Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 12 - Evidence - Meeting of February 11, 2013
OTTAWA, Monday, February 11, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War, met this day at 4 p.m. to give consideration to the bill; and to examine and report on Canada's national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, before we formally begin our proceedings today, some of you might know that the weather is bad out there. Two of the people who were going to testify before us today on Bill S-213, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War, are unable to be here. We do have the good fortune of having a Korean War veteran in our audience today, who is here to listen. With your agreement, I would invite him to join us at the table. I will ask my deputy chair, Senator Dallaire, whether he agrees with that.
Senator Dallaire: So agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Seiersen, we will ask you to come forward, if you do not mind, to join our discussion. We are very appreciative that you would be willing to do so. Thank you. We will just give him a moment to get settled.
I will recap that we are starting today to consider a bill proposed by our Senate colleague, Senator Yonah Martin. It was referred to us for study by the Senate itself. Bill S-213 is entitled ``An Act respecting a national day of remembrance to honour Canadian veterans of the Korean War.'' The bill would designate July 27 each year as Korean War Veterans Day. For the longest time, the sacrifice made by Canadian veterans of the Korean War was paid too scant attention. Korea was sometimes that forgotten war. Yet, more than 26,000 Canadians served, for more than three years, in the UN force during the war. Five hundred and sixteen Canadians died there. Now, on the sixtieth anniversary of the armistice that ended the Korean War, we are making sure that we will remember this time, and the government has declared 2013 to be the Year of the Korean War Veteran.
We are pleased to welcome before us today Senator Yonah Martin, sponsor of Bill S-213. We also have with us Donald Dalke, a Korean War veteran, who was wounded but stayed in action, directing artillery fire. He was awarded the Military Cross. We are very pleased to have you with us here today, Mr. Dalke. Thank you so much. We have just asked Peter Seiersen, also a Korean War veteran, to join our table. Thank you for doing this on short notice. We might have some questions for you.
Senator Martin, did you want to make an opening statement? Please go ahead, and welcome.
The Honourable Senator Yonah Martin, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Madam Chair, deputy chair and honourable senators.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to you about Bill S-213, which to me personally, and I know to all of you who have expressed such support, means a lot. I am deeply humbled in the presence of the veterans who are here with me. They are two of the Canadians who are real-life heroes to me. Without them I know that I would not be here today because, had they, along with others, not gone to Korea's aid, my parents would most likely not have survived the war. The question remains, where would Korea be? Would it exist? I would not have this opportunity to do what I am doing today.
I want to first thank our veterans who are representing the Canadians who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice in Korea and who are here in Canada with the legacy of their service and sacrifice in Korea.
The Chair: Let me interrupt and say thank you. We are all in agreement with that.
I was derelict; I should have mentioned that Senator Joseph Day, who is a member of this committee, is the co- sponsor of this bill.
Senator Martin: Yes.
The Chair: I wanted to put that on the record.
Senator Martin: That was my very next comment, to thank Senator Joseph Day, who is a member of this committee and who has co-sponsored the bill.
[Translation]
I would also like to acknowledge the steadfast leadership of past Ministers of Veteran Affairs — Minister Greg Thompson and Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn — for their unwavering support of our veterans.
[English]
I include, of course, Minister Steven Blaney for his leadership and passion for our veterans, which has been demonstrated in his clear support for the declaration of 2013 as the Year of the Korean War Veteran. The reason that Peter Seiersen is here is to watch the Imjin Classic, which took place on the Rideau Canal, to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the games.
Mr. Dalke has said to me that the key is to be very concise, to get to the point and to allow the specifics to come out in the questioning. I did have a prepared statement, which I think honourable senators can review in their own time. In this portion of the presentation I will simply say that the contributions are invaluable, and we know that our veterans have long deserved this recognition, a day in their honour, for the future, for posterity. This is so important to our Canadian history, and I wanted to stress one key point. For me, it was just a very personal conviction to give back to our veterans what they have given to me — my life. However, in doing so, I feel, as a Canadian, that I have truly found a sense of appreciation and almost a sense of identity in knowing that this is part of my own history. Therefore, I believe that, for Canadians, understanding the importance of this war and ensuring that this day is recognized is an important part of their own identity. I encourage all honourable senators — and I know that support has been expressed in the past — to participate today in the way that you will and to lend your support to this bill.
Let me express that many others have made today possible in terms of support of this bill, such as staff, others and, of course, veterans, whom I consulted in the drafting of this bill. I thank all who have been part of making the bill possible at this time in our history.
Honourable senators, I look forward to your questions to me and to our veterans who have joined us here today.
The Chair: Thank you; I appreciate that.
Welcome, Mr. Dalke. Do you have an opening statement?
Donald Dalke, Veteran from the Korean War, as an individual: Yes.
The Chair: Please proceed.
Mr. Dalke: It is certainly the most honourable moment of my life to have the opportunity today to speak to leaders of our tremendous country. However, the focus must be the Korean War and those who served there.
In July 1950, Canada committed to the United Nations a brigade force to help in the protection of the South Korean people. In just eight months, we recruited, trained and committed to battle a 5,000-man brigade force of volunteers, the 25th Canadian Infantry Brigade, which once again, in the two and a half years of war, fulfilled the same reputation as Canadian veterans of past wars. They were swift and relentless in the attack and immovable in defence.
During those two and a half years, the Canadians never gave up an inch of ground. In the three years of war, there were between 6.5 million and 7 million casualties, of whom over 3 million were dead. If you spoke to Second World War veterans, whom we had there at the platoon company or battalion level, you would know that the battles were every bit as tough as the battles in the Second World War. They were especially tough when you were facing an enemy that outnumbered you by eight or ten to one, so they were a bit confused as to why it was not considered a war but a police action only at that time.
South Korea should be used as a poster internationally of what is possible when dedicated people can live within a democratic, capitalistic and entrepreneurial system of governing. When we left Korea, there was total devastation. The cities, villages and infrastructure of the country were in total disarray. While the vast majority of the people were living in an 18th century society, in just 50 short years they literally leapfrogged into an advanced 21st century country, with ultra-modern cities, superhighways and bullet trains. Not only that, they became one of the leading economies of the world. None of this would have been possible without the United Nations battle force that stopped the Communist advance and pushed it back over the thirty-eighth parallel to a line of high ground, giving the South Koreans a more defendable border.
We, as veterans, part of the 2 per cent of our population that have served in the military, are extremely proud that we have been able to ensure that 98 per cent of the population of this country can live out their entire lives in the safest and most secure country in the world — Canada. We feel that those who served in Korea, especially those who paid the supreme price, should be recognized in a consistent, federal way. We also wish to extend our full support to Senator Martin for her bill and ask for your support as well to make July 27 Korean War Veterans Day.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I am prepared to answer specific questions on the Korean War.
The Chair: Thank you. We will not put you on the spot, Mr. Seiersen, and have you give a presentation; but we appreciate your being here to answer questions.
Senator Dallaire: Certainly, you have my support for this initiative, all the more so because you are focusing on the veterans of that campaign, not just on the victory. However, I would prefer using June 25, when the war started, because that is my birthday; but we will move beyond that.
This bill proposes to create a national day of recognition for veterans of a war. We have other days when we recognize veterans, such as November 11 and August 9, which is for peacekeepers. You have spoken to other agencies and veterans groups. Do people see this as a reinforcement of our sense of commemoration and recognition of the sacrifices of veterans or do they possibly see this as a watering down of that? What was your general sense of this and how did you come to that conclusion?
Senator Martin: Thank you for your question, senator. As you have pointed out, other days in the calendar commemorate important events. This one is already on the calendar for our veterans and many community members across Canada. July 27 is commemorated in various cities, including Brampton, where the Wall of Remembrance was established. Annual commemorations take place on that day, as well as on June 25, the day on which the Korean War started. Given that the war is not over, Korean communities commemorate both June 25 and July 27. When we passed the motion in 2010 to recognize July 27, I heard from veterans at various events who had tears in their eyes as they told me what it meant to them to have recognition from the Senate of Canada.
Having the Government of Canada enact a national day of recognition to commemorate these veterans would mean the world to them. Perhaps our veterans here today can speak to the importance of such a day.
The Chair: Please proceed. We would like to hear from both of you.
