Affairs Canada, which is exempted from review by the new committee that has been established. Isn't that a problem considering the role that–

[Pierre Blais]

I don't think Global Affairs Canada is entirely exempt.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

It is with respect to information-sharing.

[Pierre Blais]

Global Affairs Canada is dealing with certain issues, but I'm not familiar with them.

Global Affairs Canada's will have to get involved when risks arise that directly concern national security, and it will have to report to the review agencies. Global Affairs Canada has been part of the system for more than 30 years. It maintains very close relations with the secret services. However, I can't go into the details.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I understand because that includes consular affairs.

Do you think that what is proposed in the bill is enough to fill the gap that has been shown to exist on numerous occasions, particularly in cases such as that of Mr. Arar?

[Pierre Blais]

That's a special case.

I think that the bill, as drafted, covers all the angles for Global Affairs Canada and all the other organizations. As far as I'm concerned, I don't really see any risk. The work done by Global Affairs Canada and the other agencies should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

I worked in this field for many years and have dealt with this kind of case, as you may suspect, and I have no fears in that regard.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you.