Case Studies - Annual Report 1995-1996

Navigation Links

Skip to main content
Skip to primary navigation

Common menu bar

Breadcrumb

Annual Report 1995-1996 - An Operational Audit of CSIS Activities

Table of Contents

(a) Alleged Interference with a Trial

SIRC investigated a media allegation that CSIS may have been responsible for a witness in Canada refusing to testify in a United States trial of suspected supporters of a prominent overseas terrorist organization. The purpose of our review was to assess the Service's actions in this case.

The media articles quoted the American defence attorney representing one of the suspects. The Counsel stated that the witness from Canada initially agreed to cooperate, but later refused. The witness reportedly told the attorney that CSIS warned him that his status in Canada would be jeopardized if he testified at the United States trial.

Among those we sought to interview was the journalist who reported the allegations. He refused to meet with our staff, citing his editors' objections. We did interview the trial suspect's lawyer, and we communicated with the police and the counsel for the witness.

The media article reported that the witness was secretly taped by the police during a conversation with one of the trial suspects in Toronto. United States federal prosecutors alleged that the two men discussed the purchase of detonators and how to conceal those that they had already acquired. The surveillance tape was of poor quality and the defence lawyer wanted the witness in Canada to corroborate the defence's interpretation of the conversation. He claimed that the witness refused to assist in the case because of CSIS' interference.

Also according to the media, the suspect in the US trial was one of 14 men accused of conspiring to purchase explosive detonators and a Stinger surface-to-air missile for the terrorist organization. The prosecution's interpretation of the surveillance tape prompted the Assistant United States Attorney in the case, to refer to the possible witness from Canada, as an “unindicted co-conspirator.”

The allegation about CSIS interference was first brought to the Service's attention when the police advised that they had learned of it from United States authorities. The police had served the witness with a subpoena on behalf of the American Attorney General, requesting that he testify on behalf of the prosecution.

We learned that CSIS interviewed the witness twice on a matter unrelated to the American investigation. The witness informed CSIS that he had declined the invitation from the American authorities to testify at the US trial. The Service did not pose additional questions about the trial during the interviews, nor did the investigators give advice regarding the matter.

The information we acquired from the police and the witness's attorney corroborated the Service's file information that CSIS investigators did not threaten the witness about his status in Canada. We saw no evidence, furthermore, that the CSIS interviews deterred the witness from attending the trial.

Yet the witness did not go to the United States. Two plausible theories were advanced to us as to why the witness did not attend the trial, although neither could be substantiated. The witness may have feared being arrested for the alleged role he played in obtaining the detonators. This may also have contributed to his reluctance to cooperate with the defence. Or, the witness may have provided the American attorneys with the excuse that CSIS warned him not to go, rather than admit his apprehension, and possibly jeopardize his relationship with supporters of the extremist group.

Based on the information we obtained from intelligence, police, and other sources, we concluded that the Service did not warn the possible witness that his status in Canada would be jeopardized if he testified at the American trial.

(b) Investigation of a Foreign State's Intelligence Services

On 14 May 1996, the Solicitor General told the House of Commons that “we play a prominent role in the world community, and we all know well that, in places, this world community is fraught with strife and unrest. In this environment, persistent threats must be dealt with and new ones emerge almost daily.”¹ We examined the intelligence services operated by one of those “persistent threats.”

The state operating the intelligence services has a questionable human rights record, and reputedly has been involved in aiding terrorists. We wanted to determine whether CSIS assessments of the threats posed by the intelligence services were legitimate and whether the investigation complied with Ministerial Direction. We also examined the accuracy and adequacy of the advice concerning the intelligence services that CSIS provided to clients.

We examined all the files relating to CSIS investigations of the intelligence services covering a ten year period. We evaluated the following potential threats:

support for Canadian extremists operating in a foreign country;
covert associations with foreign extremists operating overseas;
manipulation of ethnic communities and political interference; and
the presence of undeclared intelligence officers in Canada.

All the threats were well substantiated, although CSIS is still attempting to obtain some important additional information.

We examined the Target Approval and Review Committee (TARC) authorizations to ensure that investigations were justified and not excessive. All section 12 CSIS investigations require a TARC authorization. We verified statements in the “Request for Authority”, the application to TARC for an authority to investigate, to ensure that raw intelligence or other information supported the facts provided as the basis for the application. In one case, we came upon an instance in which supporting raw intelligence was not available. The documentation had been returned to the donor agency. The document in question appeared to be central to the authorization. We were told that as a matter of course, CSIS does not keep the documents themselves, but retains only a reference and a report number in the CSIS computer system. If need be, CSIS can recall the documents from the donor agency. Because the documents were not in the possession of CSIS, they were unavailable to SIRC for review. This issue is discussed further on page 6.

We noticed two other problems in the same “Request for Authority.”

The “Request” cited a deal offered to a terrorist by an agent of the foreign intelligence services. The involvement of the agent, according to CSIS, had been inferred from the context rather than being verified directly.

Under 2(b) of the CSIS Act, threat-related activities must be “foreign influenced”, “a detriment to the interests of Canada” and “clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person.” In the “Request for Authority”, CSIS noted that information collected by the foreign intelligence services “can be used against persons in the community in the form of coercion and visa denials.” The “Request”, however, provides no intelligence to support this thesis. CSIS argued that one purpose of the investigation was to acquire the information in question.

