Public Safety Committee on May 13th, 2019

[Vincent Rigby, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thanks very much, Minister.

This is a whole of security and intelligence community product. Public Safety has the technical lead, but we reach out to the community and in a very inclusive way take input from across the RCMP, from CSIS, from ITAC. We assemble the information both in threat and threat capabilities and also in the government response. We pull all that material together and then we all collectively agree at the end of the day, right up to head of agency, before it goes to the government and to the minister to sign off.

There had been, I think, a little criticism in the last couple of years that the reports had not been as detailed as people would like. They'd like it to be a little more expansive and go into a little more of the intricacies of the threat, etc. I think in our attempt perhaps to provide a little more of that detail, unfortunately some language crept into the report that, at the end of the day, we're now here to discuss. As the minister said, the language which in future we would much prefer will focus more on ideology and less on community.

That's a little of the background as to how this slipped in. Again, the language had been used in previous reports, but in some of the specific terminology the minister referred to, had not been used since 2012.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Okay. I know there has been some criticism about removing these words, saying that it will not be precise, but like the minister, I disagree. I think homing in on the actual terrorist organizations is being far more precise.

Can you explain to me, in the section on those who continue to support establishing an independent state within India by violent means, how this section is precise? The questions I get from stakeholders in the community is that this section, or reference to this section, has not previously been in past reports other than the mention of one organization, so why now? Why, when no events have occurred publicly that we know of, was it included in the 2018 report and never referenced before, when in that section it mainly references an incident and a time between 1982 and 1993?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I think Mr. Vigneault can comment on this, but I'd just make two preliminary observations.

The material that is prepared and published in the public threat report of course has to be unclassified. Classified information has to remain classified, but there is a parliamentary avenue for some examination of that. Of course, that's the purview of your previous witness this afternoon.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I was thinking that myself.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians was created for the purpose of allowing our security agencies, when appropriate, to be able to discuss classified information with the appropriate group of parliamentarians. That is the NSICOP as opposed to a standard parliamentary committee. If the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians wishes to pursue an issue of this kind, that would be the appropriate venue for that discussion to happen.

I will invite David Vigneault, the director of CSIS, to comment further.

[David Vigneault, Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you for your question and for giving me an opportunity to elaborate on this topic.

As you can imagine, CSIS's national security investigations are very fluid. They're influenced by events taking place here in Canada and taking place abroad. Our mandate is to make sure that individuals here in Canada who are supporting or engaged somehow in support of the use of violence for political purposes are investigated. These fluid investigations ebb and flow, and we have been providing advice to the government, and we have been providing advice to Public Safety in the context of the report and our threat assessment.

We stand behind the assessment we've provided that there is a small group of individuals who right now are engaging in activities that are pursuing use of violent means to establish an independent state in India. It is our responsibility to make sure that we investigate these threats and that we provide advice to the RCMP and to other colleagues to make sure, based on our information and our own investigations done by CSIS, that Canada is not being used to plot terrorist activity and that we Canadians are also safe at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there, Ms. Sahota.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have seven minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Goodale, I was fortunate to have the first copy of the December 11, 2018 report, which gave us some information. I understand your arguments and the whole explanation you are giving us to try to fix what, technically, we should not have had to do. I'm glad I got it, because it gives us information about national security.

For you, you're playing politics with it. What worries me a little bit is that at one point, as Canadians, we had access to information, which was then changed. We have learned that CSIS, the RCMP and other agencies have done some work and have reported important information in a Public Safety Canada report about our security. Subsequently, groups lobbied. You were initially pressured and on April 12, you amended the report. A second version has been put online on the site. Two weeks later, on April 26, another group lobbied, and you modified the report a second time. We now have a watered down version.

I want to understand the process. I know it can affect communities, but the fact remains that reports have been prepared by our security agencies and that information has been put on them that corresponds to the situation described. To what extent does politics play a role and do we water down reality so as not to hurt anyone? How does it work?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Paul-Hus, the representations that we received, as I mentioned in my remarks, came from representatives of the Muslim community and the Sikh community in particular. We also heard from a number of members of Parliament from different political parties, not just one. In fact, all sides of the House of Commons had occasion to comment on this situation and made their views known, raising similar kinds of concerns.

In assessing the input that was coming in, contrary to the assertion in your question, it was not a partisan issue; it was a matter of accuracy, fairness and being effective.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I believe the information was accurate. The information presented still clearly indicated points concerning an existing threat. You changed some words to lighten it up.

In essence, that's what politics is all about: trying not to displease people. However, the fact remains that the first version of the agencies was clear.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

No. That is not the purpose of the changes.

Clearly, what we heard from a number of stakeholders across the country, the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on National Security, and members of Parliament of several different political parties, when you read the words in the report, was the impression that an entire religion or an entire community was a threat to national security. That is factually incorrect.

There are certain individuals that are threats to national security that need to be properly investigated, but when you report on that matter publicly, using expressions that leave the impression with people that it's an entire religion, or an entire ethnocultural community that's to be feared, that is factually incorrect. That is what needed to be corrected.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

But we understand that we are talking about extremism. Obviously, not everyone is targeted. No matter which religions and cultural communities are involved, when we talk about radical Islam, for example, we clearly say “radical Islam”. We refer to people who are radical or radicalized. We don't attack all Muslims, of course.

