Chapter 1: Review in Canada and NSICOP's Mandate
National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Annual Report 2018

Previous
Table of Contents
Next

What is review and who conducts it in Canada?

8. Security and intelligence review plays an important role in a parliamentary democracy. By their very nature, security and intelligence organizations must at times operate in secret to protect the sources and methods required to obtain intelligence and fulfill their mandates. They also have legal powers that may implicate the privacy and civil rights of Canadians. It is therefore essential that mechanisms be in place to ensure that these organizations operate effectively and in full compliance with the law. Parliament plays a foundational role by creating the legislative framework under which security and intelligence organizations work. Ministers are accountable for the oversight of those organizations, including the implementation of policy and initiatives, the authorization of certain activities, and the development of proposals to advance the government's agenda and address challenges. Dedicated review bodies are responsible for the post-facto examination of an organization's compliance with legislation and ministerial direction, and investigate public complaints. The courts also play a role in issuing judicial warrants and determining the legality of investigations through judicial proceedings.

9. Specialized review in Canada has traditionally focused on specific organizations. Three review bodies currently fulfill this role:

  • The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) is an independent, external review body that reports on the performance and operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and investigates public complaints. Footnote 2 Both SIRC and CSIS were created in 1984 under the CSIS Act following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the McDonald Commission).
  • The Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner (OCSEC) was initially created in 1996 under Part II of the Inquiries Act to review the legality of the work of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). In the fall of 2001, Parliament passed the Anti-terrorism Act, which formally codified CSE and OCSEC within the National Defence Act. OCSEC provides independent, external review of CSE activities to determine legal compliance and whether satisfactory measures are in place to protect the privacy of Canadians, and investigates complaints. Footnote 3
  • Distinct and independent from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP is an agency that reviews specified activities for compliance, receives complaints from the public about the conduct of RCMP members, conducts reviews when complainants are not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of their complaints, and initiates complaints and investigations into RCMP conduct. Footnote 4 Its authorities were expanded in 2013 when it replaced the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

10. As a whole, these review bodies are staffed with a range of experts who have access to all the information, operations, and personnel of the organizations they review, with few exceptions. Over time, their reports and recommendations have helped CSIS, CSE, and the RCMP to improve their operations, increased the confidence of Canadians that the activities of those organizations complied with the law, and identified issues for consideration by ministers or Parliament. Over SIRC's 30 years of existence, for example, it has developed expertise on and knowledge of CSIS and CSIS operations that have strengthened national security accountability in Canada.

11. Beyond these specialized review bodies, other federal institutions have the authority to examine security and intelligence organizations in Canada. As part of the responsibilities and obligations of the legislative branch of government, parliamentary standing committees are empowered to review the policies, programs, and expenditure plans of government departments and agencies. However, these committees do not conduct systematic and dedicated reviews of the security and intelligence community, nor do members of parliamentary standing committees possess the necessary security clearances to examine classified information.

12. Officers of Parliament also conduct reviews of federal departments and agencies. For example, the Office of the Auditor General conducts financial and performance audits of some 100 departments and agencies, 40 Crown corporations, the territorial governments, and numerous territorial corporations on a broad range of government activities. Footnote 5 Similarly, the Privacy Commissioner conducts audits of federal institutions subject to the Privacy Act to protect and promote the privacy rights of individuals. Footnote 6 These organizations conduct audits of members of the security and intelligence community, but their scope of responsibility is very broad and their reviews focus on the relatively specialized areas of their mandates.

