[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 16, 1997
.1706
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River, Lib.)): Order, please.
We're here for the purpose of reviewing the main estimates, specifically those of the Solicitor General, Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We have with us as witnesses today Mr. Ward Elcock, director of CSIS, and Mr. G. Anderson, also with the service.
Would you like to lead off with anything, Mr. Elcock?
Mr. Ward Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any opening statement to make. I'd be happy to take questions.
The Chairman: All right. We have a very long and complex page of estimates, consisting of two lines. As per usual, we'll start off with questions with the opposition.
I would just note, and this is important, we have approximately 20 to 25 minutes only, so we want to use our time as best we can. I suppose we could start with a 10-minute round, go to another 10-minute round, and then toggle back and forth. That would use up most of the time. My discussion now is using up time too. I'll be as strict as I can.
Mr. Langlois, please.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, B.Q.): Mr. Elcock, I would like to talk about some particular cases which, if they are true, reflect an atmosphere in certain sectors of the Service which is, to say the least, bizarre. If you are not informed about these cases, could you please check them out as quickly as possible and provide the clerk with the results of your research? Is it true that the person who is in charge of administration and finance for the Québec Region, Mr. Léo Daigle, who works here in Ottawa and who was transferred to Montréal, received a moving allowance, that he never did, in fact, move to Montréal, that he regularly makes the trips between Montréal and Québec City in Service vehicles, that he tests from time to time, and that a room was set up for him at the Montréal headquarters which he uses as a part-time residence when he wishes to stay there?
Are you aware of Mr. Daigle's situation?
[English]
Mr. Elcock: No. Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly look into the information. I'm not aware that it is accurate, but I'm certainly happy to look into it.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: When you look into this matter, could you also determine - unless you already have the information, which would please me more - whether or not it is true that the assistant director of the Service, Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, who is due to retire in about a month, travels pretty well throughout the world in order to gather intelligence?
First of all, I would like to know what type of intelligence Mr. Gagnon gets from other countries and, secondly, what is the point of his making trips here and there throughout the world when he is one month away from retirement.
[English]
Mr. Elcock: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gagnon is a member of the executive of the service. We have relationships with a number of services around the world and we have obligations Mr. Gagnon is obliged to fulfil as a member of the executive.
Frankly, I don't see the point of the question.
.1710
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: I will make an editorial comment. A vice-president goes travelling one month prior to his retirement. In the Service, there are people who are much better suited for this task and the Service would benefit from the intelligence that they gather elsewhere. You did not really answer about the appropriateness of these trips.
You could come back to this issue if you wish, but I would like to ask another question, because our time is carefully allotted. First of all, the bilingualism bonus issue is still outstanding. We were told, at one point, during an appearance, that these bonuses would be paid provided supply were granted for that purpose.
When RCMP officers were transferred to the Service, they were told that they would still be entitled to the bilingualism bonus, but because of the Service's status as a distinct employer, this bonus was abolished. We were told that the Service was prepared to reinstate this bonus, providing supply were allotted for this purpose.
What strikes me as being quite odd, is that in 1995-96, the Service showed a surplus of $2.3 million. Generally reliable sources told me that management took it out on the regional managers who had allowed a surplus to accumulate. Do you not find it somewhat incompatible that, on the one hand, management refuses to pay the bilingualism bonus and, on the other hand, accumulates a surplus and tells managers to do what they have to do to spend all of the budget so that there will not be any budget cutbacks the following year? Do you not feel that this situation should be resolved immediately by paying the bilingualism bonus and by putting an end to any frivolous spending in order to artificially inflate the following years' budgets?
[English]
Mr. Elcock: Mr. Chairman, the service is not, as I think the honourable member is aware, obliged in law to pay the bilingual bonus. The court ruling was fairly clear on that issue. We indicated that if it were possible to obtain additional funds we would look at the possibility of paying the bilingual bonus, although the service had, as I said, no legal obligation to do so. In any event, there were no additional funds available and I took the decision that we would not pay the bilingual bonus. To do so, in my view, because we would have to take it out of existing cash flows, would impair the operational capacity of the service. That decision has been made clear to the employees of the service, members of the service.
In terms of any surplus, like any other institution, over a year it's always difficult to budget exactly your expenditures and your actual payments to ensure that they go out the door and come in the door in accordance with the end of the year. There are sometimes surpluses. Ours are generally fairly small. But the fact that there is a surplus at the end of the year doesn't mean that surplus can simply be ascribed to some other purpose. Those funds generally are already apportioned, and if they're not spent in one year for that purpose they'll be spent in the next year for that purpose.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: Mr. Elcock, I understand your answer, but I would like to give you a bit of background. In 1994, when the Service was established, the director of the Solicitor General of Canada Group mandated to carry out the transition between the RCMP Security Service and CSIS, Mr. Ted Finn, wrote the following in a memo, and I quote:
- The Government made a firm commitment that no RCMP Security Service employee would be
without a job or find his future compromised as a result of this new Service. All of the current
employees of the Security Service will be offered, within CSIS, positions which, as far as
compensation and benefits are concerned, are at least the equivalent of their current position.
