Public Safety Committee on Nov. 30th, 2017

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Would it be correct to say that Bill C-59 does not change with respect to some people being allowed to use disruptive practices with suspected terrorists?

[David Vigneault]

The way it changes the approach, as I was mentioning earlier, is that, if some of these measures were to limit the freedom of the individual, then the service needs to apply for a warrant to the Federal Court. There is a list in the bill that prescribes the types of activities we can do.

This can be done fairly quickly. The court is responsive to the urgency of threats to national security, but we have not had to use that provision yet. Bill C-59 clarifies the way it would be done, and that would be a tool.

One of the things that I would like to add is, when we use these tools, we must consult with partners, and specifically, with regard to threats of terrorism, we would consult with the RCMP. The law makes it an obligation on our part.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

For the RCMP officers, the minister has already identified the situation I spoke of. Would changes in Bill C-59 have allowed intervention in that whole process with the RCMP and the local police agency dealing with an outside agency?

[Deputy Commissioner Kevin Brosseau, Deputy Commissioner, Contract and Aboriginal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I'll take the first stab at it and turn it to my colleague James to clarify or to correct things or to say if I'm wrong.

I think it goes back to some of the minister's initial comments, Mr. MacKenzie, around the sharing of information and the nature of the sharing of information being really the lifeblood of effectively responding to the terrorist threat and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. We know that absolutely, and it's particularly amplified by what I would call the contraction between contemplation and action. We know that period of time can actually be quite short. Being able to share that information is critical.

While the bill may not enhance that necessarily, it certainly solidifies the relationship we have with partners, the existing relationship that we have through the national security joint operation centre. We work closely with our colleagues, CSIS, and other departments to ensure that information is shared on a timely basis, that it's verified, that the fidelity or veracity of that information is clearly understood, and that whatever tool is necessary can be used given the circumstances, recognizing that every incident will be fact-specific, so that intervention can happen in a timely way.

James, can I turn it over to you to fix?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You're giving him four seconds in which to respond. Maybe at some other point you can work it back in.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to the officials for being here today.

Mr. Rigby, I want to ask you about a preventative approach. We heard the minister take a question on that, but I'd like to understand the department's perspective further, the public policy rationale, if you could go into that.

Mr. Spengemann talked about the importance of a preventative approach. Indeed a preventative approach could be more important than dealing with the financing of terrorism. Could you get into that?

[Vincent Rigby]

I think, as the minister said, there is a range of options and a range of tools that can be used. There are responsive actions, and he laid out what some of those were, and then there's a preventative side, which I think is just as important at the end of the day, and I think the minister made that quite clear.

He made a specific reference to the Canada centre for community engagement and the prevention of violence. We're very excited about this new tool. It was just created back in June, but it affords us an opportunity for the centre to reach out at the grassroots level, at the community level, to work with Canadians, to work with Canadian groups to do research on counter-radicalization, to reach out to youth, to try to nip radicalization in the bud, and to really try to have a holistic approach to preventing radicalization before it starts.

It is already up and running as I've indicated. In addition to actually launching programming and launching grants and contributions, it's also been consulting with Canadians over the course of the fall with a view to actually providing a strategy for countering radicalization to violence, which the government would like to present at some point.

It will be a very comprehensive approach, and I think it will be an important tool in what is already a pretty wide-ranging tool box.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have a quote here from Phil Gurski, security expert and former CSIS officer, who says, “the previous government had an abysmal record when it came to countering violent extremism and early detection.”

To what extent have we learned from the cases of other states? Denmark, for example, has long put into place a preventative policy. There are around a dozen or so suspected former fighters who returned to Denmark who have been put into programming of the nature that we want to see here in Canada. To what extent have we learned from cases like Denmark and other situations?

[Vincent Rigby]

We're in very close consultation with our allies and with others around the world as the minister mentioned, whether it's in the G7, in the G20, or working with other national security ministers within a Five Eyes context.

The minister was recently in Italy as part of a G7 meeting of national security ministers. One of the topics that they focused on was extremist travellers and countering radicalization to violence. Definitely, we're looking at lessons learned, exchanging best practices, and really across the spectrum, whether it's being preventative or responsive, learning how we can work together and how we can strengthen those tools.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I cited the case of Denmark because they've had great success, as I think you know. There hasn't been, for example, a terrorist act perpetrated by a suspected former fighter. A result that, it is said by experts, in large part at least, is due to the programming.

