Public Safety Committee on Oct. 8th, 2014

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I may give you a few opening remarks and then let Mr. Coulombe comment.

That's an excellent question. The threat, as we can see, is real. The threat is there. As a country, we are constantly adjusting to the level of threat. That's why this afternoon I tabled the “2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”, which exemplifies the various terrorist entities throughout the world that represent a threat.

We are focusing at this point in time on the Islamic State, which has clearly represented a threat; I won't repeat what they have said or what has been said, but that is clear. That's why we, as law enforcement, need to make sure that we are providing the tools necessary to our law enforcement agency and to national security intelligence so they can adjust appropriately to the level of threats.

Monsieur Coulombe.

[Michel Coulombe]

I was just going to mention that in terms of what is the threat today, I'm not going to talk about the scale or...but what I can say is that, compared to the late 1990s and 2000s before 9/11, the threat is different. It's more diffused. It develops a lot more rapidly. With the use—and the sophisticated use—of social media, for example, radicalization can happen really quickly. The development of an attack actually can also happen really rapidly. There's the movement of people. The threat is different.

This phenomenon of what we call “foreign fighters”, especially in the developments in Iraq and Syria, I think is real, like I've mentioned. It does pose a real threat. Again, we have no information indicating an imminent attack, but we have to remain vigilant. The threat is real.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

A colleague shared with us recently that an extended family member of theirs was approached at work by someone trying to recruit them in saying that western values were not working, that there was a better way, and that ISIL was paying good money for people to join them. When this individual reported it to the supervisor, the would-be recruiter was simply moved.

Is there a way for people to report these incidents? Surely they shouldn't just be swept under the carpet and not acted upon.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

No, absolutely not. I think that's part of our outreach program: to be able to connect with Canadians and make sure they feel comfortable in being able to raise that information.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

But who would they raise it with?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

The local law enforcement jurisdiction, the police. We have a 1-800 number into our operations centre in the RCMP. You can be absolutely confident that we will get going on a call to local law enforcement. If a local law enforcement jurisdiction gets a call like that, we will make sure that gets investigated.

All of these investigations, the ones that I referred to earlier, are centrally overseen by a fairly crack team of experienced officers here in Ottawa. That's why it's so important that we're able to get front-line officers recognizing the significance of a call like that. I would encourage whoever is referring that to you to refer it to us, and we will intervene.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you for that. Other citizens may have similar experiences.

Director Coulombe, the minister mentioned the social media as a tool of recruitment and radicalization, and I see that brainwashing has been used. What measures do you think are going to be necessary to deal with the social media aspect of this issue?

[Michel Coulombe]

I think sensitizing people to the risks at all levels is crucial. What's that English expression? It's “whack-a-mole”, where you try to stop something from somewhere.... You can close a website, but two are going to appear the next morning, and quite often the servers are not in this country. I'm not saying that nothing can be done in that arena, but I think it's a lot more important to sensitize people to the threat of risk and to try prevention.

Commissioner Paulson was talking about it from the police perspective, just to go back to your earlier question, with the service as a tip line, or with a telephone number across the country or public telephone numbers, so that if people come across this or have questions, they can phone us, use a tip line, or go to their local law enforcement. There's a number of ways in which that information can be passed. Again, I think it's just a question of people being sensitized to the issue and being aware that there is a way to bring that information to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Your time has expired.

Mr. Falk, please.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank the witnesses for attending and for their participation here.

I'd like to direct my comments to the minister.

When I travel around my constituency, which I've done the last couple of weeks attending various fall suppers, inevitably the discussion goes to the activities of ISIL and ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Of course my constituents are concerned. They become much more concerned when the threats are made against Canada.

How safe are we really? Should we feel comfortable or should we feel angst? I know you've discussed a little bit the interaction between the various departments. The sharing of information on a weekly basis is good. But we live in an instant society. We don't wait for our weekly meetings, and I'm sure terrorists don't either.

Can you expand on that a little bit? How much do your departments, the security agencies, the border patrol, the RCMP operate in silos? Is there a central database? Can you tell me a little bit about the fluidity and exchange of information?

