Public Safety Committee on March 10th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre, the floor is yours.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, as well as all the other witnesses for being here today to speak to Bill C-51. We greatly appreciate it.

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I went over Bill C-51 and, in my view, the key element that is missing is a national strategy to counter radicalization. The U.S. government is working hard with communities to set up an effective strategy to counter radicalization. The mayor of Montreal has started to work on a strategy against radicalization with stakeholders on the ground, including the police services and community leaders.

Mr. Blaney or Mr. MacKay, perhaps you can answer my question. My question is actually more for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Could you tell me what you are actually doing to combat radicalization? You gave some examples, but could you give me an overview of what the government is doing in practical terms to combat radicalization? Are you working with community leaders and police services? What resources are assigned to that?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for your question, which is very relevant.

I am a little disappointed that we have not received the support of your political party. With all due respect, let me say that the New Democrats are behind with the news. Our strategy to combat terrorism has been in place for more than two years and we have not received your party's support. I find it surprising that a New Democrat is waking up two years later and asking us what we are doing in terms of prevention.

We must keep working on prevention. Minister MacKay and I are participating in cross-cultural round tables. It is important to work on prevention. That is the first pillar of our strategy. When I appeared before you last fall, before the Ottawa attack, I had the opportunity to describe our anti-terrorism strategy.

Commissioner Paulson is making remarkable efforts. I have a document here on our strategy to combat youth radicalization. You can download it from the Internet. The document is more than 20 pages long and was published a while ago. It describes the strategies we are implementing and the meetings we are holding across the country with communities and leaders in this area.

Clearly, training is provided to agents and officers. Our prevention approach has three pillars: commitment to communities, training, and a counter-narrative message.

I was in Washington a few weeks ago. We are also working with our British partners, who have taken some very interesting initiatives, as well as the municipal police forces. Last week, I met with Toronto police representatives. They have created emergency response teams to prevent radicalization. We are working on prevention at all levels of society.

The commissioner can provide you with information on that. I know that you don't have a lot of time, but the commissioner can outline what the RCMP is doing to prevent radicalization.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

As I said Friday, our prevention program is quite complex.

Our previous strategies, our terrorism prevention strategies, have been founded on legitimate community engagement. I spoke of the counterterrorism information officer program, years old now. We've trained over 1,800 CTIOs across the country. That's not just in the RCMP; that's in police forces, partner police agencies. The mandate of those officers is engagement, information sharing, and training officers in what to look for in radicalization. It's also community engagement.

In the last little while, working with partners at Public Safety and in other police forces, we've begun to bring our crime prevention strategy to terrorism prevention—in other words, hubbing the resources that exist at the local, provincial, and federal levels and working with those communities to try to understand and identify early who's at risk—and then bring to bear strategies other than the criminal justice response in the pre-criminal space. It's proving to be very effective. In fact, as the minister said about Toronto, we've piloted it with the Toronto police, and we're working with other police forces. We're doing it ourselves, and it is paying some dividends.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Commissioner and Minister.

Now we will go to Ms. Ablonczy, for five minutes, please.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

A lot of Canadians will remember the debate a little over 30 years ago when the Liberal government under Prime Minister Trudeau brought in the act that created CSIS. Immediately there were voices of protest and fear raised when CSIS was created. There were allegations that the creation of this civilian security agency would be a step toward a police state. Thirty years ago the naysayers said that...the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said that no Canadian would be safe from being targeted. Thirty years ago the Ontario government said that CSIS would have unlimited and unchecked powers, carte blanche, to break every law in Canada. We know today that there are many activities that threaten Canadian security that do not fall under the Criminal Code or under the mandate of the RCMP. We value CSIS and the work it does.

One example is criticism of the expansion of the passenger protect program, Minister. The NDP say it is already illegal to travel abroad to join in terrorist activity. I wonder if you would speak to that and why you believe the mandate of the passenger protect program needs to be expanded.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy, for your question. It seems that we are seeing history repeat itself in some way where some people are bringing a fallacious narrative. That's why I'm proud to be here to talk about the bill for what it is and not for what people may think or would like it to be.