Mr. Dalke: There is no question about it. I think back to when we came back from Korea. We landed in the U.S. and took a train up to Vancouver. There were Americans out in the field with big signs that read, ``Welcome Home, Canada.'' We crossed the border into Canada, and zero. All the way home and when we got off the train, there was not one word. There has been literally no recognition. I went back to Korea in November last year. In four days there, I got more recognition and support from people than I have had in 60 years in Canada. It was quite frustrating. We took close to 40 years of battling with the government about a simple medal about volunteering to go into battle. They said, ``It was not a war, so you do not deserve it.'' That was where this conflict kept coming up. Consequently, it was getting the reputation of being the forgotten war.
Peter Seiersen, Veteran from the Korean War, as an individual: I have an opposite story to tell. My regiment was stationed in Calgary. When we left, we were given the keys to the city. When we came home, the whole city turned out to welcome us home; but that was one of the rare places where that happened. It was our home and the home of the regiment, so we did get a warm welcome, and we appreciated it.
I first returned to Korea in 2000. What strikes me is the respect and reverence that the people of Korea have for us. They want to immigrate to Canada, and as soon as they hear that you were in the Korean War, they bow their heads and thank you. They can never say and do enough for you. The more of these people that I meet, the more respect I have for them, too.
Senator Dallaire: Certainly, the response is very positive, and we are reinforcing the commemoration of veterans and the sacrifices instead of watering it down as some might have thought. I totally agree with that.
Mr. Dalke, my second question is to you. You were in 2 RCHA. What was your job?
Mr. Dalke: When I went to Korea, I was the regimental survey officer. How I got that job, I will be damned if I know, because I could not figure out anything. They quickly showed me how to use the slide rule so I could at least check what they were doing. It was my contention once I got that job that every gun that deployed — I did not care what type of deployment — had to go onto theatre grid immediately, so we had the fastest, most accurate gunfire available.
Once we reached our defensive position, if you will — when we got across the thirty-eighth parallel — the colonel decided he did not need me in survey anymore, so he transferred me to the gun position. We had people all of a sudden going to Japan for five days of rest and recuperation. I found myself being shipped up to the front line as an observation officer.
Senator Dallaire: Were you part of the Canoe River train crash?
Mr. Dalke: No. Fortunately I was on the other train, so I missed that one.
Senator Dallaire: I mention it because veterans of the Korean War died before they even hit the ground, before they even left Canada, in training, in just getting there. I am hoping that your commemoration is absorbing all that, because it is hard to find their names. I would only wish to indicate to you that my support comes because you are calling it the Korean War Veterans Day, and that includes those who signed up here, in Shilo, et cetera, those who were deploying and those who were casualties. I hope that will be brought in your proposals for educating Canada on that day.
The Chair: I am assuming that is the intent.
Senator Martin: Absolutely. I was in Winnipeg where there is a memorial to the victims of the crash. Yes, everyone is remembered, including those who served after the ceasefire, because, as you know, Senator Dallaire, there were casualties there and it was very hostile. That has remained. The war is not over and Korea remains divided. I know it is in the hearts of our veterans to see some peaceful resolution.
In any event, this day captures all of those who served, including those who intended to serve.
Senator Manning: Thank you. I know this is subject my fellow senator has been working on for quite some time. I congratulate you for reaching this milestone, and thank you to our veterans.
About 10 years ago, I was speaking at a veterans function. I talked about World War I and World War II and, I apologize, I mentioned the Korean conflict. A gentleman who had fought in Korea stood up and corrected me in front of 200 people and made sure that I never made that mistake again. I learned a valuable lesson that day.
I do a lot of work, as I am sure all senators do, with the Royal Canadian Legion branches in their areas in their provinces. I wonder what role you envision the Royal Canadian Legion to play in order to play a very big role on Remembrance Day. Have you talked to them about how they will incorporate the remembrance with them, and with the Korea Veterans Association of Canada, on your particular day? How do you envision that coming together?
Senator Martin: Our veterans will definitely be able to shed more light on the relationship of the Korea Veterans Association of Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion. This began not just with the bill but with the motion in 2010. Prior to the motion's being passed unanimously in the Senate on June 8, 2010, we had consulted the KVA Canada, the Royal Canadian Legion and various organizations that served veterans to ask which day would be most appropriate to recognize. We were told July 27.
We looked at the wording of such a day: National Korean War Veterans Day. I dropped ``National'' in the short title for this bill because there are other countries that were part of the United Nations force. We envision something that is international in scope, but in Canada it will be Korean War Veterans Day, dropping the word ``National'' from the title.
In terms of the relationship with the Royal Canadian Legion now, I am aware that the Legion at first did not accept our Korean War veterans into their membership because they were not considered veterans, as you know. However, it was very symbolic and fitting that this year the Legion had a very special edition of its magazine that some of you may have seen. It is called Korea: The Forgotten War and it is a whole issue dedicated to the Korean War. It is all very much enmeshed, and they play an integral role in how the day is commemorated.
Perhaps our veterans can add some insights regarding the Legion and the role that they play.
Mr. Dalke: In most cases, the Korea veterans, where they have their own Korea veteran organizations, are in very close communication and work with the Legions. In Lethbridge, for example, every year we have a commemoration that we go to on July 27. The Legion brings its members in with us, so it is a coordinated effort right there.
The Korean veteran organizations will not last that much longer. As a matter of fact, I think they should have cashed in a little sooner. Pretty much all of them belong to the Legion, as well. Very shortly, most of the units will be finalized. We have established a new thing, the heritage, and the Korea veterans will be members of that, but they will actually be full-time operating members with Legions at that point in time because the individual units are folding up one after the other.
They will be in very close coordination.
Senator Manning: I have one more question. In regards to Veterans Affairs Canada — and I know you have discussed with them and talked to them — what do you see as their role? I know you have their support; it is pretty well all-around support for everyone. From their standpoint, I know they are heavily involved with Remembrance Day celebrations. I am wondering how you see their roles.
Senator Martin: Within Veterans Affairs Canada is the Canada Remembers program. Peter Mills is the current director. I hope you will get to hear from him. They work closely with the veterans groups, including KVA Canada and the regional units that are still very active, and they support the commemorative events in staff support. I know there is some funding available regarding some of the receptions that take place, as well as preparing wreaths and so on.
They are very much involved and fully abreast of what has been happening. In going forward with such a bill, we have been in clear communication with the department and the minister's staff. Everyone is in agreement that this is such an important day for our veterans.
Senator Day: Senator Martin, I think everyone should know, and we should go on record as recognizing, the tremendous amount of work that you have done and the leadership you have shown in relation to this particular issue. Senator Martin made reference to the resolution in the Senate that she brought forward and that many of us spoke to at that time. That was two or three years ago now. The resolution was the Senate speaking. Then we had an inquiry a year or so ago, and it gives everyone an opportunity to speak. The result is really just people speaking.
Then the final step is the one we are dealing with now, which is a bill of Parliament that goes to both the House of Commons and the Senate. This is starting in the Senate, which is also great, and it goes to the House of Commons. The result of that will be the same as a resolution but with a higher level of acceptance, because it is a law of the land, as opposed to a resolution of the Senate.
It is quite exciting that this is happening. As you heard earlier, I am very supportive of this initiative. However, I know some comments are being made. What I would like to do is spend my time with you having you react to the comment that by creating a special day for veterans of the Korean War, we are taking away from the national public recognition of all veterans on November 11. Could you make a comment in that regard?
Mr. Dalke: I would say definitely not, because Korea veterans are consistently and fully in operation on November 11 as well.
Many of our Korean veterans are also veterans of the Second World War. I have been accused of it a number of times, but I said I am sorry, I was not quite there. I would say there is no problem from that standpoint because I do not think you will find anyone who does not agree that both require full recognition.
The Chair: Could we have a comment from Mr. Seiersen as well?
Mr. Seiersen: November 11 has always been special with me and it always will be. It includes everyone that has ever served.
Senator Day: Thank you. The other point, which has been mentioned, is that this has been declared by the Minister of Veterans Affairs as being the Year of the Korean War Veteran. This is the Year of the Korean War Veteran, and we now have a bill creating a day within the year, but the day will go on.
I am answering my own question, I suppose, in that regard. The year is just one year, whereas the bill provides year after year of recognition for this day, July 27. In my younger years, I served for three years at the Royal Military College, and you know the type of relationship you develop with your drill sergeant of a period of three years. His name was Sergeant Alexandre Doucette, and I never knew that he was a veteran of the Korean War because it was not talked about. It was not something that he felt people would be interested in. That goes to the point you made earlier about the forgotten war and the forgotten veterans, which we are trying to reverse with this action.
I will conclude by telling you a short story about going with some Second World War veterans from Bomber Command — and many of them are not with us any longer — to London last summer. You have no idea the importance that they placed on finally being recognized after having been forgotten for so long.
