Public Safety Committee on May 13th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Mr. Dubé, you have three minutes.

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

I just have two last questions. One may seem a little ridiculous, but I think it's important.

Will the format of the report be different next time so that it is easier to view on a computer—for example, to allow searching using the Ctrl-F keys? In other words, will it still be a scanned copy?

[Rennie Marcoux]

This problem is related to the redaction process. You can't just cross out the information in a document and then transfer it to a computer or on the web. In fact, copies and photocopies must be made before they are posted on the website.

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

You will forgive me for saying that in 2019, we should be able to find a solution to consult the document more quickly.

[Rennie Marcoux]

Yes.

We share your frustration, Mr. Dubé.

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

Excellent. Thank you. I couldn't help but mention it.

I have one last quick thing to ask you.

To go back to the first question I asked, is there a plan to formally monitor the implementation of the recommendations made by the NSICOP? I asked the same question at the beginning of my intervention, but I just want to make sure that there is a formal follow-up on these recommendations.

[David McGuinty]

Yes.

The NSICOP has a plan to do exactly this kind of follow-up. We are really pleased to be here today, and perhaps be invited to the Senate later, to address your counterparts there. We think this is a good start to raise awareness among parliamentarians at the very least.

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

Excellent. Thank you.

[David McGuinty]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

I have one last question.

In your recommendations, you talk about the process for setting intelligence priorities, the F1 recommendation, and you're complimentary about that. Then you say in F7 that the performance measurement for the security and intelligence community is not robust enough.

Intelligence priorities change all the time. The one that comes to mind is the change in priorities between terrorism and cybersecurity. A lot of intelligence analysts think that cybersecurity is a far greater threat than terrorism.

Can you describe that process, in terms of whether you're satisfied that, ultimately, we have our priorities correct?

[David McGuinty]

When we undertook the intelligence priority setting review, we did it because we wanted to be, so to speak, at the top of the crow's nest for the country, examining the overall architecture of security and intelligence, while at the same time getting into the engine room, to see how these priorities were, in fact, arrived at.

One of the stumbling blocks we think we happened upon here, which is made very plain in the recommendation, is this question of standing intelligence requirements. There are over 400. It's very difficult to triage and feed 400-plus standing intelligence requirements into a cabinet process. We don't have access to cabinet confidences in this regard, but we see most of the material that has led up to those kinds of discussions and debate.

We think there's real improvement to be made, which is why we're calling on the national security and intelligence adviser to take a much more proactive role. The NSIA is pivotal in the overall architecture of security and intelligence in Canada, and she is best placed, we believe, to streamline and simplify. A lot of good front-line actors in security and intelligence in the country are looking for more clarity, and perhaps a smoother process.

The entire chapter breaks down for Canadians how this works, step by step, and we've honed in on a couple of internal fine-tuning mechanisms that we think would go a certain distance in improving the entire process.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you for that.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both of you for your presentation. It's an insight that all of us appreciate. I commend the work of your committee. I commend your report. Thank you for the very hard work that I know you have put in over the last 18 months.

With that, colleagues, I propose to suspend until we see Minister Goodale in the room, but I'm going to turn to Mr. Paul-Hus while we have a little bit of time. He wishes to deal with M-167, which is not on the agenda. I only want to deal with that if there is unanimity on the part of colleagues to deal with it now. If not, I'm just going to shut it down and deal with it—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We have to be in camera for that, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, we do.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We can't wait for Ralph then.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

First of all, is there an attitude that we wish to do this at the end of Minister Goodale's presentation?

[An hon. member]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You'll be fine if I then go in camera. Is that right? I want to just make sure we are all okay.

With that, we will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We will resume. The minister and his colleagues are with us.

This is a special meeting. We agreed to invite the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appear on, respond to and take questions on the “2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”.

I'll turn to Minister Goodale for his opening statement and ask him to introduce his colleagues.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. It's good to be back.

I have with me today the associate deputy minister, Vincent Rigby, the commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, and the director of CSIS, David Vigneault.

We're happy to try to respond to your questions about the “2018 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”.

I'd like to begin by saying that the women and men who work for our intelligence and security agencies do an incredible and very difficult job of identifying, monitoring, mitigating, and stopping threats in the interests of keeping Canadians safe. It is a 24-7, unrelenting job and the people who protect us deserve our admiration and our thanks.

The purpose of the “Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada” is to provide Canadians with unclassified information about the threats we are facing. That includes threats emanating from Canada but targeted elsewhere around the world. No country wants to be an exporter of terrorism or violent extremism. Providing Canadians with a public assessment of terrorists threats is a core element of the government's commitment to transparency and accountability. While never exposing classified information, the goal is to be informative and accurate.

Before I get into the specifics of this year's report, I would like to remind committee members about the “2016 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”. In the ministerial foreword to that report, I wrote this:

It is a serious and unfortunate reality that terrorist groups, most notably the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), use violent extremist propaganda to encourage individuals to support their cause. This group is neither Islamic nor a state, and so will be referred to as Daesh (its Arabic acronym) in this Report.

In hindsight, that principle is something that should have better guided the authors of subsequent reports when referring to the various terrorist threats facing our country. Canadians of all faiths and backgrounds have helped to build our country and continue to be integral members of our communities and neighbourhoods. They contribute to inspiring a stronger, more equal and compassionate Canada, one that we all strive for. It is neither accurate nor fair to equate any one community or an entire religion with extremist violence or terror. To do so is simply wrong and inaccurate.

