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
1 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)
Entries (RSS)
[...] Fraud 29. Let’s Make A Deal 30. Jadewarr’s “rather striking and odd testimony” 31. An Informal Arrangement with our Spy Agency 32. Warrants? Who Needs [...]