Public Safety Committee on Feb. 8th, 2018

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

No. Just in general I would say that for a very long time, in section 22 of the Criminal Code, we have had a counselling offence, which is to say it's an offence to counsel another offence within the Criminal Code, and, in fact, we've had at least two terrorist prosecutions that I can think of that have actually included counselling offences, though not counselling in the sense we are thinking of here, but counselling the participation in a terrorist group or counselling the facilitation of a terrorist activity.

As far as I can tell, this is redundant to section 22 of the Criminal Code.

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

In terms of potential amendments to the bill, during testimony on the national security framework, we heard about the difficulties that law and enforcement agencies have when crucial information isn't shared in a timely and efficient manner.

Do you think the creation of the new national security and intelligence review agency will help to ensure that we're effectively sharing that information with other departments and countries in order to address terrorist threats more quickly and efficiently? Do you have any additional suggestions on how we might improve the efficiency between our intelligence and law enforcement agencies?

Maybe, Professor Nesbitt, you can start this time and then we'll turn it over.

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

Sure. You're asking about the new review agency and whether that will—

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

Right. Will that assist with the information sharing? We have heard that the information isn't shared between agencies in a timely manner and so it ties their hands in terms of not getting the information quickly enough.

Do you think this will assist with that? Also do you have any additional suggestions to help with that process?

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

Sure. Let me start by saying that, at least in my experience—and this is now drawing a little bit more on my experience than on my studies—one of the big problems with information sharing in government was always cultural. Certainly there was a need to open up more information sharing. The avenues of information sharing can sometimes be overly bureaucratic, but often it was cultural.

This harkens back to the previous answer I gave, which is that one of the benefits of this review agency is that it can look at the totality of the approach within government to something like sanctions. Those sanctions are done at Foreign Affairs, but CBSA is obviously involved if we're talking about goods going out of or coming into Canada. FINTRAC could be involved. CSIS could be involved, etc.

How would a review agency help with the sharing of information? Well, if they're looking across departments at those various organizations in a way that the organizations themselves are not as they've remained siloed, it will force those organizations to then do the same. It can bring together some of those activities.

I'm actually very supportive and very encouraged by that opportunity. I hope it is taken up in practice.

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

I have less than a minute left. Do you gentlemen have anything to add to that, or is that good?

Thank you.

Actually I have only 30 seconds left. I don't think there is time to ask and answer, so I'll end there.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Motz, you have five minutes. Go ahead.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again for being here.

I want to take off just a little bit from what my colleague Ms. Damoff was talking about. You mentioned in your previous testimony, Mr. Nesbitt, I believe it was, that the culture of security agencies to protect information is a barrier to centralizing information and that ensuring that the right information gets to the right people in a timely manner is problematic.

Would you say that Bill C-59 is well placed to deal with this issue; that is, this mandatory reporting agency that compels information rather than sitting back and waiting? Are we dealing with this right with respect to Bill C-59 being the mechanism and the way it's going to play out?

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

It's a good question, frankly.

I would start by saying that I do have some concerns about the changes, or lack thereof, to the part of the act that deals with information sharing itself, which is—and I won't get into the details, as you've heard this from others—that the definition of “threat to security of Canada” is not the definition that exists in the CSIS act but a new and very broad definition. So, to answer your question, I don't think that is the right approach.

More broadly, I think the benefit to what is happening now is that we're looking at information sharing more holistically. We're not just talking about opening up the avenues to information sharing within government. We're also looking at how it can be encouraged culturally, and how review across agencies can break down the silos of review, and then, hopefully, break down these silos of information sharing. It can force people, if the job is done correctly, to get in the same room, which is often a problem within any large organizations, really.

I'd have to think more closely about whether there is anything else we could do. I hadn't, frankly, prepared for that. I'd be happy to get back to you on that if that's of interest.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Yes.

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

But I think, for now, this is a very good start. I'm heartened to see a lot of the details in the bill.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

If you have more suggestions, I would think the committee would be open to receiving those. That would be great. Thank you.

To the guests who are here, the committee has heard that terrorist groups will continue to operate and coordinate and recruit online. We do also know that there is a rise in online hate. You had said previously that terrorism is rooted in hatred. Does this bill go far enough to deal with the online hate, and to limit that in some...?

Mr. Nesbitt, please feel free to join us in your comments.