I commend Senator Martin. Thank you for all the service, and the patience that you have shown, in getting us around to doing this.
Senator Martin: Senator Day, thank you for being the co-sponsor, for being a participant in all of the work we have done so far — be it the inquiry, the motion —and the role you have played. I know you are as passionate about this as I am, as all of us are around this table.
In terms of whether having a specific day takes anything way from November 11 or whether it dilutes our understanding by having it separated or a special day set aside, I really think it has the opposite effect. We more fully appreciate the history that is Canadian — and in this case, of course, the country where I was born — and seeing Korea today 60 years after the war, we know that Canadians had a role in making this dynamic economy. It was the second poorest country at the time of the war, and the veterans will talk about what they saw. They still get very emotional talking about it. They will say we were starving and we were so hungry, but we just could not eat our rations. We had to give it to the children. If we could imagine Korea through their eyes — and I know my parents were there — and to see it 60 years later, the success is an important part of Canada's legacy.
Having days where we put attention on the kind of contribution that Canadians had in other parts of the world reinforces our important history and would make Canadians so proud. I hope that such a day will come to fruition. It is already a day that is commemorated, but Canadians can continue to join in and understand this very important part of our history. Thank you so much for your role in all of this.
Senator Plett: I am fully supportive of this, senator. However, further to what Senator Day raised, we all know how we celebrate November 11. We will still celebrate November 11. What will we do on this day to commemorate only the Korean War? Will we have the same type of a day that we have on November 11, but just in a scaled down version? Can you elaborate a little bit on that, please?
Senator Martin: Thank you, Senator Plett. Actually, we will not do anything differently because it is already being done. The bill is, in principle, a day that will become enacted in Canadian law. However, on the day, July 27, across Canada — and especially at the national ceremony in Brampton at the Wall of Remembrance — commemorative ceremonies already take place and have taken place for a number of years.
The Wall of Remembrance is a wall that was fundraised and built entirely by the veterans themselves. It is an amazing wall, and it has all of the names of the fallen during the Korean War. I have been there a number of times, as has our Prime Minister and ministers who have attended with us. This year is the sixtieth anniversary. How amazing it would be for this year to be the year when we have a day dedicated to our veterans that is enacted and enshrined in law with the stamp from the Government of Canada. The day continues and has for many years, and I think Veterans Affairs and Canada Remembers will continue to serve our veterans and commemorate that day in the way that they have. It looks like some of the other special days. It is not as big as Remembrance Day because that is a day that brings all of the communities together, but July 27 will continue to be commemorated and will be all the more special if this bill is passed.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you for being here, doing what you did and continuing to represent the Korean veterans as you do. Thank you, Senator Martin and Senator Day, for your support, too. This is very important. I should say that it is very personal to me. My father served in Korea and one of, if not my very earliest memory, was his return home, so it means a great deal to me.
You alluded to the fact that there really were two phases for Canadian involvement. There was the first phase and then at pre-armistice and post-armistice. I am sure this is the case, but I want to get it on the record, that when we talk about Korean veterans, we are talking about pre-armistice but also post-armistice, which, if I am not mistaken, was the UN involvement and Canadian involvement with the UN forces. However, it includes all of that.
Senator Martin: Yes.
Senator Mitchell: I wanted to emphasize that. I had the wonderful privilege of visiting Korea with a delegation of veterans five years ago on the fifty-fifth anniversary, and there was a contingent in that delegation of Aboriginal veterans. First, I wonder if you could comment on their involvement. Second, in the process of doing that, I know that they did not get the vote even having served there, and that they may have lost their status. Nonetheless, they did it and did it with great distinction.
Senator Martin: I have heard, and it can be verified, that the Aboriginal Canadians who left the reserve to serve lost their status. However, they went and served because they answered the call to action.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, and at that point they did not —
Mr. Dalke: There was no differentiation as far as we were concerned. They were just members of the regiment.
Mr. Seiersen: There were a lot of people who were Aboriginals that did not declare it openly in those days. Later on, in the last 10 years, many of them have said I am Aboriginal or Metis.
Senator Mitchell: Excellent.
Senator Martin: What is also really interesting is that I have met Japanese-Canadians who served, and you know the history of Korea and Japan. There were Canadian-born of Chinese descent, Black Canadians and Aboriginal Canadians and Canadians who were Canadians in the military; they served in Korea. It is a part of our Canadian history that we can all be proud of, and, as I said, we can see the stark contrast.
I was in Korea with Mr. Dalke in November and with Mr. Seiersen in April of 2011, and for our veterans to return and see this stark contrast — they left in a nightmare and returned in a dream — is a most amazing experience. It is a very, very proud history for them and for me.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks, and to your point, Senator Mitchell, it was the same for World War II. They actually left the reserves and lost their status. We have some of them in town.
Senator Lang: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to welcome our guests here and congratulate Senator Martin, who has worked so hard to bring this forward to the Senate and the general public, and she should be commended.
Mr. Dalke, in your opening remarks you talked about leaving South Korea in such a terrible state when you had been successful in coming to a peace agreement with North Korea, but the one area we have not discussed here is the question of North Korea. I have been reading some books about North Korea, the humanitarian distress being put onto the general population and the realities that that part of the world faces. We do not hear a lot about it other than the question of the nuclear capabilities of that country, but what a difference a political system makes in respect to a country. It is a stark difference, and, Senator Martin, you said it so well. The members of the force left with a nightmare looking back on what they left in South Korea, and now it is a dream, especially compared to North Korea. As for North Korea, I do not think we can forget the terrible state those people are facing day to day, hour by hour.
I want to follow Senator Plett and Senator Manning in respect to looking forward, recognizing the day, July 27, and the history behind that day and the symbolism behind it.
I want to refer to the education systems across this country. We have 13 education systems across this country, and the reality is that if the provinces do not take their part in respect of reviewing their curricula to ensure that this is not only mentioned but adequately described and brought forward in the curriculum, a lot of it still will be forgotten. It would seem to me that Veterans Affairs would have a responsibility in moving this forward and carrying this on, working with the provinces to ensure that we do not continue to have what we call ``the forgotten war,'' but we have a war in which we are proud of the men and women who served in it. I do not think it was stated earlier, Madam Chair, that 26,000 Canadians participated over that period of three years, and over 500 people died.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Lang: Looking forward in respect to ensuring that people understand exactly what took place, will there be any thought of discussing this with the provinces?
Senator Martin: Thank you, Senator Lang. You are absolutely right. I think there is much work to be done looking ahead. As a former educator, I do know that, depending on the teachers, the Korean War can be discussed in a paragraph or in a page, or it can be discussed in more detail. It is not yet in the curriculum in the way that it deserves to be. In front of our veterans, I vow to continue the work that is ahead and invite my colleagues to support us as well. In our respective provinces, as you say, there are 13 separate departments of education with which we will have to communicate, but Veterans Affairs can play a key role.
For the Year of the Korean War Veteran, I know an excellent interactive website was established, and when the minister announced the year, he also showed us on the screen what this interactive website can do. It exists. It is a matter of getting it to the schools and ensuring that teachers and students are accessing it and using it. I hope that this is the kind of follow-up that we will continue to do. You are right. We can have a day. The act passed, we can have these commemorative ceremonies, but it can be just on that day or a few weeks leading up to it. If we are not vigilant and looking at how to educate Canadians further, it will continue to be that forgotten war. It is my sincere hope to erase that phrase from the Canadian consciousness, but I think we need to do that together, and Veterans Affairs will have a key role in that.
The Chair: As somebody who has also sponsored a day of recognition in the chamber, I want to echo what you have been saying on this. We put forward the anniversary of 9/11, the national day of service to commemorate that, and again, it was not about funds committed from government or mandating anybody to do anything specific. It is an opportunity that people want to take, and we have seen Canadians across the country and our veterans doing so for 60 years with or without this. This is recognition on our part of your service, what you have done and the importance of that legacy for our country being remembered. I assume it is the same kind of approach that you have taken here, that it is now the responsibility of all of us to take this on and move it forward.
Senator Martin: Absolutely.
The Chair: It is not an obligation on the part of government alone to do it. It is the obligation of all of us.
Senator Martin: Senator, you said it better than I could have thought of in this moment, and you are absolutely right. Many senators in this committee have been a part of shaping, perhaps, an initiative or a bill. I was advised by many colleagues when I first arrived in Ottawa to be patient: You will know when a cause calls you; you will know when there is something you are called to do. That is one of the roles the Senate can play. We give voice to those whose voice needs to be amplified in some way. This is one day that I know means so much to those who sacrificed and served, and to Canadians, and it is our collective responsibility to do more.
