Evidence of meeting #58 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was security.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Terry Jamieson  Vice-President, Technical Support Branch, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Marie-France Dagenais  Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport
Raoul Awad  Director General, Directorate of Security and Safeguards, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
John Davies  Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Commissioner James Malizia  Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Thank you.

Ms. Boivin, during your presentation of the motion I missed something. It might have been in the translation, I'm not certain, but I'm confused about the motivation for this. You mentioned an article and a court case. I'm sorry, but I'm just not familiar with it.

I'm intrigued by your motion, frankly. I think Parliament, and certainly this committee, has an obligation to ensure that the legislation that goes through Parliament is charter-proof, but I'm perplexed about what you hope this study would accomplish. This is a legislative committee, and the legislation exists. Is it your suggestion that the legislation's not being followed?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

We don't have cross-debate.

Madame Boivin is next on the speaker's list so I'm sure she can answer your question.

Do you have any more comments on the motion?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

No.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Okay.

Madame Boivin.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

That's an excellent question.

The first time I wondered about this was over the holidays. It may not have been news in your neck of the woods, but I'm from the national capital region, so it caught my attention when the media here reported on the case, even though I was out of town at the time. As the justice critic, anytime anyone casts doubt on the justice system, I take notice, regardless of the party it's coming from.

Department of Justice employee Edgar Schmidt filed a claim against the Attorney General of Canada, and the case is now before the Federal Court. I won't read you his entire claim, because I don't think that's what matters. I don't want to get into a debate over who is right and who is wrong. The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General of Canada has been taken to court over a claim that the government is not properly honouring its legal obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. The Conservatives are not the source of the problem. I understand what Mr. Cotler was saying earlier, but the claim of the individual in question indicates that this situation dates as far back as 1993. The department's position has always been that even a 5% likelihood of success is sufficient to discharge the government of its obligation.

People may not be very familiar with that obligation. I included it in my motion because I felt it was important. We all know the situation. The opposition has often criticized the government for using private member's bills to get around the obligation. That has always been my sense, to a certain extent, but now, it's worse. In our democracy, the cornerstone of our system has to be the rule of law; otherwise total chaos and anarchy will take hold, and I don't think anyone wants that.

There is no problem if we assume that the exercise is being done correctly when government bills are passed by the House and referred to committees for study. And I am talking not only about justice-related bills, but about all bills. This test is mandatory in every single case.

Mr. Cotler pointed out, and rightly so, that the system was designed that way to benefit Canadians, at the end of the day. They are told that a test was done and that the legislation is deemed to be reasonable and to comply with the charter and constitutional powers. Then bills move along in their usual fashion and receive more in-depth consideration.

The current case, however, suggests something quite different. As a lawmaker, I find that very troubling. Anytime I speak with the minister, regardless of the committee, I'll think that the people at the department might not have done their job on this or that. It's troubling because it suggests a disregard for compliance with the charter. Our job is to question witnesses about the substance of bills. As part of our detailed study, we will have to question whether a provision we wish to amend in Bill S-9 was analysed for charter compliance.

I will just finish by saying I don't think this motion is dangerous for the government. It is in everyone's interest to make sure the rules are being followed properly. That was the idea in all this.

The story came out over the holidays, in December or January. I thought I would put the question to the minister and, depending on his answer, determine whether I needed to take things further. I would figure out if I needed to ask the committee to study the issue, hear from department officials, basically look into the problem identified in the Schmidt case. The courts will deal with that specific case, but perhaps the committee could examine the intellectual process followed to assure the minister that everything complies with subsection 4.1(1) of the Department of Justice Act and that when—

he signs off on a law that it is all right. And if it's not, they can also say “notwithstanding the charter” because we want this implemented, and there's nothing wrong with that.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you.

We have about three minutes before 4:30 p.m. I'd like to get back to the regular agenda, unless this isn't going to take too much longer. We have one more speaker that I know of.

