[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
.1653 
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.)): I call the committee to order.
Today we're looking at the Security Intelligence Review Committee estimates. Our time limits are somewhat constrained, so maybe the easiest way is for a quick introductory comment and then we can open it up for questions and try to get it to a vote if possible before we have to rise at 5:30 for votes. So if that's okay, that's our target.
Ms Paule Gauthier (Chair, Security Intelligence Review Committee): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is the second time I have appeared before you as chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. As I said at my first appearance, I hope that in future the relationship between your committee and SIRC can become one of mutual trust and confidence. It is on that note that we are here again this afternoon.
I see your role representing Parliament and therefore the Canadian people as extremely important. Our role is to try to give you full confidence that we are reviewing CSIS activities and dealing with complaints in a thorough and fair manner. In other words, we must be able to assure you that we know exactly what CSIS is doing and that we make our judgments about those activities in an effective but fair manner, just as you would yourselves in the same circumstances.
.1655
[Translation]
I don't have any official opening statement to make today since we are appearing on the Main Estimates and Part III of this year's document does contain a personal statement from me. One statement should suffice. So I'm ready to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Okay, François.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, B.Q.): Thank you for your presentation, Ms Gauthier. The role of the Review Committee was studied by the Federal Court in the Zundel decision. Bill C-84 now before the House of Commons would remove from the SIRC the possibility of reviewing immigration matters. As for the review committee, you already realized that as a quasi-judicial body you ran the risk of being in a conflict of interest situation. Did you take part in this case to defend your role in this respect?
Ms Gauthier: It is clear that as a quasi-judicial body responsible for monitoring, we set out rules at the very beginning to provide for cases where a conflict of interest might arise. In the past, possible conflicts of interest did occur and the chair of the committee at the time took the appropriate measures to avoid such conflicts.
In Mr. Zundel's case, the court decided that there might be a conflict of interest. The court did not say that the review committee had committed mistakes or acted improperly but that in this particular case there may have been a conflict of interest. As you know, this decision is being appealed. We are interveners in the appeal and we intend to make the necessary representations to demonstrate that in our view it is possible to hear the case without any conflict of interest.
Without presenting to you all the arguments we intend to raise in court, I can tell you that there are at least two members who were not members of the Review Committee at the time the report was prepared. These two members were never involved in the report prepared on Mr. Zundel. Several arguments can be presented and we intend to make our case.
In the third part of your question, you ask whether the amendment to the Immigration Act... Of course, we hope that this Act will apply as seldom as possible. It is the first time that such a situation has occurred since 1984. It may have been more prudent to amend The act. In our view, these cases should be extremely rare.
Mr. François Langlois: Ms Gauthier, to change the subject, under section 6 of the Act, the minister is required to convey to you the directions he issues to the director of the Service. Do you have any reason to believe that you do not receive all the directives that are to be transmitted to the Service director?
.1700
Ms Gauthier: We have no reasons to believe that the directions issued under section 6(2), that is the written directions to the Service, are not conveyed to us. The minister himself sends them to us. If he did not do so, we would certainly realize this in the course of our review of the Service's activities, perhaps not in the months immediately following but within a certain time.
Mr. François Langlois: So the transmission of the directions to the director of the Service and to the Review Committee does not take place simultaneously.
Ms Gauthier: What exactly do you mean? He sends them to the Service.
Mr. François Langlois: I'm talking about their dispatch.
Ms Gauthier: Taking place at the same time?
Mr. François Langlois: Yes, at the same time. You don't seem to be certain.
Ms Gauthier: I wasn't sure whether they were sent to us directly. Yes, he does send them to us directly, so they are dispatched at the same time.
Mr. François Langlois: Is this received ad futuram memoriam, should you be required to undertake an investigation or is the Review Committee ready to intervene immediately with the director of the Service himself? In what way is it useful to have this information quickly?
Ms Gauthier: First of all it's a matter of being made aware so that we know to what area of activity it applies and then we can make use of it in our future activities to ensure that the directions are followed. It is a matter of determining whether the application of the direction will give the expected result. A direction may be set aside but generally speaking, when we receive one, we examine it and ensure that it is implemented.