[David Matas]

I am not aware of anything in terms of the bill that deals specifically with the Internet in relation to advocacy, promotion, and counselling. I know there used to be something in the Canadian Human Rights Act at section 13.1 that dealt specifically with the Internet, which was repealed. We realized it was problematic. What we were proposing was a repeal and re-enactment with the problems removed, but it just disappeared.

I think that the Internet is pervasive enough, problematic enough, and presents its own very specific problems, that it would be worthwhile developing some specific legislation that deals with it.

One facet of the Internet is that it's a commercial network of contracts that often have good standards, but which aren't being enforced. There is a question of the extent to which mechanisms should be developed for enforcing those standards. It may be too much to do all of that in the context of amendments of this bill, but I really think it's something this committee and this government should be looking at very specifically.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Professor Nesbitt.

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

To my mind, the biggest barrier to enforcement and prosecution of the terrorist activity that speak of, or any terrorist act, is the so-called problem with intelligence to evidence. I understand that the bureaucracy, or the government, may be thinking about dealing with that in the future. I would say that if this is what we are concerned about, then in the near future we will have to tackle this intelligence to evidence problem—which involves the collection of information by security agencies—and how it can be properly, legally, and safely shared with the RCMP for the purpose of actually enforcing the laws that we do have on the books, which are fairly comprehensive.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thanks very much to you both.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Mr. Spengemann, you may go ahead for five minutes.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Mostyn and Mr. Matas.

Mr. Mostyn, can you give us an overview of the strategic threats assessment that this bill is situated in? It's called a national security act, it's broad, and it's supposed to encompass any threats that come our way.

The committee heard a lot about cyber-threats, it heard a lot about terrorism and radicalization and violence. Is that the entire basket? Are there others, and how would you rank the two in relative proportion to each other, vis-à-vis your own concerns?

[Michael Mostyn]

Obviously those are very strong threats. There are other threats. Radicalization just doesn't take place online. It does take place via individuals, even here in Canada. That's why with the lack of prosecutions there is also a lack of cases going up the way from police forces. The real question is, how do we deal with that? B'nai Brith itself has exposed situations and rallies publicly where there has been vile hate speech spoken in the streets, often with children, sometimes children who are kept home by their parents to listen to this and who are chanting slogans themselves. There are institutions that have charitable status in this country that are posting on their own YouTube channels hatred targeting an identifiable group, Zionists. B'nai Brith exposed the MAC, which has charitable status, in Vancouver. They had an imam up there. It was on their YouTube channel. We complained to the CRA. They were calling Israelis an impure gang and Zionists the worst of mankind. There is a lot of evidence out there of incidents happening here in Canada. I think that not just the Jewish community but all identifiable groups in this country want to see the law upheld and justice be done and the protection of our society when there are real incidents of groups being targeted for hate.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

This will be a complex question and answer, but to what extent are these concerns linked to international terrorist organizations like ISIS, like Al Shabaab, like Abu Sayyaf, who are preying primarily, almost exclusively, on young people downside of the age of 30? Are the domestic threats generated in Canada or are they strongly linked to what's going on outside our borders?

[David Matas]

Obviously there are both. I think we have to look at the intermediaries because a lot of this communication is obviously done through the Internet, so the question is, what is the responsibility of the means of communication? If it were in a newspaper, it would be easy because we have laws developed about that, but when it comes to the Internet intermediaries, they are mostly considered not responsible and you have to go to the source, which gets you...were is the source?

All of these Internet companies that communicate this have a presence in Canada. I think one of the things when you're dealing with this problem is looking more closely at the responsibility of the intermediaries in dealing with this issue.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much.

The time is very limited. I want to ask you about the relative importance of the counterterrorism, counter-violence work, and your expectations of the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence in juxtaposition with the law enforcement, criminalization, and prosecution framework that we're building, which is also very important. How does the former compare to the latter?

[Michael Mostyn]

B'nai Brith is very supportive of that initiative, and we look forward to working more closely with them. I think they should engage with many civil society groups. You're right that it's the other side of the coin when you're talking about prevention. That has to be taken care of in addition to, obviously—

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Do you have some precise expectations or ideas, or a framework for that centre?

[Michael Mostyn]

We're in dialogue with them. I would be happy to provide some further information to you about that.