Public Safety Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Louise Vincent, who is the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent who was killed, I believe in the Montreal area, appeared before the public safety committee. She stated that the RCMP had not been able to get a peace bond against Martin Couture-Rouleau due to a high evidence threshold. Has that changed? Is that true? Can you comment on that?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes, I can. To be fair to everyone who was working on that case, on Couture-Rouleau, we had not.... We didn't obtain a peace bond on Couture-Rouleau. I think it's become easier since then to get a peace bond. Certainly the threshold has changed. Bill C-51 provides for a lesser threshold, which is “reasonable fear”.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'm running out of time. There's a private member's bill before the House to define “variant”, which is named 97 times in the Firearms Act. Would that bill be helpful to the RCMP?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I don't know. I can't answer that. I'm not in a position to answer that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. I have one last question. Going back to what we were discussing before that last question, would Warrant Officer Vincent, in your opinion, still be alive had Bill C-51 been in place?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I don't think I can answer that, either.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. I have 12 seconds. The reason I asked that is a couple of people in law enforcement said as much. It might have been an opinion, but I just wanted to hear your answer on it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We now move to Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us today.

Mr. Coulombe, I have in my hand a directive that the minister sent to your predecessor about sharing information, more specifically about what is described as mistreatment, but let’s call it what it is, we are talking about torture. My colleague Ms. Laverdière and I have done a lot of work on this. One thing particularly concerns us, if you will allow me to quote the minister’s letter.

As a general rule, CSIS is directed to not knowingly rely upon information derived through mistreatment by foreign entities.

However, the letter continues as follows:

In exceptional circumstances, CSIS may need to share the most complete information in its possession, including information from foreign entities that was likely to be derived through mistreatment…

Can you guarantee us that we are not currently using information obtained as the result of torture? I feel that Canadians would be of the opinion that it is unacceptable.

In addition, do you agree with us when we say that this is the kind of directive that we should discontinue? You have to make sure we are protected, but we also want our values protected. In our opinion, this does not correspond to our values at all.

[Michel Coulombe]

Actually, in the annual report that was recently tabled by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, the matter of exchanging information with foreign partners was studied.

SIRC found that, after that departmental directive, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, quickly established governance policies to make sure that it is complying with its legal obligations and following the minister's directive.

That includes a high-level committee that meets to assess the risks involved in mistreatment or torture. If ever we exchange information, the committee must evaluate how it may have been obtained and must decide whether we should use it or not. If that assessment carries a high risk, I am the person who has to make the final decision to share or to use the information we have received.

SIRC says that CSIS has established a very rigorous structure in order to meet its obligations as to mistreatment as well as its obligation to protect Canadians, which is its primary mandate.

To answer your second question quickly, I will say that it is a policy matter that is up to the government and to Parliament to debate and decide.

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

Okay.

In terms of the discretionary aspect, information obtained as a result of torture is considered to be almost 100% ineffective. So it cannot really be said that Canadians' security is assured.

Is it really necessary to use information obtained as a result of torture?

[Michel Coulombe]

It is said that information obtained as the result of mistreatment is often untrustworthy, and I am not here to try to contradict that. The fact is that, if we have information obtained as the result of torture, we are aware that the information may not be trustworthy and we try to find other sources in order to corroborate it. We must also decide if we are going to keep that information to ourselves, even in cases where police forces could act to prevent an incident that is about to happen.

We are aware of that and we take it into account in the measures we undertake. Either we try to find other sources to corroborate the information or we determine the use we will make of it, knowing that it is doubtful that the information can be trusted.

It would be irresponsible for CSIS to simply dismiss the information out of hand if there is a clear and present danger to Canadians.

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

Speaking of sharing information between consular services and Global Affairs Canada, pursuant to the provisions of Bill C-51, how can we be sure that we will not run into another case like that of Maher Arar, where information obtained as a result of torture did not seem to be discredited?

Bill C-51 also provides for agreements that allow information on Canadians detained abroad to be obtained.

In circumstances like those, how can we assure Canadians that the information that you are sharing has not been obtained as a result of torture and we are not once more going through that experience that was supposed to be an opportunity for learning and major reform?

[Michel Coulombe]

Today, we have legislation that deals with the exchange of information in the particular case you mentioned, that is between Global Affairs Canada and the service. That did not exist three years ago or even last year. As has been announced in the media, CSIS and Global Affairs Canada have recently signed a protocol. Before that—

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

I am sorry to interrupt you, but my time is limited.

What exactly are the specific protections provided for in the legislation that would prevent such a situation from happening?

[Michel Coulombe]

It is the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which comes about as the result of Bill C-51. It must be said that the act is not binding on other departments.

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

Nevertheless, an agreement exists.

[Michel Coulombe]

The use of the act remains voluntary. It is to facilitate the exchange of information.

As for protection, the act stipulates that the agency providing the information must make sure that the information is relevant to the recipient institution's jurisdiction.

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

Let's keep going with that logic.

I have a copy in English here in front of me. If we talk about the threshold that exists, relevant versus necessary—I think that's what we've got into—the Privacy Commissioner said that that threshold should be changed. Basically, the situation we're now in is that information is subject to a lower threshold, so there really isn't a very large legal protection to avoid a similar situation like we've seen in the past.

[Michel Coulombe]

I'm not in a position to debate legal threshold, but the other protection we haven't talked about, and I've just mentioned it, is the fact that the Privacy Commissioner can review the information that was exchanged. In the case of the service, SIRC can review all the information that we receive through what is known as SCISA, the act that came through Bill C-51. I believe there is protection.

Now, should the threshold be higher or lower? Again, that's a policy decision for parliamentarians and the government.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

I want to start with a quick question for Mr. Coulombe on disruption powers. Perhaps you could give the committee an update on the number of times the new threat reduction powers have been used.

[Michel Coulombe]

I think it was February that I was in front of this committee. At the time I believe I mentioned something around two dozen, if I'm correct. My answer will still be the same because we're not doing a huge number of them. It could have been 18 at the time, and now it's 20.

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

It might be 20?