Is there a way to be clear without attacking people who do not need to be targeted?

Word choice is important. It is important to avoid removing information, especially if you do not want to displease. What I want to know is the truth.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

No. The very objective here, Mr. Paul-Hus, is to do exactly what you have said, to convey the threats in a public way, in an accurate way, but not using a brush that is so broad that you condemn an entire religion, or you condemn an entire ethnocultural community.

While you have seen phrases in the report which to you were clear in narrowing the scope of what was being referred to, there were others who read that report and saw it exactly through the opposite end of the telescope, and saw the language used was broadening the brush beyond what really was the threat.

The objective of the review, the consultation, and the work we have done here is to be accurate and precise in telling Canadians what the threat is, but also to be fair in the sense that we are not condemning, impugning or maligning entire religions or entire ethnic communities.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

To your knowledge, is this the first time interest groups have lobbied to change a national security report?

In your government or in other governments, has there ever been a case where, following official publication, groups have information changed?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

In my experience in the areas over which I have jurisdiction and responsibility, this is the first change of this nature. The reaction was sufficiently large and pointed. It lead me to the conclusion that the problem being raised was a serious one. It wasn't just a little semantic argument. It was a very serious concern that impressions were being left by the report that were not fair and accurate, and that the language needed to be modified.

When we looked at the language, we found that very similar phrases had been used in many other places at different times, including in reports that had been filed by the previous government, in reports that had been filed by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Indeed, some of the language also appeared at one point in time on the Order Paper of the House of Commons.

The language had been in use, but just because it had been in use for a certain period of time or for certain purposes does not mean you need to continue using a phrase that is running the risk of conveying misinformation and a misimpression of entire communities or entire religions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

It would be helpful, Minister, if from time to time you looked at the chair so that colleagues can get their questions in.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

You are indeed a very attractive specimen, sir, but—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

—I'm admiring this entire committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I thought you'd admire my tie.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here. I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for accepting my motion to have you come and speak to this issue. As you know, I wrote to you in December when this issue first arose, and Mr. Singh and I had both written to the Prime Minister before the changes were made. Unlike what was just mentioned, the words do matter, and on that we agree, Minister.

I think the Sikh community deserves praise for standing up for itself because ultimately, the consequences are very real. There is a rise in hate crimes, and there is another form of terrorism that is happening in communities not just here in Canada but around the world, namely, going after and attacking faith communities, and other communities of course.

I think these changes are welcome, and I certainly hope the work will continue with affected communities, because there's a specific issue that was raised in this report. We know, though, that the Muslim community both here in Canada and around the world, and certainly in the United States, has faced this issue with regard to terrorism for the better part of two decades. It's a concern that has been raised. One of the reasons you've had to make changes to the no-fly list is that there is a form of profiling inherent in the way that apparatus works.

Minister, you've said a lot of the things that I think are welcome certainly by folks hoping for change in how this is done. We've asked that there be a rethink of this process, given that we are seeing a rise in hate crimes and other incidents that seriously jeopardize public safety.

Will there be a push to institutionalize the thinking that you've put forward here today? These types of mechanisms, transparency-wise, are very important but can have the opposite affect, as you've pointed out.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

We intend to use language throughout our systems, Mr. Dubé, that is accurate, precise and fair in conveying information about terrorist threats. It has to be an ongoing process. It's not something that you can just sort of do once as a kind of blip and presume that you've addressed the issue or solved the problem.

People need to be alert to the issue all the time, partly for the reason that you mentioned, that if you're not alert to the issue, you can inadvertently be encouraging those who would be inclined towards hate crimes and using the language as a pretext for what they do. The other reason it's important, Mr. Dubé, is that if we're going to have a safe, respectful, inclusive society, there has to be a good rapport between our police and security agencies and every community in our society. If language is used that is seen to be divisive, then you won't have that rapport, and we'll have a less safe society.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

It's probably not the greatest point to interrupt you on, but my time is limited. I did want to get to the substantive piece, though.

Older reports are quite challenging to find in this digital age, to be fair. I think that's worth pointing out, but from what we see, it has been 17 years since the issue that was raised in this report was ever part of a similar report, so it's been quite a while.

I think one of the issues that was raised by many who were taking issue with this is not just the language that's used, which we've all addressed today, but it's also the why. I think there was a question raised to that effect.

Given that you can't divulge everything because it's classified information, as much as we always want transparency, is there not a concern that if you can't explain why, some thought needs to be put into whether it's better to leave some things classified instead of sort of going halfway without being able to provide any justification?

This was also a big issue that was taken up by some of the communities that were calling the government to account on this.

It is important to raise the question of why. There was reporting this morning, even about the Minister of Foreign Affairs getting talking points relating to specific communities on foreign trips.

There is some cynicism around that. Are you not concerned that it gets fed into by dropping something into a report and then not being able to back it up?