Mr. François Langlois: You at least make a preliminary determination that the direction is in accordance with acceptable legal rules and with the authority given to the minister, do you?
Ms Gauthier: Yes, that is our concern.
Mr. François Langlois: And do you advise the minister if you have some doubt, at least initially?
Ms Gauthier: Yes.
Mr. François Langlois: Now with respect to the discretionary principle of the relevance of the action, not its legality but its relevance, do you consider that it is part of your mandate to tell the minister that a particular direction is not timely or relevant in a given set of circumstances for such and such a reason?
Ms Gauthier: We usually meet the minister at least once or twice a year. At this meeting we discuss various topics of interest to us. We may tell the minister that in our view a particular direction should be completed or modified or that it should not be issued. During my term as chair, we have not had to go that far. But if it were necessary, we would be very outspoken and tell the minister that a particular direction may not be relevant.
Mr. François Langlois: To turn to another matter, which is not so different from the one we are dealing with, Ms Gauthier, I would like to refer to something that is mentioned in the SIRC expenditure plan as one of the challenges facing the committee, namely the challenge to help preserve public confidence in the nation's security intelligence system. The Service has been in existence for 15 years. Do you not think the time has come to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry so that the public can be informed about what is taking place in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service other than through the information you provide us drop by drop, with a great deal of elegance, but in no greater quantity than Mr. Courtois and Mr. Robert?
.1705
As a Parliamentarian, I still have a great many questions about the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I also have lots of questions about the structure of SIRC. I already said in the House and I repeat here in the committee that I do have questions about the structure of SIRC. I'm not addressing a personal reproach to you, Ms Gauthier, you are the chair and the prisoner of this straightjacket constituted by the Service.
Let me reformulate my question. Do you think that a public enquiry by a royal commission, one that would be able to continue its work unlike the Létourneau Commission, to enlighten us about the operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, would help the people of Canada understand what CSIS and SIRC do and have an idea of the scope of their action?
In the present Parliament, we are confronted with the Heritage Front affair. Even if we treat the matter with kid gloves and claim to be Mr. Clean, we can assume that if the Reform Party of Canada was spied upon, not on the orders of the Liberal government but under the former Solicitor General Doug Lewis from the Conservative Party, the sovereignist movement in Canada could also be the target of certain people interested in... That is what I'm afraid of.
I'm not afraid of the Service issuing a directive to spy on the Bloc Québécois, the Parti Québécois or another body. I'm afraid of zealous elements within the Service taking the initiative to do something extra on their own in the hope of being rewarded one day by their superiors. If you are of the opinion that a royal Commission of Inquiry would not reassure the public, can you give me any assurance that this is not being done and you will act to ensure that it does not take place?
Ms Gauthier: I don't think that at the present stage of our history a Royal Commission of Inquiry would be of much assistance in helping the people of Canada obtain a better understanding of what the Service does. Together, as we are doing this afternoon, the Review Committee and your committee can provide a very good explanation to the public of Canada about what the mandate of the Service is. I think the Canadian public understands this.
As for whether the Canadian public believes what it is told about the activities of the Service, that's the question we must ask. Once again, it is your role and ours to ensure that the activities of the Service are sufficiently well known so we can tell the people that we are doing our monitoring, that we have the necessary staff, we are asking the questions and hearing any complaints against the Service and are in a position to say that the Service is under control, it is following the directions given to it and acting in accordance with the law. At the present moment in our history, I think we can tell the people of Canada that this is so.
Of course it is always possible that there may be zealous elements and commissions of inquiry cannot prevent this. If this were to ever become serious enough to warrant a commission of inquiry, then appropriate action could be taken at the time. But I must tell you that it is not necessary now.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): As a point of information, when we took a look at CSIS as a parliamentary review committee, there was a recommendation that we review after five years. The government didn't accept that, but said that we would do that in seven years. But I think their time period starts in 1991. So in effect, by 1998 there is the possibility of another parliamentary review. Rather than going through the expense of a royal commission, that might be the more economical way to approach this.
