Public Safety Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2012

[Jeff Yaworski]

I'm not privy to that information, Mr. Scott, unfortunately, but I can tell you that, from a service perspective, we would be very interested in an exit information system. I chose that word rather carefully. It's not control we're after, it's information on individuals who have left the country, because as it stands now—and I believe you heard the testimony from Mr. Leckey at CBSA—we're only seeing one-half of that picture. We're only seeing them when they return to Canada. We're not getting information on exits—

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

—except eventually from the U.S. under the new system.

[Jeff Yaworski]

Under the new system, as I understand it, but you're absolutely right that it would be U.S. to Canada and vice versa.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

The investigative hearing provisions, which I don't have in front of me, are triggered by a peace officer making the application for the investigative hearing. When Mr. Fadden refers to the need for protocols, which makes sense as there will be a need, do you see some kind of a requirement for consultation between the peace officers who can trigger the investigative hearing and intelligence agencies like CSIS?

I can just imagine any number of ways in which an investigative hearing could mess up an intelligence operation or budding operation. Do you foresee that a peace officer, in the context of many of these kinds of terrorist offenders leaving the country, will be required to check with intelligence before making that request for an investigative hearing?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I'd suggest to you that it probably wouldn't be as direct as a requirement. I would suggest it would probably make very good common sense in most instances. We work very closely with our RCMP colleagues, who have the authority to enforce this law. We speak about a variety of different issues all the time, including direct investigations where we may run our own parallel investigation to theirs.

Deconfliction, if you will, is an important part of that communication. I would agree there would be occasions when we would need to talk with our law enforcement colleagues and vice versa.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This is just to make sure I go over some ground on which I know you are probably going to have to give the same answers as Mr. Fadden, but on the no-fly list, he did comment in his testimony:

The current structure of the no-fly list program is such that you have to be a threat to aviation....My understanding is that officials are preparing a series of proposals for ministers to try to make this list a little more subtle, but I do not know where they are on it.

He's obviously aware of some process going on. Can you share any details with us about what's being considered? What does it mean to make it “a little more subtle” in that context?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I guess you would have to ask Mr. Fadden what his thinking was on that particular one.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We did ask him to come to the committee, but unfortunately, he isn't here.

[Jeff Yaworski]

I'm all you have, I guess, at this particular point.

I guess, in responding to that, if there's latitude for expanding the no-fly list, or the specified persons list, as it's known more appropriately, that's a policy question for government.

We will react to whatever the government decides on issues like that, and we will adjust our own operational protocols accordingly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

We'll move back to Ms. Bergen, please.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to both witnesses for being here.

I want to clarify something with regard to Mr. Scott's questions, and if you have some comments to make on this it would be appreciated.

With regard to the exit and entry strategy and agreement that we have under the beyond the border framework with the U.S., it is very important that we're clear that this is a stand-alone measure. It's sharing information; it's not collecting new information. It's sharing information with our U.S. counterparts. At this point it's only occurring at four land crossings. It's not happening when people, obviously, are flying to other parts of the world. When someone leaves our country, we share that information with the U.S., which becomes their entrance, or it is vice versa, when someone comes into our country, it becomes their exit information.

Is that how you understand it to be? Have I explained it in the correct terms?

[Jeff Yaworski]

That is exactly how I understand it. I did read the testimony of Mr. Leckey from CBSA and that is exactly as he has articulated it. Our exit becomes their entry, and vice versa. As I understand it, it is only a trial exercise at this point. It hasn't been fully implemented across the board.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Correct.

When we talk about the investigative hearings or the recognizance with conditions, there are a number of safeguards that have been built into the legislation and into these provisions. The very first one is that the consent of the Attorney General, or a provincial attorney general, would have to be given, which obviously is one of the main ones here. There are a number of other safeguards within it. I'm wondering if the safeguards that are built in give you the satisfaction that, for example, people's privacy, legal rights, and basic rights will still be protected under both of these provisions?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I'm probably not the best person to answer that question. As I said, not being a peace officer, I would not be directly involved in executing the provisions of the act as they are proposed right now.

Again, people from Justice have been before you. I believe they commented with respect to their perception of the potential vulnerabilities with this legislation. I would have to defer to their comments in that regard.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

That's fine. Thank you.