We examined the extent of the investigations conducted against the intelligence services. The resources allocated to the investigations were not large, and CSIS officers frequently depended on information gathered in other investigations. We noted minor communication problems between desks in the Counter Intelligence (CI) and Counter Terrorism (CT) Branches. We also observed that the CT Branch had been given lead responsibility for the part of the investigations seeking to identify foreign intelligence officers in Canada, usually a job for the CI Branch. We were told that the CT Branch had been placed in charge to coordinate diverse, interlinked investigations, and to resolve communications problems.

We discovered that CSIS had exchanged security intelligence information in the absence of a section 17 agreement. Officers explained that they had mistakenly assumed that an agreement submitted to the Solicitor General had been approved. In addition, CSIS had not consulted with the Minister in a timely fashion concerning “threats posed by foreign representatives” as is required by Ministerial Direction. We were told that the problem arose from the miscommunication of information within CSIS, and from CSIS to other departments. The Director of CSIS personally notified the Minister of both errors.

The investigations themselves were not problematic. In particular, we agreed with the procedures used in the investigation. These particular procedures are rarely used and are, in fact, prohibited in the case of Security Clearance interviews. However, in these circumstances there appeared to be legitimate reason for their use.

An important part of almost every Committee review is the examination of supporting documentation for “Requests for Authority” so as to determine the legitimacy of the decision to conduct investigations. In one “Request for Authority”, an important supporting document was unavailable for review. Thus, the Committee could not confirm crucial facts upon which the authorization was based, and could have been placed in the position of being unable to confirm the legitimacy of an authorization. By happenstance, other information from the donor agency was available so that the TARC “Request for Authority” could have been supported without reference to the missing documentation. This other information had been retained despite the policy that required its immediate return.

We strongly recommend that any supporting document or telex used as a reference in a TARC “Request for Authority” or a warrant affidavit be made available upon request to SIRC.

(c) CSIS and an Alleged Terrorist

When a person was arrested in Canada and was described as an alleged terrorist, based on erroneous information, SIRC reviewed the case to determine whether the Service was involved in this matter. In the course of the review, the Committee examined the nature of the information that CSIS received from or provided to foreign and domestic agencies.

We learned that during a major investigation, the Service received information that the person might be sought by other agencies. This and other information raised the possibility for CSIS that he might have been sent to Canada on behalf of a terrorist organization. Consequently, the Service sought information from other agencies about the individual.

The information that CSIS received indicated that the person had associated in the past with violence-prone groups, but the data did not support the allegation about his involvement in terrorism. CSIS notified other Canadian agencies about the information and added that the Service was not aware that the person was involved in any threat-related activity in Canada.

In further correspondence between CSIS and the other agencies, we noted that the Service stipulated that it had no interest in the person due to the criminal nature of his offences.

We concluded that CSIS placed the third party information in context when supplying the data to other agencies. Thus, the Service provided a fair and balanced assessment of the individual to its clients.

(d) CSIS and a “Walk-In”

Information provided by individuals plays a significant role in the Service's collection of information concerning threats to the security of Canada. In one case, an individual provided unsolicited information to the Service and later complained that he had been lied to by CSIS. Subsequently he became a devoted follower of an individual he was associated with. His life changed dramatically, and he became estranged from family and friends. Some observers complained that CSIS had provided significant financial support to an extremist group and that the individual concerned was used inappropriately by the Service.

To conduct our review, we spoke to former employers, friends, and other individuals concerning the case. We examined all relevant CSIS files. We reviewed other reports that were prepared outside the Service regarding the individual concerned. We spoke to CSIS employees and managers, and, finally, we spoke to the individual. We pieced together the events surrounding the allegations and we reached the following conclusions.

CSIS had provided a very limited amount of assistance to the individual over the duration of a relationship that lasted six months. Initially, the individual appeared to be normal, intelligent and capable. Various outside observers said that they did not view the individual as being “troubled.”

CSIS officers did not withhold any information concerning potential danger to the individual, because they were not aware of any potential danger.

When the contact between the individual and CSIS ended, CSIS reevaluated the relationship. In the reevaluation, officers discovered problems concerning the individual that had not been readily evident at the commencement of the relationship, and were not recorded.

With the benefit of hindsight, everyone, including CSIS, recognized that a relationship with this individual was problematic. On the other hand, a number of allegations concerning the individual's involvement with CSIS were totally untrue, particularly the allegation that CSIS spent thousands of dollars supporting domestic extremists.

We can find no neglect or malice in CSIS activities in relation to the individual in question. He offered information, and it was accepted. Officers assessed the individual to the extent required by policy.

(e) Foreign Interference with Democratic Processes

At the October 1995 Meeting, Committee Members directed staff to keep them “fully informed” of any activities, or any investigation of activities, relating to interference by foreign intelligence services in Canadian democratic processes, such as elections or referendums. This direction arose from a report discussed in last year's Annual Report: “CSIS Investigations of Certain Intelligence Services.”

At a June 1996 meeting, the Committee examined the findings of a review of relevant operational reports and related documents covering 1995. It determined that CSIS had not conducted any investigations touching upon democratic processes and in fact had assiduously avoided any such investigation. There was a single report, unsolicited, of possible foreign interference, that the Service refused to pursue further. We are also of the view that the report was not credible.

1 “Statement on National Security”, Honourable Herb Gray, 14 May 1996.