Following the issuance of the 2018 report, we heard several strong objections, particularly from the Sikh and Muslim communities in Canada, that the language in the report was not sufficiently precise. Due to its use of terms such as “Sikh extremism” or “Sunni extremism”, the report was perceived as impugning entire religions instead of properly zeroing in on the dangerous actions of a small number of people. I can assure you that broad brush was not the intent of the report. It used language that has actually been in use for years. It has appeared in places such as the previous government's 2012 counterterrorism strategy and the report in December 2018 of the all-party National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. Similar language also appeared on the Order Paper of the House of Commons in reference to certain proposed parliamentary business. As I have said before, language matters. Just because something has often been phrased in a certain way does not mean that it should be phrased in that way now or in the future.

As a result of the concerns presented to me, I requested a review of the language in the report, to ensure that it provides Canadians with useful, unclassified information about terrorist threats to Canada without falsely maligning any particular community. We consulted with the Sikh and Muslim communities in Canada. We consulted with the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on National Security. We consulted with our security and intelligence agencies. We also heard from many members of Parliament.

Going forward, we will use terminology that focuses on intent or ideology, rather than an entire religion. As an example, the report now refers to “extremists who support violent means to establish an independent state within India”. This is an approach, interestingly enough, that is sometimes used by some of our allies. For instance, the 2018 national strategy for counterterrorism of the United States of America reads in part, “Babbar Khalsa International seeks, through violent means, to establish its own independent state in India”.

The objective must be to describe the threat to the public accurately and precisely, without unintentionally condemning the entire Sikh community or any other community. The vast majority of the Sikh community in Canada are peaceful and would never wish to harm anyone, not in this country or anywhere else.

Similarly, we have eliminated the use of terms such as “Shia or Sunni extremism”. Going forward, these threats will be described in a more precise manner, such as by referring directly to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or Daesh. That is more accurate and more informative. Once again, the point is that language matters, and we must always be mindful of that fact, which is why the review will be an ongoing process.

I'm sure that every member here has seen the increasing statistics on hate crime published just a couple of weeks ago. Sadly, 2017 saw a 47% increase in police-reported hate crime in Canada. Social media platforms are making it easier and easier for hateful individuals to find each other and then to amplify their toxic rhetoric. Tragically, as we saw very recently in New Zealand, this sometimes leads to devastating and deadly consequences. The idea should be anathema to all of us that governments of any stripe might inadvertently continue to use language that can then be twisted by these nefarious and violent individuals as proof points in their minds and justifications for their hatred.

In addition to the language review, I would like to share some of the innovative things that our security agencies are doing to be accurate, effective and bias-free in their day-to-day work. That's just one example. For the past several months, the people who are tasked with making those final difficult decisions about adding someone to the SATA, the Secure Air Travel Act, or the no-fly list, in other words, have had the name and the picture of that particular person removed from the file, so that the name or the picture does not influence the final decision, not even subconsciously. The focus of the decision-makers must be on the facts that are in the file, and they must make a decision on the basis of those facts. So it's a matter of fact and not prejudice.

The women and men of our intelligence and security community are hard-working professionals, but there is not a human being alive who is not prone to some preconceived idea or bias. Government should try very hard to mitigate the effects of this very human trait.

Finally, while the updated report has been received reasonably well, there have been critics who have complained that the changes reduce the ability of our agencies to do their job. I would profoundly disagree with that. The factual content of the report has not changed. It continues to outline the threats facing and emanating from Canada. It simply does it in a manner that cannot be interpreted to denigrate entire communities or religions because of the actions of a small number of individuals who are actually behaving in a manner that is contrary to what that community holds dear. The whole community should not be condemned for that.

Frankly, our security and intelligence agencies need the goodwill and the support of all peaceful, law-abiding members of all communities to do their jobs effectively. We cannot build those partnerships if the language we use creates division or distance or unease among those communities and our security agencies.

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to be here again today. I and my officials would be pleased to try to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister Goodale.

Ms. Sahota, you have seven minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, Minister, I'd like to thank you for appearing here today. Thank you for the work you do. We know with the RCMP and CSIS, your job is not easy. You keep our country safe, and it is much appreciated.

I have raised this issue with you, Minister, several times. My community and several stakeholders contacted me after this report was made public back in December. They were truly bewildered as to why Sikhs had been identified in this way, why other faiths—Sunni, Shia, Islamist—had been mentioned in this report. Previously in these public reports they've always focused on regions and extremist travellers. Why the change in the way this report was set up this time?

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

Ms. Sahota, the report is the collective work of a variety of security and intelligence agencies within the Government of Canada. As you have acknowledged, they do a very difficult and very professional job of assessing the risks before the country at any given moment. That changes from time to time. Since this is a report to the government and to the public, it's perhaps not for me to comment on the input that went into it.

Perhaps, David, from CSIS's point of view, can you provide a perspective on the factors that would come into the thinking of the authors of the report in what needs to be assembled at any given moment and...?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

If I may just add a little more to that, in your introductory remarks, Minister, you referred to the 2016 report which specifically mentioned that ISIL would no longer be used as it's neither Islamic nor a state and Daesh would be used. Why that reversal in this report? We've seen a lot of changes in the layout, the substance and the description in this report.

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

Mr. Rigby, the associate deputy minister, wants to comment.