Public Safety Committee on Nov. 24th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good afternoon, colleagues and guests. Welcome to meeting number 40 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 18, Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts, will be dealt with.

Appearing before us here today is the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We also have François Guimont, the deputy minister. From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Mr. Michel Coulombe, director; and from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Nicole Girard, director general, citizenship and multiculturalism branch. These will be our witnesses for the first hour.

At the end of the first hour, Minister Blaney will be excused. The other witnesses, I believe, will be staying. We have other additional witnesses who will be arriving for the second hour.

With that understanding, I will now open the floor to opening statements by our witnesses.

Minister Blaney, you have the floor.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am here this afternoon to invite you to support Bill C-44—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Excuse me, Mr. Blaney, but Mr. Easter has a point of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I raise this again, and I raised it last time this minister was here. The minister has the resources of all the department available to him. A minister coming before these committees reads from written notes; we saw that last time. There was important information in there we could have used during committee that we didn't pick up until after. So I ask, does the minister have his statement written so that it can be presented to the committee in both official languages, as I believe should be the custom of this place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Easter. Obviously I will ask the minister if he has a prepared statement that he can distribute. If not, he can go ahead with his statement but take that under advisement for future visits.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I begin by saying that what I have to say is not in any written speech, Mr. Chair.

I find it particularly special to be here in this room, in this very room where I was with my colleagues on October 22. We spent hours here. You were here as well, Mr. Chair. We will remember those hours for a very long time, as will our opposition colleagues, who were just on the other side of that room. We were all somewhat involved, against our will, in the terrorist attack that took place.

A few weeks before the attack, I was here with Mr. Coulombe, Mr. Guimont, and also with our RCMP commissioner to state that we are—we were at that time and still are—taking the terrorist threat very seriously, and that the threat is real.

Unfortunately, we have been exposed to the hatred of those individuals who committed the two terrorist attacks in mid-October. That makes this meeting even more important.

With that, I would like to begin by talking to you about Bill C-44, for which I seek your support.

I will mainly address the provisions that amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which has not been dramatically altered in the last 30 years.

I would like to point out that Ms. Girard will address the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent earlier this year. The section that deals with Canadian citizenship is not a new legislative component; it only encourages quicker implementation.

I am here today as Minister of Public Safety because the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, comes under my department's responsibility. This service must have effective tools to fight the terrorist threat.

CSIS collects and analyzes information from across the country and abroad, and informs the Government of Canada of threats to national security, especially threats involving terrorism and violent extremism.

Obviously there should be no doubt about the direct and persistent threat terrorism and violent extremism pose to our security. No one can argue that what took place here in this Parliament and in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu are not terrorist attacks. That's why, colleagues, we need to move swiftly forward with this legislation. CSIS' ability to investigate threats to the security of Canada no matter where they may occur is vital to the safety and security of Canadians, and indeed our ability to respond to the threat of terrorism.

Our government is keeping Canadians safe. That is what this bill is all about. Let's dive straight into the very reason of the bill before us today, and therefore so critical in its importance to keep Canadians safe, to use it as a shield. The protection of Canada from terrorists act responds to two key core decisions that have important implications for CSIS' mandate and operations. Those of you who have taken the opportunity to get the technical briefing provided by my department understood that well. I could see it was the case when we had exchanges in the House about the bill.

In May 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in the Harkat case. The Supreme Court's decision stated that CSIS human sources do not benefit from a common law class privilege similar to the informer privilege applicable to police informers. Human sources are a critical source of information for CSIS. They are at the very base of CSIS, yet, Mr. Chairman, they do not benefit from a protection as this court has ruled. In turn this significantly hampers our intelligence-gathering capabilities and therefore it puts Canadians at risk. This bill is not seeking at this point in time for new powers. It's just seeking to clarify the existing authority under which CSIS can protect us in an efficient manner. That's why the protection of Canada from terrorists act addresses this gap.

These amendments bring about automatic protection of the identity of CSIS' human sources.

This bill is balanced. This bill is reasonable and that's why I'm seeking your support. That's why you've been expressing your support in the House so far. Why? Because it fully respects the spirit of our Constitution.

The parties will be able to obtain an order from a judge to declare that the person in question is not a human source or that the information in question will not reveal the identity of that person.

In criminal proceedings, defendants will have the ability to seek an order from a judge declaring that disclosure of the identity of a human source is essential to establishing their innocence. The fundamental right to a fair trial is preserved and reinforced.