Let me go to something which I think you will probably have a little more information you will be willing to talk to us about. Can you describe to us the danger of Canadians, certainly legislators, beginning to have a laissez-faire attitude thinking we haven't had any major attacks recently? It seems that we're on top of the whole terrorist file because we're all fairly safe. Is there a danger of being complacent and not taking the threat as seriously as we should? Do you see evidence of that in Canada?

[Jeff Yaworski]

That's a very good question. It's a difficult job. We're a victim of our success sometimes. I would only point to the Toronto 18 case as an example of individuals who were radicalized in this country and were looking to commit a significant terrorist act in this country.

Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism. Al Qaeda has referenced Canada as a potential target. The world is not a warm and friendly place, necessarily. I'm not intending to be superficial or suggest things that you are not already aware of as parliamentarians. Your point is an accurate one. The fact there has not been a terrorist attack on Canadian soil in recent years does not mean we should let our guard down. We should do everything we can in our power to ensure that Canada and Canadians are safe. That is a fundamental mandate of the service.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

One of the provisions within this piece of legislation is the recognizance with conditions. Ms. Beauregard, you might want to comment because of the work you do with terrorist assessment, and you as well, Mr. Yaworski.

Some of the individuals who are working aiding and abetting terrorist activity are not working directly with the terrorists. They may not necessarily even have knowledge of what the end result of their actions might be. I know it's going to assist with their cause, but whether it's purchasing something, raising money, or making connections, they may not even know exactly what the work they do or the actions they take might result in. Yet they are, for all intents and purposes, contributing to a terrorist activity.

Am I correct in that? If I am, would you be able to share with us why it's important to make sure these individuals can have conditions placed on them to stop activity which to all of us would not necessarily be an illegal activity? Whether it's being on the Internet, placing a call, or raising money for a cause, it's not their specific actions that need to be stopped; it's because of the result their actions will have.

[Monik Beauregard]

Let me begin by saying that in ITAC, we do support the provisions of Bill S-7. That being said, we are an assessment organization. We do not collect any information. The application of the provisions would be done by law enforcement. Obviously we would provide our assessments. If we had information to share with law enforcement, we would do so, but the ultimate decisions would be made by law enforcement.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

What I am trying to ask you is if you could connect the dots for all of us.

If people who are doing things that are contributing to terrorist activity, those activities need to be stopped. Yet they are not actually going and blowing someone up or killing someone, but they are still contributing via their actions. Are you able to give us some examples in the work you do?

[Monik Beauregard]

Not in the kind of work we do at ITAC. I apologize. For national security considerations, I wouldn't want to provide any such examples. I apologize.

[Jeff Yaworski]

Perhaps I could jump in here, but not with any concrete examples because we can't go there.

I think what you are alluding to are things such as purchasing a cellphone that's disposable, and providing that to an individual upon arrival if that individual is here in Canada to do nefarious things; or fundraising, as you suggested, for a cause that perhaps is openly a viable and useful charity, when in fact some of those funds may be routed to other purposes.

In cases like that, I think we have to be very careful whether, from a charity perspective, fundraising for a charity would fall within the legislation as you are reporting it. With respect to purchasing a cellphone or something of that nature where there is a direct applicability to an ongoing investigation, those are situations where law enforcement might want to call on that individual and determine whether the activities he or she has been involved in are done knowingly, or whether the individual is an innocent bystander. It's not suggesting there would be an arrest. It's more a matter of seeking additional information to help the investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for that testimony.

We'll go to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you very much.

We all know that so far there hasn't been use of investigative hearings. That point has been made over and over. Based on your assessment of the growing number of people who may be disenchanted with western governments, this government, for example—I don't mean this government in terms of a political stripe, but simply the state of Canada—would you be fairly confident in predicting that at some point the investigative hearing will be used? If the trend is toward growing disenchantment in certain quarters, one would think that the probabilities are we will have recourse to investigative hearings at some point. Would you agree with that? Even though they haven't been used to date, would you say most likely they will be at some point?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I would suggest that's a logical conclusion, certainly.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

There's one part of the bill that we haven't really talked about too much, at least I don't think we have. It's in regard to changes to the Canada Evidence Act. Are you familiar with that part? From what I understand, more information that is gathered for the purpose of a hearing will have to be made public. Have you come across that part of the bill?