Public Safety Committee on March 24th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Excuse me, Mr. Garrison, I'm going to interrupt you for one second.

We're getting very, very near to our time. Being that we only have two or three minutes left in the first hour—of course, you will continue to have the floor—I am going to excuse our witnesses. I don't want to have our witnesses sit here in vain and then we run out of time.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Mr. Benlolo and Mr. Collacott, and certainly Justice Major. Thank you very kindly for your attention here today. Obviously, we'll be dealing with another issue before us right now with this motion.

Thank you for your attendance and have yourselves a good night.

You have the floor again, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you.

I don't mean to belabour this issue tonight because we do have other witnesses to hear, but it has become increasingly clear that there are many Canadians who wanted to be heard at this committee, and the action that took place at the 51st meeting resulted in fewer opportunities than we would have liked.

I've tried to phrase the motion in a non-combative manner, I would say. It simply states the facts that need to be referred to the Speaker so that he can deal with those facts. I'm not asking anyone on the committee to take a side on what happened, but simply to report the dispute to the Speaker so that he can deal with it. That's my understanding of the ruling that he made the other day, and that's my reason for moving the motion at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion?

Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the issue.

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

A recorded vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

As we have less than a minute left before our next session, we will now suspend for three to five minutes while we welcome our new witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we are back in session.

Of course for our second hour we have a different group of witnesses.

Further to our study on Bill C-51, we welcome, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Scott Tod, the deputy commissioner for the investigation of organized crime for the Ontario Provincial Police. From the Canadian Thinkers' Forum we have Tahir Gora, director general, and Arooj Shahida, director.

By way of video conference from London, United Kingdom, as an individual, we have Peter Neumann, from ICSR.

Do we have you live, here, sir? How is our video hookup? Are you on?

[Dr. Peter Neumann, ICSR , As an Individual]

Yes, you do. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, and thank you for staying up a little later. We apologize for running a little late with the committee but parliamentary procedure took precedence for an hour or so. We are here now, so as per the normal process of this committee, each group will have up to 10 minutes to make an opening statement, should they wish to, and then after that, we will go to Q and A.

Mr. Tod, we'll start with you. You have the floor, sir.

[Deputy Commissioner Scott Tod, Deputy Commissioner, Investigations, Organized Crime, Ontario Provincial Police, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you.

Distinguished members of the committee, I'm pleased to accept your invitation to be here today as the co-chair of the Counter Terrorism and National Security Committee, representing Chief Clive Weighill, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and its members.

The mandate of CACP is safety and security for all Canadians through innovative police leadership. This mandate is accomplished through the activities and special projects of a number of committees and through active liaison with various levels of government and departmental ministries having legislative and executive responsibilities in law and policing.

A primary principle for every law enforcement organization in Canada is that safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation is important. Law enforcement agencies also understand that it is important to respect victims of crime and to understand their needs.

CACP has supported Canada's counterterrorism strategy of building resiliency against terrorism and the four pillars of the strategy, which are prevent, detect, deny, and respond. CACP has also assisted in the development of terrorism legislation and supported past programs and activities sponsored by the federal government. In preparation for the response from CACP to the proposed legislation, Bill C-51, police leaders must ask themselves how much risk they can carry. The space between civil liberties and the terrorist threat is the area of risk. The police and the public live within that risk. Suppression and prevention are important to successfully reduce the terrorist threat, and Bill C-51 provides legislation that can support both the prevention and suppression efforts of law enforcement.

The recent collective efforts by police to increase community safety and well-being demonstrate the need for cooperation between police services, social service organizations, governments, and communities. Our efforts are reflected in the new approach to community safety and well-being through the establishment of community hubs or situational tables. The situational table is the early warning system that predicts the need for better or improved social development of people and groups. Identifying and mitigating those risks requires leadership and collaboration, with sharing of information in a prescribed format that protects privacy while allowing for the table to identify acutely elevated individuals who have demonstrated anti-social behaviour and who need assistance before they become radicalized to terrorism or other harmful criminal behaviour within our communities. The police must continue to rely on intelligence-led and evidence-based policing and to use the community situational table to reduce the chances for those who are on the pathway of radicalization.

