Public Safety Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 63 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on Monday, December 3, 2012. This afternoon our committee is continuing our study of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service we have Jeff Yaworski, the assistant director of operations. As well, we have Monik Beauregard, director of the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre. Welcome, and welcome back.

We apologize for starting this meeting half an hour late because of votes that were held in the House. My intent, if it's possible for you folks to stay 15 minutes longer than originally requested, is to run two sessions of 45 minutes. First, it will be you folks for 45 minutes. Then it will be the Canadian Bar Association and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group for 45 minutes. If that's all right with the committee, we will proceed.

We invite you to give your opening statements, and then we will move into questions from our committee members.

Mr. Yaworski.

[Jeff Yaworski, Assistant Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good afternoon. I am pleased to be here as part of the committee's discussion on matters related to Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Last week, the CSIS deputy director of operations, Mr. Michel Coulombe, gave comprehensive opening remarks to this committee on the subject. Given that they are on record and still valid, I will keep my opening remarks very brief.

As Mr. Coulombe stated before the committee, the service does not have a law enforcement mandate, so we would not directly have recourse to the provisions envisioned by this bill. That said, as a member of the broader national security community, we are certainly supportive of any additional tools that will help our law enforcement partners better confront terrorism. When Mr. Coulombe was here last week, he provided an overview of the current threat environment that Bill S-7 seeks to address. Mr. Chair, I would like to briefly summarize his main points for the committee.

The greatest threat to Canada and Canadian interests continues to be terrorism, particularly that emanating from Sunni Islamist extremism. While a large and diverse global movement, it is best represented globally by al Qaeda and its affiliate organizations. Recent events in North Africa and the Middle East have unfortunately provided new opportunities for these groups.

With respect to domestic threats to Canada, CSIS continues to investigate hundreds of persons involved in terrorism-related activity that threatens Canada and our allies, including Canadians who travel overseas to conflict zones, such as Somalia, the Afghanistan-Pakistan tribal areas, Syria, and Yemen, in order to participate in terrorist activities. That these individuals may return to Canada further radicalized and with combat training and experience, highlights the increasing nexus between the domestic and international threat environments.

During his opening remarks, Mr. Coulombe shared with this committee some conclusions from a recent CSIS study on radicalization in Canada. Of significance, the study did not uncover a predictable or linear pattern for radicalization. It did, however, identify common drivers of radicalization, including profound feelings of injustice toward western governments, societies, and ways of life, as well as a sense that the Muslim world is under attack and requires defending through the use of violent jihad.

Mr. Chair, I will end my statement here, and would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Yaworski.

We will now move to Mrs. Beauregard.

[Monik Beauregard, Director, Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am pleased to be invited back to appear before this committee to continue the discussions on matters related to Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, and to have another opportunity to talk about the role and mandate of the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, or as we call it, ITAC.

Mr. Chair, my opening remarks from the November 21 hearing of this committee are a matter of record. However, I would like to underline some points that I think are worth mentioning again.

ITAC was created in the wake of the events of 9/11 as an organization that would bridge some of the institutional gaps in the Government of Canada following a realization about the need for greater cooperation and information sharing. This sentiment was echoed in the United States, as mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.

Like CSIS, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre—or ITAC—is not a law enforcement organization. I want to clarify that ITAC has no independent ability to collect intelligence. Unlike CSIS, we have no intelligence officers in the field.

The primary objective of ITAC is rather to provide comprehensive and timely terrorist threat assessments to all federal departments and organizations and to all other levels of government with security responsibilities.

Our workforce is made up of analysts seconded from across government, thereby representing a wide variety of skill sets and knowledge bases.

As such, ITAC threat assessments use intelligence and information from various sources and employ various methods. Turning to the threats themselves, I would simply reiterate that the most serious terrorist threat to Canada remains that of violent Islamist extremism. Specifically, al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to represent the greatest threat from this perspective. That said, it should be noted that violent extremist elements can be found in a multiplicity of ideologies, religions, or groups.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for your testimony, both of you. We'll now move in to the first round of questioning. We'll welcome Ms. Kerry-Lynne Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for being here.

Mr. Yaworski, in listening to your comments, you stated that you believe the greatest threat to Canada and Canadian interests continues to be terrorism, particularly that emanating from Islamist extremism. I also noted that you said it is best represented globally by al Qaeda and its affiliate organizations. You mentioned recent events in North Africa and the Middle East that have provided new opportunities to these groups. Is it necessary to reinvigorate the provisions we're dealing with, and if so, why? Do you agree with me at the outset that this is a continuing and present threat?

[Jeff Yaworski]

It is indeed a continuing and present threat. Al Qaeda has been around for a while now. Their leadership has suffered some losses, but the message that al Qaeda delivers resonates increasingly in the west, in Canada in particular.

We've seen an increase in individuals who have expressed an interest in al Qaeda. Some have followed through by travelling to parts of the Middle East to participate in what they describe as jihad, or war against the west, against the non-believers. The number of individuals who have travelled to participate in jihad has certainly increased. I think the legislation aims to provide law enforcement with an opportunity to engage those individuals before they get a chance to arrive at their destination.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I would like to explore that with you a bit more. Is CSIS aware of any Canadians who have travelled, or attempted to travel, from Canada to other countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia to join terrorist organizations or engage in terrorist activities?