13. Beyond these permanent structures, the federal Inquiries Act also provides a statutory framework for the government to initiate a review of a specific event, challenge or department. Part I of this Act allows the government to empower a commissioner to conduct public inquiries on any matter connected with the good government of Canada. Departmental investigations conducted under Part II grant any minister presiding over a department in the federal public administration with the ability to appoint, under the authority of the Governor in Council, a commissioner to investigate and report on the state and management of the business of a department. The more recent landmark inquiries into the activities of the Canadian security and intelligence community were conducted under this Act in the mid-2000s, notably the following:

  • In 2006, the Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar (the O'Connor Commission) examined how the actions of Canadian officials contributed to the apprehension, extra-judicial transfer and subsequent torture of Mr. Arar in Syria. In the Factual Inquiry, Justice O'Connor provided a series of recommendations that focused on the actions of Canadian officials. In its Policy Review, the Commission recommended an independent review mechanism for the national security activities of the RCMP and review mechanisms for other departments.
  • In October 2008, Justice Iacobucci issued the report on the Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, and Muayyed Nureddin. While the Inquiry did not make recommendations, Justice Iacobucci noted that the activities of the RCMP and CSIS indirectly contributed to the detention and mistreatment of the three individuals by Syrian and Egyptian officials.
  • In 2010, the Honourable John Major completed the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 (the Major Commission). Its key recommendations focused on enhancements to the role of the National Security Advisor, improved information sharing across organizations, and the modernization of the CSIS Act.

What was missing?

14. Review in Canada previously centred on specific organizations and did not contemplate wider issues. The specialized review apparatus in Canada focused solely on the specific activities of CSIS, CSE, and the RCMP. No entity previously had the authority, mandate or capacity to follow the trail of an activity or investigate a case across those organizations, nor across the broader federal government to other organizations with security and intelligence responsibilities. While the various security and intelligence organizations form a community within the federal bureaucracy, no commensurate review function was in place to examine issues or functions with an interdepartmental lens. Furthermore, specialized review bodies primarily examined the legality of activities, but could not conduct strategic or framework reviews of the security and intelligence community as a whole.

15. Review did not include a specialized parliamentary body or a body of Parliamentarians. From an international perspective, Canada's closest allies have long had parliamentary or legislative review bodies for their respective national security and intelligence organizations. ln France, la Délégation parlementaire au renseignement is a bicameral committee of eight members responsible for monitoring the French intelligence services. lt can take testimony from the Prime Minister, ministers and heads of agencies, is authorized to receive classified information, and must produce an annual report on its activities, observations, and recommendations. ln Westminster-style democracies, these review bodies have narrow mandates. For example, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament in the United Kingdom is empowered to review three specific agencies: the Security Service (MIS), the Secret Intelligence Service (Ml6), and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Any review beyond these three agencies requires a memorandum of understanding between the Committee and the Prime Minister. ln Australia, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may review the administration and expenditures of certain agencies and the functions of the Australian Federal Police's performance related to terrorism. This Australian committee also conducts statutory reviews of legislation. In New Zealand, the Prime Minister chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, which examines the policy, administration, and expenditures of each intelligence and security agency. It can also review legislation referred to it by the House of Representatives. The role of legislative bodies in the United States is considerably different from Westminster-style accountability and review functions. For example, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence provides oversight of the intelligence community, studies intelligence-related activities, and examines legislative proposals, while the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence conducts hearings and reviews of intelligence activities, and provides funding levels and regular oversight.

What is NSICOP’s mandate and does it address some of the review gaps?

16. The idea of national security and intelligence review by a committee of Parliamentarians has been raised at various times in Canada since the early 1980s. In its 1981 report, the McDonald Commission originally recommended the establishment of a Joint Committee of Parliament on Security and Intelligence (this recommendation was not implemented). In 2005, the Government introduced a bill to establish a National Security Committee of Parliamentarians, but it died on the Order Paper five days later. The idea was subsequently revived through private members' bills introduced in the House of Commons on a number of occasions, but never progressed beyond first reading.