Bill C-51 includes the security of Canada information sharing act as part of the anti-terrorism act and grants clear authority for federal government institutions to share with other designated federal government institutions information about activity that undermines the security of Canada. The fluid sharing of information will enhance the government's ability to establish or share information at situational tables and in other forums that can assist in early identification and implementation of solutions for people on the pathway to radicalization and to becoming terrorists. Information sharing as a controlled and methodical process to protect privacy is possible in today's world of big data and high-velocity solutions to radicalization, high-risk travellers, high-risk individuals, and those embarking on the path to violent extremism.

Provincial and municipal services will have to rely on our pre-existing authorities and formal agreements to continue disclosing and sharing information at local levels to support police activities of prevention and suppression of the terrorist threat. Bill C-51 creates a new Criminal Code offence—promoting or advocating others to carry out a terrorism offence—with a provision for a maximum of five years' imprisonment. If enacted, Bill C-51 would allow the courts the new authority to order the seizure of printed and audio terrorist propaganda and to order the removal of terrorist propaganda made available to the public through a Canadian Internet service provider. This piece of legislation is consistent with similar provisions regarding the ability to seize and destroy criminal material related to child pornography offences in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. To now have a similar offence to include terrorist propaganda is consistent with the changing terrorist landscape and threats in Canada.

Having the ability to deter and remove the propaganda material used by sympathizers and supporters, which incites or propagates terrorism, is a critical factor in creating off-ramps from the path to radicalization. The new Criminal Code provisions of Bill C-51 will provide law enforcement and the courts with the tactical ability to intervene and stop those individuals who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocate or promote the commission of a terrorist offence.

There is also a second aspect to this offence, that there will exist a burden on the crown to prove that the person had knowledge that an offence would be committed or that the person was reckless with regard to whether any of those offences would be committed.

Proposed section 83.222 will allow a judge, who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution and is terrorist propaganda publications, to order seizure of the material and destroy it if necessary.

Seizing and destroying terrorist propaganda removes the influences of the terrorism, the terrorist message, and provides more space to the voice of community groups and government programs that are promoting the counter-narrative.

Other important amendments to the Criminal Code include the recognizance threshold requirements that replace “will be carried out” and “is necessary to prevent the carrying out of an offence” with “terrorist activity may be carried out” and “likely to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity”. The new thresholds speak to the preventable opportunities for law enforcement versus the higher threshold of response opportunities. The amendment actually permits a judge to order a person to be detained in custody for two additional periods of 48 hours each.

The proposed change will allow police the opportunity to ensure that when time is critical—between becoming aware of information about a possible terrorist attack and the ability to identify, detect, and apprehend as to prevent a terrorist attack—there will be an opportunity to detain a person based on the “likely to be carried out” threshold. The new threshold actually speaks to preventing an attack in today's terrorist environment.

The difference may be subtle, but in recent investigations the time between a source coming forward with limited and chaotic information of a terrorist attack and the planned date of the attack has been as little as two days. The threshold of “may be carried out” can be crossed in two days but “will be carried out” may not be crossed in the two days. The opportunity to lawfully detain someone to ensure an attack does not occur is important in today's context as it serves toward the principle of preserving life.

Determining the veracity of the source information, mixing it with known intelligence, conducting analysis, and searching for more information to prove the reliability and credibility of source information can take days and weeks to corroborate or prove. Accessing investigative assistance in other countries can also take many days, if not weeks.

The next area I would like to discuss is the amending portion of the Criminal Code affecting section 810, the peace bond section. The new section will allow a judge to order a defendant who it is feared may commit a terrorist offence to enter into a recognizance to abide and follow conditions imposed by the court for a period of up to one year and up to five years if the person has been convicted of a past terrorist offence.