[Jeff Yaworski]

We're aware of at least 45 instances, possibly as many as 60, where individuals from Canada have travelled to the countries you've identified to participate in training or in terrorist acts.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Would you say that emanates from activities here in Canada that attempt to radicalize certain people to these purposes?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I'd suggest the numbers are on the rise for exactly the reasons you've articulated. The opportunities for radicalization have been many. Some have arisen from charismatic leaders who may work with various groups within Canada, but even more opportunities have come through technological advancements. The Internet has proven to be a very valuable tool in recruiting and radicalizing individuals in Canada and elsewhere around the world. I would suggest there is definitely a link between developments in technology, the Internet in particular, and the increased rise in Canadians travelling to participate in these activities.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you're saying this participation is largely Canadian to Canadian, but may also involve Canadians dialoguing with radicals internationally. They have a much easier time connecting than they once did because of the Internet.

[Jeff Yaworski]

Yes, I would agree with that statement absolutely. It has been taking place both in Canada, where we can try to influence it, and directly over the Internet through the likes of Anwar al-Aulaqi.

Anwar al-Aulaqi was a former American citizen—he's now deceased—who was featured quite regularly in Inspire magazine, an al Qaeda publication. His speeches are still available over the Internet, and they're radicalizing a whole new generation of individuals to the cause. While he may no longer be available, unfortunately the message of hatred that he's delivering is still out there.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

The message of hatred lives on, in other words.

It is already illegal, of course, to knowingly participate in the activities of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a terrorist group to carry out an act of terrorism. Such activities might include receiving or providing training at a terrorist training camp. It should be noted that in 2008 Mr. Khawaja was convicted of the offence of receiving training in Pakistan. Our government has decided to create new offences of leaving Canada for the purposes of committing a terrorism offence.

Do you support those new offences?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I do indeed.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Why?

[Jeff Yaworski]

As I said in my opening comments, it does give law enforcement another tool to prevent terrorist activities from taking place. I think that's fundamental in this regard.

The Government of Canada's counterterrorism strategy does emphasize the prevention aspect. I think what we're doing here, or what was intended by this law, is enabling law enforcement to engage individuals before they travel to those faraway lands and prevent them from engaging in what would be described as terrorist activity, or what you described as occasions for training and that sort of activity.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Would you agree with me that the interruption or disruption of people at an earlier point in time as they head into terrorist activity or wish to join it makes sense and is reasonable?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I would certainly agree with that as you have articulated it.

I think prevention and disruption are slightly different things. When you are referring to prevention, perhaps you are addressing the root causes of radicalization, but you can also suggest that when that individual arrives at the airport intending to travel to faraway lands to engage in jihad activity, you are certainly preventing him from doing that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to the official opposition.

Mr. Scott, go ahead, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming.

I am wondering if I can follow up on something that became fairly clear in the testimony of the representative of the RCMP. He clearly saw a link between the provisions regarding leaving the country, the provisions of the new offence, and the resurrection of the section on preventative detention and recognizance with conditions.

The only way I can really make the connection is that there is an emphasis on the preventative focus. The notion is that you actually bring somebody in for a recognizance hearing and impose some kind of conditions that would basically prevent them from leaving the country.

Is that part of your understanding of how these supervisions would work together?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I guess you've heard from the experts on that, Mr. Scott. I read the testimony of assistant commissioner Malizia in that regard, and I would agree with his assessment that it's important to have the ability to question individuals who might not otherwise be cooperative with the government or law enforcement with regard to potential attack or the opportunity for terrorist training. It will allow law enforcement to question those individuals and seek their cooperation in that regard, as I understand it.

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

Okay.

You've brought up another dimension. You've helped to clarify that recognizance with conditions seems to be part of the picture.

One of the other resurrected provisions deals with investigative hearings. Do you envisage that part of preventing individuals concerned from leaving the country would trigger the investigative hearing provisions in order to bring in say, family members, neighbours, or community members to get more of a sense of what somebody is planning, in order to have enough evidence to trigger the recognizance with conditions provision?

[Jeff Yaworski]

Again, the experts would be in justice or in law enforcement. I can offer my own opinion based on what I have read of the legislation. I would suggest to you that doing that is not the intent. I would think it is to be used very rarely and under very specific circumstances, to question individuals who would have a direct knowledge of threat-related activity.

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

Okay, thank you.

Director Fadden, in his testimony before the Senate committee—and I know you've been reading the testimony so I won't go into it in detail, and you know I've asked about this a couple of times—referred to the fact that Canada has no system for controlling exits. He hinted at the need for protocols to be developed and hinted that possibly some kind of exit control system might be under consideration.

I'm wondering if you can help us. Do you know anything at all about the advanced passenger record information system? Do you know whether or not there's active discussion about moving up in time the receipt of information in that system so that, for example, CBSA officials could notify the RCMP and airports well before the wheels are up, so to speak? We could change the current system from one in which the plane is gone to one in which it could be used as tool to find out if somebody is on the flight so that there could be some sort of an exit control system. Is that something that makes sense? Do you think it is something that is in the works?