TWO FORMER HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS WARN THAT CANADA’S NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES ARE UNDER STRAIN AT A TIME THAT THREATS HAVE “SELDOM BEEN SO HIGH,” AND URGE LIBERALS TO MAKE ISSUE A PRIORITY.
• Two former high-ranking officials have written a joint letter warning that Canada’s national security agencies are under strain and urging the Liberal government to address the issue as a top priority.
Luc Portelance and Ray Boisvert wrote that the new government’s commitment to increasing the accountability of the security community must also address gaps in capabilities at a time that threats have “seldom been so high.”
“As it seeks to modernize the accountability regime, we believe the government is presented with a timely opportunity to consider a thorough assessment of our national security structure — from the perspective of both review and capability,” their letter said.
Portelance was until recently president of the Canada Border Services Agency, while Boisvert was deputy director of operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Both have left government and are now in the private sector.
The letter, published in Wednesday’s National Post, comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is preparing to scrap parts of Bill C-51, the counter-terrorism law brought in by the Conservatives after the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the deadly attacks in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que.
During the election campaign, Trudeau portrayed the Conservatives as overzealous on national security, and promised to undo recent measures such as legislation to revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists with dual nationality.
Trudeau’s mandate letter to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale mentioned terrorism only once, and instructed him to repeal “problematic elements” of C-51, strengthen the accountability of security agencies and safeguard rights and freedoms.
But the former officials said current security challenges must also be addressed.
They include that “Canada stands alone among its allies in not having the ability to monitor outbound movements” of foreign fighters and the problems “associated with using intelligence for evidentiary purposes.”
Federal investigators are also struggling with the difficulties caused by encryption technology, the letter argued, adding that “although discomforting to some” a discussion about the need for lawful access to intercepted communications was necessary.
“Meaningful change, therefore, should not simply involve tweaking Bill C-51 or introducing parliamentary review,” it said. “At this critical juncture, and in the face of complex international security challenges, it must consider the modernization of all critical institutions — but particularly those engaged in national security.”
Both former senior officials are intimately familiar with counter-terrorism. Boisvert was director general of the counter-terrorism program at CSIS. Portelance was the CSIS assistant director of operations at the time of the Toronto 18 investigation.
“I agree with everything on their agenda,” said Craig Forcese, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa law school. He said the debate over C-51 was always about what it lacked, as well as its content. “Most of the items in this list identify omissions — areas where the prior government failed to act, or acted at best in a haphazard manner.”
The letter noted that since the October 2014 killings of two Canadian Forces members by radicalized Canadian extremists, seven more Canadians have died in terror attacks in Jakarta and Burkina Faso, and there have been deadly incidents in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.
Arguing it may be time for a “national security reset,” the authors encouraged the government to ensure the drive for greater accountability corresponds with “the need to ensure that Canada’s security apparatus is adequately tooled to address emerging threats.”
Goodale has promised to consult with Canadians before making changes to national security.
“The prime minister has been clear for a long time that he believes we can improve our security while better protecting our rights and freedoms,” said Scott Bardsley, a spokesman for Goodale.
“Both these points matter and both will be considered in upcoming public consultations on the national security framework.”
MEANINGFUL CHANGE ... SHOULD NOT SIMPLY INVOLVE TWEAKING BILL C-51.