17. On June 16, 2016, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons introduced Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and to make consequential amendments to certain acts. ln speaking to the principles and motivation of establishing NSICOP, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stated that this initiative was a corner stone of the Government's approach to ensuring that Canada's national security framework is working effectively to keep Canadians safe while protecting their rights and freedoms. Footnote 7 In announcing the appointment of NSICOP members in 2017, the Prime Minister stated:

The creation of a strong, accountable, and multi-party committee of dedicated parliamentarians will help us ensure that our national security agencies continue to keep Canadians safe in a way that also safeguards our values, rights, and freedoms. This independent group will help strengthen the accountability of our national security and intelligence work. ln our system of responsible government, there is no substitute for scrutiny by parliamentarians. Footnote 8

18. On June 22, 2017, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act (NSICOP Act) received Royal Assent. Footnote 9 ln accordance with section 8 of the Act, the Committee has a broad mandate to review:

  • the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative, and financial framework for national security and intelligence;
  • any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the activity is an ongoing operation and the appropriate minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security; and
  • any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to NSICOP.

19. On November 6, 2017, the Prime Minister appointed the inaugural 11 members of NSICOP, including the Chair. The members come from both houses of Parliament, and all hold the highest security clearances, are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act, and are subject to security requirements in the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Regulations. Members swear an oath or solemn affirmation that they will obey and uphold the laws of Canada, not communicate or inappropriately use information obtained in confidence as part of their responsibilities on the Committee, and may not invoke their parliamentary privileges. On this basis, members are able to receive classified briefings and materials related to the conduct of the Committee's work.

20. The NSICOP Act gives the Committee significant but not unfettered access to information. Under section 13 of the Act, it is entitled to have access to any information that is under the control of a department related to the fulfillment of the Committee's mandate. This includes information protected by litigation privilege or by solicitor-client privilege. However, section 14 of the Act lists four exceptions to the Committee's right of access to information:

  • confidences of the Queen's Privy Council (i.e., Cabinet Confidences);
  • information related to subsection 11(1) of the Witness Protection Program Act, specifically pertaining to the disclosure of information associated with the identity of a protected person;
  • the identity of confidential sources of information, intelligence or assistance; and
  • information related to an ongoing investigation carried out by a law enforcement agency that may lead to a prosecution.

ln addition, ministers of the Crown may refuse to provide the Committee with information on the grounds that it constitutes "special operational information," as defined in subsection 8(1) of the Security of Information Act, and the provision of the information would be injurious to national security. Footnote 10 This includes a wide range of information that the Government of Canada is taking measures to safeguard, the content of military plans for operations, or the subject of a covert investigation.

21. Ministers may also determine that an entire proposed NSICOP review involves an ongoing investigation and is injurious to national security. ln that case, the minister must inform the Committee of his or her decision and the reasons for it. Should the Minister determine at a later date that the review proposal is no longer injurious or that the activity is no longer ongoing, he or she must inform the Committee that the review may be conducted.

22. Under the NSICOP Act, the Committee must produce an annual report that includes the reviews conducted in the preceding year. This report contains the Committee's findings and recommendations, as well as the number of times in the preceding year that a minister determined that a review under paragraph 8(1)(b) would be injurious to national security or refused to provide information because, in the minister's opinion, the information constituted special operational information and that providing it would be injurious to national security. The Committee may also complete a special report on any matter related to its mandate, at any time, and submit such a report to the Prime Minister. The Committee completed a Special Report on the Prime Minister's February 2018 trip to India.

23. As part of the submission of reports to the Prime Minister, the NSICOP Act provides the government with an ability to protect certain information from public disclosure. The Prime Minister may direct the Committee to revise a report so that it does not contain information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations, or is information that is protected by litigation privilege or by solicitor-client privilege. An example of the criteria for each of these elements can be found in the Canada Evidence Act. Along with jurisprudence and legal precedent, the Canada Evidence Act provides the framework for the detailed redaction of such confidential information.

24. In the discharge of its responsibilities, the Committee receives support from its Secretariat. The main functions of the Secretariat are ensuring that members receive timely access to relevant, classified information, and expert advice in the conduct of reviews and the development of reports. The Secretariat has an annual budget of approximately $3.5 million and funding for 10 full-time employees who are appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. The Secretariat is staffed with officials, most of whom have experience working across the various departments and agencies of the security and intelligence community.