[Michel Coulombe]

Commissioner Paulson talked about, for example, weekly or biweekly meetings. That's just one way we're exchanging information. I was a director general in the Quebec region, in Montreal, and I know things haven't changed; every day several meetings are taking place between, for example, the service and the RCMP, the service and the CBSA. It can be a bilateral meeting. It can be a trilateral meeting. It can be with local enforcement. It can be with the Sûreté du Québec, as it was when I was there. The same is happening across the country.

So I don't want you to think that we only meet weekly and chat then Those meetings are possibly more strategic, but I can assure you that at the tactical level, in headquarters here in Ottawa and across the country, there are meetings all the time exchanging, deconflicting, and making sure that we're moving on each file with the best options possible.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I would agree, obviously, with all of that. But I would also add that in this sort of climate, it's helpful to remind Canadians that this is everybody's business. Certainly we have many, many refined systems and processes to investigate, to respond, to arrest, to collect information, but we really count on the eyes and ears of Canadian citizens to recognize what is suspicious activity that should be reported.

I think we're seeing a trend that is improving, but it needs to be restated that terrorism, counterterrorism, is everybody's business.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I could not agree more with Commissioner Paulson. Building resilience, building awareness...and I would also add the boots on the ground. We in this country have every law enforcement officer, every police officer, involved, and reaching out is part of our counterterrorism strategy, but every Canadian is also part of it. I could not agree more with Commissioner Paulson.

That being said, it is critical that we as politicians make sure that we are enabling all law enforcement to adjust to this evolving threat. We've seen clearly this afternoon that a threat is evolving. Probably very few were aware of the existence of this terrorist entity a year ago, and now this is a direct threat to our society. We need to be able to adjust, to evolve.

That's why the Prime Minister clearly stated in his speech Friday that we need to tackle terrorism over there, joining the coalition. We need to provide, to those who are impacted by terrorism, humanitarian aid, but we also need to be, I would say, steadfast in our commitment here in Canada, as a government and as politicians and as parties, to support initiatives aimed at enabling our law enforcement to tackle this evolving threat.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you for the answers to those questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Please be very quick, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's reassuring information that I can pass on to my constituents, that indeed there is good collaboration between all the law enforcement agencies that we have.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to get back to the question that my colleague Mr. Scott asked earlier and that went unanswered. It is important if we want to properly understand the legislation and the potential effects of the measures, for example of revoking the passport of a citizen involved in terrorist activities.

I will give a more concrete example to illustrate the question that was asked earlier.

Take a young man who is 17 or 18 years old and who unfortunately takes up with the wrong crowd. He becomes radicalized and makes the bad decision to go abroad, so his passport is revoked. I am not questioning the idea of revoking a passport. I understand the logic behind that. This young man goes abroad and participates in terrorist activities without being an active fighter. After a few days, a few weeks or a few months, he realizes that he has made the worst mistake of his life and questions his new radical beliefs. He would like to be able to return home and get back to his normal life.

Is there a way for him to make amends and return to the country? Is there something he can do, or does this mean that once he made the decision to go abroad, regardless of the circumstances or what happens in the future, this is definitive and he will be stuck in the country he decided to go to?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

As parliamentarians, it's important for us to understand the scope of the terrorist threat. We need to understand how radicalized these people are and just how far they're prepared to go.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Minister.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I'd like to say something about this.

I'm thinking about Karine Blais, from Les Méchins. She was a soldier from Quebec who was killed during the combat mission in Afghanistan against the Taliban. We're talking about people who are prepared to kill in order to stand up for their beliefs. We can't negotiate with terrorists. It's not complicated. There's no issue.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Based on what you're saying, the answer to my question is that this individual would be stuck there, period.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

As Minister of Public Safety, I'm concerned about the safety of Canadians. If someone might represent a threat and could attack Canadians, I have a duty to do everything I can to prevent this person from killing Canadians. It doesn't seem complicated.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I understand what you're saying, but I wasn't questioning the idea of revoking a citizen's passport. I was trying to understand the impact of that decision. I don't know whether someone other than the minister could clarify this for me, because all I'm getting is a partisan answer that doesn't respond to my question.

If I understand correctly, once a passport has been revoked, this person will forever be considered a threat and will be confined to the country he or she had gone to. There would be no way to go back, even if there was concrete proof that this individual had reformed. I am not asking this for no reason.

I just want to clarify. Is my understanding correct?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I'll ask Mr. Coulombe to answer this question.