Calls for Review and Accountability

The timing of my appointment in June 1996 was opportune for a number of reasons. First, the following month, the Privacy Commissioner issued a report to the Chief of CSE detailing the findings of a compliance audit he had recently completed. The audit report is a classified document; however, reference to the audit was made in the Privacy Commissioner's public annual report. He observed that for a number of reasons, including the lack of a legislative framework, the CSE audit had proven to be a complex undertaking. In particular, he noted, "...in the midst of the audit, there were several public allegations that CSE was gathering data about Canadians and monitoring their legitimate political activities."

The Privacy Commissioner reviewed a representative sampling of SIGINT data and reports and concluded that CSE collects only information that serves the government's established foreign intelligence criteria. No evidence was found to support any allegations that CSE targets Canadians or monitors their communications. CSE uses strict procedures to minimize the possibility that information about Canadians is captured inadvertently. The Privacy Commissioner concluded, to the extent that it could be established through his audit, that CSE operates in compliance with the Privacy Act and the principles of fair information practices. However, he recommended the enactment of enabling legislation, describing CSE's mandate, powers, activities and responsibilities.

In November 1996, the Auditor General of Canada tabled his report, The Canadian Intelligence Community--Control and Accountability. The report, which offered a tour d'horizon of the community, revealed that comprehensive policies and procedures exist at CSE to guide operational activities and that operations related to safeguarding the privacy of Canadians are reviewed annually. It identified a need for continuing progress, however, in the areas of control and accountability. In this regard, the report made reference to the establishment and mandate of my office, and its existence as an external mechanism to review CSE's foreign signals collection activities.

The Auditor General's report expressed the view that the activities of my office should increase the scope for informed parliamentary scrutiny and debate, including the question of whether it would be in the public interest for Parliament to consider establishing a statutory basis for CSE. The report concluded with a call to the government to consider the advantages of an appropriate legislative framework.