Investigations of Complaints - Annual Report 2002-2003

Navigation Links

Skip to main content
Skip to primary navigation

Common menu bar

Breadcrumb

Home >
Annual Reports >
Annual Report 2002-2003 >
Section 1.B Investigations of Complaints

Annual Report 2002-2003 - An Operational Review of CSIS Activities

Table of Contents

B. Investigations of Complaints

In addition to its review function, the Committee has the responsibility to investigate complaints from the public about CSIS. Where appropriate, complaints are investigated through a quasi-judicial hearing presided over by a Member of the Committee. After the hearings are complete, the presiding Member issues a report including any findings and recommendations, to both the Solicitor General and the Director of CSIS. After any information with national security implications is removed, the complainant also is advised in writing of the findings.

Through its investigations of complaints, the Committee assures itself that the Service's activities have been carried out in accordance with the CSIS Act, ministerial direction and CSIS policy. If we find that the Service has acted appropriately, we convey that assurance to the complainant. If the Committee identifies issues of concern, we include these in our report to the Director of CSIS and the Solicitor General and, to the extent possible, report on these matters in our annual report.

Presented below are summaries of reports on investigations issued by the Committee during the past year. Not included here are complaints that were either misdirected, or handled through administrative review or deemed to be outside the Committee's jurisdiction (see Table 1). The summaries are edited to protect the privacy of complainants and to prevent disclosure of classified information.

Four kinds of complaints may be directed to the Committee's attention for investigation:

complaints lodged by persons “with respect to any act or thing done by the Service”;
complaints received concerning denials of security clearances to government employees and contractors;
referrals from the Canadian Human Rights Commission of complaints made to it; and
Minister's reports in respect of the Citizenship Act.

Table 1 Resolution of Complaints*
Description	2000-2001	2001-2002	2002-2003
Carried over	24	41	17
New	52	45	48
Total	76	86	65
Closed	35	69	48
Carried forward	41	17	17

* Table 1 reflects all complaints received by the Committee. However, not all complaints received require further inquiries by the Committee nor does every complaint result in an investigation. Some are addressed by administrative action, whereas others are redirected to appropriate governmental bodies or are determined at the outset to be outside the Committee's jurisdiction.

Reports of Decisions - Case Histories

The Committee reported decisions on five complaint cases during the period under review: four were complaints lodged in accordance with section 41-“any act or thing”-and one was a complaint under section 42 respecting a denial of security clearance. There were no reports on complaints referred from the Canadian Human Rights Commission or on Minister's reports.

SECTION 41 -“ANY ACT OR THING”

Case #1: Allegations of Undue Delay in Conducting a Security Screening Investigation

The complaint centred on two allegations. First, that the time (32 months) required by the Service to complete a security screening investigation of the complainant's application for permanent residency in Canada was unreasonable. In support of this allegation, the complainant produced documentation obtained from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) that incorrectly described the Service's role in the process. Second, that statements made by the complainant during a security screening interview with CSIS employees were not correctly reported to officials at CIC who were responsible for deciding on the application.

Based on the evidence gathered during its investigation, the Committee concluded that certain administrative elements in the conduct of the Service's investigation were unsatisfactory and did in fact contribute to an unreasonable delay. It was the Committee's opinion that the accuracy of the Service's reporting to CIC about its interview with the complainant could be cast into doubt due to the absence of a tape-recorded interview. Finally, the Committee agreed that the CIC documentation had misinformed the complainant as to the Service's role in the immigration screening process.

Four recommendations were made by the Committee with the aim of addressing these issues. Three are classified for reasons of privacy or national security. In one recommendation, the Committee reiterated advice offered to the Service on two previous occasions, namely, that CSIS record all immigration security screening interviews and that the recordings be retained until the applicant's immigration status has been finally determined.

Case #2: Allegations of Unreasonable Delay in a Security Screening Investigation

The complainant believed that the length of time required by the Service to complete its security screening investigation connected with an application for permanent residency was unreasonable. The complainant asserted that CSIS was lax in its duties and had failed to communicate adequately with either CIC or the complainant in the matter of the investigation. After reviewing the available evidence, the Committee concluded that the Service had acted appropriately and that the allegations were unfounded. The Committee made one recommendation to the Service relating to the need for certain improvements in the efficiency of handling immigration security screening requests. In response, the Service indicated that it had begun implementing these improvements by the time the report was completed.

Case #3: Allegations that CSIS Provided Adverse and Inaccurate Information to Foreign Authorities

The complainant asserted that CSIS had provided adverse and inaccurate information to the authorities of a foreign country, thus causing the complainant to be briefly detained by those authorities. The complainant further asserted that the transmission of information was not a reasonable exercise of the Service's authority. Upon considering the evidence reviewed during its investigation and presented orally, the Committee concluded that the Service had acted appropriately and within the authorities granted to it by the CSIS Act.

Case #4: Allegations that CSIS Failed to Investigate Threats to the Security of Canada

This complaint contained seven main allegations, all turning on the assertion that CSIS had failed in its duty to investigate threats to the security of Canada and advise the Government on those threats. The Committee conducted a preliminary review of the complaint and of the documentation provided by the complainant. The Committee found that three allegations related to matters best addressed by law enforcement authorities; two others concerned administrative decisions largely under the purview of federal agencies that are not within SIRC's mandate; and the last two raised issues already examined and reported on by the Committee in earlier reports. In view of these findings, the Committee dismissed the complaint in its entirety under section 41( 1)( b) of the CSIS Act, which directs the Committee to investigate only if it is “satisfied that the complaint is not trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.”

Complaints About CSIS Activities Under Section 41

Under the provisions of section 41 of the CSIS Act, the Review Committee must investigate complaints made by “any person” with respect to “any act or thing done by the Service.” Before the Committee investigates, two conditions must be met:

The complainant must first have complained to the Director of CSIS and not received a response within a reasonable period of time (about 30 days) or the complainant must be dissatisfied with the Director's response.
The Committee must be satisfied that the complaint is not trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. Under section 41( 2) of the Act, the Committee cannot investigate a complaint that can otherwise be addressed under existing grievance procedures of the CSIS Act or the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

SECTION 42 - DENIAL OF SECURITY CLEARANCE

Case #1: Revocation of a Security Clearance

The complainant was a Federal Government employee whose security clearance was revoked. As a consequence, the complainant's employment was terminated. The complainant contested the revocation of the security clearance via an appeal to the Committee under section 42 of the CSIS Act. On the basis of a review of relevant documentation and after hearing witnesses' testimony, the Committee concluded that the decision of the federal agency in question to revoke the security clearance was well founded. As required by Government Security Policy, the agency demonstrated that it had reasonable grounds to doubt the loyalty and reliability of the complainant. The Committee recommended that the decision of the responsible Deputy Head to revoke the clearance be upheld.

Complaints About CSIS Activities Under Section 42

With respect to decisions to deny security clearances, section 42 of the CSIS Act sets out three situations in which a complaint can be made to the Committee:

any person refused federal employment because a security clearance has been denied;
any federal employee who is dismissed, demoted, transferred or denied a transfer or promotion, for the same reason; and
anyone refused a contract to supply goods and services to the Government for the same reason.

A complaint under section 42 of the Act must be filed within 30 days of the denial of the security clearance. The Committee can extend this period if valid reasons are presented.

For more information on how to make a complaint to SIRC, please visit our website at www.sirc-csars.gc.ca