How can you justify the decision made by current CSIS management, which I would remind you, has declared an extremely high surplus, not to abide by the commitment made by the government of that day?
.1715
[English]
Mr. Elcock: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the present surplus has any relevance to the issue whatsoever. In the case of the bilingual bonus, however, the decision was taken by a director of the service prior to me that the service would not pay a bilingual bonus. That has been clear since...I forget the actual date, but I think it was 1985. It was a decision taken by the service and a decision the courts have found is a valid decision of the service.
In terms of how the service now operates, I'd point out to the honourable member that at the end of the day we require all incoming members of the service to be bilingual. In some sense, while there may be members of the service who feel that they are entitled to the bilingual bonus, there is indeed no such entitlement. For the future, we see the service as essentially a bilingual institution and require it to be bilingual.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: If I have understood you correctly, this is a step back. You said that you were prepared to pay the bilingualism bonus if the Treasury Board were to appropriate funds, and now you are saying that you want to have bilingual personnel. I visited the Service along with Mr. Lee, who was the chairman at that time, and I realized that this was not necessarily the case. It is not mandatory that management be bilingual, but has there been a change in attitude in the Service over the past year because, according to the transcript, you said that you would pay the bonus if Treasury Board gave you the funds? How do you explain the contradiction between what you have said this year and what you said last year?
[English]
Mr. Elcock: I don't see any contradiction, and I'm not sure what the honourable member is pointing toward. At the end of the day, as I said, we had indicated a preparedness to consider it if there were additional funds. There were no additional funds. We took the decision that we couldn't do it without impairing the operational abilities of the service.
The Chairman: Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.
Yesterday the chair of SIRC stated that they had to reorganize the research unit, and that because of that reorganization and other budgetary restrictions they found that their researchers were taking longer, that the documentation was taking longer to be given to them, they had much greater volumes of work, etc. I'm just wondering what CSIS is doing to remedy the situation and, more importantly, assure us that their work and their role is not jeopardized because of this restructuring that's going on.
Mr. Elcock: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the chairman of SIRC said yesterday; I haven't seen a full transcript.
From our point of view, we continue to respond to any requests SIRC makes of us -
Mr. Nick Discepola: But they're saying you're taking longer and entering more delays.
Mr. Elcock: I don't know what she's referring to. If that's what she said, I would certainly talk to her, because I'm not aware that any such delays exist. We certainly continue to try to respond to all of their requests in as timely a fashion as we can. If indeed the volume of their requests has gone up, which I took in part from your question, or if she was indicating that, then indeed that may be part of the problem. I'm not aware of a problem.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Why was the reorganization undertaken in the first place?
Mr. Elcock: The reorganization of SIRC?
Mr. Nick Discepola: Of SIRC, and particularly the research unit, which they claim is crucial and plays a crucial role.
Mr. Elcock: You'd have to ask the chairman of the committee. I don't know why they decided to make the changes they did. I have not discussed it with the chairman. We simply respond to the requests they make. How they organize themselves internally is not something within our purview.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Will you undertake to meet with her then and settle this?
Mr. Elcock: We meet with her regularly. That shouldn't be a problem.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Could I also know when you plan to deposit the annual report, and why it hasn't been done to date?
Mr. Elcock: I think it's just about finished and it's about to go to the minister. As soon as he's ready after that to table it, it should be in fairly shortly, I would think.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I'll ask the question for the members of the opposition: will it be before the election?
Mr. Elcock: Yes, I would assume so. I have no reason to think otherwise. And if there are any questions arising out of that, I'd be happy to come back.
Mr. Nick Discepola: All right. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Rideout.
Mr. George Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Just a quick question. When the chair of SIRC was here back in December, she indicated that there seemed to be some difficulties and lack of clarity between the service and the inspector general. Do you have any comments with respect to that? What might be causing this lack of clarity? Have those problems been resolved?
.1720
Mr. Elcock: I'm not aware of any problems. They have a job to do, and they do it. We don't always agree, and probably won't ever agree entirely, but I'm not aware of a problem. If there was a problem, then I would assume the Deputy Solicitor General would raise it with me.
Mr. George Rideout: So it seems as if the chair of SIRC is confused as to that -
Mr. Elcock: No, no. I'm not aware of it. She may have some concern she hasn't talked to me about.
Mr. George Rideout: Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman: I'll add on a question there in the government's 10-minute time, if I could, colleagues.
At page 39 of SIRC's last annual report, SIRC was of the view that the CSIS director's report did not contain sufficient discussion of the challenges that faced the service then or in the future, that there could have been resources put into defining that and giving a picture of that. I assume you've had an opportunity to read that aspect of the report or become familiar with it. Assuming that you have, what changes would you have made as director to respond to that to try to give a better picture of the future challenges facing the service?
Mr. Elcock: That's not something I have had an opportunity to discuss with SIRC, nor is it something the chairman raised with me the last time we met. I think we have given in the report to the minister what we believe to be a fairly solid view of the challenges that face the service. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what additions one would make to make that clearer.
The Chairman: That's something for your end: SIRC's mutual agenda.
