Finance Committee on April 23rd, 2015

[Garry W.G. Clement]

I don't think we should take it out of context. I mentioned Western Union. It's a victim and is certainly considered to be the largest MSB, money services business, in the world.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

But what about the white-label ATMs?

[Garry W.G. Clement]

The white-label ATMs we can definitely control. The flow of money, because our world has opened up and is borderless today, has to continue and is going to continue. I agree with my colleague Mr. McGuire on the need to capture data. I can give you a very short analogy. The head of Western Union and the CAMLO talked about using metadata. Today the ability to massage this data has gone far beyond what my understanding of it is. There was a problem involving the female flesh trade, which also involves some terrorist funding. It was called the Blue Ribbon Campaign. People who understand metadata were able to go into their system. As you can imagine, they do, I think they said, one million transactions in a week or in a very short period of time. I forget what the exact figure is. Think about that in terms of what's in that data. They were able to massage that metadata and stop a female flesh trade organization. We are talking about amounts of money they were able to single out because there was a pattern to them, and those involved less than $10. That doesn't sound like a lot, but that is what metadata can do.

How valuable is information? Today, with the ability to massage metadata, it's phenomenal.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Rafiq, thank you very much for being with us here today.

We're seeing a lot of commentary in the press, particularly from the more liberal left, that call statements such as we've heard today scare headlines and that say that stories about young people who are being radicalized or going overseas to behead people may be fiction. You're basically ringing the alarm and saying that, in fact, we need to take this more seriously, especially with younger individuals.

I'm wondering how you counter what might be seen by some as a campaign to minimize the threat and to suggest that we are going overboard somehow.

[Haras Rafiq]

First of all, the threat is real. We have a team that monitors and follows these individuals in Iraq and Syria, and we work with a number of agencies around the world to provide support. I can go on the record now and say that there are stories of 9-year-olds, 12-year-olds, 14-year-olds, and 16-year-olds who have been either beheading people or shooting people between their eyes and killing them. These stories are real. There is radicalization going on.

Gilles, the head of the counterterrorism division for the EU, is now saying that there are between 3,000 and 4,000 Europeans who have gone. In the U.K., we're saying that there are 600 plus. Some people are saying, though I am not, that there are 1,000 people. The reality is that all of the figures that are being used are baseline figures and they're the minimum figures. The reality is we don't actually know how many individuals have gone out there, but there are more than the numbers being talked about. That's number one.

Number two is that there seems to be a particular alignment between the political ideology that is Islamism and Islam, which are different, just as socialism is different from being social. Being social has to do with the way people interact, while socialism is an ideology that is left of centre. Islam is a religion that I and nearly two billion people around the world choose to practise in different ways. Islamism is a political ideology that wishes to enforce a particular version, their version, of sharia law on the rest of the world.

One of the main idealogues of this particular ideology was somebody called Sayyid Qutb. He basically took far right ideologies from Europe and then overpinned them. So instead of doing these things for the states or for individuals, do them for God. He brought in the God factor to ideologies that we have fought world wars against and the Cold War against.

The problem is that there are many organizations and individuals that can feel empathy toward some of these values. We need to ensure that this particular ideology is exposed. Perhaps you will forgive and pardon my candidness, but if there were somebody outside in the street right now dressed in a particular Nazi uniform doing a salute, we would all know how to react. The problem is that the majority of mainstream society still doesn't know how to react to the Fascist ideology that is Islamism, mistaking it for a faith that is Islam. We and everybody else have to take partial blame for that because we have been afraid to call it out for what it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm sorry, your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Cullen first, please.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have just a couple of questions.

Mr. Rafiq, I'm reminded of the Oklahoma City bombings that were mentioned earlier and the radicalized Christian ideology that was used to justify some of the attacks on innocent people. There's a commonality and a line between some of the things we're talking about here: the extremism of groups and the use of religion broadly to justify terrorist activities. I'm also thinking back. I worked in Sierra Leone for a while on the recruitment of very young people into incredibly violent acts—eight-, nine-, and ten-year-olds. There was no Islamization over that. It was a grab for power, and the sale of diamonds into the North American market enabled it. It was no different from the sale of oil now by ISIS.

So there are these commonalities and trends. We've seen some of this movie before, perhaps not on YouTube and not with the extremism that ISIS propagates and uses to drag various groups into their conflict, but there's a pattern. Organized crime recruits young gang members from suburban Toronto where I grew up—eight-, nine-, and ten-year-olds—and radicalizes them. We didn't call it radicalization, though, did we?

[Garry W.G. Clement]

No, we did not.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

How was that different from what we're seeing today, Mr. Clement?

[Garry W.G. Clement]

Well, I'd suggest that you've brought a valid point to the table. The family entity, as you well know, in most cases has broken down, and they're looking for that family entity, and that becomes a gang. In this case, I agree with our colleague from the U.K., it is within that sphere. That's what we're looking at. But it goes far beyond what these gangs have ever done.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So it's taking a model that's been used in west Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Far East. It's been used in gangs and urban centres in North America and drug trades. There are a couple of consistent factors. One is the causal identity and the second one is money. There's a great deal of money, in small amounts, through drug trades and prostitution, and all those types of things.