25. The Committee's review mandate is both consistent with the existing review approach and unprecedented in the Canadian context. The mandate is consistent with existing review in Canada in that it is based on analysis of the activities of organizations, and with the principal objective of review, which is to improve the functioning of the security and intelligence community. For the Committee, that means identifying where gaps may exist in legislation, policies, or governance; strengthening ministerial accountability; and improving transparency. lt also means that the Committee will work to help Canadians better understand the roles and responsibilities of the organizations responsible for serving them and to better understand the interplay between security and the rights and civil liberties of Canadians.

26. On the other hand, the Committee's mandate is unprecedented in that it allows Parliamentarians to look at issues from a government-wide perspective and to make findings and recommendations that may benefit individual organizations, improve the interaction among organizations, or strengthen the security and intelligence community overall. The Committee has therefore structured its own approach to review on the valuable precedent set by SIRC and OCSEC, and on the experience of relevant counterpart organizations among our close international allies. Footnote 11

What is NSICOP’s role and how does it operate?

27. The security and intelligence landscape is in constant evolution. Organizations must respond to an ever-changing threat landscape. Governments implement legislative changes or budgetary measures to enhance or change the scope of national security and intelligence activities. Jurisprudence causes organizations to adjust how they conduct their respective operations. Specialized review bodies provide recommendations that improve the work of the specific organizations and their compliance with the law. It is in this context that the Committee will contribute to the evolution of national security and intelligence activities in Canada.

28. The Committee views itself as an important component of accountability within the security and intelligence community. Ministers remain responsible for the activities of the departments and agencies within their portfolio (their role is oversight rather than review), but they benefit from independent whole-of-government review of national security and intelligence. The Committee's mandate strengthens the accountability by enabling Parliamentarians to scrutinize the necessarily secret activities of the state and to hold the government to account on the interplay between security and the rights of all Canadians. The Committee expects its role will cultivate and maintain the public's trust in the activities of their institutions, in accordance with the rule of law and responsible government.

29. The role of the Committee is compatible with the three existing review bodies and will become more complementary with the anticipated evolution of the review landscape in Canada under the proposed components of Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security Matters. The Bill would establish two new accountability structures to replace SIRC and OCSEC: the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) and the Intelligence Commissioner. Under the proposed legislation:

  • NSIRA would have a mandate to review any activity carried out by CSIS and CSE, any activity carried out by a department related to national security or intelligence, and any matter related to national security or intelligence that is referred to it by a minister. NSIRA would also investigate complaints against CSIS, CSE, and, if it relates to national security, the RCMP. Each calendar year, NSIRA would be obligated to review at least one aspect of CSIS's performance in taking measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, the disclosure of information under the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act, and the implementation of significant aspects of every new or modified ministerial direction. In the course of its reviews, NSIRA may make findings and recommendations, including those relating to a department's compliance with the law and applicable ministerial directions, and the reasonableness and necessity of a department's exercise of powers.
  • The Intelligence Commissioner would have the responsibility to review and approve ministerial authorizations for certain activities conducted by CSIS and CSE, including in the areas of foreign intelligence, cybersecurity, and datasets.

30. Should Bill C-59 pass in its present form (as of December 2018), the establishment of NSIRA will provide greater review symmetry within the national security and intelligence community. It will balance the Committee's broad framework reviews and the scrutiny of Parliamentarians, with the specific activity and compliance reviews undertaken by NSIRA. This review apparatus will be equipped to make organizational and community-wide findings and recommendations on functionality, efficiency, and legality. Coordination and collaboration between NSICOP and NSIRA will be essential to avoid duplication and maximize the effectiveness of review.

31. The Committee believes in the importance of leveraging the expertise of other entities involved in assessing the activities of the federal bureaucracy, most notably the Auditor General and the Privacy Commissioner, as well as academics. The Committee intends to explore opportunities for cooperation in the years ahead.

