Preserving capacity, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Keys to Canadian SAR
Issue link: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/304887
For more information about the canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies (cASIS), including its 2014 Symposium, please see www.casis-acers.ca I INteLLIgeNCe 44 APRIL/MAY 2014 www.vanguardcanada.com greg Fyff e, president of cASIS, was executive director of the Intelligence Assessment Secretariat from 2000 to 2008, and currently teaches intelligence and security and strategic thinking at the University of Ottawa. the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of cASIS. The Snowden papers have generated questions about whether the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) is adhering strictly to its mandate. By extension, this has generated a debate on whether Canada has a credible accountability and re- view regime for its intelligence agencies. Both CSEC and the Ca- nadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) have agency-specifi c review bodies which cannot reveal all the details of their fi ndings to the public. Our intelligence agencies may be functioning exactly as intended, but without a higher degree of transparency, Canadians are not convinced. It is not helpful that the government has sometimes diminished the voice of offi cial review orga- nizations. In the intelligence community, the Offi ce of the Inspector General for CSIS was eliminated on the grounds that its functions could easily be carried out by the Security In- telligence Review Committee (SIRC). In an age in which the principal threat to internal security is from a terrorist attack, a principal source of intelligence must be a vigilant citizenry. A diminished trust in the integrity of intelligence agencies damages effectiveness. If a necessary part of trust is an accountability sys- tem that is itself accepted by the public as transparent, trustwor- thy and vigilant, then the Canadian system is seriously fl awed. An intelligence review system must balance contradictory ob- jectives. We need to be confi dent that agency activities are within legal and moral bounds, but agencies should not be expected to release information that will compromise their effectiveness, methods or sources. Reviewers must have access to some secrets without increasing the already high risk of leakage or hostile pen- etration. Agencies must spend time on the process of review, but not to an extent that signifi cantly restricts the time and resources needed to carry out the agency's mandate. Many mechanisms have been tried by allies and others. Both CSE and CSIS have dedicated review agencies (the Offi ce of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner for CSEC, and SIRC for CSIS), but their assurances are not accepted by the public as conclusive. The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has conducted important reviews, but does not have the profi le or credibility of a committee of elected offi cials. In the United Kingdom, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelli- gence and Security is selected from both the Commons and Lords, and has managed to combine accountability and discretion. It has been seen by many in Canada as a model that could be adapted to our circumstances, although Canada lacks several of the important Westminster assets: a large cadre of career parliamentarians, and the presence of senior intelligence veterans in the two houses. Australia has the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security which can review complaints or undertake reviews across the six departments and agencies forming the intelligence community. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security conducts regular reviews of intelligence agencies. In the U.S., as many as 12 committees review intelligence activi- ties, with the two main committees being the Senate Select Com- mittee on Intelligence and the House of Representatives Per- manent Select Committee on Intelligence. While the U.S. system certainly fosters pub- lic debate, it has not prevented the abuse of intelligence powers, is prone to critical leaks, and certainly consumes time and resources for the intelligence agencies. Even with the intensity of the review and oversight process, the U.S. is usually the starting point for ar- guments about cost, excess, abuse and inef- fectiveness. Canada must eventually address the ques- tion of review and accountability if agencies are to retain the trust of the public. This trust is critical if we believe that an alert citi- zenry, ready to "see something; say something" is an important intelligence asset. It is even more important to build trust if we want particular communities with vulnerable youth to see the in- telligence agencies as partners in defusing problems. We must eventually design an accountability system that com- prises the whole Canadian intelligence system, and which fi nds the best balance across competing objectives. This cannot be done by striking out offi ces, adding new structures, or changing in minor ways the appointment process for the review agencies. If we want a system that is carefully constructed, the best initiat- ing mechanism would be a small task force constituted to repre- sent the executive, parliamentarians, the public, academics, legal experts and the agencies. The challenge would be to design an accountability and review system that would be trusted by Cana- dians, and in turn ensure that the agencies themselves were both trusted and effective. Canada must eventually address the question of review and accountability if agencies are to retain the trust of the public. Accountability, trust, eff ectiveness FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO MAKE A BOOKING, PLEASE CONTACT: Colin Stephenson, Executive Director Mail & Courier: 166 Ingram Drive Fall River, Nova Scotia CANADA B2T 1A4 Office: +1 (902) 465-2725 Fax: +1 (902) 484-3222 Cell: +1 (902) 223-2099 E-Mail: colin@defsecatlantic.ca DEFSEC Atlantic is one of Canada's most important networking events for supply chain development & partnership potential Focus on Business! September 3-5, 2014 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Cunard Centre & Pier 21 on the Halifax Waterfront "Canadian Partnership Potential. Focused Here, Expanding Worldwide..." defsecatlantic.ca Sign up to attend at: Access a growing international contingent anxious to make connections in Canada. Countries represented are: France Germany Norway Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States Plus even more as registrations continue to come in... In the heart of the National Shipbuilding Program activity, meet the builders and the end users in the home of Canada's Navy all in the intimate and scenic setting of the Halifax waterfront. Visit our web site to learn more and book one of the few remaining booth spaces. Attend the Show and meet over 150 companies all looking for partners in national and international supply chain development.