Public Safety Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

There is actually one individual from Toronto—he was leaving and was apprehended at the Toronto airport—who is before the courts as we speak. Assistant Commissioner Malizia has arrived just recently in this program and might not be familiar with the case. It was initiated by the Toronto Police and turned over to the RCMP, and the individual is before the courts.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But are you saying that you were able to achieve the same goal without the new provision?

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

He's before the courts. It has not gone through successfully in a prosecution, but certainly he is charged with attempting....

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

So you're saying that rather than their subsiding—because there's been talk that al-Qaeda is not what it used to be, that it's really more disparate now, and so on—your experience and knowledge tells you that in fact there are more and more young people who are pursuing the terrorist option, who want to enlist in this kind of activity?

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

I would use the term “increasing”. An increasing number are coming to our attention.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Assistant Commissioner Malizia, you mentioned that in terms of the two new provisions that we're reinstating, the one on investigative hearings and recognizance with provisions, there are more safeguards now than when these were first brought in a few years back. Did I understand you to have said in your initial remarks that our democratic system has evolved new safeguards to better ensure that these aren't abused? Is that true?

[A/Commr James Malizia]

Yes, that there's adequate—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Could you elaborate on that?

[A/Commr James Malizia]

In regard to the number of safeguards that are in place, if we start at the most basic level, of course, we would require Attorney General consent before proceeding. There would be a judicial authorization required. Internally, within the RCMP, we did have a policy—which we would need to bring up to date—that required the investigator to receive internal approvals and support before going to the Attorney General. So there are safeguards in place to ensure that the provisions are being utilized appropriately.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Originally, way back when, when they were first introduced, one didn't need the consent of the Attorney General?

[A/Commr James Malizia]

No, I was referring to internal RCMP policy. There was, I believe, one area where we did not have in our internal policy...specifically with respect to some of the requirements of one of the provisions. So, of course, should these provisions be approved, we would need to update them accordingly.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Some people from time to time raise the possibility that these provisions will be used when you're not dealing with an imminent terrorist threat, when you're dealing with maybe a situation of public disturbance or a riot, that somehow they could be used in those circumstances where it's technically not terrorism, as we would understand it, but a kind of civil disruption.

Have you heard this argument? I've read it. I don't know how credible it is.

[A/Commr James Malizia]

Certainly any offence that would be brought forward under these provisions would need to meet the test of section 83, so the actual definition of what a terrorism offence is.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Right. I see.

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

I think the second part of that is also the Attorney General's consent. Certainly having dealt with the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code, which require Attorney General consent, they are the gatekeepers of what that threshold is. Without their consent we could not go forward.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Very interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

That's fine, I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

We'll now move back to Mr. Garrison, please, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Assistant Commissioner Malizia and Inspector Irwin for being here today.

I want to go back to the point about the cases before the Toronto courts, without going into the case. I think that's a very important case, and it's something I intended to raise. To me, what it seemed to indicate was that the existing powers are sufficient to get a case in court. So whether or not that case succeeds is about the merits of that case and not something we would discuss today. But there doesn't seem to have been a problem in terms of a lack of legal capacity to get that case into court. Would that be correct?

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

I think what I would say is that the threshold to lay a charge has been met and it has yet to be tried. I think that will be a good indicator of whether we were stretching...and certainly if it meets the threshold according to the courts, who will rule on that. Certainly this legislation and the reimplementation of these sections would make it clearer what a criminal threshold is and that it certainly would allow for enforcement.

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

But the case is definitely there, and it's up to law enforcement authorities to satisfy the burden of proof at this point. It was not that there was a legal obstacle to actually doing this, as far as I understand it. Without going into details of the case, the authority to bring the charge has not been challenged.

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

No, and it's the type of investigation and what was required for the evidence to be gathered to meet that threshold, and that's the part we can't speak of.

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

That's right. I know I'm putting you in a somewhat difficult spot there.

I guess it just raises that question in my mind as to whether even the exit provisions, which are the new provisions in this bill, are actually necessary.

Normally, if you want to stop someone from leaving the country for anything that is already illegal, you simply issue a warrant at that point for their arrest. Right?

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

They would need to have committed an offence in order to get a warrant.