Â鶹ӰÊÓ

Prof. Ron Atkey, an expert in national security law, spoke to CTV’s Chief Anchor and Senior Editor Lisa LaFlamme about the terror attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices.

Atkey is a former chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which reports on the operations of CSIS.

Q: Once again this is an attack to quiet a point of view or shut down a policy. It could have been anywhere, and this global fight against these kinds of attacks doesn’t seem to be working.

A: Well some work, some don’t work. The trouble in security intelligence work is you can't always talk about your successes because then you disclose your methods of operation that make them ineffective in the future.

We learn about the failures; this is a failure. In Paris they thought the attack was going to come at the Eiffel Tower, which is a symbol of France. Instead it came at a major publication that said bad things in an Islamic context. So you never know whether it is the U.S., or Canada, or the U.K., or France or Spain. You always try to predict the targets and put in place -- through good security intelligence -- preventative measures which are always better than chasing the guys after they’ve done the dirty deed.

Q: But do you need another layer besides government intelligence?

Well, every government has their own intelligence agency. We really have two: we have CSEC and CSIS.

But you also need the involvement of citizens and that is as informers in a responsible sort of way.

When things are going on in the community that people think are wrong or going to lead to no good I think there is a duty of citizens to report that to the police or to security service in a quiet way. There are means to give them protection under our law so they won't be subject of retribution in the community.

I think this notion of responsible citizenship has got to come in play. It does in France and it should in Canada.

Q: What in your opinion needs to change to try to combat these terror attacks?

It’s easy to say security intelligence has to get better, but I think it has to have a broader sweep in the sense of responsibility and legally involving citizens. If they see something going on that’s bad, that people are up to no good, they should tell the police there are laws that will protect them in terms of retribution they will experience. Tell the police and the security service they're receptive to this thing and do want to be responsible citizens.

Q: We do live in an open, liberal, secular democracy so how do we strike that balance?

A: There have always been limitations on communities who want to keep closely knit communities that don’t want to rat on their friends or neighbours or community, but when they see criminal activity to be undertaken I think they have a duty to report that.

Q: What was your first reaction when you saw this failure of intelligence?

A: Well, I was surprised because they obviously missed it. They had a wide intelligence operation in France, I'm told, where they thought the target was the Eiffel Tower, the very symbol of France. But the target of the terrorist, in this case, was a newspaper because they were trying to make a point about freedom of speech and criticism of their prophet leader.

Q: Should we be rethinking then soft targets in our own county?

A: I think we're always rethinking security intelligence through our security services, which are CSEC and CSIS and their counterparts in the U.S. and the U.K. and France, but I think we also have to spread the responsibility for security intelligence to citizens. To come forward when they see something bad going on, to report it to police, or to the security service, in a responsible way and have the protection of law for their reporting responsibilities having been exercised.

Q: So you don’t think there is enough communication? Or the public doesn't feel engaged?

A: The terrorist are winning when they create fear and trepidation in society. But if you can overcome that and people can stand up to that fear and say: 'We're going to do the responsible thing, if criminal activity is about to be committed we're going to report it.'

Q: This is not a new thing though. We have seen it over history…

A: It has been going on for many years -- the history of many religions. Currently it is in the mosques, who hear what is going on in that community. Prior to that, it was the Sikhs in the West Coast on Air India and this sort of thing, the FLQ in 1970, 1971, in that period of time. We've gone through difficulties in various groups trying to achieve terrorism, which is a criminal act trying to achieve a political act to achieve political objectives, that put fear and trepidation in the minds of people.

Q: But what do you tell your students when it comes to national security law? You can't have a government or a police force that are just going out and arresting people.

A: We have a CSIS act which gives direction to the security service, we have a national defence act which gives direction to the security service, and we have the criminal code, which provides protections for citizens, and citizens that do provide information in a responsible way to the police. You can't be wrong about the information you provide, you can't manufacture information to hurt somebody -- that’s defamation and that leads to consequences.

So the notion of national security laws -- you don’t have to break the law to do good security intelligence. Either as a member or responsible agent of the government or as a citizen.

Q: Now in this case, we don’t know a whole lot yet about these two brothers who are alleged to be involved, but we do know one of them spent 18 months in prison for some kind of terror activity.

A: I suspect it will come out he was a person of interest in the perspective of the French security service. Whether they followed him or followed him properly and were responsible for his activities -- you can't put an ankle bracelet on him, but you can have surveillance, you can have wiretaps authorized by judges, you can share intelligence with other responsible communities and you can do the old-fashioned thing of surveillance.

We're expanding our laws to give new powers to the security service. If they're done properly, with a judge's authority in many cases, they can go outside Canada, they can co-operate with our allies. It is not a perfect science but we’ll get better at it.