Senator Wallin, I feel inspired by hearing the questions and comments from my colleagues. I know there is much to be done, but I am especially inspired because of our veterans who here today are proof of the brave Canadians and what a difference they have made around the world.
Mr. Dalke: One thing I would like to add that has always bothered me is that an additional 7,000 troops served from 1953 to 1955 as peacekeepers, and quite often they have been dropped completely. I do not know how many times I have raised that issue with people. They do not qualify for the medals because the war was over, and I say I do not know how you qualify that because you said it was not a war.
The Chair: They are now within this embrace.
Mr. Dalke: Every opportunity I get I make a point of making sure that people realize that 26,000 people were there during the war, but an additional 7,000 served from 1953 to 1955.
Another thing that historians and others have had a number of arguments about over the years is that in some cases they do not feel that Canada was even there. There are also comments that, obviously, they were not in battles because the casualties were so low. It was very interesting because in major battles, we were taking between 21 and 60 casualties, whereas other forces were taking anywhere from 250 to 500 in the same type of battle, sometimes as high as a thousand casualties, and so there is definitely a difference in how military people are committed and how they carry out their battle.
I must say, I am really proud of the commanding officers we had who were veterans of the Second World War because they had concepts that really made our life safe, no question about it. There was a very serious focus on teamwork, where every person was expected to watch everyone else so that you knew that your back was safe. When Brigadier Rockingham was asked how he viewed the brigade, he said, ``Well, I look to the infantry as the point of my spear, and the purpose of the rest of the brigade is to look after the point of the spear.'' As an artilleryman, it was obvious my only job was to protect the infantry. As I say, I feel it is critical.
The Chair: You are getting a thank you here from your fellow veteran.
Thank you for the clarifications on those things. I think every bit we add here helps.
Senator Dallaire, you had a follow-up question?
Senator Dallaire: Yes. I agree the infantry needs all the protection it can get. We are 60 years later. I remember in the Legion World War I vets giving a hard time to World War II vets. I remember in the Legion World War II vets giving a really hard time to even the Dieppe raid guys because they only fought a day and then, of course, were three years in jail, and then those two vets giving a hard time to the Korean vets, particularly those who served after 1953. There was no real dynamic inside the system to bring an initiative of this nature to the fore, and so it was nearly generic that we were forgetting it because of the other veterans.
Your family is from that part of the world, Senator Martin, and you took the initiative to bring this forward. I ask this in candour. The family is proud of you to do it, I am sure, but I am wondering whether they may have been a bit disappointed that it took you to do it.
Senator Martin: That is a very interesting question, Senator Dallaire. My father has passed away. He passed away about five years ago.
Senator Dallaire: Take your time.
The Chair: He is watching from somewhere; do not worry.
Senator Martin: He passed away just before my appointment. My mother, unfortunately, suffers from Alzheimer's. However, in their absence, so to speak, as a mother, I find myself searching for my roots.
I go back to what I said earlier. I was sitting in my office one day, and you know how the quiet moments are so rare on Parliament Hill. It was just a quiet afternoon. It was about 2 p.m. It was after I had been advised by different senators, when I first got to Ottawa, that a cause will arrest you, something will pull you to an issue and you will know that is what you need to do. As I was sitting in this quiet moment, a rare quiet moment, I felt something percolating and a question came to my mind: Is there a day that is designated for Korean War veterans? I do not know what caused this, but the question came into my head, and there began my sort of search to see what we do in Canada. At that time, my EA, Paul Seear, who had served in the military at one point, said, ``Let me check.'' He came back with all these dates, which did not include the Korean War.
My parents' way of protecting us from the pain of their memories is that they never talked about the war that much. However, I could tell from my father, who scraped the mould off the rice and ate it, as he did not want to discard anything, and my mother, who any time she saw veterans on TV or saw them at an event would be so emotional. Anyone of Korean descent, and in Korea, they come and embrace our veterans. They show their appreciation through their tears, because we know that we would not be here today. It does mean a lot.
My mother, in the moments when I do speak to her about what I am doing, is definitely proud. However, she has short-term memory loss, so each time I share this, she is very proud and excited. I know it means a lot to them. My father is from the north. Senator Lang, he never saw his family again. Korea remains divided. Every second family I know has never seen or heard from their family members again.
This means a lot to me personally, but I just cannot imagine what happened at that time — the heroes today who are survivors and witnesses to what happened as well. It is such an honour for me to be here today with both gentlemen representing the veterans.
The Chair: The rare gift your mother has given you is that you get to tell her the story over and over again. I think that is good.
We will try to get a final question in from Senator Nolin in our remaining time.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Senator Martin, I am making you practice your French because I know you like the French language. Obviously, you have people around the table who support your bill, which has been passed, I think, unanimously.
I do not think there are any objections within the government to your bill. However, to your knowledge, are there any groups or people we should know about who do not support your bill?
[English]
Is there a group somewhere that we should be aware of?
Senator Martin: Thank you, senator. The only objection — actually, I did not hear it personally, but I was speaking to our Canadian ambassador to the UN in New York, Ambassador Rishchynski, and the Korean ambassador to the UN. As we were talking about a day to recognize Korean War veterans, they mentioned that the North Koreans would not be happy about that.
Senator Nolin: Okay. I should have prefaced my question with ``except.''
Senator Martin: That is what I am saying. I have not heard of any objections. That is the only concern that was expressed at that time.
Senator Nolin: I guess they will not ask to come and testify.
Senator Martin: Exactly. The answer to your question, senator, is no.
Senator Nolin: Good.
Senator Martin: When Canadians find out about the heroism and the incredible feats of courage that our Canadians displayed in Korea, they are so inspired, as we all are.
Senator Nolin: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Rest assured you have our commitment that we will not be asking any North Koreans to appear before the committee at this point, although it would be an interesting approach.
I want to thank you all very much for being here today. We hear Senator Martin talk about this in the chamber. We are very glad you would come here. To have Mr. Dalke here and to tell your stories, it is wonderful to hear that too.
Mr. Dalke: I was wondering whether I could add one thing. We were talking about the differences, and all of a sudden this flashed in my head. We had the 18-month deadlock of negotiation for the ceasefire. The biggest problem in the debate was the exchange of prisoners. One problem was that we had far more prisoners than they did, but the biggest problem was that over 45 per cent of our prisoners refused to go home. For the first time in history, we were faced with this problem. It did not matter whether it was North Korea or China; they did not want to go home. That was the reason for that long debate. Of course, it was costly. The United Nations took another 140,000 casualties while they were doing that.
The Chair: Yes. All these discussions and the information you have shared today is the beginning of the process that Senator Lang was referring to as well. Let us just keep educating people about this issue.
Our thanks to Peter Seiersen as well.
Mr. Seiersen: These tears are a result of a recent cataract operation.
The Chair: I do not believe you for a minute. I thank you for coming forward and being prepared to sit here and share some of your stories as well.
Mr. Seiersen: Thank you.
The Chair: I think we will have a few more witnesses on this issue.
Senator Nolin: All supportive.
The Chair: Yes. I think you are getting the sense of the room here, so we will be moving forward on that. Thank you for your participation.
I was remiss in not saying at the beginning of our last panel that this is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, just in case people were tuning in on television and wondering what they were watching.
We have a wide agenda today. I would like to welcome a new colleague. We have Senator Larry Campbell with us, who has come all the way from British Columbia.
Senator Campbell: My apologies for tardiness.
The Chair: When the planes land, you will be here. Coming from the West, myself, I understand the issues. Welcome. He will be a new member of our committee.
We are also very pleased to welcome to the committee today, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Director, Richard Fadden. We had hoped to hear from Mr. Fadden last fall, but his agenda and ours were simply overloaded. Here you are. Welcome to 2013, and we are glad you are here.
As you all know, there have been a lot of troubling reports lately about Canadian military personnel spying for the Russians and allegations that Canadians have been involved in bus bombings in Bulgaria and recent hostage takings in Algeria and the list goes on. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, is the guardian of Canada's national security. These are the files that end up on its desk. It investigates threats, analyzes information that comes in from all manner of sources, and produces intelligence so that some wise decisions can be made around this. It reports to and advises the Government of Canada. Its top priority in recent years, obviously, has been the threat of terrorism, both homegrown and sponsored by external sources. Each year, CSIS produces an annual report, and each year the so- called CSIS watchdog, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, does the same.