Mr. Rathgeber, you're up again.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Boivin, thank you for that explanation. I am very sympathetic to your motion and to your desire to make sure the legislation is charter-proof.

I am concerned, since there is litigation before the Federal Court, that this study would be in contravention of the sub judice convention, so I'm not inclined to support it.

However, if I may, I'll make a suggestion. Would you be prepared to table this on Thursday? This committee should think about this. This is an important motion.

4:25 p.m.

A voice

Was that a motion to table?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

That wasn't a motion to table. Somebody needs to move a motion.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

I'm suggesting that to the mover.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Wednesday? You said Thursday.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Sorry, yes, Wednesday.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

It would be Wednesday.

That's why I gave notice last Wednesday, thinking it would permit people.... But I can understand that not knowing necessarily all the facts.... I find that this is such a serious motion. It's not a game. I think it's our obligation. So, no problem—

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Here's your choice, Madame Boivin. We can take the vote or you can move to table.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

But tabling, meaning that we come back on Wednesday.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Table it with a date.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Table it until Wednesday.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC

Table until Wednesday, then. I have no problem. If it's serious to consider.... I think it's too serious anyway. Otherwise, I know what's going to happen. I'm giving myself a chance.

4:25 p.m.

A voice

That's better.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

The tabling motion is non-debatable. I'll go to the vote on that.

(Motion agreed to)

It's tabled.

We will suspend for about 30 seconds while we get our next guests in order.

I call this meeting back to order.

I want to welcome our guests, Mr. Davies, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Mr. Malizia and Mr. Tremblay, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I know you have opening statements. We'll start with you, Mr. Davies.

4:30 p.m.

John Davies Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Thank you.

My name is John Davies. I'm the director general, national security policy, at Public Safety Canada. I'm joined today by my colleague Emmanuelle Deault-Bonin, who is the senior analyst and manager in my group, and an expert in counter-proliferation policy.

I am pleased to be here today to speak with you about Bill S-9 and to explain how the bill, if passed, will complement the Government of Canada's counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation efforts.

Nuclear terrorism is a significant threat to Canada and to global security, and it is one that continues to evolve. The Government of Canada takes seriously its responsibility to mitigate this threat. Two of my minister's key responsibilities are to exercise national leadership on matters of public safety and to coordinate activities of Canada's federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

With regard to counter-proliferation, this means that Public Safety Canada works with more than a dozen federal departments and agencies to identify proliferation-related threats, to uphold Canadian laws and regulations related to proliferation, including sanctions against countries we know have nuclear aspirations, and to ensure that our policy and legal frameworks for counter-proliferation remain current and effective.

You've heard today from officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. With me at the table are representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. These two agencies are examples of the breadth of expertise brought to bear in Canada's counter-proliferation efforts. Activities range from intelligence gathering to controlling the export of dual-use goods to raising awareness of proliferation risks in the private sector and academic world to enforcing sanctions against foreign states.

Bill S-9 will strengthen Canada's counter-proliferation framework by creating four new Criminal Code offences related to nuclear terrorism, such as the possession or export of nuclear or radioactive materials and devices.

Internationally, Canada is also a committed partner. For example, the Prime Minister announced at the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit a funding commitment of $365 million over five years for the global partnership program. Among other things, this program aims to help secure nuclear facilities to prevent nuclear materials from being used for illicit purposes around the world.

Further, the government promotes cooperation among its international partners through its diplomacy and advocacy work to implement and strengthen multilateral initiatives and international legal instruments such as the two treaties that Bill S-9 would allow Canada to ratify. This bill is an indication of Canada's commitment to engaging in international efforts to combat proliferation.

I would like to conclude by saying that should Bill S-9 be adopted, it will further improve our domestic framework to counter nuclear terrorism and signal to our international partners the importance Canada places on having a robust regime to address threats to global security.

Thank you to the committee. I would be happy to answer any questions.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you very much.