32. The Committee believes in the informed and non-partisan review of national security and intelligence. Members of the Committee agree to NSICOP’s schedule and agenda, and any member can propose a review for consideration. The Committee meets in camera at a secure location to ensure its discussions are confidential, non-partisan, and free flowing. Committee members actively engage in the consideration of materials, the preparation of review reports, and briefings from the security and intelligence community. The Chair's role consists of building consensus, providing guidance to the Committee in its deliberations, and working closely with the Secretariat, including to develop review proposals for Committee consideration. The Chair also communicates terms of reference for specific reviews to responsible ministers, and provides the Committee's reports to the Prime Minister.

How does NSICOP decide what to review?

33. The work of the security and intelligence community offers a broad range of topics worthy of review. How does the Committee decide what to examine? For the purpose of its reviews, the Committee has adopted working definitions of both “national security” and “intelligence.” For the Committee to take an interest in a security issue, it should involve at least one of the core members of the security and intelligence community (see Table 1) and be national in character, understood as relating to threats to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act, or criminality of national scope or gravity. ln the area of intelligence, the issue should principally involve the use of clandestine, covert, or privileged sources or methods (in short, areas where the rights of Canadians could be significantly affected or where there are significant risks to the government) and involve at least one core member of the security and intelligence community. As practical examples, these working definitions would permit the review of terrorism investigations (a national issue implicating CSIS, the RCMP, and other federal organizations), but not gang violence (primarily the responsibility of provinces, territories, and municipalities). The Committee may also agree to review a matter referred to it by a minister, consistent with paragraph 8(l)(c) of the NSICOP Act.

34. As the Committee began its review work in the spring of 2018, it considered the breadth of issues facing the security and intelligence community. Its deliberations were informed by visits to the core departments and agencies and its engagement with their officials. lt tried to determine where its reviews could add the greatest value. Aside from the working definitions outlined above, the Committee considered a number of criteria to inform its decisions. With respect to the activities of an individual organization, it considered:

  • whether the organization was previously subject to review;
  • the extent of its security or intelligence activities, and the degree to which they were known; and,
  • whether the activities were governed by specific legislation or formal government direction (for example, an order in council).

The answers to these questions guided the Committee's assessment of the possible risks associated with the activities of an organization.

35. Its deliberations on potential reviews were informed by other considerations. These included:

  • the extent to which an activity or issue implicated the privacy or democratic rights of Canadians;
  • the extent to which an activity or issue affected Canadian alliances or foreign relations;
  • whether there was a high level of public interest in the activity or issue;
  • whether the activity or issue affected Canada's sovereignty or the integrity of its institutions, economy or society; and
  • whether Parliament or another review body had previously examined the activity or issue.

36. Based on its considerations, the Committee decided to conduct a review under each of its first two mandates: a framework review under paragraph 8(1)(a) of the NSICOP Act and an activity review under paragraph 8(1)(b). For its framework review, the Committee chose to examine how intelligence priorities are established. In the Committee's interactions with senior officials from the security and intelligence community, it became clear that the process for setting intelligence priorities was a foundational part of ensuring ministerial accountability, addressing risk in the community, allocating resources, and governing the community. The Committee believed that a review of this important process would provide greater insight into how the various security and intelligence organizations operate as a community. This review is detailed in chapter 3.

37. For its activity review, the Committee chose to review the intelligence activities of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF). As it learned about the security and intelligence community, the Committee was struck by the relative size of the DND/CAF intelligence program (the single largest intelligence program in Canada, measured by personnel, and the second largest budget) and the breadth of its activities. Unlike CSIS, CSE, or the RCMP, defence intelligence activities are relatively unknown in the public realm, are not specified in legislation and, until the creation of NSICOP, were not subject to external review. With the expected growth in DND/CAF intelligence capabilities described in the new “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy, the Committee decided it was an appropriate time to review the structure and authorities of the DND/CAF intelligence program as a potential starting point for future reviews. This review is detailed in chapter 4.