Court-imposed section 810 conditions upon individuals have limited use as the strength of the recognizance may be limited to the compliance of the person and the ability for the police to monitor compliance and take appropriate action as necessary. We must be careful that the section 810 process is used for persons who are not considered a high risk to public safety but are persons who show commitment to change and are believed to have a strong potential to redevelop positive social behaviours.

I believe that there is an expectation from the provincial court justices that the police are responsible and accountable to monitor compliance of court-ordered section 810 recognizances and report back as necessary. This is an additional burden to law enforcement.

Similar to other anti-terrorism legislation, there is no new money attached to this legislation and the requirement to use this information will cause police services to re-prioritize and re-direct our limited resources away from other priorities that include commercial crime, organized crime, proceeds of crime, and specialized police services. Terrorism investigations require the same skilled and experienced members who investigate those other offences, but are now being used to respond to the new terrorist threat in Canada.

ln closing, I would like to state that underestimating the threat is dangerous and overestimation is expensive. Bill C-51 offers improvements for the federal police to share information among our justice sector partners, security partners, but more importantly and hopefully, with the community partners and government situational tables designed to reduce the terrorist threat and improve community safety and well-being.

What has been successful to date will not make us successful in the future. Our learning and education must outpace that of the terrorists. The members of the CACP are committed to upholding the laws of Canada and working within the legislative construct that is provided.

Thank you. I look forward to answering any of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much Deputy Commissioner Tod.

We will now go to the Canadian Thinkers' Forum.

[Tahir Gora, Director General, Canadian Thinkers' Forum]

Thank you, honourable Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, honourable parliamentarians, and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tahir Aslam Gora. I am director general of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum and secretary general of the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations. I am accompanied by my colleague Ms. Arooj Shahida, director of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum.

The Canadian Thinkers' Forum is a small not-for-profit organization and think tank focused on the delicacies and complexities of human diversity and globalization. We run awareness programs against anti-Semitism, Muslim women abuse, honour killing, and radicalization. We also design deradicalization programs.

We have also been conducting study reports titled “Growing Islamic Radicalization in Canada” for the past three years. Our findings so far in regard to those study reports are quite alarming and troublesome. In the shadow of our own study reports, the government's proposed Bill C-51 seems to us very vital and important.

Within our limited resources, we have discovered through our online studies that more than 2,000 young Canadian Muslim individuals are radicalized to the extent that they feel grievances against Canada over its involvement in Afghanistan and now in the Middle East.

Through our online and on-the-ground studies, we have discovered that more than 20,000 individuals associated with Islamic centres in Canada want to replace Canadian secular laws with sharia laws. More than 20,000 individuals are actively affiliated with Canadian chapters of extremist Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Over 100 individuals in Canada came under our study radar as supporting ISIS or ISIS-related ideology. The majority of the Canadian Muslim population strongly disagrees with Canada's support of Israel over the terrorist organization Hamas.

In our study areas of Islamic radicalization, we are quite concerned about growing activities of Islamic nature in Canada. Having been born and raised in Muslim families, we are well aware of a certain mindset in our diaspora that is leading to jihad ideology and damages to our own values.

Over the past two decades, many new mosques and Islamic schools and centres were founded in the greater Toronto area and other parts of Canada in order to fulfill the demands and needs of the growing Muslim community, which is estimated at over 800,000 in the GTA alone. Of course, there is no harm in increasing the number of Islamic centres, but it alarms us when we see continuing teaching and alienating trends through those centres condemning the host society and its core values. Sadly, most Islamic centres and their imams are taking their followers in the opposite direction.