Now with us to discuss this, the body, the issues on the table, the issues that face our country and many countries, to the extent that the protection of secrecy will allow, we have invited Director Richard Fadden to join us. With him today is Adam Fisher, the Director General, Strategic Policy and Foreign Relations at CSIS. Welcome and thank you for being with us today.
Mr. Fadden, I understand you have some opening remarks. Welcome, and please go ahead.
Richard Fadden, Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service: Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here to talk a bit about our 2010-11 public report. We have been issuing these reports since 1991, and our reports, I hope, serve to raise awareness, both within Parliament and with the public generally, about national security issues and issues that CSIS has to deal with.
[Translation]
CSIS is mandated to collect and analyse intelligence on threats, and inform the Government of Canada of any threats to the security of the country. Guided by the Government of Canada's primary intelligence interests, our collection efforts generally focus on terrorism — including domestic radicalization, espionage, foreign interference, cyber security and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
[English]
Our security screening mandate is also a priority, and in this regard we advise government partners, primarily in relation to immigrant applications, refugee claimants and persons seeking government security clearances.
As you will see from our report, CSIS is a diverse and dynamic institution, with gender parity and a workforce that speaks 105 languages and is over 70 per cent bilingual in Canada's two official languages. I am happy to report that, again this year, CSIS was named among the top 100 employers in Canada.
Madam Chair, for the period under review, the primary threat to Canada's national security remains terrorism and, in particular, the danger from al Qaeda-inspired extremism, both domestically and internationally. The report notes that the radicalization of Canadians continues to be of concern to the service. In that regard, the report notes the completion of an internal CSIS study on radicalization in Canada, the first of its kind.
The study came to some significant conclusions, namely that the radicalization process crosses ethnic, class and psychological categories. The service also continues to be concerned about radicalized Canadians travelling overseas to participate in terrorism-related activities. CSIS is currently aware of dozens of Canadians, many in their early twenties, who have travelled or attempted to travel overseas to engage in terrorism-related activities in recent years.
Madam Chair, we also remain interested in assessing the threat to Canada caused by the destabilizing influence of al Qaeda and its affiliates. The report notes that al Qaeda-inspired groups continue to pose a significant threat in regions such as Yemen, the Horn of Africa, Iraq and, as illustrated by current events, Mali.
[Translation]
The intrusion of al-Qaeda-inspired groups in the Syrian conflict also poses significant challenges to our allies and certainly to Syria itself. In today's hyper-connected world, Canada must remain informed and aware of global security developments, as the impacts on Canada are typically more direct than they might first appear.
Madam Chair, terrorists need not mount successful attacks within Canada to harm our interests. CSIS continues to maintain a robust international footprint and co-operates daily with allied foreign agencies all over the world to provide the Government of Canada with the information it needs to identify and address this terrorist threat.
[English]
While terrorism is the primary threat facing Canada, espionage and foreign interference also continue to be significant concerns. The report notes that today's levels of espionage activities rival those witnessed during the Cold War.
The report also notes that industrial espionage and the theft of proprietary information is a rising problem and will continue to be so. Bluntly put, stealing intellectual property is often easier and cheaper for hostile states than developing it themselves. It allows them to avoid high purchase costs, obviates the costly and lengthy research and development process and, in some cases, allows them to circumvent export control measures.
[Translation]
Coupled with this is the growing threat of cyber espionage. Cyber espionage is cheap and ubiquitous. Those conducting cyber espionage are both state and non-state actors, including traditional spies, terrorists, hacktivists and lone actors operating on personal motivations.
CSIS is working with our government partners, our overseas allies and new partners in the private sector to address these issues. These threats remind us that security is indeed everyone's business.
[English]
The report also notes the dangerous proliferation, particularly from Iran. Iran is widely believed by both us and our allies to be developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. The service has a number of other concerns related to Iran, including Iran's role in the conflict in Syria and its continuing support of the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. Coupled with the inflammatory rhetoric of its leadership, Iran seems determined to play a destabilizing role in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's aggressive regional aspirations will continue to pose a threat to the Middle East and global security.
CSIS will be vigilant in the face of these and other threats. We will continue to monitor the evolution of the strategic environment and be ready to adjust our collection efforts when needed to provide timely and relevant advice to government.
I would be happy to try to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you; and we appreciate the list. It is a huge topic to go through. To set the stage, and all senators will have specific questions, people have been watching their television screens about the spy on the East Coast sentenced recently. There seems to be some debate about whether that kind of activity hurts us significantly in terms of our allies. Do you have a sense of that?
Mr. Fadden: I think I do, Madam Chair. Many words have been used to describe the extent of the damage this has done to our national security and our relations with our close allies. What saves us, if that is the right phrase, in these instances with our allies is that every single one of them has been in the same situation before. There is a consensus amongst our close allies and us that this has been to some degree the straw that broke the camel's back. It has caused us and a number of our close allies to review the security arrangements that have been in place within our respective countries and between our countries. Do I think that this is catastrophic? No, it is not. Is it something to say, oh, it happened, it will go away? No. Rather, it is somewhere in the middle. We were hurt in this instance as well by not knowing exactly what was passed.
The technique that Jeffrey Delisle used allowed him effectively to eliminate the material transferred after it had been received. The RCMP and CSIS caught a couple of the packages he was sending. On the basis of that, we extrapolated what he may have sent, and it is serious. We have all taken steps to recover from this. This is one case that we caught, but I suspect there will be others, over time, both here and within our allies. If there is any positive outcome from all of this, it is that it has raised awareness in Canada that this is an issue. Sometimes we tend to think that it is always the other guy and is never us. However, the interest of the Russian services in what Delisle was doing clearly illustrates that secrets are worth protecting.
Senator Dallaire: Gentlemen, my area of concern is the fact that we have a civilian oversight group, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has been chosen by the government to provide monitoring of your activities, which is probably an excellent guarantee that you are able to do your duties; and we have a minister who has responsibility. We have the executive and the general population. On the legislative side, parliamentarians have no oversight, for we are not allowed access to any classified material. This is quite contrary to other countries. Would you please give me a perspective of what your colleagues in other countries are living with where they have parliamentary oversight?
Mr. Fadden: Our American friends have an expression: ``It is above my pay grade.'' To a considerable degree, this issue is above my pay grade. It is a matter for the government and for Parliament to determine whether I can give you access to classified material. I will use the two examples of Australia and the United Kingdom. Their practices have varied quite considerably over the years from very, very limited access in the United Kingdom until quite recently by parliamentarians nominated by the prime minister taking an oath of secrecy and reporting only to the prime minister, to Australia where it is a little broader. Over the years, both of these countries have had periods where it has not been possible. I dislike not trying to answer questions by senators, but this really is a matter above my pay grade. It is truly for the government to determine whether this is good or a bad thing.
Senator Dallaire: Please remember what I was asking. I was asking how your buddies are living with what is going on and not the position of the Canadian government or your position regarding the subject.
The second area is the trade-off of files in respect of potential subversive elements between you and the RCMP. The history is behind us — the separation and all that — and the cultures and the ethos of each institution have been established. We have Bill S-7 and a few others in terms of anti-terrorism. What do you think that trade-off is between your concept of security and that of the RCMP? Is that trade-off evolving with the threat, or is it still a bit new?
Mr. Fadden: The way we look at it, and I am pretty sure the RCMP agrees, is that if you take a particular activity that is of concern, be it terrorism or espionage, you have a spectrum in time. The way the law and we have been organized is that we have become interested and concerned, and we can acquire considerable powers of intrusion early on before the RCMP can because they do not meet the criminal law threshold. Very often, these move along and for one reason or another nothing happens. We have come to a pretty clear understanding with the RCMP when they reach that threshold of criminal law activity — the laws against espionage and proliferation of nuclear weapons. The practice that we have evolved is that we try to let them know of our activities as early as we can, and then we conduct parallel investigations. It is the old intelligence to evidence issue, and by and large our intelligence cannot be used. What we have evolved with the RCMP is the practice of giving them whatever information we can; they start their own inquiry; and we proceed in parallel.
Sometimes in their investigations, for example the Delisle case, there is an arrest, a prosecution and a conviction. At times, the RCMP will come back to us and say that it is very interesting but does not meet the threshold. They tell us to keep at it, and we do that. Essentially, for us, it is a question of where on the spectrum of activity it passes the criminal law threshold. With the RCMP, we have developed a policy and practice called ``one vision.'' We put all this in a document with illustrations from case law that the courts have developed. My sense is that it is working pretty well. If you were to ask Commissioner Paulson, I think he would say the same.