Beyond the annual reviews, what else has NSICOP done in its inaugural year?

38. In preparing for its formal review activities, the Committee engaged with the security and intelligence community in the months following its creation. Between December 2017 and December 2018, the Committee held 54 meetings, site visits, and hearings for a total of 220 meeting-hours, representing an average of 4 hours per meeting. The Committee heard from over 60 witnesses.

39. The Privy Council Office (PCO) provided a preliminary overview of the national security and intelligence community and national security threats facing Canada. lt also briefed the Committee on security procedures, requirements and regulations associated with managing classified material. Following the appointment of the Secretariat's Executive Director in December 2017, the Secretariat took over from PCO in supporting the Committee. The Secretariat facilitated a series of site visits in February, March, and April to the core national security and intelligence organizations. These included the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canada Border Services Agency, the Department of National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF), Global Affairs Canada, and the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre. These visits permitted Committee members to further refine their understanding of the mandates and activities of the community. During March and April, the Committee considered several review proposals before selecting the two substantive reviews discussed in chapters 3 and 4.

40. The Committee held several outreach meetings with key departments and agencies. This included Public Safety Canada to discuss its roles and responsibilities, Treasury Board Secretariat to learn about funding of the security and intelligence community in Canada, and PCO to obtain an overview of the process for setting intelligence priorities. The Committee received a briefing from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada on his mandate and his experiences with reviewing the security and intelligence community in Canada. The Committee also met with academics, experts, and several civil liberties groups on the interplay between rights and security.

41. On April 5, 2018, the Committee decided to conduct a special review of certain allegations surrounding the visit by the Prime Minister to India in February 2018. Those allegations related to foreign interference in Canadian political affairs, risks to the security of the Prime Minister, and inappropriate use of intelligence. The Committee made its decision after careful consideration of the relevance of the issue to its mandate and after the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and, separately, the Senate had indicated that the issue should be addressed by NSICOP. Footnote 12 After April 20, when the Committee received the information it had requested, the Committee considered an interim report from its Secretariat, conducted hearings with senior officials from four government organizations, and completed the drafting and review of its final report. The report made a number of findings and recommendations. In October, the Committee held further deliberations on the report and provided an updated version to the Prime Minister on October 12. The declassified version of that report was tabled in Parliament on December 3rd, 2018.

42. From June to October 2018, the Committee focused on completing its two substantive reviews and finalizing its first annual report. It considered interim reports and held briefings and hearings with senior officials from CSE, CSIS, DND/CAF, PCO, Global Affairs Canada, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. As required in the NSICOP Act, the Committee notes that no minister exercised her or his legislative authority to refuse to provide information to NSICOP in the preceding year and no minister determined that a review was injurious to national security. It also notes that the heads of CSE and CSIS each informed the Committee of decisions they made pursuant to Ministerial Direction on avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities.

43. The Committee engaged with its review counterparts. As part of its statutory obligation to coordinate its activities with existing review bodies, the Committee and its Secretariat met with SIRC and OCSEC to discuss ongoing and planned reviews. ln April, several Committee members travelled to Washington, D.C., to meet with the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which was there on separate business, to discuss that organization's review activities. While in Washington, the Committee also received a presentation by a former U.S. Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security on oversight of the U.S. intelligence community. In October, the Committee hosted the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee for meetings in Ottawa, building on exchanges between the two committees' secretariats.

44. The Committee is grateful to the Office of the CSE Commissioner for supporting the Committee's day-to-day work by providing space for Secretariat staff in the early months of 2018 and secure facilities for the Committee to hold its meetings until the Secretariat moved to its permanent facilities in September 2018. The Committee thanks officials from PCO for assisting the Committee in initiating its activities. Finally, the Committee thanks the House of Commons for its assistance with the development and hosting of NSICOP’s website. The Committee's ability to inform Canadians is essential for the successful fulfillment of its mandate.

Previous
Table of Contents
Next