The following are the factors at play in most Islamic centres in Canada and elsewhere that are the root causes of the Islamist radical mindset: number one, gender inequality; number two, promoting political Islam through the burka and niqab; number three, supporting draconian laws such as sharia laws; number four, hatred towards the host society; number five, hatred towards other religions; number six, practising and trying to implement a medieval religious lifestyle; number seven, advocating alienation within the Muslim masses from the host society; number eight, denouncing democratic, liberal values; number nine, rejecting freedom of expression; and number ten, preaching the doctrine of armed jihad. If they don't support the notion of jihad openly, they do not denounce it either.

Having mentioned those factors, I would like to clarify that Muslim men and women adherent to Islam's medieval ideology and their Islamic centres do not represent the roughly one million Muslims in Canada, but they are vocal, politically active, and otherwise noticeable. The majority of Canadian Muslims are nine-to-five folks, and they want to live normal, regular lives, despite their certain mindset on certain issues. They are also victims of extremism and terrorism back home and in Canada as well.

The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements here, too. Apart from it, we shall urge this honourable House to work on other measures in order to integrate the Muslim community well into society. Our government should introduce a program that designs a one-year training course for imams so that they do not go against our secular liberal values. Also, our government should make sure that the educational curriculum of Islamic schools does not have any amount of hatred towards anyone and does not carry the doctrine of jihad. All imams, Islamic schools, mosques, and Islamic centres should denounce Islamic jihad on a regular basis in their sermons, websites, pamphlets, and posters.

In the end, I am sharing alarming comments by a London, Ontario imam. He equated our armed forces with criminals on his Facebook page last November. He wrote:

No Muslim should honour the memory of those war criminals by wearing a poppy, just as no one would honour a criminal that killed his or her mother and father.

We urge all our political parties to leave their partisan politics behind when it comes to dealing with terrorism and radicalization. The government has introduced Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which is an important bill that seeks to enact the security of Canada.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Neumann. You have the floor, sir.

[Dr. Peter Neumann]

Thank you very much.

Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, my name is Peter Neumann. I'm director at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, and I'm also a professor at King's College London.

I apologize for the fact that I cannot be with you in Ottawa today. I so appreciate the opportunity to talk to you from afar about terrorism and the distress that it poses.

My centre has been interested in the conflict in Syria and in ISIS and foreign fighters for over two years. We are immensely grateful to Canada, and in particular to Public Safety Canada, because two years ago, we received a Kanishka grant to do this work at a time when a lot of other governments weren't particularly interested in this topic.

As a result of our research, we know many of the people who have radicalized and joined the Islamic State. We found over 700 of them on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Tumblr, social media platforms where they are posting news and updates, comments, and pictures. We've spoken to nearly 100 of them, some over the course of several months. We've met face to face with many facilitators, transporters, sheiks, and the fighters themselves on the ground in the border towns from where they've gone into Syria.

In other words, we have a very rounded and very comprehensive picture of this population and the threat they pose.

One thing we've never been is alarmist. If you cry wolf all the time, people will not take you seriously when you should be. Keep that in mind when I'm saying to you now that I believe we are at a particularly dangerous juncture.

Only four years ago, we thought this conflict with jihadism was coming to an end. The Arab Spring was bringing peace and democracy. Osama bin Laden was dead. Almost the entire senior leadership of al Qaeda was dead. Almost exactly 10 years after 9/11, a lot of people were ready to turn the page.

Today, we know that wasn't true. It was a false dawn. The threat today is worse than it's ever been. It comes not from one but from three directions, and I would like to briefly talk about each of those three in turn.

The first, of course, is the foreign fighters. Only a few weeks ago, my centre published a new estimate showing that the total number of people who have gone to Syria and Iraq as jihadists in the past three and a half years now stands at more than 20,000. They are from 90 countries, the majority Middle Eastern, but a good quarter from western Europe, and some from Australia, the United States, and of course also Canada.

We know these people. We know their stories. We know there isn't just one story. There are many stories. Some of them are pious. Others are not. Many have troubled histories. Others would have had good prospects had they stayed in their western home countries. Some were driven by the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people. Others were seeking thrill and adventure. Also, of course, many were genuinely committed to the totalitarian ideology that is represented by the group that calls itself the Islamic State.