Senator Lang: I appreciate the work our witnesses do. I think all Canadians do. I would like to make the point that when there is no news, it means you are doing a good job. Over the past 10 years we have had some disruptions, but we have been very fortunate. You mentioned terrorism and what you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
I would like to go back to the Delisle case; it is in the principle of national security and intelligence. I would like to know if you have spoken with the Deputy Minister of National Defence and the Chief Information Officer to fully understand the positive and negative vetting that has been taking place in relation to all staff with access to confidential information.
I would like to conclude with the following: Are you satisfied that all staff and officials are now fully vetted and security cleared and that we will not face the situation we just witnessed in the media for the past year?
Mr. Fadden: First, I can certainly say I have spoken to the Deputy Minister of National Defence and, through a series of working groups, with most, if not all, of the other deputy ministers who have national security responsibilities. We have looked in some detail at what happened in the Delisle case. It ranges from the purely electronic to physical security with the point you make in the middle about security clearances. In virtually every instance there has been, or there is in the process of being, some tightening up.
Security clearances themselves remain the responsibility of the issuing department, and practices there vary a little bit. However, it has always been our practice — and I understand it is the practice in most countries — that if, because of workload or some difficulties, security clearance expires, and it a takes a while to get to it, that person is not taken off his or her job; they are allowed to continue unless there is a reason why we think they should be removed while we continue the security clearance.
It is fair to say, though, that generally all the security, intelligence and the national security departments have tightened up their processes, and it will be much better than it was.
The last part of your question was whether we will be able to avoid a similar circumstance in the future, and I think my answer has to be no. If you look at Delisle's history, people have been asking themselves, ``If we had had the full series of checks and if we had focused on him, would we have known?'' He was divorced, he was having financial problems, and his family was breaking up. That probably defines a large part of the Canadian population, unfortunately. I do not think those factors alone would have been enough for a red flag to have flashed.
I guess in retrospect, I would say maybe an orange flag would have been worthwhile. He did not do anything obvious that would lead either us or National Defence to believe that he was a traitor. He sort of chugged along; he was a relatively quiet guy; he did not make a big fuss. For what it may be worth, that is almost always the case. There are similar cases in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. It is the quiet guy who does not make a fuss who often succeeds in doing this.
The short answer is that I think our procedures have been tightened and I think they are better. Can I guarantee that it will never happen? I surely wish I could, senator, but I cannot.
Senator Lang: I would like to go to one other area, and that is the question of immigration. You referred to it in your report. A number of years ago, your colleague Jim Judd informed Parliament that CSIS screens only 10 per cent of all immigrants from countries such as Pakistan. Can you tell us how many screenings you are able to do today on an average basis, and what would be the optimal level you would wish to screen if you had the resources, because this is an area that has to be of concern?
Mr. Fadden: In respect of immigrants — people who want to come to this country to settle — we now review all the files. This means in practical terms that we run their names through our databases, and if there is no issue, it is basically the equivalent of an electronic ``okay.'' If we have any reason at all to suspect that there is a problem, we would cause an officer to focus on the file, but not to focus on a particular country. There are a number of countries — how do I put it diplomatically — where there are issues with public order and terrorists, and where the borders are not as controlled as they could be.
For immigrants, we look at everyone. In fact, for refugees, we look at everyone. In respect of temporary visitors or students, the practice varies somewhat. It is one of the things that I know Minister Kenney is looking at in terms of reforming the immigration system.
I am looking at Mr. Fisher to see if he can give me a number, but for those X number of countries where we have some concerns, we look at everyone. We do not have the capacity to look at everyone, nor do I think on a risk basis that it is necessary to look everyone who comes to this country overall. Therefore, we are relatively satisfied that we are looking at those cases that we should.
I should add, though, that one of the difficulties we face is that the opposition is not stupid. They will not send to this country or to the U.S. people who are in our databases as terrorists. They have begun to find people who have entirely clean slates whom they have somehow managed to radicalize. We look at their files and they have been Mr. or Mrs. X from country Y with an entirely reasonable life, and the only way we find out subsequently that there is a problem is by catching them in Canada once they have been here. That has become increasingly the case. That is the opposition, mind you; a lot of people are entirely legitimate immigrants, of course. Regardless, with the opposition, that situation makes it very difficult to catch them.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Fadden, I want to come back to the part of your introductory statement on cyber espionage.
As you said so well, this threat is increasingly haunting our lives.
My first question is about the resources you are deploying. You say in your report that CSIS analyzes domestic and international threats to national security, and conducts investigations.
I would like to know what kind of resources you deploy to orchestrate and perform those activities. When it comes to human resources, how do you select the staff to help you carry out that work?
Mr. Fadden: Senator, it is a bit difficult to answer your question because we have a small cyber group I will tell you about momentarily. However, a number of service units spend time on the cyber component.
We are divided geographically. For instance, if a branch responsible for that part of the world discovers a cyber- aspect, it will take care of it until the issue becomes serious, at which point the case will be transferred to the service's designated cyber group.
It is a bit difficult to tell you exactly how many person-years are involved in cyber issues, as they are spread out.
Senator Nolin: I am not so interested in the number of person-years, but rather in that group's performance.
Mr. Fadden: You want to know whether or not we are successful?
Senator Nolin: Do you think you have sufficient resources to recruit the employees you need to complete this phase, which I think is very important in your report?
Mr. Fadden: Sorry, I misinterpreted your question.
I think that, for the time being, we do have the required resources. However, I am honestly not sure that will be the case in the coming years.
Madam Chair said earlier that, in the last few years, our primary concern has been counterterrorism. Over the past ten years, much of our resources have been reallocated to counterterrorism. We are now realizing that we have issues with counter-intelligence — Delisle being one example. We are also becoming increasingly aware of our cyber espionage issues.
Do I currently have enough resources to work with? I think so. However, if cyber espionage continues to develop, it will be difficult for me to manage our resource allocation.
Have all the sources of cyber espionage been uncovered? I could absolutely not confirm that. But I think that, if my American, British or French counterparts were here, they would tell you the same thing.
I think I should mention that, over the past two or three years, the Government of Canada has made tremendous progress in the protection of the government's computer resources. I think the resources allocated for that purpose make our work easier.
For the time being, if I had to grade our organization, I would perhaps give us a B, but not more. That is because countries around the world are increasingly developing that capacity, and new sources are being uncovered almost on a daily basis.
So I would say that, for now, the situation is under control. However, should it continue to deteriorate, resources reallocation will become difficult.
Senator Nolin: My second question is about strategic infrastructure, not of the government, but rather of private or provincial companies, such as Hydro-Québec.
Do you think our strategic infrastructure protection system is adequate for dealing with cyber-attacks?
Mr. Fadden: I think that varies from one sector to another. The banking sector has been worried about these types of issues for a number of years, so it is in a relatively strong position. The situation is not too bad in the gas and oil industry.
However, the situation is not as good in other sectors. It all very much depends on what industry we are talking about. The main mandate of the Department of the Solicitor General is to coordinate those types of situations. I think a lot of progress has been made thanks to advertising. It was at times difficult to convince people that we had a serious problem. Today, that is no longer as difficult.
I would say that we will have to continue working with the private sector and the provinces. But regarding the really critical industries, be it when it comes to Canada alone or together with the United States — because we share many of those critical institutions with the United States — things are coming along.
Is this situation ideal? Once again, it would be wrong for me to say that this is the case.
[English]
Senator Campbell: There was a redacted version of the CSIS study, A Study of Radicalisation: The Making of Islamist Extremists in Canada Today, released today under an Access to Information request. I found it very fascinating even though it was redacted.
I share the concerns of your agency, and others, on the radicalization of Canadians. Could you tell us some of the challenges that your organization faces in conducting community outreach as part of its efforts to counter radicalization, if that is your role, or what we are doing to try and counter that?
Mr. Fadden: It is one of those situations where, if I can be allowed a little bit of levity, it requires two to tango. The group that we want to dialogue with has to be willing to talk to us, and I think it is fair to say that across this quite vast country, their receptivity to this kind of dialogue varies. The particular groups we want to talk to also make a difference. For example, in Toronto our regional office has quite a developed program in talking to a lot of people, and in somewhat smaller centres, people tend to be more reticent because they are not as aware of the program.
I should say this program of general outreach is coordinated by Public Safety Canada. They do some, the RCMP does some and we do a little bit. We try to coordinate what we are doing. Depending upon the particular ethnic group and their history — whether they have been living in Canada for a long time or not — many of these people come from countries where institutions like mine basically grabbed people in the night and threw them in prison or shot them. There is a bit of a confidence-building exercise that we must engage in; and I just want to be clear, we do not do that.
The Chair: We appreciate that clarification.
