Skip to main content

FILE -- CSIS director Michel Coulombe is shown Monday March 9, 2015 in Ottawa.

Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Conservative government alarmed privacy advocates by overhauling the law to give Canada's spy agency easier access to federal data, even though the spies themselves said greater information-sharing could be done under existing laws, newly released documents show.

In a presentation to federal deputy ministers last year, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said "significant improvements" to the sharing of national-security information were possible within the "existing legislative framework."

The Canadian Press obtained a heavily censored copy of the secret February 2014 presentation and a related memo to CSIS director Michel Coulombe under the Access to Information Act.

Story continues below advertisement

Earlier this year the government introduced an omnibus security bill that included the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, intended to remove legal barriers that prevented or delayed the exchange of relevant files.

The legislation, which recently received royal assent, permits the sharing of information about activity that undermines the security of Canada, something law professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach called "a new and astonishingly broad concept."

Privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien denounced the scope as "clearly excessive," saying it could make available all federally held information about someone of interest to as many as 17 government departments and agencies with responsibilities for national security.

In the 2014 memo to Coulombe, CSIS assistant director Tom Venner stressed the importance of timely and reliable information exchanges, and he lamented the patchwork of existing authorities that hindered sharing.

"The absence of a clear authority to share information for national security purposes amplifies this challenge," he wrote in preparing Coulombe for the meeting with deputies.

"Generally, information sharing with (other government departments) is carried out on a case-by-case and/or ad-hoc basis, which is antiquated and inefficient."

However, he added that laws and arrangements "often allow for the sharing of information for national security purposes," and that further strides could be made with "appropriate direction and framework in place."

Story continues below advertisement

Venner cited a number of recently successful pilot projects and outlined "future opportunities" for sharing — all of them deleted from the memo.

CSIS clearly saw "room for workarounds" in the existing law "with a little bit more co-ordination within government," Forcese said in an interview.

The spy agency's memo seems "to belie the whole justification for the controversial information-sharing regime" in the government's subsequent anti-terrorism bill, he said.

The office of Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney had no immediate comment on the documents.

Redactions make it difficult to fully understand the records, said Keith Stewart, an energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada.

But it appears that the Harper government gave CSIS even more than it was asking for when the omnibus security bill greatly expanded the range of information that could be shared, he said.

Story continues below advertisement

"This reinforces the arguments of those who say that this bill is really a form of crass electioneering that sacrifices our rights and freedoms without making us any safer."

The government still hasn't made a case for dismantling barriers to information-sharing, said Carmen Cheung, senior counsel at the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

"Where is the necessity for these laws? Why do we need them?"

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter