New spy oversight good but could be even better

At long last, Canada is getting some serious oversight for its intelligence agencies. Well behind most of our closest allies, including the United States and the United Kingdom, the Trudeau government has created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), a $4.5-million body consisting of eight MPs and three senators supported by a secretariat from the Privy Council Office.

This should be welcomed by Canadians, with conditions.

The new committee will have oversight responsibilities for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the RCMP and any other agency involved in intelligence operations. It’s a step up from the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which looked at CSIS only.

Canada has been an outlier among Western nations in not having a comprehensive oversight and review of its spies. Organizations such as these must by definition function in the dark, but on the other hand be subject to the light of examination and scrutiny by legislated bodies.

One item that seems unresolved is the potential contribution from former intelligence professionals. Christian Leuprecht and Hayley McNorton argued in the Toronto Star that having such people in the secretariat would improve how NSICOP functions. Wesley Wark countered in the Hill Times that hiring ex-spies could bring in individuals who were too “pal-sy” with their former employees and hence presumably not objective.

I side strongly with Leuprecht and McNorton. In fact, if NSICOP does not bring in experienced intelligence professionals, it will waste time getting up to speed and thus be less effective:

First, as Leuprecht and McNorton point out, only three members of NSICOP — Conservative Sen. Vern White, Independent Sen. Frances Lankin and NDP MP Murray Rankin — have any background in intelligence. Even those three were more consumers than producers. Those who have been on the receiving end of assessed product are not usually aware of the nuts and bolts of the business. Only those who worked with raw intercept, either human source or signals intelligence, truly understand how the sausage is made.

It would be a good idea to not limit the presence of former intelligence professionals to agency executives but to consider analysts and collectors as well. The executive may once have been working at the coal face but is likely too far removed in time to be good teachers for the uninitiated. NSICOP cannot work well if its members do not have a solid grasp of the intelligence industry and this can come from only former insiders.

Second, having veteran spies at the ready will mean NSICOP will know what questions to ask of the agencies under its purview. Those with decades of direct experience are best placed to examine the information provided to the committee, understand what is being said and know what avenues to pursue for clarification or supplementary explanation.

The notion that those who worked for CSIS, CSE or the RCMP are not welcome in oversight due to their closeness to their former employers is an insult. Intelligence professionals are just that: professionals. They took their jobs seriously and strove to carry out the mandates of their employers to the best of their abilities. This professionalism would extend to their duties with NSICOP.

We have an opportunity to do national security oversight and review right in Canada. Let’s opt for the intelligent approach.

Phil Gurski worked in the Canadian intelligence community with

CSE and CSIS for 32 years. He is president and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting.