Skip to main content

Chuck Strahl, the former federal cabinet minister, is now the chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS

In a better world, there would be no awkwardly bureaucratic phrases such as "non-threat-related information."

As things are, however, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, in its annual report published last week, has done admirable work in pointing out the need to clarify the uncertain boundaries between the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment Canada – and to improve their co-operation.

The limits of SIRC's review also suggest that Canadians spies need more eyes on them, in the form of more intensive and effective oversight.

Story continues below advertisement

Common sense would suggest that security and intelligence agencies should only be dealing with actual or probable threats. But the CSIS Act says that the agency may, "in relation to the conduct of the international affairs of Canada," collect "information or intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of any foreign state." That is too broad.

Another section – reflecting much more what one would expect – deals with "security intelligence," which is defined as dealing with "threats to the security of Canada."

The SIRC observes that there is a continuing debate inside CSIS about whether the gathering of information about foreign countries' economic activities in Canada is a distraction from the agency's primary work of security intelligence.

And the committee itself thinks that quite a few of the foreign-influenced activities investigated by CSIS are public and overt rather than clandestine. For that matter, the word "clandestine" itself is by no means self-explanatory. Confidential business research may legitimately be kept private, without any element of deception or fraud.

The members of the SIRC deserve praise for their clear-headedness. But the conundrums around both CSIS and CSEC call for more frequent oversight than an annual review. Such oversight should be parliamentary; both the British and the Americans have models for ensuring that legislators know what the spies are up to.

Intelligence-gathering is supposed to protect Canadians, but left unchecked, it can also threaten our rights. And, as things now stand, more democratic checks are needed on Canada's spies.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
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