Because their personalities, backgrounds, motivations, and indeed experiences in Syria and Iraq are so different, the people who survive and may at some point come back to Canada as well as to my country will pose very different types of challenges. Some of them will be disillusioned and can be reintegrated back into society. Others will be mentally disturbed and will need psychological support. But make no mistake: there will also be a number who are outright dangerous, people who come back with military training and are experienced, with global connections, and who are often brutalized, emotionally desensitized, and driven by and fully committed to their mission. They will plot against Canada and they will plot against my country, and they will also seek to inspire others. They will be the future leaders of their movement.

A lot of attention has focused on the foreign fighters, but the imminent threat comes not from them but from ISIS supporters. That's the second prong. If you look at all the attacks that have happened since September last year—Ottawa, Sydney, the attack on the kosher supermarket in Paris, and Copenhagen—you see that they were all jihadists and they were all enthusiastic supporters of ISIS, but none of them had actually travelled to Syria or Iraq. It's something that we've observed everywhere.

The foreign fighters are, in nearly all cases, part of tightly knit groups that often knew each other from before the conflict and radicalized collectively. While some have made their way to Syria, others have stayed back at home in the west.

Until September last year, those who were staying home had two options, either to go to Syria themselves or to stay at home and support the fighters with money and supplies. Since September last year, they've had a third option, which is to launch lone wolf attacks in the west, because in September last year ISIS spokesperson Abu Mohammad al Adnani made an important announcement in which he said:

If you can kill a disbelieving American or European...kill him in any manner or way, however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.

That's exactly, of course, what we have seen, including the attack in Ottawa. I'm concerned that especially in the short term, there will be more attacks, not necessarily by foreign fighters but by stay-home supporters.

The third and final element of the threat is the emerging competition between ISIS and al Qaeda. Al Qaeda still exists, though of course it's lost a lot of its momentum, but some of the al Qaeda affiliated groups are still among the strongest, most professional, and most proactive terrorist groups in the world. They now have an extra incentive to attack, which is to show the world that they still exist. There's an open competition now between al Qaeda and ISIS for recruits, influence, and territory. One of the most compelling ways in which al Qaeda can show that they are still there and still matter is to carry out spectacular attacks in western countries. Groups like al Qaeda in Yemen and AQAP do have the capacity, the people, and the expertise. They are determined to make a stand.

Over the past year or so, I have spoken to many law enforcement and intelligence agencies across Europe. Every single one of them has told me that they are at full capacity, and some of them are beyond full capacity, that the number of cases they are dealing with is unprecedented, and that they feel the choices they have to make in terms of who is dangerous and who is not dangerous, who to monitor and who not to monitor, and who to spend precious resources on are getting tougher and tougher.

In the long term this situation can only be dealt with by responsibly increasing the size of the security agencies, but you cannot hire 5,000 people overnight. I think it's absolutely justified, given the nature of the threat, to increase the capacity in the short term by giving agencies specified additional powers with adequate oversight so they can make better choices, reach their conclusions faster, and carry out arrests, where necessary, without delay.

I'm not Canadian. I have no intention to interfere with your domestic political process, and I'm not an expert on Canadian counterterrorism law, either. These are not issues that would be appropriate for me to speak on. What I can speak on is the nature of the threat, and based on that, let me say that I do have sympathy for the request by your government and by the professionals in your security agencies for specific additional powers.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On behalf of the committee, thank you very much, Mr. Neumann, and thank you for engaging with us from across the pond.

At this time we will turn to our round of questioning.

Mr. Norlock, you are up for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

My first set of questions will be for Deputy Commissioner Tod.

Deputy Commissioner, in this committee we have heard evidence that the terrorist threat to this country and other countries in the western world, indeed to all the world, is constantly evolving. Would you agree with me that a constantly evolving threat requires a constantly evolving set of tools for people like your agency and the agencies you represent, the Chiefs of Police of Canada, as well as the RCMP which you work with, and CSIS, who I believe works in tandem with you? Do you believe that C-51 is part of a regime of laws that begins to meet this evolving threat? Feel free to expand on your response.