Will there be any opening statements from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

4:35 p.m.

Assistant Commissioner James Malizia Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting us here today to provide some law enforcement context about Bill S-9.

l have with me today Chief Superintendent Larry Tremblay, director general of federal policing, criminal operations.

Canada's counterterrorism strategy asserts, as one of its six fundamental principles, that terrorism is a crime that will be prosecuted. The deny-and-detect elements of the strategy aim to deny terrorists the means and opportunities to carry out their activities. A key objective in this strategy is to disrupt the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, would strengthen law enforcement's ability to meet this important objective by specifying that actions associated with making, possessing, using, transferring, exporting, importing, altering, or disposing of nuclear and radioactive material with intent to cause death, serious bodily harm, or substantial damage to property or the environment will be deemed a serious crime with severe penalties.

Bill S-9 classifies criminal actions, for example, committing an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining radioactive material, as terrorist acts. Bill S-9 raises the public consciousness about the seriousness of nuclear-related terrorist activities, and highlights the risks posed by people, organizations, and state actors engaging in these actions.

Another key aspect of this bill for law enforcement is that clause 3 criminalizes these activities if they occur outside Canada. Bill S-9 is thereby consistent with all other terrorist-related offences listed in the Criminal Code.

Nuclear terrorism is a threat to international security with the potential to cause significant loss of life, as well as substantial environmental and property damage.

Based on reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, in the past two decades there have been approximately 20 cases of weapons-grade material on the black market. It is reported that illicit procurement networks are trafficking highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

The investigative techniques that come into play when pursuing cases involving acts of nuclear terrorism are not significantly different from other complex terrorist investigations. Countering nuclear terrorism requires coordinated government action, including diplomacy and international cooperation, border controls, physical and information security, and law enforcement.

A primary objective of law enforcement would be to prevent nuclear radiological material from falling into the hands of terrorists. It would be critical to disrupt a terrorist plot at the earliest opportunity.

Law enforcement, the intelligence community, and border officials often work hand in hand to uncover plots. These actors are vital in uncovering the illicit movement of controlled goods and detecting and tracking illegal shipments. Intelligence and forensics also play a critical role in helping to prevent nuclear terrorism.

Law enforcement is critical to the government's response in countering nuclear terrorism, and therefore requires the appropriate authorities to execute its mission effectively. Bill S-9 will assist us when we investigate activities associated with nuclear and radioactive material.

The RCMP has developed close partnerships with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, as well as with the owners and operators of Canada's nuclear power plants. The key to denying terrorists the capabilities to engage in nuclear terrorism is effective cooperation among the full range of security and intelligence partners, both domestic and international.

The Yadegari investigation and prosecution, while not a nuclear terrorism case, exemplifies how government agencies can and should work together to counter proliferation. Mahmoud Yadegari was charged for attempting to export pressure transducers from the United States to the United Arab Emirates through Canada. The investigation determined that the pressure transducers, which are crucial components used in uranium enrichment, were ultimately destined for Iran.

Yadegari was charged with 10 offences under various statutes, including the Customs Act, the United Nations Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, and the Criminal Code for false documents.

Bill S-9 would criminalize proliferation in situations where an indictable offence is committed with intent to obtain nuclear and/or radioactive material, or to obtain access to a nuclear facility.

Global and domestic cooperation, sharing of intelligence and industrial security measures are critically important in achieving the goal of denying, detecting and deterring the trafficking of nuclear and radiological material.

Bill S-9 would contribute to law enforcement's counterterrorism efforts by specifying certain activities associated with nuclear and radiological material as serious crimes and enhancing the authorities available to police.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace

Thank you, sir.

Our first questioner is Mr. Marston from the New Democratic Party.

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses. I certainly appreciate your being here today.

You're probably aware that in one of the newspapers today there's an article about liquid bomb-grade uranium.

First, just so we don't get people overly concerned, but maybe they should be somewhat concerned, would this be weapons-grade material?