Another item that our excellent research has brought to our attention, something picked up out of the U.S. security and intelligence context, involves the concept of what they call ``information warfare''. Presumably the service has had an opportunity to refine its views of that concept and what impact that may have on the future of the role of the service. Can I ask you, for our purposes here, for the parliamentary record, to describe very briefly what ``information warfare'' might be and what role there might be for the service in responding to that potential?
Mr. Elcock: Have we got three hours, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Three minutes.
Mr. Elcock: That's what I thought.
To summarize information warfare in three minutes is pretty tough. I guess I would describe information warfare as simply another series of threats.... I hate to use the jargon term, but threat to national security is indeed the legislative wording. It is simply another category of threats to a different kind of, if you will, technology than a threat to a bridge or a threat to a building or whatever. Clearly, as society becomes more highly computerized and transactions become more highly computerized, then the possibility of such an attack on those systems, or a threat to such systems, becomes of a greater possibility, particularly as society becomes not only frequent users of them, but dependent on them.
I think all security services, and not only security intelligence services, but also police forces and others, are increasingly concerned about the possibilities. The question of what one does in response is a much larger issue, and one that most of us are still struggling with in the early stages.
The Chairman: Would it be fair to say that that particular challenge, as it may evolve over time, doesn't necessarily relate directly to the definition of the CSIS mandate in paragraphs 2(a), (b), (c), (d), or is it your view that ``information warfare'' always would be a threat to our security?
.1725
Mr. Elcock: I think the answer to that question is a bit like the answer given by the former secretary to the cabinet in England when asked what a cabinet confidence was: ``Show me a document, and I'll tell you whether it's a confidence or not''. Show me an information warfare threat, and I'll tell you whether it's covered by the CSIS Act or not.
It's hard to think in terms of hypotheticals in this case. There are clearly some information warfare threats that would fit within the CSIS Act and there may well be others that wouldn't. Really, some of the work that we and other institutions have to do is to decide how those various threats divide up and who is responsible for looking after which ones.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: I would like to go back and have clarification about the Gingras order.
In this case, an order was issued stipulating that Mr. Gingras was to be paid for the period during which he was entitled to his bilingualism bonus. Mr. Gingras was paid retroactively to 1980. For other individuals in the same situation, they were paid retroactively to 1984. Why was Mr. Gingras treated differently from the other RCMP members who transferred to the Service?
[English]
Mr. Elcock: Mr. Chairman, to anybody who was entitled for that period, we paid those benefits to both Mr. Gingras and to others on the basis of fairness. Mr. Gingras' case was treated as an example. We therefore paid it to the others as well who were similarly entitled.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: Is there an interest backlog that has to be paid? Does any more money have to be paid in Mr. Gingras's case or in any other identical cases?
[English]
Mr. Elcock: No. Mr. Chairman, if I recall correctly, any moneys that are owing as a result of the decision have been paid.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: Is this your point of view alone or is this still a contentious issue amongst certain members of the Service and in the Service itself?
[English]
Mr. Elcock: I'm not aware that other members of the service have a legitimate claim that we have not paid. There are clearly some members of the service and perhaps some former members of the service who believe that additional amounts are owing to them, but we have paid, in our view, those amounts we were obliged to pay under the court judgment. Absent something else, I have no authority to pay any additional amounts to anyone else.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: The second last time that she appeared before this committee, the Chair of the Review Committee, Ms Gauthier, told us that relations between the Review Committee and CSIS were somewhat strained and the camaraderie that existed when Mr. Courtois chaired the committee no longer existed.
Could you explain why the atmosphere is now strained? You will understand that, given the closed-door atmosphere surrounding what is occurring...
[English]
The Chairman: I would ask you to focus on the questions and get them out. We'd like one short item of business to follow your question, and leave some time for the answer.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: Very well. Given that the Review Committee is no longer providing us with answers, that the Service is, for all intents and purposes, not providing us with answers, that the only people to whom the Service members can turn to lodge a complaint are probably the members of the Sub-Committee on national security, could you assure me that neither myself, Ms Meredith nor any other member of the sub-committee have ever, at any time during the 35th Parliament, been the subject of electronic monitoring or have had mail opened or have ever been targeted by the Service?
[English]
Mr. Elcock: In answer to the first question, I'm not sure what the chairman of SIRC would have been referring to. The relationship between SIRC and CSIS is a good one. There are always going to be differences of opinion between us. The nature of the relationship ensures that this will always be the case. But I'm not aware of anything extraordinary or difficult about the relationship. On both our side and their side it is a responsible relationship, and it works effectively.
As to your second question, I have been quite blunt before, and let me repeat the answer - I think I've given it several times to the honourable member. Quite clearly, under the legislation we are not in the business of targeting lawful advocacy protest and dissent. Having said that, any activities that come within the legitimate mandate of CSIS we will investigate.
.1730
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elcock.
I will now ask, shall vote 10 under Solicitor General carry?
SOLICITOR GENERAL
- Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Vote 10 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall I report vote 10 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elcock and Mr. Anderson. We're sorry we didn't have more time.
We'll adjourn to the call of the chair.