Ms. Bossenmaier, I want to ask you a question about CSE's ability to prevent cyber-attacks. In other democracies, we've seen security agencies come under threat and attack where vital information is made public and this undermines the security of the state. Could you go into that, please?

[Greta Bossenmaier]

It's a key priority for the Communications Security Establishment to focus on cybersecurity. I mentioned in a number of appearances recently that we've been in the business of protecting Canada's most sensitive information for over the last 70 years. If anything, that job has become more challenging and more complex given the nature of the current threats out there but also the overall reliance by Canadians, Canadian businesses, and the Canadian government on information technology; hence, the importance of cybersecurity.

A great deal of our emphasis is on providing advice, guidance, and services not only to the Government of Canada but to broader systems of importance to the government to help them best protect their systems. There is a lot of emphasis on protecting government systems but also broader critical infrastructure.

Some of the proposals in the legislation that's in front of this committee would allow us to further use our cyber-capabilities to better protect Canadians' information. I mentioned one already, in terms of being able to protect and deploy our systems on non-government systems upon the request of a critical infrastructure owner, for example. The minister referenced another one where we would be able to actually go out and try to prevent an attack against Canada or Canadians or Canadian infrastructure before it happened. These are two examples of how this act would help us better protect Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there at two examples.

Thank you.

Mr. Dubé, you have the final three minutes.

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

Thank you.

The last part of your answer is perhaps germane to the question I am going to ask.

Let me go back to proposed section 24 that we discussed earlier, and to the issue of information on infrastructure. Proposed paragraph 24(1)(b) reads as follows:

24(1)(b) acquiring, using, analysing, retaining or disclosing infrastructure information for the purpose of research and development…

I will let my colleagues read it in its entirety.

Further down, in the definitions, it says:

24(5) … Information relating to (a) any functional component, physical or logical, of the global information infrastructure; or (b) events that occur during the interaction between two or more devices that provide services on a network…

I would like to be sure I understand correctly. In light of the power you are being granted under the bill, what sort of infrastructure exercise would be conducted to help you do that kind of study or analysis on the sustainability and security of the network? I understand that your mandate deals with foreign threats, as you told me earlier, but you will inevitably be working on the Canadian network.

Can you give me an example of what would be done under the power granted in proposed section 24?

[Greta Bossenmaier]

Thank you for the question. I will answer in English.

To go back to your earlier question with respect to publicly available information, it's important to highlight that while proposed subsection 24(1) deals with publicly available information, proposed paragraph 25(b) does as well. It says that we must have measures “in place to protect the privacy of Canadians and of persons in Canada” with respect to the use of publicly available information.

Mr. Dubé, that goes back a bit to your question as to what kinds of privacy protections would be in place even if we were to use publicly available information.

On the infrastructure issue, I'm going to turn to my colleague Dominic Rochon—

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

Can I just quickly ask a question on that point, though? My time is very limited.

Those measures protect privacy but they don't prevent you from collecting the data to begin with. Is that correct?

[Greta Bossenmaier]

It says, “to protect the privacy of Canadians…in the use, analysis, retention, and disclosure of…publicly available information”.

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

It would protect the privacy but the centre can still collect the information based on—

[Dominic Rochon, Deputy Chief, Policy and Communications, Communications Security Establishment]

Perhaps I could just jump in there and answer very quickly, Mr. Dubé, on the essence of why we need this information.

As you can appreciate, the global information infrastructure of the Internet is incredibly complex. We are prohibited from targeting Canadians when we're conducting our activities, particularly when it comes to collecting foreign signals intelligence, so we need to understand exactly how the global information infrastructure is actually set up. There is a lot of public information available that explains the infrastructure. What this provision allows us to do is to study that and understand advances in technology. There are studies out there that are public in nature that allow us then to ensure that we're actually protecting the privacy of Canadians because we're ensuring that we're targeting foreigners outside Canada when we conduct our activities.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately we're going to have to leave it there.

On behalf of the committee, I wanted to thank each and every one of you. As we launch into this study, I'm sure there will be other questions. I have some confidence that you might be available for further questions the members may wish to ask.

The meeting is adjourned.