In this segment of the Warman v. Lemire Hearing on March 25, Doug Christie hammers the CHRC on their cozy relationship with Canada’s Spy Agency, CSIS. Despite constant denials by Steacy that there was ever a formal arrangement with the country’s police forces, Christie is able to show that if there was no formal document in place, the conduct certainly pointed to it.

At the end of this particular part of the exchange, Christie asks Steacy point blank if he, “as a human being”, is not concerned that the CHRC is talking to CSIS about a case involving free speech.   

1 This document, sir, it purports to be

2 an e-mail, it could be from Harvey Goldberg or to

3 Harvey Goldberg. There’s an obstruction of who else it

4 might involve. It seems to be 2006, October 13th. It

5 says:

6 “Good morning. The agenda is

7 attached. We have

8 representatives coming from

9 Ottawa, Toronto, London,

10 Montreal Police Services,

11 O.P.P., CSIS, Department of

12 Justice and the Commission.

13 There will be around 20 people.

14 Please see attachments. Harvey

15 Goldberg.” (As read)

16 MR. CHRISTIE: Were you involved in

17 that meeting?

18 MR. STEACY: I believe — yes, I was.

19 MR. CHRISTIE: So, do you have the

20 agenda somewhere?

21 MR. STEACY: I doubt it.

22 MR. CHRISTIE: Is it the case that

23 the Commission sits down with the police departments of

24 those major cities, Ottawa, Toronto, London, Montreal,

25 the Ontario Provincial Police and Canadian Security

1 Intelligence Service?

2 MR. STEACY: Well, we had a meeting.

3 MR. CHRISTIE: And we don’t know what

4 the agenda is. Are you going to tell us then that it

5 doesn’t involve anything to do with section 13.1?

6 MR. STEACY: The meeting had

7 everything to do with section 13.1.

8 MR. CHRISTIE: So, sir, does it

9 trouble you as a citizen with concerns about freedom of

10 speech that people regulating speech on the Internet

11 are involved with the Canadian Security Intelligence

12 Service, for instance. Does that bother you at all?

13 Did you ever question it?

14 MR. STEACY: You’re asking for my

15 personal opinion?

16 MR. CHRISTIE: Yeah, as a human

17 being, one human being to another, me to you; doesn’t

18 that trouble you?

19 MR. STEACY: It would depend on

20 what’s being done.

21 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, we don’t know

22 what’s being done. We have a meeting, I wasn’t

23 invited, you were. You said you don’t know what the

24 agenda was but probably discussed section 13.1 and

25 we’ve got the Canadian Security Intelligence Service

who are a secret spy service; right?

2  MR. STEACY: They’re Canadian

3  Security Intelligence Service.

4  MR. CHRISTIE: Well, do you know what

5  it is?

6  MR. STEACY: Yes, I do.

7  MR. CHRISTIE: It doesn’t trouble you

8  then, I take it, that you’d be sitting down discussing

9  section 13.1 enforcement and investigation with all

10 those police forces in what you’ve called an informal

11 arrangement, including Canada’s spy agency. That

12 doesn’t trouble you?

13 MR. STEACY: No, it doesn’t.

14 MR. CHRISTIE: All right.

15 MS BLIGHT: The witness isn’t

16 being –

17 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have the answer.

18 I have the answer.

19 MS BLIGHT: He’s an employee of the

20 Commission, his job is to investigate.

21 MR. CHRISTIE: He’s also –

22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Don’t minimize his

23 role, Ma’am.

24 MR. CHRISTIE: Many people have

25 discretion too, but that’s a matter for argument.

Source (page 290-292)

 

One Response to “An Informal Arrangement With Our Spy Agency”
  1.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>