Allegations against CSIS regarding a citizenship security screening interview

The complainant had applied for Canadian citizenship and was subsequently required to attend an interview with CSIS. The complainant attended this interview with their lawyer. The complainant alleged that the CSIS officers who conducted the interview:  

• denied them and their lawyer the right to record and take notes of the interview;  
• violated past SIRC recommendations by not recording the interview themselves;  
• interacted with the complainant’s lawyer in an intimidating manner, and did not allow the lawyer to interject or to interrupt;  
• did not provide an adequate translation service; and  
• lacked cultural sensitivity during the interview, used inappropriate interview tactics, chose discussion points that created unnecessary tension, and behaved improperly. 

Upon considering all of the evidence, NSIRA found that the CSIS officers erred in denying the complainant and their counsel the opportunity to take notes that they could take from the premises. CSIS acknowledged that this practice was no longer in place. NSIRA recommended that CSIS adjust its governing policy to make clear that the interviewee and their representative may take and retain notes from interviews.  

NSIRA commented that since 2000, numerous SIRC reports and decisions have recommended that CSIS record immigration security screening interviews. However, CSIS did not consistently record such interviews at the time of the complainant’s interview. CSIS indicated that efforts to require recording of all immigration interviews in its written procedures was in progress. NSIRA recommended that CSIS proactively record interviews in immigration and citizenship matters, and that CSIS retain this recording at least until a decision is made by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) on CSIS’ advice. In the event that CSIS provides a negative conclusion, the recording should be kept until the immigration status is determined and for the period of any appeal of that determination.  

Given that the complainant was unable to retain notes from the interview and that no recording of the interview existed, NSIRA was unable to make findings on most of the improper statements that the CSIS interviewer was alleged to have made. However, one statement in particular, which was an English idiom that the CSIS officer acknowledged using, was found to be unnecessary and counterproductive, as it risked compounding tension in the interview and may not have had a reasonable, literal translation in the language spoken by the complainant. 

CSIS indicated and NSIRA agreed that counsel to an interviewee has a role in, but not control of, the interview process. An interview subject’s lawyer is not limited to passive silence, but also must not act in a manner that impairs the Service’s ability to perform its mandate. To this end, it is not open to counsel to lead witnesses or have an intrusive role in questioning. NSIRA noted, however, that it is proper for counsel to raise concerns about interpretation or to suggest clarifying questions. These concerns are to be posed during a pause or in some other preorganized manner that does not disrupt the questioning. NSIRA recommended, therefore, that CSIS articulate within its own operating procedure the role of counsel (or other third parties) in the manner elaborated above, and that it communicates these expectations in advance to those attending an interview.  

Finally, to remedy these errors, NSIRA recommended that CSIS convene a second interview attended by different officers and a different interpreter. Given the irregularities in the first interview and the resulting concern that it may contain inaccuracies, NSIRA further recommended that in completing its assessment and in providing advice to the IRCC, CSIS avoid giving weight to the results of the first interview.