Public Safety Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

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

The report from SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, tabled last week indicated that not only had no threat disruption activity that would have required a warrant been undertaken, but also that no warrant was even asked for.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

There are threat disruption activities that have been undertaken without a warrant, and so those threat disruption activities presumably—

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

—are completely consistent with the law and completely consistent with the charter.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

They are reviewed—

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

—by SIRC. Indeed, one of the requirements of the Security Intelligence Review Committee is to review those activities every year, and that may be one thing that the new committee of parliamentarians would want to delve into on a regular basis, as well.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

It's a good segue to the issue of oversight. The RCMP, CSIS, and CSE are each subject to oversight, or review bodies, I should say. CBSA, you noted in response to a previous question, is not. Quite a bit of the academic literature suggests that we have a silo effect. We have whole-of-government security, but we don't have whole-of-government review. I wonder if you could speak to the necessity of whole-of-government review and your experience to date.

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

That's a very good point and a very good question.

One of the virtues of the way we have structured the committee of parliamentarians is that it is not in any silo. When the British review mechanism was established, for example, there were four specific agencies that the British committee could look at; no others, just four. In the Canadian model, we have made it government-wide. This committee will have, first of all, access to classified information that has never before been made available to parliamentarians. Second, they can follow the information wherever it leads, from agency to agency and department to department. Wherever it goes in the government, they are entitled to look at all of it.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Without getting into Bill C-22 and parliamentary oversight, but specific to expert review, the academic literature suggests that in addition to parliamentary oversight and review, and in addition to the three review bodies, a super-SIRC is likely necessary. Would you speak to that, specifically?

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

That is an idea I want very much to examine in this consultation process, because there are gaps in the architecture. You pointed that out, as I did, with CBSA, and there are others. You need the expert analysis, and you need the parliamentary analysis. Since we've never had the parliamentary analysis before, there will be some working out here of how the two interconnect with each other, but both are required, and we have to find a way to get out of the silos.

The parliamentary committee by definition is out of the silos. The review bodies below them are still limited, and we'll have to examine how you get that cross-fertilization.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I have one final question with respect to information sharing. The Privacy Commissioner attended before another committee I sit on, which is the privacy committee, and suggested that he was not completely clear on how much information had been shared under the new act.

The departments hadn't all been completely forthcoming in a timely manner with his office. I wonder if you could give some assurances to Canadians that you're seized with this matter.

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

Yes. I was concerned with the Privacy Commissioner's comments. As I said earlier, I consider him to be an essential part of the oversight apparatus, and I take his advice very seriously. As a first step, I'm in the process of writing to all of my cabinet colleagues to remind them of the obligations that are imposed on departments by virtue of the new legislation and to make sure that they have the right privacy protections in place.

The Privacy Commissioner is usually very forthcoming in providing advice about what he thinks is necessary to fix problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Minister.

We now move to Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you very much for being here today.

As you know, we have already started the consultation. The green paper serves as the working document for the consultation. In addition to the Privacy Commissioner, we heard from another witness this week, Professor Wark, who stated that the green paper understates the whole digital aspect of national security.

Allow me to paraphrase your leader: it’s 2016. In my opinion, this aspect is extremely important. We cannot underestimate the threats that can be made against Canada, especially not from the social and digital media that can attack our security.

I would like to know what you think about it. As you signed the green paper, I imagine that you are well aware of it.

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

There are three different consultations going on with respect to cyber issues and digital issues. Obviously, that is included, in part, in the national security review that I am responsible for. At the same time, we have a focused discussion with industry and with the public on cybersecurity issues and the protection of critical Canadian infrastructure. That's going on at the same time in a different forum, a parallel study. In addition to that, cyber issues are covered in the national defence review that my colleague the Minister of National Defence is conducting.

