Oh, oh!
Evidence of meeting #58 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terrorist.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #58 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terrorist.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I would like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.
I'll start with you, Deputy Commissioner Tod.
There is a lot of controversy around this bill from the civil activist community, and I've been there myself. There's no question, I do believe we need the authority granted in this bill to keep Canadians safe, but I also firmly believe that in order for laws to be really effective, you have to have civil society, the public, on side with the law. I firmly believe that unless this law is amended to assure the public that's concerned out there that—
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
It must have been because I said there was a concern over communications.
9:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
If you don't have the public onside, I think that the ability for law enforcement to do their job and to gain the information they need is that much more difficult, so I firmly believe that there has to be a better balance in this bill between the security side and the civil liberties side.
What are your thoughts on that?
9:20 p.m.
D/Commr Scott Tod
I think we're talking about the ability to access information, share information, disclose information, if I'm correct, and the aspect in regard to information sharing.
I mentioned in my opening comments about the new approach that police across Canada are taking in regard to community safety and well-being and the situational table or the hub table. The purpose of that table is so that we can share information about individuals in our communities, and I mean the collective communities, or it could be an individualized community, but that information is shared. Much of that information is currently held within the containers of health, education, social services, and other government containers of information. When they come together and they share that information, as I called it, it's the early-warning opportunity where we can jointly identify an acutely elevated individual, so more than one party at the table has a concern that this individual is showing anti-social behaviour, in this case leading down the pathway towards radicalization.
We can share that information in private, with privacy concerns. It's a construct that has a process to it in which the groups that are involved with the individual alone share that information and not groups that are outside of the acutely elevated individual and their anti-social behaviour. The fact is, it's information that's shared with the right to privacy. It's information that's shared with respect to the individual, but also allows the organizations to intervene and provide opportunities or alternative solutions to that individual so that we can curb anti-social behaviour and in this case hopefully provide the off-ramp from the pathway to radicalization.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I think in your remarks you also said—and I'll come back to you on this so you can think about it when I go to Mr. Neumann—that there's no new money attached to this legislation. We see that as a growing problem. Just passing a law is not enough. You have to put the resources behind it to do the job. The RCMP is telling us that they have had to switch several hundred people, actually, from hard criminalization elements to the anti-terrorism element, and that's a problem. I'll come back to you on that.
Mr. Neumann, you said in your remarks that in the short term you need to give resources with adequate oversight. We've heard from some other witnesses here that there has been an increase in the authority of security agencies and police in the United Kingdom to do their jobs. Witnesses also spoke of increasing the resources for the parliamentary oversight committee. Do you have a view on that?
9:20 p.m.
ICSR , As an Individual
As an observer of this rather than an expert, I think the parliamentary oversight committee in the U.K. has worked okay. I've also testified in front of the U.S. House intelligence committee, and the comparison is quite striking, because the U.S. House intelligence committee literally has dozens of staff, whereas the U.K. parliamentary oversight committee has, I think, four or five staff.
I do not personally think it is possible for a group of 10 politicians to supervise an entire intelligence community with practically no support in the back. On that basis, I think the parliamentary oversight committee in the U.K. is probably a good thing, but it needs to be properly staffed in order to be able to do its job. The staffing is the question, not just the exact form of the committee.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you.
We're talking about resources, so let me come back and ask you that question again, Deputy Commissioner Tod. What are the consequences if there's not enough money provided to law enforcement to handle the anti-terrorism element of Bill C-51?
9:25 p.m.
D/Commr Scott Tod
I will speak on behalf of my organization, the Ontario Provincial Police. We have had to rededicate and redirect resources into the national security counterterrorism area. That's to deal with the immediate threat of the foreign traveller, the high-risk traveller, the high-risk individual—all that live within Ontario. We have individuals returning from Syria and Iraq who come back to Ontario. We have individuals who are being radicalized in Ontario. We know from the charges that have been before the courts that we have people accused of terrorist acts or terrorist plots within Ontario.
We've redirected resources away from commercial crimes, large frauds. We've redirected resources away from our front-line crime units, our criminal investigation units, and other units that have a specialized service; in other words, investigators who understand the civil liberties law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who understand the authorization that's required in order to write warrants, who understand the surveillance techniques, both electronic and human, that we can do on individuals, and the lawful process in which we do those applications, but who are also able to write to those with regard to authorizations and crown briefs, and supply information to crown and prosecutors.
Those individuals are actually very few in our service. In a large organization of 9,100, my hands can probably touch 300 to 400 who actually have those skills. Being able to draw them in to deal with investigations or to deal with the prevention or suppression techniques we're using is difficult. It's expensive. It takes them away from the work they're doing in their home location or other location. That work has to be either filled in by another member who is less skilled, less trained to do it, or it goes undone in that there is no one doing those roles anymore.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much.
We're over time, Mr. Easter.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Mr. Tod, Mr. Gora, Ms. Shahida, and Mr. Neumann so much for your informed and informative comments tonight. We certainly appreciate it. Your perspectives are certainly a contribution to our committee. Thank you very much.
To the committee, we'll see you tomorrow.
The meeting is adjourned.