Navigation Links
Common menu bar
Breadcrumb
- Home >
- Annual Reports >
- Annual Report 1996-1997 >
- Complaint Case Histories
Annual Report 1996-1997 - An Operational Audit of CSIS Activities
Appendix D: Complaint Case Histories
This section describes complaint cases submitted during the past year to the Committee under Section 41 of the CSIS Act, and concerning which the Committee had reached decisions. Not reviewed here are complaints that were the subject of administrative reviews and the nine complaints about the length of time taken by the Service to provide advice to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).
Complaints about security screening interviews
Interviews are one of the procedures employed by CSIS to assess immigration and other applicants, and it is the view of the Committee that interviews conducted by CSIS investigators can identify security related concerns only if the interviews are conducted skillfully and all possible security issues are discussed.
Conducted appropriately, interviews can also provide applicants with the opportunity to address security issues.
Investigators who conduct the interviews do not make decisions about the status of applicants. A different section in CSIS analyses the interviews, as well as information from other sources, and the results are presented in the form of briefs to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The ultimate decision to grant or refuse an application is made by CIC.
The Committee received two complaints about alleged impropriety in regard to interviews conducted by CSIS investigators. While the Committee was cognizant of the length of time that had lapsed before CIC requested the Service's advice, we made the complainants aware of the fact that the Committee's jurisdiction when assessing whether any undue delay has occurred is limited to the actions of CSIS alone.
We concluded that neither complaint was valid. In one case worthy of note, the complainant had alleged that an investigator demonstrated “personal bias
” against him during an interview. We found that this allegation was not supported by the evidence. Instead, we observed that the investigator had adopted a professional and objective approach to the assignment.
A complaint in respect to an airport interview
As a result of our investigation, we were satisfied that the Service had not used its powers in an illegal or inappropriate fashion when it had conducted an interview. We concluded that the interviewee participated voluntarily in the interview.
A complaint about sharing information with an employer
In 1995, a person was transferred to another unit within the organization that employed him - an organization that shares information with CSIS. The complainant asserted that he was told that he was being transferred as a result of information that had come to the attention of his supervisor from the Service. CSIS personnel had attempted in previous years to interview the complainant and his refusal to be interviewed had left the Service with a negative perception of the complainant.
The Service maintained that it had never told the employer that it would cease to share information if the complainant remained in the unit, and, that in 1995, it had told the employer that it knew nothing to suggest that the complainant was a security risk or that he was anything other than a loyal Canadian. The Service noted to the Committee that in its view, the matter of the job transfer within the other organization was beyond its purview.
After examining the information provided by the Service to the employer, the Committee concluded that the complaint was justified and that CSIS personnel failed to disseminate the information in its possession in an objective, responsible, and professional manner. The Service has the obligation not only to accurately observe and record the facts that it collects, it must also be fair and objective when it reports such information to others.
Except to the extent that CSIS may have influenced the actions of the organization concerned, the Committee's jurisdiction does not encompass the activities of the body for which the complainant worked. We have, however, recommended to the Service that it share in a clear and unreserved manner with senior management in the complainant's organization, its conclusion that the complainant did not attempt to conceal intelligence activities and does not constitute a threat to the security of Canada.
A delicate balance
The Committee reviewed a complaint about CSIS from a person whose status in Canada was undetermined.
This case drew the Committee's attention to the possibility that the Service could take unfair advantage of persons who would prefer not to provide assistance to CSIS, but who are concerned that failure to cooperate would adversely affect their chances of obtaining residence in Canada. Of equal concern is the possibility that persons approached by CSIS at an early stage in the immigration process could come to believe that their chances of securing status in Canada would be improved by cooperating.
In this particular case, the Committee found the complaint justified.
Complaints about a CSIS interview
To fulfill its duty to report to government on activities that may, on reasonable grounds, be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada, the Service depends on the information of members of the public who may have knowledge of, or opinions on, activities relating to threats to the security of Canada, including politically motivated violence - information often obtained through personal interviews.
The Committee investigated complaints concerning an interview conducted by the Service and recorded by the interviewee. While we were satisfied that the interview fell within the legislative mandate of the Service, two statements made by the investigators during the course of the interview caused some concern.
At one point in the interview, an investigator referred to CSIS as “the political police.
” The investigator told the Committee that it was the first time he had ever used the phrase and assured us that he would never use it again. He explained that he was attempting to draw an analogy with a foreign agency whose mandate resembled the Service's in that it investigated politically motivated violence.
While the Committee regards the investigator's particular choice of words as unfortunate, we also are convinced, based on a reading of the entire exchange, that he well understood the overall mandate and purpose of the Service, and furthermore, that he attempted to convey this information to the interviewee.
With respect to a statement made by the other investigator involved, the Committee believes that it is reasonable to expect more restraint and professionalism from CSIS officers than was illustrated in this instance. We acknowledge the fact that interviews are often an effective means of collecting information and intelligence, and that a sometimes useful interview technique involves the employment of leading statements.
The Committee believes, however, that such techniques should never include statements that are not placed in the proper context, or adverse allegations about groups or individuals that are not supported by the facts.