Ms Gauthier: Yes. And we'll be ready for that.
.1710
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Mr. Gallaway, Mr. Discepola...? Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River, Lib.)): This is the first time I've had a chance to ask questions in a long time.
I wanted to ask a question that had to with the economics of gathering intelligence. It's something you will be looking at and have looked at from time to time; that is, the efficacy, the value-for-money aspects of intelligence gathering. It relates to the potential for contracting out open-source or quasi-open-source intelligence gathering.
As I understand it, because of decisions made principally in the U.S. but not confined in the U.S., the technological platform from which intelligence gathering will operate in the private sector will, within five years, be at the same technological level of advancement as are today's intelligence agencies.
Therefore, it's reasonable to speculate that the private sector intelligence gathering capabilities from all sources, open source and just pulled out of thin air, wherever they can get the data - and that includes what is sometimes referred to as black-ops or satellite-gathered intelligence... If that's the case, if so much capability is going to be in the hands of the private sector, would it not be feasible to begin looking at the economics of acquiring open-source and quasi-open-source intelligence data for purposes of analysis or refinement, as opposed to just having it in-house in government?
Ms Gauthier: When you say ``acquiring open sources'' do you mean that CSIS, for example, would out-source part of its activities to the private sector to do jobs they wouldn't do? I don't understand what you mean by asking private sources.
Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. At this time, CSIS devotes a part of its resources to collecting and analysing open-source data for intelligence purposes.
Ms Gauthier: Yes, but only when it's necessary. I mean, they don't do that just... They do that in connection with investigation. They cannot collect open sources just for the sake of collecting open sources on any issues.
Mr. Derek Lee: Well, CSIS, as I understand it, has access to a ton of open-source -
Ms Gauthier: Yes, sure, and it's good.
Mr. Derek Lee: - data and media, and you're saying that CSIS wouldn't bother using any of those resources if it weren't targeting a particular threat.
Ms Gauthier: If it's not in connection with a particular threat, they cannot collect open source and put it in a file. They can maybe prepare a document of information, general, for the public, but not to collect information and put it in a file, even though it's coming from open sources.
Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Then let us assume for the sake of discussion that there has been targeting authority given, there's been a target approval given.
Ms Gauthier: Okay, sure.
Mr. Derek Lee: In that circumstance, acquisition of a bulk of data analysed from a private sector source is in theory a feasible operation. It would cost money, but -
Ms Gauthier: What do you mean by open source - a library, Internet, magazines, newspapers?
Mr. Derek Lee: Everything, yes, all. A term that's sometimes used now is ``all source''.
Ms Gauthier: All source, yes. Well, they have access to all sources. So they can ask the right people, but I think they want to rely on their own collection of information; they would not like to rely on somebody else.
.1715
Mr. Derek Lee: This is something we sometimes hear from the Department of Public Works, as well. They like to do it in-house.
I am addressing the potential for economies here. If you have subject A, which has been decided to be a threat to the security of Canada, and if subject A includes person B, and you're looking at a level-one type investigation, I believe that at some point in the future one will be able to purchase in the private sector analysed data about person number one in relation to subject A.
Ms Gauthier: That's possible, sure.
Mr. Derek Lee: It might take CSIS a couple of weeks to generate something fresh about person number one in relation to item A, whereas they may be able to get it in 48 hours from the private sector.
I'm asking if -
Ms Gauthier: They're doing it.
Mr. Derek Lee: - this is being looked at. Obviously it's not high on anybody's agenda.
Ms Gauthier: I think that's a question you should ask the director first, because he knows probably more than we do.
I could not tell you that they're doing it at the moment. I would much prefer that you start by asking him and then ask us from what he will tell you.
Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. Thank you.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton, Lib.): These questions are of a very general nature.
I wanted to ask you about public awareness of CSIS. One could properly ask the great Canadian quiz, and that is, can you name a senator in Ottawa who doesn't play hockey? The other is, what is CSIS?
A voice: That was an attempt at humour.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: I didn't think anyone got it.
