Navigation Links
Annual Report 1995-1996 - An Operational Audit of CSIS Activities
1. Introduction
We present our twelfth Annual Report on a note of sadness. Our Chairman, the Honourable E. Jacques Courtois, P.C., Q.C., died after a short illness on 3 July 1996.
Mr. Courtois brought integrity, commitment, and a sense of fairness and justice to the service of the Review Committee. We will sorely miss his wisdom and good judgement.
As the following chapters illustrate, we have now returned to our usual area-by-area examination of CSIS' activities, following the disruption caused by the Heritage Front Affair. As is to be expected, our report includes some criticism and an occasional commendation, but, on the whole, it is a descriptive document.
Our aim is to provide a steadily broadening and deepening public base of information about what CSIS does, why those activities are necessary, and how well the Service carries them out. There is so much myth and legend surrounding the activities of intelligence services that the true picture of what they usually do: routine, mundane, and often boring hard work, is rarely described. We hope to give the Canadian Public a picture of what takes place in the Security Service they own and pay for.
Naturally, there are areas that we can discuss publicly in only the most general terms. CSIS' mandate is to deal with foreign intelligence agencies acting in our country, and with terrorist organizations wherever they are based. This work requires a considerable degree of secrecy if it is to be effective. As is evident from recent events, terrorists make no distinctions between the innocent and the guilty, or between soldiers and civilians; everyone is at risk at their hands. It is in every Canadian's best interest that CSIS conduct its affairs effectively, within the law, and with sufficient protection for its human sources and for operations that must be kept secret. It is our responsibility to review CSIS' activities and then to assure the public that we know what CSIS is doing, that we believe that those activities are necessary, and that they are being conducted in an appropriate and legal fashion.
In June 1996, the House of Commons Sub-Committee on National Security released its report on the Heritage Front Affair. We do not agree with much of what the Sub-Committee had to say. However, since we were given the opportunity to present our point of view during more than sixteen hours of testimony, but were unable to convince the members to change their minds, we do not intend to try to do so here. We now consider the matter closed.
On 1 August 1996, the Federal Court ruled that the Committee could not fulfil its statutory obligation pursuant to the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-29. The Court prohibited us from conducting an investigation into the denial of Mr. Ernst Zündel's application for Canadian Citizenship.
In his reasons, Mr. Justice Darrel V. Heald said, in effect, that the Committee had revealed its bias against Mr. Zündel by the way in which it referred to him in the Heritage Front Affair report. The Committee had referred to Mr. Zündel as a publisher of hate literature, a Holocaust denier, and a member of the radical right. The Judge said that it was apparent from The Heritage Front Affair report that “... SIRC has had an opportunity to assess the credibility of Zündel and has found him, in several instances, to lack credibility.
”
Mr. Justice Heald also cited our statement that:
“
Finally, we would like to put on the record our unshakeable conviction that the Government of Canada, through all means at its disposal, should continue to ensure that it is always aware of what is going on within extreme right wing racist and Neo-Nazi groups. Canadians should never again repeat the mistakes of the past by underestimating the potential for harm embodied in hate-driven organizations.”
sentiments with which we hope most Canadians are in agreement.
We should add that being a member of the radical right, denying the Holocaust, or even publishing hate literature are not sufficient grounds for the denial of citizenship under current statutes. According to section 2(c) of the CSIS Act, only “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state
” would constitute sufficient grounds for the Committee to conclude that it should support a denial of citizenship. The Committee did not come to such a conclusion in its report on the Heritage Front Affair.
By the time this Annual Report is published, the Committee will be on the World Wide Web. We hope to provide a sufficient amount of information to make our “Home Page
” a worthwhile place to visit for researchers or simply for those who have an interest in security intelligence affairs. The web site will include directions about how to contact us with suggestions about the site itself or any other matter. Our web address is http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca