Evidence of meeting #32 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was threat.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Our deputy minister, Mr. Guimont, could also explain this to you.
5:15 p.m.
François Guimont Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let us talk about the budget cuts to our department. I was going to say that, at times, it was like being put on a diet. Every organization has to have the right priorities. Not everything can always be a top priority. With any priority there are always less urgent aspects, and cuts help us somewhat to be more effective and create efficiencies.
That is probably why we can talk about cuts and attaining our objectives. We can say that we are equipped to meet needs, but, naturally, as they say,
the connective tissue has to be rebuilt. Efficiencies have to be created.
It has to be rebuilt. However, budget cuts and very effective systems are not mutually exclusive.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to go back to you, Mr. Coulombe, and finish off my last question to you. I have two questions, if I could.
I should say that my colleagues have talked about meeting their constituents, and I've done likewise. My constituents are equally alarmed at the concerns of radical extremism that would affect us here at home. Obviously we took a step last night in our vote that would allow us to go into Iraq and to address that issue at that location, but Canadians are alarmed and concerned at home. So I'd like to ask you two questions.
First, have we identified how many Canadians are actually travelling abroad for the express purpose of joining extremist activities, be it with ISIL or others?
Second, to your point, and following up on Mr. Easter's question regarding this report, we talk about some 80 individuals who have been identified as returning home. I'd like to know how hard that 80 number is. Is it a guesstimate? Is it 150? Is it close to 80?
As well, do we know where they are? Do we know where they live? And have any charges been brought to bear on any of those individuals?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I'll start with the last one in terms of charges, and will then turn to Commissioner Paulson.
In terms of whether or not we know the number of Canadians who are overseas involved in threat-related activities, be it in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the list goes on, the number we're quoting—at the time, 130—by the time I leave this room will change. It's fluctuating all the time. It hasn't increased substantially since my appearance in February.
That number is the number that we can confirm in a nexus to Canada, and we can confirm that the individuals are involved in terrorist-related activities. That's the one we know.
Are there some that we are not aware of? Probably. I don't want to speculate. I've read in the media that it's probably up to 300. The service doesn't go there. We go with facts, and the fact is that we can confirm between 130 and 145. It's the same with the 80; that's not speculation, that's the one we can confirm. They were involved in terrorist-related activities overseas, they're now back in Canada. It's a firm number that we're aware of.
And yes, we know where they are.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
Thank you.
I have more, but go ahead, Minister, if you'd like to jump in on that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
To Commissioner Paulson, then, on the CTIO role, you talked about the training, the 300-and-some people who are actually trained and in the field today, with quite a number more in the process. You're putting them on the front line in police forces across Canada.
I wonder if you could talk to the role and what you're finding with that role now. I'm encouraged hearing that report. I'd like to know, are we seeing any success with it? Are we seeing or hearing anything that would give us comfort to know it's working?
5:20 p.m.
Commr Bob Paulson
First of all, I think the number is much more. I think 300 was in the last fiscal year we trained, and I think we're up to about 1,500.
The role is to begin to I guess socialize our front-line police officers with this process and to look for indicators. They might go into a house or on a call, and they might see a young person who's exhibiting behaviours that they might ignore just because they're not in their frame of reference. The CTIO program has been particularly helpful at bringing those sensitivities to our front-line officers so that we can identify trends, intervene in the pre-criminal space, and start to try to bring resources from communities to bear on those kind of people. As well, there are resources for officers who want to know more.
So it's been highly successful, it's been highly useful, and we continue to support it.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON
When we talk about the CTIO role, are these RCMP officers who are embedded, or are we actually training front-line police in local police forces across Canada?
5:25 p.m.
Commr Bob Paulson
We're training in local police forces. We're training, obviously, the area that I have control over—a lot of RCMP detachments. They all have CTIOs. In a small detachment—we might have five or six officers there—they've got a lot of other things to do. So what we'll do is to have that officer trained to bring it back and bring it to the detachment. There are other police forces that are engaged. With our countering violent extremism program, we're in a unique partnership with Public Safety, the CSIS, and the Toronto Police Service, who have a tremendously effective network, one that is tried and demonstrated, into all the communities. So we're overlaying this sort of approach into their existing infrastructure and we're finding it to be very useful.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
October 8th, 2014 / 5:25 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have one question, and I hope I can direct it to Monsieur Coulombe.
In the Security Council's resolution of September 24, the council stated the following in the operative paragraph 9:
Calls upon Member States to require that airlines operating in their territories provide advance passenger information to the appropriate national authorities in order to detect the departure from their territories, or attempted entry into or transit through their territories, by means of civil aircraft, of individuals designated by...[various Security Council committees].
The reason I asked the earlier question of the minister about whether or not we needed to implement some kind of exit control system was this provision.
Earlier, your predecessor, Mr. Fadden, said two very interesting things in testimony before the Senate on Bill S-7. One, he said that because of changes that were coming forward in Bill S-7 there's going to need to be more cooperation with CATSA and with the CBSA in trying to be aware of who's leaving the country. In particular, he said:
The other complicating factor, I am sure as you well know, is that Canada has no system for controlling exits. We do not even have a system to be aware when people are leaving. This will involve more than the CBSA; it may well involve CATSA
He added:
I should not say much more because I will get myself into a situation I will not be able to get myself out of.
Finally, he noted:
The current structure of the no-fly list program is such that you have to be a threat to aviation....
Furthermore:
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.
I'd simply like to ask this: One way or other, has some kind of a cooperative framework evolved to have a de facto exit control system, and/or has the no-fly list been tweaked or changed as a result of cabinet having looked at these proposals?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Guimont could comment very pertinently on that.
5:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
In both cases, the no-fly list and entry/exit information, in terms of piloting changes to the no-fly list, it is not the service that has the responsibility of driving those files. It would be Public Safety.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Chair, maybe our deputy minister could respond.
François.
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Chair, actually, we don't call it a no-fly list. This program is called the passenger protect program, just be accurate. We manage it in Public Safety.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The program has been in place since 2007 and it is operating on the same basis as it has been since that period of time.
Like any other program, we're always looking. But right now the program stands as it is, and it's not a NEXUS program.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Fine, thank you very much, Mr. Guimont.
Just before we close off this meeting tonight, this obviously is a very, very, very serious topic that we have been discussing today, and certainly there are a number of messages that we can take from this committee and this testimony today. Maybe one of them, which I know the chair certainly heard loud and clear, is not to be alarmist. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Coulombe have said we need to be vigilant. I thank you very kindly for those words.
To my committee members, thank you very kindly for your considered and meaningful questions today.
To our witnesses, there's no greater responsibility that we have as parliamentarians, or you gentlemen have in fulfilling your responsibilities, than to protect the public. We thank you for your work not just before this committee, but certainly for the continued work you do on behalf of all Canadian.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.