Are there any lessons to be learned, since this is maybe at a scale or at a level of pervasiveness and violence that we haven't seen. I worked in Sierra Leone. It's very difficult for me at a personal level to say this is something unbelievably new, because the violence I witnessed was incomprehensible. Yet we bought diamonds for many years from these places. It was very difficult to get western countries to realize that through our banking, our sales, and our purchases, we were contributing somehow.

Mr. Rafiq, is anything I said outside the limits of trying to understand this issue? How do we stop it?

I'll stop there and pass it to my colleague, Mr. Labelle.

[Haras Rafiq]

No, you've correctly recognized the trends and patterns. You're right that this is not something new.

One of the main differences for us now, living in the U.K., Canada, and the west, is that this has a direct impact and effect on us. That's probably one of the main reasons we are having these conversations. This is now on our doorstep. These are our youngsters. These are our citizens, and these are our people who are now directly involved in terrorist activities against us.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

In yesterday's budget, $432 million was allocated to combat terrorism, but not a single cent was put towards non-police-based intervention.

I'm going to come back to you, Mr. Rafiq. I think we're going down the wrong path. Recently, in Montreal, seven young people left for Syria. These were young people who were seeing self-proclaimed imams.

Shouldn't we work with moderate Muslim communities to steer these young people towards various programs? Shouldn't we put money towards employment integration projects and positive solutions for these types of young people?

[Haras Rafiq]

Based on what you've just told me, you have made one of the biggest mistakes that we've made over the last five years. Our U.K. government did not focus on non-violent extremism for the last five years. I believe that is one of the main reasons we are faced with the problems we're faced with. If we focus purely on the sharp end, the end at which they've become violent or are supporting violence or sympathizing with violence, all we're doing is allowing that part to become bigger and bigger and bigger. By not focusing on the other part, we're allowing that to get smaller and smaller.

You asked if we should work with moderate Muslims. We should. But more than that, moderate Muslims and non-Muslims should work together on this issue, because by making it a purely Muslim issue, we will create more polarization. Let's make it an issue for the whole of society. There are many things that moderate Muslims can do and that only they can do, but there are many things that society as a whole can do together.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

As chair, I'm going to take the next round.

I have a number of questions. I'll try to focus on a couple of areas, first of all on FINTRAC and then on the RCMP.

I have to say that after the first two meetings we had with departments, with FINTRAC, and with the RCMP, I wondered why we were doing this study since everything was operating well. Since then every single witness, regardless of their perspective, has clearly said to the committee that things are not fine and that we need to do a lot of work in an awful lot of areas.

First of all, with respect to FINTRAC, Ms. Vonn, you said, “There is no dedicated review body that can tell us whether FINTRAC is operating properly, successfully, and lawfully.” You've clearly stated your position in terms of what review is necessary.

Perhaps I'll put the question then to Mr. Clement and to Mr. McGuire.

What's your perspective in terms of whether Parliament can tell whether FINTRAC is operating properly, successfully, and legally?

Mr. McGuire.

[Matthew McGuire]

There is a mandated five-year review by the Senate. The result of the last report they put out was that we don't know. There wasn't sufficient information provided by FINTRAC or any of the bodies surrounding it to know whether what they were doing was effective.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So how do we get to know whether what they are doing is effective?

[Matthew McGuire]

I agree that greater civilian oversight would be required.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Clement.

[Garry W.G. Clement]

We have to understand that when FINTRAC started they were a fledgling organization with very limited knowledge. The calibre of their disclosures has gone up. However, when we weigh their success—and I have said this over and over again—I believe we built a Rolls-Royce. We need an engine to run it. The engine is enforcement and prosecution. Should our value or how we weigh whether we're successful in this country not be measured by prosecutions, or do we weigh that FINTRAC put out 1,000 disclosures and nobody looked at them? That, to me, seems to be a big disconnect.

So I agree that it needs oversight, but really from a government perspective, we need to change the value proposition and how we're going to measure success. As I said, I'm sure that when FATF reviews us in November, enforcement is going to be hammered again.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let me move there, then, because with respect to the RCMP, you talked about developing expertise, skills-based pay, and a national police force. My understanding is that you would agree with the previous witness to the committee who said that the government should look at actually moving it away from doing community-based or provincial policing to simply being a national police force with expertise in areas like white collar crime. Is that correct?

[Garry W.G. Clement]

That is correct.

We are dealing with a complex world today, with cybercrime and terrorism. It can't be captured in the way we've done it. I really have to agree with Jeffrey Robinson, who said we are using an 18th century philosophy to fight 21st century crimes.

I don't say this lightly. I'm very proud to have been a member of the force. I'd do my career over in a heartbeat. But the reality today, and I have looked at this from the outside now for seven years, is that, as an organization, the RCMP can't continue being all things to all people, because something is going to fall off the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Once someone develops expertise in the area you are in, they often get moved out to another area, to Alberta, for instance, to serve in a community where they do work that is completely different from the type of work they were doing previously.

[Garry W.G. Clement]

Right. I can give you one example. There was an individual I spent close to $25,000 on, allowing him to go to foreign countries to train, to build up expertise so he'd be qualified in a court of law. The minute he did the first case, in which he was qualified as an expert, he was transferred to be a detachment commander.

As I said in my paper, if any of you unfortunately had to have a brain operation because of a tumour, would you go to a general practitioner?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Now my time is running out. I want to follow up on one further thing.

You talked about looking at public-private partnerships. Hearing that in this area may seem odd to some people. Can you expand on that briefly here?