Turning to the second court decision affecting CSIS' mandate, the Federal Court of Appeal recently unsealed its July 2014 decision related to the government's appeal of Justice Mosley's decision that was issued by the Federal Court last year. The protection of Canada from terrorists act confirms CSIS' authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to the threats, to the security of Canada, and security assessments. This is not a big thing. CSIS can operate within and outside Canada. That's fairly simple.

CSIS has always had the power to undertake investigative activities abroad. The Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged this fact when it found that section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in no way suggests geographic limitations for CSIS' activities.

However, the power of CSIS to conduct activities abroad in order to investigate threats to Canada's security is not indicated as clearly as it should be in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It is therefore important that Parliament and the elected representatives of the people clarify this matter.

At the same time, the bill also confirms the authority of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain activities outside of Canada, and it gives the Federal Court authority to consider only relevant Canadian law when issuing warrants for CSIS to undertake certain activities outside of Canada.

These amendments are important. We believe that the Canadian Constitution, especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is far superior to the decrees of a dictator in a far-off land. Canadian law, and even more importantly, Canadian values, are what should solidly ground our legal deliberations around national security, and that is exactly what this bill is accomplishing.

Mr. Chair, the proposed amendments in Bill C-44 are reasonable and necessary for ensuring that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can carry out its mandate adequately. They are also consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the recommendations of the 1981 McDonald Commission.

Unfortunately during debate on this legislation at second reading, I heard some allegations related to CSIS operating outside the law. That's what this bill would prevent from happening, because it would clearly define that CSIS is operating within the law. Let me be clear. CSIS will, as always, continue to be required to obtain judicial authorization to undertake certain intrusive activities.

I believe this clearly lays out the technical aspects of this legislation, and nobody can challenge the motive of this bill.

Again today, Mr. Chair, we have learned that the Islamic State armed group is recruiting eight-year-old children, as if all the images and atrocities we have been exposed to were not enough. I am thinking of a video that was released showing over a dozen men being decapitated.

Among those individuals was humanitarian worker Peter Kassig. His parents wrote on Twitter that they were heartbroken to learn that their son had lost his life because of his love for the Syrian people and his desire to lessen their suffering. Our government resolutely condemns the acts of violence by the Islamic State armed group in the strongest possible terms. That is why we are providing humanitarian aid to the people affected by these barbarians and are supporting the coalition's efforts to neutralize and diminish their capacity to conduct major operations.

In addition to these distressing reports out of Iraq and Syria, recent terrorist attacks here remind us that this organization is also a threat within our own country. That is why we are steadfastly working to improve the tools available to the police forces and the intelligence community. The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act is just the first step toward achieving this objective. Our Conservative government has taken strong action to protect our national security.

As you know, Mr. Chair, we passed legislation to fight terrorism over a year ago now. That act gives the authorities tools that enable them to revoke the citizenship of individuals who take part in these activities. As I mentioned, the component of the bill that is before us today basically consists of accelerating the measures that have already been adopted and received royal assent.

We have increased funding to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and CSIS by a third. We have implemented new measures. Unfortunately, we have not been able to count on the support of the opposition, neither the New Democrats nor the Liberals, for the revocation of passports and dual citizenship of individuals found guilty of terrorist acts. However, I have noted during debates that there is some receptiveness to the bill that was introduced today.

I realize this bill was not formally opposed during the debate at second reading, and I look forward to answering your questions today. Ultimately, and I would say much more importantly, I look forward to this legislation being returned to the House after thorough study so we can move forward and get this bill adopted, so that we as parliamentarians, elected officials, can better do our part to keep our country safe. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Minister Blaney.

Are there any other opening comments from witnesses?

Seeing none, thank you. We will now go to the rounds of questioning. We'll start with Ms. James for seven minutes, please.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the minister for appearing, as well as the officials.

Minister, in your opening remarks you talked about the incident that happened at the National War Memorial as well as what took place here on Parliament Hill. These incidents of terrorism were not simply attacks against an individual or a place where people go to work. These were attacks against our Canadian Armed Forces and against our institutions of governance. This was an attack against all Canadians.

At the start, when we talked about Bill C-44, I heard some comments that this was simply a knee-jerk reaction to those terrorist attacks that took place in Ottawa and in Quebec. In fact, Minister, this legislation has been in the works for some time and was to correct a problem that, as you mentioned, we saw an issue with before the courts, which were calling into question the authority of CSIS.