[D/Commr Scott Tod]

Thank you for the question.

I do agree with you on the first point that the constantly evolving threat requires new tools. Legislation is one of them, but also there are skills development among investigators, research with academia, and better relationships with our communities and our public safety partners, which we have. Those are three major areas in which the tools can be better built to make us more successful.

As I think Professor Neumann well pointed out, the evolving threat changes. In the four years in which I've been in this position, I have seen the threat of terrorism come from the plot-driven nature, where the police or a security service, foreign or national, would advise us that there was a plot occurring and that individuals were plotting to conduct a terrorist attack. Professor Neumann put it very well that it's now an individual member. There is no communication with other people perhaps, but there's the sympathizer and supporter that may be behind the individual. That lone wolf, as much as I wish there were a different term for it, that individual actor that's going to commit terrorism is the threat we face today. That may change for tomorrow, but it's the threat we're facing right now, along with all the other past terrorist techniques or terrorist events that we have seen: the plot offences and the various extremist groups that are out there, both left and right. The most recent one we're looking at, the lone wolf, certainly is the one which is occupying many of our resources and much of our time, and is the one that requires the greatest amount of effort from law enforcement.

I do think Bill C-51 plays a part in that. As I stated, it provides the threshold that we see now. The old threshold that we had to be definitive and that an attack would occur, now is “likely may occur”. I think that deals with that lone individual. There's less chance to determine communication and less chance to determine action that's occurring that may drive an act.

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

Thank you very much.

One of the items that we've been dealing with—one of the sections, and you did refer to it—is the recognizance with condition. That tool, from a terrorist perspective, has been used not too often, but it has been used. For people who are not familiar with law enforcement, what we commonly refer to as peace bonds, as they relate to domestic situations, make sure that for domestic assaults, for domestic situations, or for neighbours that don't get along, the justice will say, “Keep the peace; be on good behaviour“ and put on other conditions. From an anti-terrorism perspective in Bill C-51 we have changed some of the threshold to be more cognizant to the changing threat. I wonder if you could comment on the recognizance with conditions as it pertains to terrorism and the review of detention as a valuable tool to law enforcement.

[D/Commr Scott Tod]

Recognizance opportunities that are included in Bill C-51 on an offence that likely may occur, as I mentioned, it allows us to.... The guiding principle of law enforcement is to preserve life. I talked about the nature of the threat now and the velocity of information required in regard to determining a solution by law enforcement is a matter of days sometimes. The ability to ensure that we have been able to establish the security level for the public, and also able to determine the veracity of that threat, is difficult to do in regard to collecting source information, confirming source information, and dealing with foreign entities. The whole aspect of being able to ensure that we preserve life by using the recognizance provisions that are in Bill C-51, in order to determine the veracity of that threat and to continue the investigation for completion, is important. It must say that the recognizance provisions that are within the new legislation are similar to the legislation that's existing in the fact that we have to provide and bring the individual before a justice. There are provisions built in there where the conditions must be fulfilled by the crown in order for a justice to order continued detention. It's the same process that we have right now in the 810 recogs for other crimes that we also use it for.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question will be for Mr. Neumann.

Mr. Neumann, thank you for being here tonight on a long distance call.

You mentioned the evolving threat and how it's changing. We're from a different country and we like to compare. Would you be able to compare Bill C-51—I imagine you're somewhat familiar with it—to anti-terrorism legislation that has been enacted in your country to meet that evolving threat? Also in regard to some of the other western European countries as they try to cope with the evolving threat, how does this legislation compare? What is the degree to which it differs? Would you expand on that, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry, I'd love to hear the response, Mr. Norlock, but we're over time on this. I'm sure there will be another opportunity for Mr. Neumann to give that comparative example.