Mr. Fadden: The senator was smiling, and I was saying I do not want any misunderstanding. However, in some cases it is a bit of a challenge in convincing groups that what happened in their home countries does not happen here. Having said that, we find that quiet, off-the-record opportunities to talk to people almost always pay off.
Senator Campbell: In January of this year Canada announced that we would be accepting 5,000 more refugees who are in Turkey from Iran and Iraq, and that with the 12,000 that we have already settled here it will bring us to 20,000. I want to make it clear that I am fully supportive of immigration. I think it is how we grow and what we have to do as a country, and we are all, in fact, immigrants. Is there any way, as you do these checks and interact with other agencies as I am sure you do, of putting an educative mode in there on this radicalization? Is there some way of letting them know that this is Canada and things that you spoke of, the atrocities, do not happen here, and giving them a better understanding of who we are instead of just Canada as a safe refuge with no real understanding of what is going on?
Mr. Fadden: I am not sure that is really for us to do. My understanding is that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has the lead on that. They have both an immigrant settlement program and a multiculturalism program, and one of their main objectives is to try to get newcomers to understand Canada, but also their obligations to Canada. We would not do much of that unless we happened to come across a particular case that was engaged in a dialogue with us. It would be more Citizenship and Immigration.
Senator Campbell: However, I wonder if that is not an opportunity for you, at that very level, to be able to go in not only as a security agency and all that involves, but also as a government agency that they fear.
Mr. Fadden: It is a fair point. To be honest, I had not looked at it that way.
Senator Campbell: I am not suggesting that you have a huge educational component. I am simply suggesting that in this process, it is a matter of talking, picking up those you have, and the groups in particular.
On one hand we have MEK, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, and we have now taken them off the list. This must cause confusion within those agencies. One day you are a terrorist, the next you are not. This is the kind of group that I was thinking of.
Mr. Fadden: No, I think if we had the opportunity we would, and I will take your suggestion away.
The Chair: On that point, there was an interesting article the other day on the homegrown issue — and we have taken testimony on this not only here but at the Anti-terrorism Committee as well — and the thinking that what turns a Canadian citizen, of whatever ethnic origin, may be unhappiness with the system or that they are rebelling against the West.
The current thinking seems to be that we think of this as being inspired by anger or discontent or lack of access to a system, but in fact they may not even know that they are signing up with a radical group, and that this is about feelings of superiority. We can be the big guy around town if we belong to this group. Do we need to readjust our thinking about what a jihadist or a terrorist is?
Mr. Fadden: That is a very good question, and if I had a very good answer I would be a very rich person. You have a range of people who want to seem self-important within their own groups, to other people who are motivated by a deep sense of religious wrongdoing. In the middle, where we have found most of the people, it is largely individuals who feel that the Muslim world is under attack and that somehow Canada is contributing to that.
In the study that Senator Campbell referred to, there are a number of Canadians who have lived here for two or three generations, and at some point they are unhappy about something. They are drawn to the old country where, in some ways, I think life was a little simpler in the sense that there were more rules and guidance. They go from being Muslims to being somewhat radical Muslims to being extremist Muslims to those that we worry about, which are extremist Muslims who want to do violence.
A lot of it is, I think, marketing on the Internet. There are a large number of websites that advocate violent extremist action against the West.
There is another area we are concerned about. I mentioned in my remarks that there are a number of Canadians who go abroad and who come back. Those who do come back are the best recruiting sources for anybody in Canada. If you have spent two or three years fighting in Somalia or Yemen and you come back here, for your community, who is inclined that way, you are a real attractor. If you take somebody who is slightly disenchanted and inclined to think the West is not very good, and you put them in with these people, the next thing you know you want people to do violence.
That is not a particularly good answer, but it is the best I can do, I am afraid.
The Chair: I think we just need to have a much more sophisticated understanding, and you are obviously moving in that direction.
Senator Day: First, Mr. Fadden, thank you very much for your report and congratulations on this report. We have all had a chance to briefly look at it, and hopefully we will study it a bit more. It is an important part of openness and accountability that I think the public needs in order to have confidence in our various institutions.
In this report, you indicate that CSIS's mandate is to collect information and intelligence on threats to the security of Canada from a global point of view, and then the collection outside of Canada is accomplished primarily through the services, International Network of Liaison Officers.
Can you tell us a bit about the liaison officers? I am assuming these are Canadians, people under your control, and that they report to you, but they are working in various areas where you have an arrangement with another country. Are they the only portal of information from that country to you? How does that work, and how is that information given to the various agencies in Canada that would need it?
Mr. Fadden: I will try to answer that, senator. We have something in the order of 30 stations abroad, we call them, and they are in Canadian missions. Their main function is to liaise with the various security and intelligence groups in those countries where they are physically located, but also with other countries in the area. We do not acknowledge any other than London, Paris and Washington, for a variety of reasons, but the method of operation is very similar.
They will develop relationships with those services. We give them intelligence that may be of interest to them, and they will give intelligence to us. Whatever they give us is sent back to Canada and, either through the Intelligence Assessments Branch or through ITAC, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, it is disbursed throughout the Canadian government. In some instances, it is passed on to the provinces or to the private sector after having been downgraded in security.
Another way we acquire information is that a number of countries have liaison officers in Ottawa attached to their embassies who are accredited to the service, so they also pass us a fair bit of information. As I say, those two branches' main mission is to take everything that we receive from anywhere, look at it, and see whether, in the first instance, there is an immediate threat to Canada that has to be actioned. In some cases that is us, and in some cases it is the RCMP, the CBSA, or whichever organization it may be. Most of the information is put into assessments and reports that are distributed to various agencies of the government.
Senator Day: Who would prepare those assessments and reports?
Mr. Fadden: The Intelligence Assessments Branch of the service.
Senator Day: Working under you?
Mr. Fadden: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Day: Both my questions go to how things work and function. My second question relates to the Communications Security Establishment Canada and in particular the cyber-espionage part of things that was discussed by Senator Nolin earlier. What I am looking for is an explanation of how you work with the Communications Security Establishment. They used to be part of National Defence or a stand-alone agency but still report through National Defence. How do you work with CSEC, and does it make sense to have that establishment separate from you?
Mr. Fadden: I think on balance it does, senator. They are a highly technical agency. We have a lot of technology, but that is their part ship. Their main job is to acquire foreign intelligence from overseas, and they get a lot of intelligence and information through that activity. They are also responsible for COMSEC, communications security in Canada.
They are the agency that protects the Government of Canada's information assets. In the process of protecting those assets, they often discover cyberattacks; and depending upon their nature and where they are from, CSEC will pass the information to us. We have the capacity, by obtaining a Federal Court warrant, to try to pursue how those cyberattacks originated. Our attempt, really, is to try to understand the country and the humans behind the cyberattacks. Theirs is somewhat more of a technological attempt to identify them, in the first instance, and once they have done that, to close the door so that our secrets are protected.
We have exchanged officers. We have computer consoles in each other's services and we share a lot of information so as to ensure that we do not conflict with each other's activities.
Senator Day: If you suspected a cyberattack, would you ask them to pursue that, investigate that, and report back to you as to what they have been able to find?
Mr. Fadden: In the first instance, we would say to them, ``We believe there is a cyberattack happening. Try to stop it.'' Then, depending upon the nature of the attack, where it originates and how technically complicated it is, we would get together and decide who would pursue it and for what purpose.
The Chair: We have heard testimony from them as well.
Mr. Fadden: I am hopefully consistent.
The Chair: Yes, I think it was consistent.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Fadden, notwithstanding your answer to Senator Nolin, or perhaps in addition to it, you must have sleepless nights. You have a huge responsibility. Do you feel you have enough in the budget to do what you need to do?
Mr. Fadden: The main thing I worry about is what I do not know. What I know, I can either do something about or pass on to somebody else who can. I think all of us worry about what we do not know.
There is a finite capacity, no matter what resources are given to us, to what we can know. If the government were to say, ``Do you want another 10 per cent,'' I cannot think of a CO in the world who would say no. I would be quite happy to take it. I do think, though, that over the course of the last two or three budgets we have been treated quite well. The service got an infusion of funds a couple of budgets ago, largely to enable us to upgrade our technological capacity.
As I was saying earlier in response to Senator Lang's question, my real challenge is not today, because I think we are okay today. However, if counter-intelligence continues to grow and if cyber continues to grow, if you ask me in two years' time, I am not sure I could look you in the eye and say that I am okay.
