Public Safety Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

[Insp Stephen Irwin, Inspector, Intelligence Division, Toronto Police Service]

Thank you very much for inviting me to come and address the members of this committee.

I come as a Toronto police officer. I have the unique circumstance of being seconded to the RCMP; I work in their national security program. My background is such that I have worked in the area of terrorism from a municipal perspective since 1995, when we first created a subsection in our intelligence unit that addressed the issues.

I don't have a lot to add to what Assistant Commissioner Malizia has said. I think he certainly addressed it very, very well—reinstating or bringing back these sections of the Criminal Code and the value to law enforcement. I've attended today in the hope of addressing questions that deal with how it would impact municipal policing, and in Toronto specifically, as a Toronto police officer, not in my secondment to the RCMP.

The position of the Toronto Police is that sections of the code will be very useful in our efforts to work with the RCMP in an ongoing relationship and partnership in dealing with national security and the threat of terrorism, both against and towards Canada as well as those who are here, and what we're seeing with the radicalization of those who are looking to go elsewhere to commit terrorist activities or involve themselves with terrorism in other parts of the world.

Again, I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, sir.

We'll move into the first round of questioning, and we'll go to Ms. Bergen, please, for seven minutes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for being here.

I want to begin with either one of you. Inspector Irwin, you spoke just briefly about the radicalization of youth. Can you talk a little bit about how that has changed? You said you began doing this in 1995. Is that correct?

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

That's correct.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Can you talk about how it has changed between 1995 and 2007, and then even between 2007 and 2012, and how that is even more of a threat?

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

Well, certainly I can go back to when I first came to intelligence, the Toronto police intelligence unit, in 1993, which was when our hate crime unit was established. The issue of that day was a domestic concern, a national one: white supremacy. A group in this country was very involved with its ideological beliefs, and it was growing within a very short period of time. By 1995, it had peaked and was falling off.

Up until 2001, as we look at terrorism and why Toronto put an anti-terrorist section in place, it was because of the first attacks on the World Trade Center. One of my former superiors recognized that that was an issue that we would have to deal with. We worked very hard differentiating between criminal extremism and terrorism. The events of September 11, 2001, certainly changed. I believe the shock that we all experienced from that event in North America ultimately impacted on us, looking in North America to preserve our own safety. Our concern at that time was the threat towards us.

As we're now 11 years beyond, we're seeing—and certainly the trends are such—that there are a number of individuals and communities that are affected in Canada, that have members who are with terrorist entities or terrorist groups going elsewhere to join in conflicts in other parts of the world. That is not to say that we are not aware of those who are here and a threat to us. They do not get the same publicity and there are not a lot of statistics about them. Certainly we do have incidents where we are seeing, in my experience, an increase in those who are targeting and looking at where Canada has a presence in other parts of the world, our political position, and looking to harm us, and those who are going elsewhere to support other terrorist groups.

It is growing. There are certainly greater incidents. We are seeing more extremist behaviours and activities. As we see them and identify them to be an issue of national security, they are passed to the RCMP for criminal investigation, when a criminal threshold is met, or information is passed to CSIS, as it is an intelligence issue.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I understand you testified before the Senate committee in May of this year. At that time you expressed that you were disappointed when these sections, which we are now looking to reinstate, were lost. Can you talk about why they are important? I think what we need to hear is why it is important that they are reinstated now. I think it's important that we hear that.

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

I have given much thought to circumstances that we are seeing and we are wrestling with in relation to Canadians who are being radicalized, who are perhaps being lured to other parts of the world to support conflicts and other terrorist acts. There are a number of people who are, I think, led astray.

I think certainly by having this legislation back in place...with the recognizance, it provides with an opportunity to perhaps prevent people from engaging, from going elsewhere.

There are a number of scenarios that I could offer as examples. Say we were to learn that a group of young people were leaving Canada—perhaps the information comes from intelligence, from an international partner. They're a group of young people who are getting on a plane to go for what they believe is education. But we now know or learn, on relatively short notice, I will say, that there is an issue with where they are going and with what in fact will happen once they arrive in another part of the world, where they will be radicalized and then perhaps forced into combat or to join a group, Certainly, the recognizance and the ability to arrest for that purpose would be very helpful.

So they might not know exactly what the end result is, but we may know, and certainly it would be more in the RCMP realm and through the RCMP that they would learn about it through international partners. But certainly it provides a very useful tool.

There are other individuals for whom, if they return to Canada having been associated or involved with terrorist groups—or if information comes to us that they are closely associated—there might not be sufficient evidence to prosecute them for criminal offences here because of the parts of the world they're coming from. Certainly, there may be sufficient information that we would want to take them before a court and have conditions put on them to ensure they are not a threat to the public safety in Canada.

A part of what I would look for is conditions that would also impose, perhaps, counselling or some other help that is court-ordered, and ultimately the individuals will perhaps move further away from their extremist belief or the terrorist aspect of their belief.

The other part that I believe—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, please.

[Insp Stephen Irwin]

Okay, sorry.

The other part that I believe is very important with these sections is again the prevention, the threat of being held accountable for behaviour here. There are conditions put on people who have crossed the line and come into the criminal realm. It would also be very beneficial as a deterrent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to Mr. Scott, please, for seven minutes.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I would like to continue with that discussion with respect to folks leaving the country. We do know, from what you said and from other testimony, about a certain trend for youth to leave for terroristic purposes. At least, that's the fear.