In your expenditure plan, you state that the second challenge facing SIRC is to help preserve public confidence in the nation's security intelligence system in the face of fiscal restraint measures. What does that mean? Is that a philosophical statement, or are you actually going to do something to meet that objective? Or is this just a statement?
Ms Gauthier: No, it's not just a statement. Of course we'll do our very best to keep within the fiscal restraint that we think we should follow.
We have restructured our research unit. We also have fewer employees than we used to have. Some employees who were with the support staff have now been reassigned to research because we think that research is the most important part of our work.
We have been operating for a while. We know what we have to do in support, so it's less important - not that it's less important, but it's less demanding.
It's not just philosophy. We, as all the other departments, try to keep within the fiscal restraints.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: How's that going to help public confidence?
Ms Gauthier: We want to keep the public confidence. And even though we cut in some places, we want to continue to give the good work and make our research and make sure that CSIS is accountable to us and to the public and is doing its work right.
It means that even though we must work harder, we want the public to continue to have confidence in the intelligence security system of our country.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Madame Gauthier, the last time you were here I believe you said that SIRC has 14 employees.
Ms Gauthier: Yes.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: All right. I may have asked this question the last time, but I don't remember the answer to it. You have downsized at SIRC. Is your downsizing in any way proportionate to CSIS's downsizing?
.1720
Ms Gauthier: Oh, no. We're a much -
Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm talking now on a proportionate basis, in terms of percentages.
Ms Gauthier: Well, I couldn't tell you exactly if it's in the same proportion, but they have downsized to the point that it's getting a bit more difficult to do our work, in the sense that it's taking a longer time for them to answer our questions and for us to get documents from them. They used to have a part of their staff in charge of answering all of our questions and making sure that documents were transferred as fast as possible. Now these persons have been transferred in the operation, so it's taking much more time. We are, of course, concerned about that.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: In terms of preserving public confidence, I just want to find out what you're doing to do that. There's a whole list of things that I suppose one could in some way correlate in terms of public confidence. You could say that you are there to ensure that CSIS doesn't act illegally or improperly. You could say that you're there to ensure that CSIS is an effective government institution. There are all sorts of factors or indices involved in this. What's the most important?
Ms Gauthier: Not just to make sure that they do their work correctly, but we want also to communicate to Canadians - and this is also your role - that CSIS is doing its work correctly. If you want to keep confidence, Canadians must understand what CSIS is doing. That's one thing, asMr. Langlois mentioned. But you also have to communicate to Canadians not only when there is a crisis, but in regular times as well they must be informed if you want to keep confidence. Otherwise, it's normal that if you don't understand, you don't know what's going on in CSIS, then you lose confidence.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: I have one final question. We're talking about the public. The public could mean any number of things from the perspective of SIRC. It could mean Parliament; it could mean the Solicitor General's department; it could mean a number of things. In terms of SIRC itself, do you have someone on staff assigned to communications, public relations, government relations, whatever you want to call it, or is that a position that doesn't exist at SIRC?
Ms Gauthier: We used to have a person who was in charge, on a permanent and full-time basis. Because of fiscal restraint, we still have that person, but only on half-time; that person is now working in research at the same time. But yes, we do have contacts with the journalists, written press, television, and we're ready to answer questions - here first, of course. I could go and make a speech if I'm asked to inform the public. Yes, of course.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): François.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: On page 13 of your expenditure plan, you say that in 1997-98, the Review Committee will be conducting an audit of a CSIS investigation of a threat to Canadian security arising out of a foreign conflict. Has the CSIS investigation been concluded?
Ms Gauthier: Is that on page 14 of the French version?
Mr. François Langlois: On page 13 of your Part III expenditure plan.
Ms Gauthier: In French or in English?
Mr. François Langlois: In French, because my notes are in French.
Ms Gauthier: We are in the process of conducting an investigation or study.
.1725
Mr. François Langlois: Has the CSIS investigation been concluded? Are you auditing an activity after it has taken place? Are you following each step of their investigation?
Ms Gauthier: The monitoring always takes place after the event. I cannot tell you whether it is included because the activities may be continuing but we will be examining a period of their activities.
Mr. François Langlois: What is or was the period of the investigation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? From your answer we may infer that it may be continuing.