I think today we have really been pursuing a lot of administrative savings and different ways of doing things. To be honest, the Australians, the Americans, the British and a number of others are facing the same situation. All of those governments are cutting back a little bit on what is being made available to their national security institutions. I think our general view is that we are okay for now, but if cyber, in particular, continues to worsen almost exponentially, I am not sure we would be able to say the same thing in two, three or four years.
Senator Mitchell: We need to keep that in mind. Thanks.
My second question follows from that to some extent. With drones becoming more and more significant in warfare, defence and security issues, there is a logical possibility that that will put more pressure on your ability for surveillance and to get information and deal with that information. Is that true? Is that an emerging pressure on your resources? If so, at what point does it start to bite?
Mr. Fadden: I do not think so. Drones, generally speaking, senator, are useful outside of cities, just by their nature. Most of our work — not by any means all of it — both in this country and around the world, is in cities, and drones just are not particularly helpful in cities. We do not have any, to be honest with you. If we had need for some, we would ask one or two Canadian institutions that do have them if they would give us a hand. Overseas, it is a little bit more complicated, and certainly other services use them quite extensively, but today it has not become an issue yet.
Senator Mitchell: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks. Just to follow up on Senator Mitchell's point there, when you talk about an exponential increase of the impact of cybersecurity, are you talking about equipment changes, some new development in technology that will change the direction, or is it just that more and more people, some 12-year-old sitting in the basement, can actually hack into the defence department?
Mr. Fadden: I think it is more simply the numbers involved. There are two or three states that are doing this, and they throw thousands and thousands of people at it. There seems to be no limit to their resources. Increasingly, we have our nephews or our children doing the same thing. Commissioner Paulson would say, I think, that he is noticing an increase in cybercrime. It is more numbers, but equally, if CSEC were here, they would say that as soon as we plug a hole, somebody finds a way around it. It is a combination of both of them. I would argue that, in general terms, this is not an issue that security agencies can solve by themselves. This will require the involvement of foreign ministries that would encourage the development of international norms somewhat similar to the laws of war in years past. In the meantime, it is just sheer numbers. If you get hit often enough by enough people eventually you find a way in.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Manning?
Senator Manning: Welcome to our guests. In your report, to follow up on Senator Day's comments, you put forward that you implemented 11 new foreign arrangements in this year. That brings the total to around 289. We have 41 that are dormant. I am wondering whether, domestically or internationally, it is just a process. Do these foreign agencies, in some cases, contact you, or do you contact them? What facilitates the need for additional arrangements to be made?
Mr. Fadden: It always depends, but, in some circumstances, we will say that there are developments in a particular part of the world about which we do not have enough intelligence or information. There might or might not be a sense that our allies have enough, so we would ask someone from the service to go and talk to those services and see if they would be interested in an exchange. We go through quite a complicated process, as well, before we do this because there are rules regarding the exchange of information with services that have human rights problems. There are some that simply do not have any credibility. There is a whole sort of checklist, so we would sometimes take the initiative. In other circumstances, a country or a service would say, ``We have had a long-standing relationship with three or four countries. We want to diversify it a bit. Would Canada be interested?'' It really does depend on the circumstances.
Senator Manning: On another topic completely, in your remarks you touched on the possibility of terrorism. I know that since 9/11 we have all been on high alert, and we have had a couple of instances in Canada that, luckily enough, through your intelligence and operations, we have kind of caught before they got out the door. In the last five to ten years, how do you see the concern of a possible terrorist attack domestically? How do you address that and see the change that we have experienced just in this country?
Mr. Fadden: The way I would characterize it is that the threat has changed, but it has neither significantly increased nor significantly decreased. Five years ago, we were not as worried about domestic terrorism as we are now. There were a few cases, as you point out. However, we are, today, following a number of cases where we think people might be inclined to acts of terrorism. Terrorism from abroad — al Qaeda in the AfPak area — was the directing brain that caused 9/11. It has been much weakened, but, on the other hand, all of their affiliates — the AQAP, the AQIM, al- Shabaab — are much, much more operational than they used to be. They are beginning to communicate between themselves far more than they used to, and, in every single case, there are Canadians who have joined them. We — being Canada — have been mentioned, by some of these affiliates, as a potential target. It is impossible to quantify this, but I think that the threat remains roughly at the same level. It has morphed, though, into something that is harder to get your hands on. One of the things that al Qaeda used to say is, ``We want a big bang like 9/11.'' Then, because of various operations against them, they have sort of said, ``Individual affiliates, you should try to do some harm in your own countries, in your own area.'' Then, of late, al Qaeda has been saying that individuals can do as much harm. I am sure you have heard of the al Qaeda magazine Inspire, which is no longer being published, at least not regularly. They had one or two issues dedicated to the proposition that a violently inclined jihadist, in any country in the world, by using the material that is readily available to them, can do as much good for the cause as somebody who would make a big bang. That is much harder to detect. It is very difficult, and there have been examples around the world where this has resulted in terrorist attacks.
What I am trying to say, perhaps not very eloquently, is that the environment has changed. The basic motivation for terrorism I do not think has. It is, as I was saying to the chair, this sort of innate feeling that the Islamic world is under attack. Because it is more disbursed, it is a bit harder to get our hands on. On the other hand, because it is not so coordinated, we are getting a bit of a break from that perspective. I would say — and I think our allies would agree with me — that it is slightly more difficult to get our hands on these cases than it was, but there are fewer plans for really big incidents.
The Chair: Thank you. We have a few minutes left, and I know Senator Dallaire has a question. I just want to put one to you and let you decide how to deal with it. It is related to the controversy surrounding the movie Zero Dark Thirty. You chop off the heads of these organizations and put all of the emphasis that was put on getting bin Laden into structures that are really quite diffuse in terms of their organizational structure, and you combine that with cuts, including some that might be quite drastic if the sequestration process goes ahead in the U.S. We have even seen Secretary of Defense Panetta pleading not to do this. Have we got the right focus? Are we using our money wisely to deal with this?
Mr. Fadden: To a considerable degree, it is an issue of, if you think that there is a real threat, using the tool that you have. I think all of the agencies that we deal with on a regular basis prefer lower-key things — find somebody, get their home country to arrest them and extradite them if you want to charge them. I think the United States' position is that they, as the principal target for all of these attacks, are in a bit of a special situation.
As for the capture and killing of bin Laden, I think, in the end, he was a symbol that really motivated a lot of people, so I can understand why the United States chose to do that. In this particular area, the area of terrorism generally, perception and reality sort of merge over time, and it gets quite confused sometimes, particularly on the Internet. I am conscious that I am not answering your question directly because I think it is almost impossible to. Like anybody involved in this, we look at what we do on a regular basis and see if we can find a better way of doing it. What is happening now in Syria, for example, with al-Nusra and al Qaeda playing against the Assad regime, how do we play with that as a country? It has been made very clear by the government that this is not an acceptable way of proceeding. Mr. Panetta, it was reported recently, wanted to supply the opposition in Syria, and the President decided not to. All I am trying to do is to suggest that there is a lot of complexity here, and I think people use the tools that they think will work within their legal structure.
The Chair: All right, thank you. Senator Dallaire? A final quick point?
Senator Dallaire: If I may, do you have and could you make available to us your rules of engagement in regard to torture as it is defined by the UN and international bodies?
Mr. Fadden: We do. First, let me say, just for the record, we will not, in any shape, way or fashion, encourage torture. The only time that we will use information that might have been derived from torture is if we believe that it is necessary to save Canadian lives. It is quite immediate.
We do have an operational directive that talks about the various criteria, and I would be happy to pass it on to the clerk for you.
Senator Dallaire: You would? Thank you. That is most appreciated.
Mr. Fadden: Madam Chair, could I have the opportunity to correct or add to something I said earlier?
The Chair: Please.
Mr. Fadden: A couple of questions related to exactly whom we were clearing in terms of immigrants. There are a number of categories now, and things have changed recently. I wonder if you would mind if I wrote to the clerk and made sure that I gave you accurate information about percentages and whatnot.
The Chair: Do you want to make any statement here?
Mr. Fadden: I would rather write, if that is okay.
The Chair: That is absolutely fine, and we will note that in the transcripts. I appreciate your coming, and it is an area that I know from talking to some of your colleagues is difficult. I find that you are trying to pull back the curtains a little bit so that Canadians can be engaged, and we appreciate your coming here and making an effort to do that.
Mr. Fadden: My pleasure.
The Chair: Richard Fadden, CSIS Director, and Adam Fisher, Director General, Strategic Policy and Foreign Relations at CSIS, thank you, gentlemen. We look forward to those other documents.
We will go into an in camera discussion of future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)