It is a very important exercise for this committee to undertake a review over the course of the next month. As Canadians we expect to base our conversation on facts and on reality. I am confident that Canadians understand the goal of the bill, which is to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and their privacy. It provides tools to those who are there to protect us, as well as provides tools to those who are watching those who are there to protect us. That is what Bill C-51 is all about.

There are robust oversight and review mechanisms. I give the example that we are one of the few countries that will need judicial oversight for threat diminishment. Once all of these activities have been conducted there will be a strong review.

Let me tell you what our Security Intelligence Review Committee said about their work and how they see their work in terms of reviewing the work that has been accomplished. What they like to have is distance, so they can have a critical eye on the operation of the intelligence community. They said that our model of ongoing and methodological review also has the distinct advantage of allowing for a full and impartial assessment of our Canadian security intelligence agency's performance, arguably better positioning it to detect potential problems earlier.

We have 30 years of independent expertise and knowledge without political interference and without government interference, because they are fully independent. They are lawyers and researchers who bring continuity. Some of them have worked in the intelligence community. You may have heard the director himself yesterday saying he was fully staffed to do the important work he has to accomplish.

To get back to your passenger protect question, it's fairly clear—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Very briefly, Minister.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Okay. This act was passed when there was the attack on the World Trade Center by those who wanted to attack our safety using the airplane. We need to be able to arrest those people even though we cannot lay charges. If we have reason to believe they will conduct a terrorist attack, then we need to be able to prevent them from travelling. That's why we need to add the high-risk traveller to our no-fly list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Garrison for five minutes.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have expressed my concerns before about overinflated rhetoric when it comes to this bill. I heard the minister earlier make a reference to the Holocaust. I would assert that there is no equivalence for anything we're talking about here today to the Holocaust. At best, the reference seems to trivialize the Holocaust. I'd like to offer the minister an opportunity to withdraw that comment.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I will answer in French.

Violence begins with words. Hatred begins with words. I can mention the Rwandan genocide, which started on the radio. It was a horrible genocide. One of our former senators has paid the price, and his mental health has been greatly affected by it. Yes, it is important to call it what it is. A spade is a spade. Extremist speeches, the language that undermines Canadian values, basically hate propaganda has no place in Canada.

It is time for the government to assume its responsibilities and not tolerate disrespectful, violent and hateful language. That is what the legislation basically allow us to do. I therefore stand by what I said and I repeat that the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers. It began with words. That is why it is clearly important to respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians, but we must not tolerate incitement to violence.

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

Then, Mr. Minister, why did this government take away the power of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to remove hate crime material from the Internet? Your government sponsored and passed a bill through this House and through the Senate that took away the power of the Human Rights Commission to order the withdrawal of hate crimes material from the Internet. Why did you do that then and why are you advocating the opposite now?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Garrison, what I am saying this morning is that the bill will enable us to take down websites that promote hate propaganda or propaganda related to any form of terrorism, regardless of its source. There is no place for incitement to violence in Canada. It's as simple as that. That is what the legislation says.

I'm not sure whether you agree with me this morning, but if a website hosted in Canada promotes jihadism and tells us to kill all the infidels wherever they are in the world, I think that flies in the face of Canadian values. That is why I think we, as politicians, must continue to adopt measures to combat terrorism and prevent radicalization. That is exactly why I urge you to support Bill C-51. That is the right thing to do if we want to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and to protect them from the terrorist threat.

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

Mr. Minister, I'm still having trouble understanding what the difference is between the powers you took away from the Human Rights Commission and the powers you're suggesting today.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Let me just clarify that.

Mr. Garrison, as you know full well, hate promotion, propaganda, genocide are covered in the Criminal Code of Canada and anyone engaged in that type of activity is subject to prosecution in Canada. Let's not leave any impression—I know that's not what you're trying to do—that somebody is going to be free to carry out that type of heinous activity in Canada and not be subject to charge and prosecution. It's in the Criminal Code.

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

I want to go back to the question of oversight. Again, when I was asking the minister, he said the warrant authorizes this disruptive activity if it involves illegal or unconstitutional activity, but he didn't get a chance to respond to my question, which is how does that ever get oversight from a judge? Once that warrant is issued, how does that ever get back before the courts?