Ms Gauthier: How far back does the investigation of the service go? It's hard to say because the Service conducts certain activities on a regular basis in certain important sectors.
Mr. François Langlois: You say that in 1997-98 you intend to investigate this. Why in 1997-98? Do you think that there were certain unfortunate mistakes made in the past?
Ms Gauthier: No, it's not because of mistakes. It's more because of the interest in the matter. Interest has been shown in the matter at the present time and it is possible that activities taking place abroad may give rise to problems here in Canada. We think that this requires examination.
Mr. François Langlois: Is it simply because of the evolution of the problem, that has become more acute, or because of the change in the leadership in the Review Committee that the decision was made to conduct an investigation this year rather than last year?
Ms Gauthier: We think that it is a very serious problem at the present time.
Mr. François Langlois: Can this audit be conducted in Canada or will you have to go abroad?
Ms Gauthier: We intend to conduct the audit here in Canada, it is only in exceptional circumstances that we travel outside the country. We examine the Service's activities here in Canada with respect to the protection of Canadians living in Canada.
Mr. François Langlois: You spoke in the future tense. I gather then that the audit has not yet begun.
Ms Gauthier: Yes, it is under way.
Mr. François Langlois: So you are in the process of doing this work.
Ms Gauthier: Yes.
Mr. François Langlois: Do you know how long this investigation will last?
Ms Gauthier: Yes. I don't have the exact date but all our projects do have deadlines. It covers the period of 1997-98 so it will be during the coming year, at the beginning of 1998. It will be in the annual report.
Mr. François Langlois: Can you be a bit more specific about your objectives and the frame of reference that you established for your study?
Ms Gauthier: We want to make sure that the degree of investigation conducted by the Service is reasonable and justified and that it is proportionate to the existing threat in Canada, that the information obtained is in accordance with the requirement of strict necessity as specified in the Act and that its activities concerning this group, country or movement are justified.
Mr. François Langlois: Good. I don't have any more questions.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Are there any other questions?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Yes, I have a few short questions.
[Translation]
Ms Gauthier, you said in your preamble that in your view, research is something fundamental. You said that it was crucial because it plays a very important role in your service.
Ms Gauthier: Yes.
Mr. Nick Discepola: You also said that staff had been reduced and that it took a longer time to obtain documents and answers from CSIS. Looking at your budget, I see that you have approximately 1.4 million dollars and 14 employees. It seems to me that even at $100,000 per employee, you are already using up your budget.
.1730
What percentage of your budget is for staff, that is manpower, and what percentage is devoted to research?
[English]
I don't have the breakdown.
[Translation]
Ms Gauthier: There is $1.36 million for the Review Committee itself. The other expenses amount to $234,000. You can find the details on page... Wages and salaries account for $710,000 and contributions to the superannuation fund to $121,000. Professional fees, as you can see, have gone down a great deal because we are using far fewer outside legal counsel.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Without going into details, can you assure me that public security is not threatened and that you do receive within a reasonable period of time the documents necessary for your review, that your work has not suffered because of budget cutbacks etc.?
Ms Gauthier: I think we can say that in spite of fiscal constraints, the work is being done well. Certain trends have been observed. We note that this does take a bit more time etc., but I think we can still say that the work will be properly done.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): What we're facing is a 15-minute bell. We have two motions to do, so maybe we could... If there are a couple of quick questions and then -
Mr. Nick Discepola: No, I'll forgo my questions.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: I think I'll pass as well to ensure we get our...
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): All right.
There are two votes that are on your agenda, if we can deal with those. The first one is whether vote 10 under Privy Council should carry. Is anybody prepared to move that motion?
Mr. Nick Discepola: So moved.
PRIVY COUNCIL
- Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
Vote 10 agreed to on division
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Shall I report vote 40 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): We're finished. Off to the vote? There's a meeting tomorrow at five.
Ms Gauthier: Thank you very much.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Thank you. Sorry we rushed,Madame Gauthier. It's one of the problems of democracy.
Ms Gauthier: Yes - to find out who will run in the next election. Good luck.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. George S. Rideout): Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.