I'm just wondering if you could speak about that particular aspect, that this was not a knee-jerk reaction, and why this is absolutely critical for the operations of CSIS to continue to keep Canadians safe.

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

I thank Parliamentary Secretary James for her question, Mr. Chair.

The definition of a terrorist act is widely accepted throughout the world, and it has three components. The first is that an individual or a group attacks a symbol of a nation. We are talking about the military uniform and we are talking about our sacred National War Memorial. It is also committed based on an ideology. We clearly saw that those two individuals were embracing extremist, fundamentalist, radical Islamic views. They were going against the Criminal Code by committing violent acts against innocent people.

Clearly, what took place in Canada on October 20 in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu

… and that targeted Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, and Nathan Cirillo in Ottawa, are both terrorist acts.

That is what the president of Holland noted when he visited Parliament. The U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, noted that as well, as did the RCMP commissioner. Under the Criminal Code, it was terrorism.

It is important to take a measured approach when dealing with the terrorist threat and not react excessively, but we must not stand idly by in the face of the constantly changing terrorist threat.

Ms. James, I believe you know that the bill in question was to have been introduced on October 22, the very day of the attack. Shortly after the attack, we did not know that were were going to be confined here all day. We were living in uncertainty, but I was still hopeful I would be able to introduce it that day.

Consultations were held before the introduction of this bill which, as I explained, followed on an invitation by the courts to clarify the legislative provisions so that CSIS could exercise its mandate adequately.

I am pushing the importance of adopting this bill because CSIS' current capacity to fully exercise its duties is limited by court decisions. As parliamentarians, we are being asked to get this bill to royal assent in order to restore existing powers to CSIS at a critical time when we are facing a real terrorist threat.

To answer your question, I would say that this bill was in the works long before the two terrorist attacks in Canada in mid-October, but that those attacks make its adoption much more important and urgent.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

In your remarks you said something similar to “not as clearly outlined in the CSIS Act as it should be”. I think everyone in this committee recalls, and I've mentioned it many times in conversations and in the House, that the CSIS Act was first passed way back in 1984. This is actually 30 years ago. This is why we're really here today. CSIS has been operating and communicating with our Five Eyes partners and operating outside of Canada, and all of a sudden the courts have called that into question because the CSIS Act doesn't clearly indicate it has the power and the ability to do so.

When we talk about terrorism in Canada, I think most Canadians would agree that the Toronto 18 was something we had not heard about before in Canada. We also experienced, more recently, the VIA Rail plot. Now we have seen issues of individuals being radicalized, going overseas, and receiving training overseas with the potential to come back here and cause even greater damage and assault against Canadians in our country within our borders. In reality, terrorism knows no borders.

When I think about this bill, Minister, my greatest concern is that CSIS must absolutely have the ability to operate overseas. Without that, it would be working with both hands tied behind its back.

Would you agree with that statement?

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

Absolutely, I fully agree with you.

I believe that while we have to make sure we are providing all the tools, especially to our national security agency, the service, in this case, we also need to continue to invest ourselves in the four pillars of our counter-terrorism strategy, particularly in the domain of prevention. This is exactly what was agreed upon amongst the 300 participants who took part in the Halifax international security conference that just ended yesterday, where there was a consensus among western countries that we need to reach out with outreach to communities. You have the example of the Toronto 18. As you know, it was because of the bridges we had built with the communities that we were able to deter this terrorist attack that was plotted. Mr. Coulombe is very aware of this.

In the meantime we also need to show our unwavering commitment in tracking those who are committing terrorist attacks or are willing to do so. This also includes hate violence, whether in their behaviour or in their speech. We also need to make sure we have the tools that are necessary, and not only our national security agency but our national law enforcement needs to have the tools as well. That's why I and our government intend to come back with further legislation to address this gap we are now faced with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now move on to Mr. Garrison, please. You have seven minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister for being here today.

The NDP supported this bill at second reading because it deals with national security, which is obviously a very important issue. Precisely because of that importance, we have to make sure, with any changes we make, that we get them right and that they are effective. That really requires full debate on this bill.

What I want to raise is something I raised with the minister in the House during time allocation. At that time I asked the minister if he would assure me that we would have full time for debate here in the committee. Again today, he mentioned in his opening statement that he looked forward to the committee giving thorough study to the bill.

