Public Safety Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2016

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

Thanks very much.

Now assume for the sake of argument that Bill C-51 had not been adopted. Other jurisdictions explicitly state the powers of intelligence agencies. If we were to do the same, what specific powers would CSIS require that were unavailable before Bill C-51 was passed?

[Michel Coulombe]

We've talked about—and it's certainly timely with the debate in the U.S.—the issue of what is labelled as “going dark”, or the inability to intercept or obtain information, despite the fact that we have Federal Court warrants. There are a number of reasons, including strong encryption or the fact that the data is outside Canada, etc. That area would certainly be a top priority for the service.

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

I'm running out of time, but there was one concern with respect to seeking judicial authorization of charter violations. Has that occurred since the adoption of Bill C-51?

[Michel Coulombe]

No.

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

Thanks very much.

As a final note, if you could report back to the committee with respect to information sharing, it would be most appreciated.

[Michel Coulombe]

Yes, I will.

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

Thanks to you both.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Toole is next.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you both very much, and through you to your organizations, I'd like to thank the men and women who are at the forefront of public safety and security for Canada. Their work is appreciated.

Certainly on this committee we also have to make sure that organizations conform with the law and with expectations, so please pass along that thanks and understand that's also what we try to get at through the committee.

My first question would be for you, Commissioner Paulson. You mentioned Bill C-42 in your presentation. In particular, the enhancing of the RCMP Accountability Act, which was passed by the past government, had a section on investigation of serious incidents of harassment and some of the very disturbing things we've heard. Has that act helped you internally to get at the root issues and advance the culture change you spoke about in your remarks?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes, it has.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

The one thing from the incident at the explosives training unit that really concerned me was the allegation that in at least one of the cases, the investigator of the complaint had previously been the subject of a harassment complaint. Can you give confidence to this committee that investigations will be undertaken by people who are basically blemish-free so that we can ensure that people making allegations don't fear that the investigator is someone who has had an issue?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Certainly the people who will be investigating harassment and associated kinds of behaviours would be free of allegations of harassment and that nature of allegation.

Who among us is blemish-free? We are trying to get the organization to be inwardly accountable and outwardly accountable, and in doing so we hold our members and employees to very high standards of behaviour. What we would refer to as infractions against the code of conduct would not generally attract criminal liability or any other sort of liability, so—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Commissioner, if I may, I think it would be quite easy to find a vast majority of RCMP members who are blemish-free when it comes to sexual harassment. As you said in your own—

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Well, you didn't frame that in your question. If they're free from—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

You described it as “bad apples”, I think, in one of your speeches. How can we be sure that the people you draw to investigate these complaints are not bad apples, that they have not had a previous sexual harassment claim against them?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Well, because we screen them.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Okay.

You said that the first incident in the ETU came pre-Bill C-42 and that the second came post-C-42. You've said Bill C-42 is helpful at getting at the root of these problems. Has the Accountability Act in that bill been widely communicated within the force, and are the expectations well known throughout the human resources organization?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Coulombe, thank you very much for your presentation.

I'm following up on Mr. Erskine-Smith's line of questioning. He has expressed concern about Bill C-51 before, although I notice his private member's bill is on shark fin soup, not on Bill C-51 or issues related to that.

Some of his questions talked about disruption. Specifically he asked about how many people had been detained, so it doesn't appear that he understands that CSIS has no arrest powers. The disruption powers don't extend to CSIS as a police force, and you mentioned that in your remarks. Could you break out the difference between investigations and disruption and describe how you engage law enforcement to arrest?

[Michel Coulombe]

As I mentioned, our first mandate is to investigate threats to the security of Canada, analyze that information, and then advise government. One form of providing advice to government is through informing our colleagues, the RCMP. If the information meets their thresholds, then they can launch a criminal investigation. As I mentioned, the service doesn't have arrest power. We don't detain people and we're not in the business of collecting evidence to bring people to court. We collect intelligence to advise the government on that threat.

The same applies to the threat reduction. The threat reduction doesn't change that first pillar of our mandate. All it does it gives us the authority to use that intelligence to reduce the threat, not to detain people or charge them criminally. We are not an enforcement agency.

It's the same with our screening program. We don't have the final word in terms of whether somebody is admissible. We provide advice to CBSA and the immigration department, and it's their decision.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

This committee has tried to look at radicalization and counter-radicalization, but so far we've been blocked from a study on that subject. We'll be talking about that again at the end of today's meeting.

My next question is about working with Five Eyes allies. With regard to this radicalization phenomenon, through social media we saw 12 Canadian women travel to start families. We were all concerned about that last week. Do you coordinate with other security agencies on the disruption aspect to make sure that if someone returns to Canada with plans to cause harm, those plans are stopped?

[Michel Coulombe]

Yes. We coordinate, collaborate, and exchange information daily with foreign partners and also with domestic partners. This collaboration includes the threat reduction mandate. Before we do a threat reduction measure, we coordinate and consult with the RCMP or other domestic partners.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

A minute.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I have one final question for you, Commissioner Paulson. You talked about CPIC. One part of CPIC is the identification data bank that municipal police forces, the RCMP, and CBSA draw from to check criminal backgrounds and that sort of thing.

The Minister of Public Safety has talked a lot about biometric screening and other things for the Syrian refugees. How many unknown persons in Syria would ever appear on the CPIC database when their fingerprints were run against it? Do you have an idea? The database is essentially criminal activity in Canada by Canadians or landed immigrants.