The Year in Review

Largely as a result of the three-year review of Bill C-36, the omnibus Anti-Terrorism Act, there has been heightened attention over the past year to Canada's security and intelligence community, including CSE. When the Bill was enacted in December 2001, it resulted in key amendments to existing Acts. Of particular interest to my office were the amendments to the Official Secrets Act (now the Security of Information Act) and the National Defence Act (NDA). The latter provided the legislative basis for CSE and this Office. Since December 2004, this omnibus legislation has been the subject of a required three-year review by committees of the House of Commons and the Senate. I will be watching the outcome of this review with keen interest.

A number of other activities initiated during 2004-2005 have the potential to significantly affect either my office or the broader security environment in which we operate. For example, last year saw a commitment by the Prime Minister to create a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians. This commitment was made in response to a proposal set out in Canada's first-ever national security policy, which was tabled in Parliament on April 27, 2004. In this regard, an Interim Committee of Parliamentarians was struck to examine the proposal. I appeared before this committee on September 8, 2004.

Of interest to my office as well are the deliberations and outcomes of the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, chaired by Mr. Justice Dennis O'Connor. In addition to investigating the role of Canadian officials in Mr. Arar's deportation from the United States to Syria, the Commission is examining options for review mechanisms for certain activities of the RCMP. I responded to the opportunity to make a submission to the Commission about some of the review options put forward. In my submission, I identified the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach and made a recommendation on how best to proceed, given the need to safeguard the rights of persons in Canada, the realities of today's security environment and the highly sensitive nature of the RCMP's activities.

In my opinion, the most effective and logical approach is to establish one review mechanism to examine activities of the RCMP. This model would recognize the unique mandate of the RCMP, provide for a corresponding review body with the required expertise, and limit the changes required to the two organizations directly affected, the RCMP and the existing Public Complaints Commission. Furthermore, implementing this structure would not affect other organizations or review groups in Canada's security and intelligence community where change in my respectful view is neither sought after nor required.

That being said, the Arar Commission's goal will be to strike an appropriate balance that is in the best interests of Canada. Again, I will be watching the deliberations with interest.

I had expressed concerns in last year's annual report about two legislative proposals: Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act, 2002, which introduced legislative amendments on a range of subjects, from transportation safety and immigration to biological weapons; and Bill C-14, which proposed amendments to the Criminal Code and the Financial Administration Act, among others. The concerns I had initially expressed about this legislation were later addressed. I am satisfied that, as passed, the legislation establishes uniform responsibility and accountability for all departments for the protection of their computer systems and networks.

Bill C-11, the so-called whistle-blower legislation, was first introduced as Bill C-25 on March 22, 2004, but to date has not been passed by Parliament. Although CSE is exempt from such legislation, passage of the Bill would place an onus on CSE to establish a parallel system, with a possible review role for the Commissioner. Obviously, this legislation is of interest to me and I will continue to monitor its progress in Parliament, as well as any response by CSE.