Navigation Links
Common menu bar
Breadcrumb
- Home >
- Annual Reports >
- Annual Report 1997-1998 >
- Complaint Case Histories
Annual Report 1997-1998 - An Operational Audit of CSIS Activities
Appendix D: Complaint Case Histories
This section describes complaint cases submitted during the past year to the Review Committee concerning which a decision was reached. Not addressed here are complaints that were the subject of administrative reviews, were misdirected, were outside the Committee's mandate, or arose from Service assistance to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Complaints received, but which have either not been heard or for which investigations are not yet complete, will be reported on at a later date.
A Complaint About CSIS Activities
An individual submitted a letter of complaint to the Director of CSIS in which he expressed his resentment at being “questioned and interrogated
” by a CSIS investigator. He said he was “disgusted with the fact that a person from CSIS was questioning an innocent and honest Canadian about a subject that had been public information for donkeys years.
” He questioned the funds that the Federal Government had allocated to CSIS and stated that he believed insufficient background work had been done by the Service before he was interviewed.
In responding to the complainant, the Director of the Service stated that he was satisfied with the request from CSIS staff to interview the subject and that the procedures employed to carry it out were consistent with CSIS policy. The Director added that the interview request originated from a remark made by the subject to a CSIS employee at a Service conference. The Director explained that the comments led the CSIS employee to believe that the subject might have information which could be of operational interest to CSIS, and that the interview was sought in an attempt to clarify this point.
Committee Findings
The Committee's review of the matter determined that the individual had made a comment at a conference attended by CSIS senior management. While the nature of the comment remains unclear, CSIS staff believed on the basis of the comment that the subject had said something worth pursuing from an operational point of view. The Service sought the individual's cooperation to clarify the comments and to determine the relevancy of the information to Service operations.
The Committee is satisfied that the Service had the necessary authority to request the interview. Furthermore, we concluded that seeking the individual's cooperation in order to determine whether he did have information which could be of operational interest was a reasonable exercise of its powers. It is the Service's responsibility to report to Government on activities that may, on reasonable grounds, be suspected of constituting “threats to the security of Canada
” as defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act. In fulfilling this part of its mandate, the Service depends on the cooperation of members of the public who may have knowledge of, or opinions on, activities relating to threats to the security of Canada.
While the complainant had emphasized that the information alluded to at the CSIS conference was in the public domain, the Committee's view was that this fact could not have been confirmed without the Service being able to conduct its interview. We also noted that, having recently lost a close relative, the interview was conducted at a difficult and emotional time in the individual's life. The timing of the interview and the investigating officer's reference to the late relative was unfortunate, however, the CSIS investigator was not aware of this situation.
After taking into consideration all the circumstances of this case, the Committee concluded that the Service had not acted in an illegal, inappropriate, or unreasonable manner.
Investigation of a Ministerial Report Received Pursuant to the Immigration Act38
Pursuant to subsection 39(2) of the Immigration Act, we were directed to investigate the grounds underlying a report requesting deportation made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General concerning an individual.
In the report, the Ministers concluded that the individual, a permanent resident of Canada, was a person described in paragraphs 19(1)(e),(g) and 27(1)(c) of the Immigration Act.
Paragraphs 19(1)(e) and (g) state:
no person shall be granted admission who is a member of any of the following classes:
(...) Paragraph (e)persons who have engaged in or who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada, except persons who, having engaged in such acts, have satisfied the Minister that their admission would not be detrimental to the national interest;
(...) Paragraph (g)persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada or are members of or are likely to participate in the unlawful activities of an organization that is likely to engage in such acts of violence.
Subsection 27(1) lists the grounds for the removal of a permanent resident. The relevant part reads:
When an Immigration officer or a peace officer is in possession of information indicating that a permanent resident is a person who ...
Paragraph (c) is engaged in or instigating subversion, by force of any government.
On 7 November 1995, the Honourable Mr. Justice MacKay ruled that a specific portion of paragraph 19(1)(g) of the Immigration Act — “a member of an organization likely to engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada
” — was unconstitutional since it violated section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a manner not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
It was Justice MacKay's further opinion that the conclusions reached by the Review Committee in its report of 3 August 1993 were valid, with the exception of the part concerning the individual being a person described in that section of the Immigration Act he had ruled unconstitutional. The Court left to the discretion of the Committee whether Mr. Courtois, the member (and at the time of the ruling, the Committee's Chair) who had conducted the initial investigation and issued the August 1993 report, would complete the review process, or whether another Committee member would be designated. This latter issue was subsequently rendered moot by the death of Mr. Courtois.
While both parties in the case expressed their preference to rely on the testimony and evidence given in the earlier SIRC procedure, the Committee Member assigned to take up the investigation invited them to present additional evidence through witnesses, if they so wished. Following a complete examination of all documentary evidence and transcripts elicited during the previous investigation, the Member heading the investigation issued instructions to both parties with a view to obtaining viva voce evidence on the terrorist organization with which the individual was alleged to have had a relationship, and the precise nature of that relationship, including the possible transfer of funds, assistance in recruitment, facilitation of travel, and participation in a particular terrorist incident overseas.
The parties to the case presented witnesses of their choice to address those points.
Committee Findings
The Committee's investigation was limited to the sections in the Immigration Act referred to in the Ministerial report,39 notwithstanding the subsequent changes to the legislation. In addition, Counsel for the complainant also raised the constitutional applicability and validity of certain sections of the Immigration Act.
After carefully considering all of the documentary evidence and the testimony given before the Committee, we concluded that the individual in question was in fact a person described in paragraphs 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(g) and that a certificate should be issued in accordance with subsection 40(1) of the Immigration Act.
With respect to the constitutional issues raised by the complainant, after carefully reviewing the composition of SIRC and its functions, the Committee concluded that SIRC was not a court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of section 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus did not have authority to rule in the area.
Referral from the Canadian Human Rights Commission
An individual worked for a company that had a contract with a government department. At the start of the person's employment, the individual was issued an “escort pass
” which allowed access to restricted areas of an airport only in the company of someone who held a “restricted area
” pass. In the process of obtaining the “Airport Restricted Access and Accreditation Program
” clearance, the individual was interviewed by CSIS officials. Ultimately, the individual received a letter stating that the requested clearance for the full “restricted area
” pass was denied. No explanation was provided to the individual.
The individual, believing that the denial had been based on the ground of religion and thus contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act, lodged a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. When the Commission received a written notice from the Minister of the Crown that the complaint related to the security of Canada, the Commission referred the matter to us.
Committee Findings
Our investigation determined that the department concerned had consulted CSIS and the RCMP – both organizations are part of the Airport Restricted Area Access and Accreditation Program. Following its interview, CSIS made a recommendation to the government department. A Review Board had been convened within the government department to consider the application in light of the information received through the consultation process. The Board was unanimous in its decision to recommend the denial of the clearance.
The Committee's role in this type of case is quite limited. We examined all of the files pertaining to the matter and received representations from all concerned parties. The documents we reviewed contained no evidence to substantiate the allegations of discrimination on the grounds of religion, and we concluded that the Minister of the Crown's assertion that the denial was based upon matters concerning the security of Canada was substantiated by all of the information available.