Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 8th, 2024

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I don't think a yes-or-no answer as to whether or not.... Are you concerned?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

Yes. We are definitely monitoring what is happening in Canada, and we have a number of folks looking at the current situation.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

When we have demonstrations like the one we had yesterday in Montreal, where McGill University buildings were damaged and where we had previous knowledge that these demonstrations were going to occur, what is the RCMP's role with respect to coordinating with local police?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

We engage with police jurisdictions early when we know some things will occur, and we're in touch with them. When something does occur, then we're going to liaise to see if there's a national security nexus to the incident.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Prior to something actually occurring, are you investigating to see if there are national security nexuses to the planned demonstration and advising local law enforcement accordingly?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

Yes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Okay.

I understand why, in the question that Mr. Barrett had asked, there would be times when you would discuss whether an individual should be made privy to information in terms of a foreign threat if you thought that perhaps the individual was colluding with or was an agent of the foreign source, but in the event that you realized the person was blameless and was being made susceptible to threats from a foreign source, what would be the reason why the RCMP would not advise that individual?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

There's a variety of reasons, including when we are dealing with foreign states conducting this investigation. There could be caveats as to what we can do with the information. It could be a request from another agency to not act on them. There's a wide range of reasons why we wouldn't at some point.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You understand, of course, that to a parliamentarian that's a very scary prospect, right? There's a threat against me, for example, or against anyone else, and you're aware of it, but I'm not.

There seems to be.... I don't know what the policing jargon would be, but it seems to be a disconnection between what the person being threatened by that foreign source would want to know and what you would be able or would want to tell them.

How do you protect somebody in the event that they're not aware of this impending threat from a foreign source, or an ongoing threat from a foreign source, if you can't tell them because, for example, your source in another country asked you not to do so?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

Yes. Like I said, we take the security of all Canadians, including parliamentarians, to heart. I briefed all parties earlier in June myself to ensure all parliamentarians are aware of the threats that may be upon you. The RCMP takes this extremely seriously.

On specific cases, like I said, we're not going to comment on investigations, but in general, as I said, there's a number of issues that come into play that we have to deal with. Sometimes we get to a resolution where we can advise a person. Sometimes there are reasons operationally why we don't, and sometimes we don't know either.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have a minute and a half.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I want to come to communications, then, because from what I gather, in the United States law enforcement, the FBI is far more willing to disclose information more rapidly and more clearly than the RCMP. I see that with the Trump attempted assassination, for example, where there's information that I think in Canada wouldn't have come out for a significant amount of time, but that in the United States, after the attempted assassination in Pennsylvania, was very forthcoming. The law enforcement agencies were out there giving information.

I think there is a perception in Canada that the RCMP should communicate in a much clearer and more forthcoming way, particularly as it relates to threats. What are your thoughts on that?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

Privacy legislation in our two countries is extremely different. That's something we need to take into account as to what we do share. However, we're out there. We're in the public. We're doing many campaigns to assist Canadians at all levels to understand the threats to different diasporas. We're working to ensure that people are aware of the current situation and the threats that are happening from foreign states.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Before giving the floor to Mr. Trudel, I want to tell the witnesses that each member has six minutes or less to ask questions. If a member interrupts you, don't take it personally. That's because time flies during questions and answers.

Mr. Trudel, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today.

I'll go back to the last question that my colleague Mr. Housefather asked because I found it interesting. He was talking about the attack on Donald Trump. He mentioned that information was obtained more quickly in the United States than it would have been here in Canada. You answered that the laws were different in the United States.

What does that have to do with this particular file? What changes could Canada make to its legislation in order to have access to such information?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

First of all, I can't comment on the time the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, takes to provide information on a given situation. However, in general, Canada's privacy legislation is much more restrictive than that adopted in the United States.

If parliamentarians want to debate it, that's one thing, but right now, it's not possible to make certain information public because of privacy legislation.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It seems that, in the United States, the FBI doesn't feel the need to hide information, whereas that's the case here.

What can you tell us about that?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

I don't think it's a matter of hiding information, Mr. Trudel.

I can't speak to what the FBI does or doesn't want to do. The question should be put to them. At the RCMP, we're not there to hide information. As I said, we have a number of public awareness campaigns to inform people about…

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

The threat.

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

That's the word I was looking for. The nature of the threat has changed in recent years.

At the RCMP, we try to be as transparent as possible, but when investigations are ongoing, we can't share certain information.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the threat is worse now than it was five or 10 years ago.

Are you also implying that you don't have the tools right now to combat this threat?

[C/Supt Denis Beaudoin]

As I said, the nature of the threat has changed. We have to deal with the ideological nature of violence by individuals, which is new. Foreign interference is certainly a new threat, and we've seen it over the past decade or so.

Any investment by the government in programs related to these threats is welcome, and the RCMP will always be grateful for it. It certainly helps us do more for Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Are there active investigations involving parliamentarians in Canada right now?