At this point, we will go to Madam Doré Lefebvre.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the witnesses for taking part in today's meeting, whether they are in the room or participating by video conference. We greatly appreciate it.

I will continue with you, Mr. Neumann.

I think that, in the fight against terrorism and radicalization, it is always a good idea to talk about best practices with the various countries and with our various allies. It was extremely important for me to have you here in committee so that we could discuss the anti-terrorism and deradicalization strategies that Great Britain is using.

In its anti-terrorism strategy, the Government of Great Britain has included pillars, such as a prevention program and the Channel program, which receives substantial funding.

Could you tell us more about the importance of the involvement with the community? If I've understood correctly, involvement with the community is an important part of Great Britain's strategy. Why is it essential to Great Britain's anti-terrorism strategy?

[Dr. Peter Neumann]

Thank you very much for the question. I am pleased to attend today's meeting.

The Channel program is a very important program in the U.K. counterterrorism strategy. It is an intervention program, which means that if the police or other actors identify cases of high-risk people who are on the verge of engaging in violent extremism, those cases are then being referred to the Channel program, which brings together all the relevant stakeholders—the police, it could be welfare officers, it could be the school, it could be psychologists, it could be theological consultants—to figure out exactly what has gone wrong in that particular case and to work out a systematic intervention to prevent that person from going further and engaging in violent extremism.

It is, if you want, the last stop before counterterrorism kicks in and someone gets arrested. It offers a last opportunity to a person to disengage from the path that they are on and to prevent people from becoming terrorists. That Channel program has been used, I think, in 2,000 or 3,000 cases over the past decade, and the government in the U.K. says it has been very successful. I do think it has been very successful, although my criticism is that the U.K. government has been quite secretive about it. We do not know exact numbers on how many of those people have reoffended, how many have stayed out of trouble. But from my conversations with people who are involved in that program, it is a very useful tool.

Just as a last sentence on this, I've been told by people in the United States of America that had they had a program like the Channel program, perhaps the Boston bombers, instead of being let loose after being interviewed by the FBI, would have been referred into that program, because it was clear to a lot of people that those people were on the verge of joining terrorist organizations, but there wasn't quite enough yet to charge them. It is a useful tool, I believe.

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

That's very interesting.

You just mentioned the United States. I know that recently you took part in a summit on violent extremism, which was held at the White House.

Could you give us a little more information about that? How is the American government handling the problem? You spoke about the attacks in Boston. What exactly were your discussions about? Is the government trying to work with communities on site to develop a strategy like Great Britain's Channel program, or is it focusing more on expanding the powers of its intelligence services?

[Dr. Peter Neumann]

I had the privilege of participating in the White House summit. Even though it got a lot of bad press afterwards, I think it was a very worthwhile initiative, because it highlighted the importance of prevention.

It is very important to engage in counterterrorism, but counterterrorism in many ways is firefighting. It is to deal with urgent cases, people who are on the verge of carrying out terrorist attacks. If we want to be successful in the long term, we have to complement the counterterrorism by prevention efforts.

I think it is very good that the Obama administration in the U.S. has put a lot of emphasis on prevention, which is what it calls countering violent extremism. Whenever you hear that acronym, CVE, countering violent extremism, what they really mean is prevention.

In 2011 the U.S. government constructed a strategy to empower local actors to engage in countering violent extremism. These activities are not about empowering the intelligence services. I think it was very important for U.S. lawmakers and for U.S. decision-makers not to what they call securitize relationships with Muslim communities, so they put a lot of emphasis on empowering communities to do their own work and to avoid the trap of using these initiatives in order to gain intelligence. That has not always been successful, but that was the intention by the U.S. government.

I personally believe that it was an honest intention, even though I admit that since 2011, despite all the best intentions, not that much has happened in the U.S. If you look at the U.S., there is not a lot of activity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Madam Doré Lefebvre.

Mr. Falk, you have the floor, sir.