Evidence of meeting #28 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Yes, it might be 20. An important point to specify is that all of them didn't require Federal Court warrants.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
That's understood, because you weren't seeking to deal with the charter anyway, and we heard that from the minister.
With respect to these disruption powers, I want to get at the heart of this. Can you speak to why these powers are necessary, and perhaps give us specific examples of where the pre-Bill C-51 powers were insufficient and why existing law enforcement powers are insufficient.
5 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
When it comes to our mandate, our threshold to investigate is lower. We're in the position at the very emergence of a threat to be there and to see the evolution. As the commissioner just mentioned, that evolution today from planning to execution, and from radicalization to mobilizing to use violence, means that time is extremely short. Threat reduction can be useful in scenarios where we want to reduce that threat as soon as possible, and that's something we couldn't do before.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
What I'm trying to get at is that “threat reduction” is a very broad term. I know that in other countries they specify the powers in a less vague way, to put it politely. Specifically, what are examples for Canadians to know? When we say “threat disruption” or “threat reduction”, what are we talking about?
5 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
There are examples in the green paper. I think when I testified previously, I gave an example that “non-warranted” can be as simple as asking somebody to intervene because a young person is on the path to radicalization and mobilizing to violence. It could be informing the parents that their kid is on that path. It could be advising social media that a user is breaching their rules. The service will not take down the account, and it's up to the social media to do it. Those simple things we couldn't do before.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
If we go back to 1981, the McDonald Commission found that security intelligence should be separated by police work. Could you speak to One Vision 2.0 and give a quick explanation of that to the committee? Could you speak to whether we should codify One Vision 2.0 and the requirement for collaboration and notification between the RCMP and CSIS?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Perhaps you could comment as to whether that should be long-standing and we should codify that.
5 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
You mean the relationship...?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Give a brief explanation of One Vision 2.0. Is it working? Is it something we should—
5 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Oh, it's a framework. It's a framework for CSIS personnel and the RCMP when we're looking at the same investigation and how to do this. To make sure there's notification and no gaps is extremely important for us, and that whatever we're going to be doing will not have a negative impact on the criminal investigation further down the road for a criminal prosecution.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
You're not having two separate parallel tracks, but you're in communication.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay.
Moving to Commissioner Paulson, with preventive arrest and the expansion of preventive arrest, you mentioned a lowering of the threshold. Is that lowering of the threshold necessary? Has this preventive arrest power been used since Bill C-51?
5 p.m.
Commr Bob Paulson
No, it has not been used. I would continue to argue that it's nice to have, given how we understand the threat because of what I described and what my colleague described, as well. The difficulties we have in getting the information, as complex as it is, unpacked as it often needs to be, and presented coherently to a prosecutor to be able to make all the decisions takes a lot of time. That's the advantage, in my mind.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Since it hasn't been used, then is it fair to say we don't have any evidence that lowering the threshold is necessary or that the increase from three to seven days was necessary?
5 p.m.
Commr Bob Paulson
We don't have any evidence different from what we had to have a change in the first place.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay.
I'd asked the minister about a super-SIRC and a larger review body. I'm curious you would have no position on this. I mean, obviously there is a review body already that governs CSIS and that governs the RCMP. Would you be supportive of a super-SIRC that could share information and match whole-of-government security with whole-of-government review? Would you have no issue with it?
5 p.m.
Commr Bob Paulson
I don't take any issue with any oversight. I think the need to coordinate the oversight—because there is no shortage of oversight in my mind—and to have it coherent is important.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Yes, so the existing review bodies would coordinate together and perhaps we would pull the CBSA into the review, as well.
Mr. Coulombe, would you have any thoughts on that?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
That's a policy issue to be decided by government, and the service will, whatever tools are put in place, review and have oversight over the service, and—
5:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
—we'll co-operate and work within that framework.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Perfect.
There's a definition in the SCISA, “activity that undermines the security of Canada”, and it's a very different definition from that in the CSIS Act, “threats to the security of Canada”.
Mr. Coulombe, would you have any issue if we stuck with the “threats to the security of Canada” definition in the CSIS Act? That's the one you've always operated under.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I'll talk about the CSIS Act. We continue.... SCISA didn't change anything.