Public Safety Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2012

[Jeff Yaworski]

I'm not familiar with burner phones, Mr. Scott, but I can tell you the technology is changing on a daily basis, and it's very difficult for us to keep up.

Our targets have access to technology. In some cases our targets are using cutting-edge technology that we don't have the ability to access ourselves. We are trying to improve our capacity to intercept technology in general in certain situations, but I'm not familiar with that specific case.

I would suggest to you that the use of disposable means of communication have been around for a long time. If that's the nature of that phone, it would increase our difficulty and that of law enforcement in intercepting that technology.

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

Yes, it's not just disposable. It's untraceable.

[Jeff Yaworski]

It would provide us difficulties, no doubt.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have 40 seconds.

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

Either through the assessment research end or operations end, are you familiar with control orders in the U.K. context, preventing people from leaving the country, taking away their passport, and putting them under a prohibition?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I know the British system is similar to our own in many cases, and in many cases it's different. I'm not familiar with those specific orders.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Bergen and Mr. Leef.

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

Thank you. I'm going to start, and if I have some time left, Mr. Leef will take it.

Ms. Beauregard, could you describe what your organization does, the kind of information you deal with, and how you assess a threat?

[Monik Beauregard]

Thanks for the opportunity to talk about my organization.

We're essentially an analysis shop. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we don't collect any information. We receive information from all our government partners. At the end of the day we're only as good as the information that is shared with us.

We have 13 government partners and we receive information from all of them. We also receive information from our allies. The role of the analysts, at the end of the day, is to look at all that information we've received—it's all information related to terrorism threats—and to sift through it to assess the credibility and the reliability of the information, and to make judgments on the potential threats to Canada, whether at home or abroad. Essentially, in a nutshell, that's what we do.

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

Initially another department has looked at the information you get and determined that yes, this is terrorism-related information, and they're going to send it off to you. As you said, you're counting on that information to be accurate and fulsome.

[Monik Beauregard]

We're even better positioned than that because they don't send it to us. We have all the databases physically located in ITAC.

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

Oh, I see, so you're not gathering information, yet in a sense you are pulling it out and assessing it.

[Monik Beauregard]

We're pulling it together, exactly. That's the beauty of the integrated nature of ITAC. We have direct hands-on access to all the information that's been created by others.

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

Then you could probably comment on my next question, which I was going to ask Mr. Yaworski, about radicalization of youth that leads to violence. You would be looking at that same information generally and making assessments based on it.

I'm not sure how long both of you have been involved in this, but from what you've seen, has there been an increase, even in the last five to ten years, in young people who were born and raised in Canada? Their parents are first generation Canadians, but they were born here and this is their home, and yet they are being radicalized. What do you see as the major causes?

[Monik Beauregard]

It's the million dollar question, if we knew.

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

Would you mind commenting on the change, if there has been one?

[Monik Beauregard]

As my colleague pointed out in his opening remarks, CSIS conducted a wide-ranging study of radicalization here in Canada, and it concluded at the end of the day that there's not a specific set of drivers for any one group in Canada.

We have seen an augmentation. Of particular concern to us is the appeal that some youth have to travelling abroad and joining theatres of jihad abroad. That is of great concern to us, not only because of their potential travel outside Canada to join a theatre of jihad and then potentially getting involved in terrorism-related activity, but their eventual return, if they do return to Canada. What would they do once they return? Would they be a vector for additional radicalization here in Canada if they returned with the aura they would have as a foreign fighter? Those are the issues we are very much concerned with.

As for having a specific trajectory to radicalization, we're very much continuing to study that because we've found no specific path to radicalization.

[Jeff Yaworski]

Yes, the only thing I would add to that is to emphasize the point Monik has made.

It's a very personal thing, the radicalization. What radicalizes one will not necessarily radicalize others. In some cases it's a personal connection to an individual, and in other cases it may be peer pressure. But what we've seen is that the trend is certainly increasing.

As I indicated with one of your earlier questions, I believe, there's the role of the Internet, the ability to recruit over the Internet and make jihad in some cases appear romantic, for lack of a better term. I'm sure many of these young Canadians are arriving and are completely taken aback by the reality of the situation they now find themselves in.

I would suggest that the Internet has been a principal driver, but as Monik has suggested, there's not one mould that will fit the radicalization process for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much. We'll go back to the official opposition.

Mr. Scott or Mr. Garrison.

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

I realize we're up against time, so I just want to ask one question, and my colleague Mr. Garrison might have something to add.

Ms. Bergen did a good job of taking you through the point that you might be a victim of your own success. The way you've been phrasing it all along, and we've heard this before, and this is completely understandable, is that the resurrected provisions are useful tools. However, we've not heard any testimony...and we're hearing arguments to the effect that this still doesn't prove there is a pressing need, a necessity, for these two mechanisms.

I can understand why they would be useful. The time might come when having another tool just would be helpful, but can you tell us anything at all about why you would feel that at this time there is a pressing need?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I would suggest to you that the numbers speak for themselves.

I did comment earlier that anywhere from 45 to 60 Canadians are overseas right now involved in terrorism-related activity. Canada has an obligation to the international community and to Canadian citizens. We have to keep control of these individuals. We have to deter this sort of activity. Having Canadians involved in terrorism, whether here or overseas, is a problem that we have to address, and I think this legislation allows us to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I see our time is up. We've been looking forward to hearing both of you today. All parties were anxious that we might not get to hear your testimony because of the votes, but thank you for coming and for having patience with us until we showed up.

We're going to suspend momentarily to allow you to exit and allow our other guests to come to the table, please.

Thank you.

We're going to continue meeting 63 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and our study of Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act.

On this panel we will hear testimony from the Canadian Bar Association, Paul Calarco, a member from the national criminal justice section, and Marilou Reeve, the staff lawyer. Welcome.

We have also Denis Barrette, a spokesperson for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.

Our committee thanks this panel for agreeing to help us with our study on Bill S-7. I understand that each group has a brief opening statement. We want to apologize for starting a little late. We will go right until 5:30 p.m., and then we will conclude today's meeting. We have had some votes in the House of Commons, and they've taken away from our committee time.

Without further ado, welcome. We will begin with the Canadian Bar Association, Marilou Reeve.

Ms. Reeve.

[Marilou Reeve, Staff Lawyer, Canadian Bar Association]

I'll provide a brief introduction.

Mr. Chair, and honourable members, good afternoon. Thank you, on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, for the invitation to appear before the committee today.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing approximately 37,000 jurists across Canada. Among the association's primary objectives are the seeking of improvement in the law and the administration of justice. It is with these objectives in mind that we address you today.

CBA's written submission, which you have all received, was prepared by members of the national criminal justice section. The section members are criminal law experts, including a balance of prosecutors and defence lawyers from across Canada.

I will now introduce our spokesperson, Mr. Paul Calarco.

Mr. Calarco brings a personal perspective to today's proceedings that encompasses his experience as both a defence lawyer and a prosecutor. He is a practising defence lawyer in Toronto, but has also served as a part-time assistant crown attorney for Ontario, as well as serving as a standing agent for the Attorney General of Canada for six years, prosecuting drug cases in both the provincial and superior courts.

Before I turn things over to Mr. Calarco, I will note that the CBA first commented on Canada's legislative response to terrorism in 2001. Since that time, the CBA has welcomed the opportunity to make submissions on various anti-terrorism initiatives and related topics.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Ms. Reeve.

Mr. Calarco, go ahead.