I'm just wondering what kind of evidence is going to be needed to prove the whole “intent or attempt to leave the country” crime. You immediately gave as an example that we might have intelligence. I want to present to you the following problem. It's been a problem throughout, say, the last couple of decades of history—Air India being one example. When sources of information come from the intelligence side, it all gets very messy in court. Law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies don't like to see certain kinds of intelligence sources, etc., evidence that reveals sources, appearing in court.

We have a recent case, Harkat, but there are other reasons to think it's even dodgier that intelligence sources might necessarily be kept secret in court proceedings.

All that leads to a dynamic whereby if intelligence is one of the main pieces of evidence for knowing that people intend to leave the country for a certain purpose, what are the chances that when you stop somebody and arrest them there is actually going to be a prosecution? If there is not going to be a prosecution, isn't the system a form of prevention that's a disruptive system? It's not really about prosecution.

Can you convince me that the kind of evidence that will be available can and will lead to prosecutions?

[A/Commr James Malizia]

Sir, to answer your question, there are certainly different ways in which we collect information. On an ongoing investigation, if we do have a wiretap authorization and we do intercept through technical means a conversation involving an individual, yes, there is information that comes from security intelligence forces, but there is information that comes from police investigations as well. Also, when we do receive information, we also look to validate through other types of information. That would be one instance where on an ongoing investigation we would be able to utilize our own information to be able to firm it up.

How would that bring a case towards court? Every case will be unique in itself. It will depend on the totality of the circumstances. If anything, it's to have a tool that would allow us to prevent a terrorist act and to allow the person to be represented by a lawyer, to be brought before a judge, to have conditions placed and all of that, after the Attorney General's consent, of course, has been received.

There are a lot of oversight and safety mechanisms in place to ensure that the information is valid and credible, not only from our perspective, but from the perspective of the Attorney General and the judge, and then going forward.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I understand. You are assuming that the normal system will be able to operate and prosecution can be the end goal.

You mentioned conditions. I'm just wondering, is there any kind of a blurring here of the arrest for the crime of attempting or intending to leave the country, prosecuting for that, and securing recognizance with conditions for somebody who you believe is leaving the country for that purpose? Is the intent to use the recognizance provisions as a way to control their exit? The U.K. has control orders. You actually take passports away from people, etc. Is there some jibing of leaving the offence provisions and the recognisance with conditions provisions that you see as crucial to this piece?

[A/Commr James Malizia]

The recognizance with conditions, as you know, would only be utilized in the rarest of cases, when there is an imminent threat to public safety. If we were to receive information that there was an imminent threat to public safety—

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Of Canadians, or could it be abroad?

[A/Commr James Malizia]

In this case here, it would be.... Is your question, would the threat be from abroad?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No. The whole point is if the real concern is that somebody is going to leave the country to commit a terrorist offence, would that fall within your understanding of where recognizance with conditions could be applied?

[A/Commr James Malizia]

I think recognizance could be applied to a situation like that if someone was attempting to leave the country to commit a terrorist act. Yes, I could see it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I have one minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have two minutes.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Minister Nicholson, before the Senate, talked about both of these new reinvigorated provisions that have lapsed, investigative hearings and recognizance conditions, as potential sources of evidence to discern the intent of a person to leave the country. There was a serious focus of attention in the Senate about how you are going to prove this. Both of you will be at the operational end, or at least people down the system from you will be, of asking for investigative hearings or suggesting they're needed. The clear implication...I can't imagine that the minister is talking about using this as a way to be disruptive. He must be thinking about calling in people who have information about somebody else who may be leaving or is possibly suspected of leaving the country, gathering evidence to that, and then using that evidence as the way to prove they have the intent. It brings up a lot of concerns about what circle of people you would be bringing into an investigative hearing to search for that kind of evidence—family, community, neighbour.

I'm just wondering if you could address those comments, and the danger, especially since you are emphasizing that these shouldn't be used lightly.

[A/Commr James Malizia]

You bring up a good point, sir.

As you know, there is no mechanism right now to compel the attendance of a witness with respect to a terrorism investigation. Of course, the investigative hearing could be utilized to compel a witness with respect to a terrorist act about to be committed.

But it does come down to a strategic decision at the time of the investigation, so we would have to assess, first of all.... Let's say that it was not an imminent threat, but there was information to be gleaned with respect to the investigative hearing, or there was information to be gleaned from a witness regarding either a past terrorist attack or one that's about to occur. We would have to assess whether taking that approach would put the investigation at risk.

Many factors have to be taken into account, of course. If we have sources involved and if there are police agents and wiretaps, we have to take into account the safety of those people. There are many factors that come into play. So we would look on a case-by-case basis at whether we would go towards an investigative hearing for a witness or for a person of interest at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Norlock, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses appearing today.

Some of my first questions will be short, but feel free to expand on them if you see the need.

I notice, by your uniform, that you have approximately 30 years' service with the Toronto Police, so I suspect very strongly that you've seen some changes there. My questions are going to be around the ethnicity of the Toronto Police Service, as we move to some of the questions that have been asked of other witnesses concerning not only this bill but some of the other legislation the government has brought down.

I gather that the Toronto Police Service has an outreach program to the very varied ethnic community in Toronto, and that part of that outreach includes people of the Muslim faith.