You talk about judicial oversight. I don't see any way.... In contrast, when the RCMP uses disruptive tactics as part of a criminal investigation, that ends up back in front of the courts and the courts do get to see that, but in this case, they are secret activities not aimed at criminal prosecutions and so they will not appear before the courts.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

As you know, we now have had the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for more than 30 years. In my capacity as Minister for Public Safety, and as Mr. Easter also had the opportunity to do in the past, we already have judicial oversight that relates to collecting information. This goes through a robust oversight mechanism first.

When CSIS is willing to carry out collection activity that would require a warrant, it has to submit its proposal to the Department of Public Safety. There are more than 1,000 people working at Public Safety with experts who have the experience to validate that, and those people give me a recommendation on whether or not I should accept the warrant to collect information. Those activities—

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

Minister, the question is about afterwards; how does this get back before the courts after the warrant?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Well, what I want to tell you is that we're conducting those activities. We've already been conducting those activities for 30 years. Afterwards, what happens, where we have oversight, we have a review body. We have the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and I just quoted how the role of SIRC is important, but let me give you another quote this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'd like to thank Minister MacKay and Minister Blaney and their officials for coming. Certainly this is a very important piece of legislation and Canadians expect their government to protect our citizens as well as make sure that Canada is safe and secure.

Minister Blaney, if you would like to go ahead and make that quote, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

The chair is tough on me this morning, I must say.

What I want to say is really important. Our system is based on trust. As politicians we get elected because people trust in us, actually. It is important to maintain that bond of trust, the trust of Canadians towards their institutions. Are they perfect? No, they are not. Are politicians perfect? They aren't either. Well, that's why we have mechanisms to review and see if there have been mistakes. Have there been mistakes in the past? Yes. Will there be mistakes in the future? There could be, but we must ensure we do everything to avoid them.

The quote I want to give you, and I'll give it to you right away, is about the Security Intelligence Review Committee. They are this Canadian model designed 30 years ago that is keeping an eye on our intelligence community. They are experts. They have independence. They don't have political interference. They have the knowledge and the expertise to conduct their activities. They have a deep understanding and knowledge of CSIS. You only have to read the report to know how deep they can go. Actually, this is the mandate we the parliamentarians have given them. They are actually an extension of Parliament. SIRC is an extension of Parliament. They are acting on our behalf and they are reporting to this very Parliament. That's what our Security Intelligence Review Committee is.

Well, this security intelligence review process is an example of the Canadian legal system striking a better balance between the protection of sensitive information and the procedural rights of individuals. Who said that? The Supreme Court of Canada.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

That's a pretty good quote. Thank you.

My next question is for Minister MacKay.

Minister, in your opening remarks, you talked about lowering the thresholds for recognizance with conditions. I'm wondering if you could tell us why you believe that's important. Do you have any examples where law enforcement could have used this to benefit them in the past?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The reality is that the peace bonds and recognizance are a tool, to borrow a phrase from Mr. Blaney, that the police are able to use in a pre-emptive manner. The classic case where you see an example of an individual exhibiting behaviour that would be consistent with someone who's been radicalized, somebody who may pose a threat, someone who may be, for example, subject to this type of activity in the future, the police are able, based on evidence, to go before a judge and seek a recognizance, or a peace bond, depending on that evidentiary burden, depending on the behaviour, and put in place through the judge certain conditions that the individual has to comply with. Those could include such things as forfeiture of passport, conditions of reporting, staying within a certain geographic area, not associating with certain individuals, not possessing weapons or explosives.

You can see that these are two mechanisms, through the law, through a judicial exercise, that allow us to put controls in place prior to the commission of an offence. By lowering the thresholds, we gain greater access to those conditions and controls.

It has been said in the past, and the argument I believe has been successfully made, that in cases of terrorism where the potential for harm, grave personal harm, is so real and perhaps imminent, lowering the thresholds to gain greater access to these tools is what we hope to achieve. That is what is encompassed in these sections of the bill.

Along a continuum, lowering the thresholds to have recognizance and peace bonds in place we believe will empower the police to make the right decisions, with judicial authorization, to put in place conditions that we hope will absolutely prevent and deter terrorist acts in Canada.