It's a crosscutting issue. It's not just in one department or one dimension of government. Cyber issues cut across the whole span of government and the private sector operations. It's a field that is rapidly evolving, and we need to make sure that our cyber policy is up to speed. The last cyber policy in Canada was from 2010, I believe. Even in the span of four or five years, it is generally regarded now as outdated. It was thought to be, in 2010, quite avant-garde, ahead of the curve, but cyber issues have evolved so dramatically that we are not as up to speed as we ought to be. That is why we are looking at it from the point of view of public safety, from the point of view of industry and the private sector, and from the point of view of national defence.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

In our study, do you want us to focus on anything in particular in order to learn any specifics in the area of public security in the committee’s purview? Would you like to see some aspects more than others in our final report?

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

There are a huge number of issues you might tackle, but one, which is referred to in the paper, is the phenomenon that police and security agencies call “going dark”, when the activities of would-be criminals or would-be terrorists are so technically encrypted from beginning to end that there is no ability, or very limited ability, to detect the activities of those who would pose a threat to public safety or national security. That issue—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Do you know whether terrorist organizations are able to do that? What do you understand by “going dark”?

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

That's the buzz phrase, “go dark”. This means that, if you are an investigator, all of a sudden all of your access to information evaporates, because not only the material but the systems that carry the material are so heavily encrypted you are not able to even detect the trail that you might like to follow. That is a huge issue that is technological on one side, and legal and constitutional on the other side. It would be very useful to hear the debate in the committee and the evidence of the witnesses you might call, to delve more deeply into that very critical field. It's a field that had a bearing on the ability to detect, or not, the activities of Mr. Driver.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Minister.

We are almost at our time. We have one questioner left.

I can give you about a minute and a half.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Minister. It is always good to see you at committee, and I want to commend you for leading Canada's first-ever public consultation on national security. It's truly historic.

I have time for one question, and I want it to relate to counter-radicalization. Can you tell this committee what, if any, partnerships you see with social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, where there is, sadly, regrettably, a lot of non-sanctionable speech that crosses the Rubicon into inciting terrorist activity? What kind of partnerships do you see going forward so that we can stymie the spread of that?

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

The whole effort in terms of community outreach and counter-radicalization will need to be built on partnerships. The federal government can establish a centre of excellence, pay for research, and promote coordination and co-operation, but the actual activity that will make a difference in heading off that cycle into violence will be at the community level, with religious and social organizations and with the private sector, such as those who are very good at communicating.

We are going to have to consult with them very carefully to get their advice about the right way to intervene and the right message that intervenes most effectively with the right people at the right time at the right place in order to head off a tragedy. Partnerships with community organizations and with private enterprises that have expertise in this field will be absolutely critical.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Minister, thank you for your time with the committee.

We expect to see you in a few weeks. We have the honour of having your deputy staying with us as other officials come in.

Let's take a moment as we pause and let the minister leave and other witnesses come in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Committee, I know you'll be very pleased that we're going to get right to questioning. The opening statement was done by the minister, and we now have witnesses here.

Mr. Brown from the department is still here. He is now joined by Ms. Beauregard.

Monsieur Coulombe, from CSIS, welcome again.

Mr. Paulson, it's nice to see you back.

Thank you for taking the time to join us.

As you know, we are beginning a fairly large study of the national security framework. This is not a legislative study. It is a study by parliamentarians on the whole framework, which we hope will help to advise the minister as he considers both policy and legislative changes in the coming year. That is the nature of our work. We're not dealing with any legislation in particular. We will be dealing with Bill C-22, now that it has been referred to us. If Bill C-21 and Bill C-23 pass in the House, we expect they will also come to us. This is really very much at the theoretical level of what we as parliamentarians need to be advising the minister on, having listened to the agencies and Canadians.

Welcome, Ms. Khalid. We're glad to have you and Ms. Petitpas Taylor as well. Thank you for joining us.

We're going to begin this round of seven-minute questions with Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, all, for coming. I would ask the chair to indulge me for just a moment.

Commissioner Paulson, when you appeared before, I certainly asked you about harassment in the RCMP. I just want to publicly thank you for your announcement this morning. It was historic. I'm very hopeful, as I know you are, that this will turn a page in a new chapter for the RCMP. Thank you for that.