I'm going to ask him again. His parliamentary secretary, who is his spokesperson in the House, has made sure that we have only one day of witnesses other than government officials. That means six witnesses on this very important bill.

I ask the minister again. Do you think we're actually going to have enough time here in committee to give this bill the study it deserves?

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

Absolutely. I think I have correctly evaluated the time needed to work on this straightforward bill. As I was given the opportunity to mention to you during the debate in the House of Commons, it's a seven-page bill. It says that CSIS can operate outside and within Canada. It says that we need to protect sources, which is obvious since that's where CSIS is harvesting its information, which can be transformed from intelligence to evidence, and then where we can prosecute terrorists and put them in jail. Rightly so, as we have already been doing with the Combating Terrorism Act and the previous legislation.

I believe there has already been more than 11 hours of debate. I think we are expected by Canadians, especially in the context of an evolving threat, to do thorough work but not to drag our feet and waste time. This bill is needed. As you know, we hope other measures will be coming soon, and that is what Canadians are expecting from us. I refer to some comments in the media today that Canadians think we should take the terrorist threat very seriously, and we should act accordingly. I think that adopting this bill after the study.... We are here and the experts will be available here to answer all your questions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But with respect, Mr. Minister, when we say one day that means two hours in this committee with witnesses outside the government. So if we are going to take terrorism seriously, with respect, I would think that two hours is not taking it sufficiently seriously.

You say it is only a seven-page bill so I have a question about something that is not there. We have seen recommendations from Justices O'Connor, Iacobucci, and Major, all of them dealing with the need for improved accountability in national security. The accountability is connected very directly to that effectiveness. Minister, why is there nothing in this bill that improves the accountability and the oversight of our national security agencies?

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

I think you were given the opportunity to attend the technical briefing. As I said in the House and I said again today, this bill is designed particularly to address two issues that were brought forward by the court that limit the power and the authority of CSIS. It is important at this very moment when we face a real terrorist threat—and these walls can speak for themselves—that we address this gap. That's why this bill is straightforward. I make the commitment today that we will present further legislation, and that's why I seek your support for this bill.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I hope the further legislation will have improvements in accountability and oversight because that's part of the effectiveness, as I said before.

Another point that I am concerned about here, and that's why I think we need more time to discuss this, is that there's no point in passing laws that won't withstand scrutiny in the court. So I have a question for the minister about what advice he has received from the Department of Justice on the constitutionality of the measures proposed here, particularly those that deal with authorizing courts to grant warrants without respect to international law, also with respect to the protection of the identity of human sources.

If these laws aren't going to stand up when they get to court then we're wasting time here when we could do something more effective. Has he had that advice? Will he table that advice with this committee?

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

I think our time is really precious, and that's why I seek to have this committee move forward, Mr. Chair.

Let me get back to the proceedings, and I will address it. I thank you for your question.

As I've said, in criminal proceedings defendants will have the ability to seek an order from a judge declaring that disclosure of the identity of a human source is essential to establishing their innocence. The fundamental right to a fair trial is not only preserved it is reinforced.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Only as to the trial, not to detention, not to bail hearings, and all other aspects of the criminal justice process. You've only applied that exception to one small piece of that. That's why I'm interested in the advice you have received from the Minister of Justice about the constitutionality of that.

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

In another bill we will come back with issues related to surveillance, arrest, and detention, but this is not what this bill is about. This bill is about protecting the source. This is exactly why we have embedded measures in this bill to reinforce the fundamental right, not only respecting the law but the spirit of the law, which I think is going even further.

The other aspect is that you know we are talking about Canadian citizens, Canadian law, and Canadian procedure. I expect this question may come further on during our exchange. We sometimes work in an environment where people don't experience the freedom and the democracy that is experienced here. That is why this bill is related to Canadian law and that's why it is a bill that fully complies with our Constitution.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So you have that advice from the Minister of Justice.

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

We are always moving forward with bills that are seeking to protect Canadians. That's our first goal and priority and this is how this bill has been prepared, with all respect to our Canadian Constitution.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Now we will go to Mr. Norlock, for seven minutes, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, through you to the witnesses, thank you for attending today.

Minister, I notice that this act has certain aspects of the recently passed Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. Do you believe it's reasonable to revoke the citizenship of convicted terrorists, or people who would do harm to Canada?