Public Safety Committee on Feb. 13th, 2018

[Scott Millar]

No. I think it's been covered. I guess the only thing that I would clarify is that our legislation uses the terms “active” and “defensive”. The term “offensive” or what might constitute something that's more in the military space would be something under the authorities and remit of the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Brown, with regard to the issue of domestic violence, terrorism, extremism, radicalization—perhaps using as one anecdotal example the incident in Sainte-Foy just over a year ago—in your assessment, how important is our proactive work with Canadian young people? I have the sense that the vast majority of these cases do involve young people under 35 years of age. By my anecdotal knowledge, 60- and 70-year-olds don't self-radicalize. What do we need to do within the framework that we have? How important is this work to counter violence and radicalization, and what are its principal elements?

[Malcolm Brown]

There's no question that it's a very important element. The principal element is the work that's led by the Canada centre that operates out of the department. It works with local community groups and provides funding and support for initiatives in Montreal, Calgary, Toronto, and across the country, in part because the solutions for Calgary will be different from the solutions for Montreal. That's really a key part of our response to that particularly vulnerable age group.

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

Are we, as Canada, out front on this challenge, or are there experiences among, say, the Five Eyes that could be useful in constructing our own framework?

[Malcolm Brown]

I would say actually we are leaders. We work closely, particularly but not only, with Five Eyes partners on understanding trends, but again in the same way that the interventions in Calgary are different from the interventions in Montreal, the interventions in Sydney, Australia, will be different from the interventions in Canada. I would say we are very well positioned relative to our colleagues, and based on conversations we've had at a recent G7 meeting in the fall, it was very clear that Canada is playing a leadership role.

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

Thank you very much.

My final question is for Mr. Breithaupt. On the assumption that we're dealing primarily with young people when we talk about domestic terror threats or radicalization and extremist threats, do you have any thoughts on the current framework of the bill that speaks particularly to the Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions, clauses 159 to 167?

Are there any ideas, any thoughts with regard to improving those provisions, or are you satisfied this will adequately protect Canadian youth?

[Douglas Breithaupt, Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you for the question.

I will just talk a little bit about the proposed amendments. The Youth Criminal Justice Act recognizes that young persons have special guarantees of rights and freedoms, and it contains a number of significant legal safeguards to ensure they are treated fairly and their rights are fully protected. Part 8 of the bill is aimed at ensuring that all youth who are involved in the criminal justice system due to terrorism-related conduct are afforded enhanced procedural and other protections that the Youth Criminal Justice Act provides. It ensures, for example, that youth protections apply in relation to recognizance orders and clarifies that youth justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction to impose these orders on youth.

For example, if a young person were to come before a youth justice court on an application for a terrorism peace bond and is not represented by a lawyer, the amendments here would require the court to advise the young person of his or her right to retain and instruct counsel, refer the young person to any available legal aid program, and if the young person is unable to obtain counsel through the program, direct that young person to be represented by counsel provided by the state upon request of the young person.

There is more discussion internationally about the effects of terrorism on the juvenile justice system, and these proposals for amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act are to enhance protections of youth in proceedings where recognizance with conditions in terrorism peace bonds apply, but it also provides for access to youth records for the purposes of administering the Canadian passport order, subject to the privacy protections of the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Paul-Hus, you have five minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will talk about ISIS fighters. We know that 180 Canadians decided to wage Jihad around the world, especially in Irak and Syria, but also in other places, including Africa. Some 60 of them are known and have returned to Canada. Ten of them are followed more closely by our police services and CSIS, but there is a legal problem. Will Bill C-59 help Canada take measures to enable it to prosecute those people, even if it means deporting dual citizens?

[Malcolm Brown]

There are no uniquely specific provisions in Bill C-59 to deal with the question of violent extremist travellers. There are elements of Bill C-59 that provide the tools and assets for the agencies that will improve our ability to safeguard Canada from any threats that may present. I will also say, though, that there is a variety of tools that are available to the government, to all of us here and others, to manage and assess and take action as necessary to protect Canadians and ensure, where there is the evidence, that prosecutions can be launched against these individuals.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

There is an example I would like to look at with you.

Jack Letts, alias Jihadi Jack, has Canadian citizenship and British citizenship. Of course, Great Britain does not want to take him in. We heard on Friday that Mr. Letts and his mother were trying to put pressure on our government to allow him to come here, to Canada. There is an issue with evidence. If Mr. Letts enters Canada, he will be free before we know it because we have a problem. We don't have the evidence needed to detain him.

Do you have a relationship with Five Eyes governments or those of other countries—I assume you do—through which you could get evidence that could incriminate him here, or do we have no way to take action?

[Malcolm Brown]

When talking about a specific case, we are all constrained, so I think we'll need to respond to your question in a general way.

With that, I'll turn it over to Monsieur Michaud.

[D/Commr Gilles Michaud]

That is one example of many. When it's time to investigate Canadians who have gone abroad, the work begins abroad. We have relationships with different police forces, including the police force of Five Eyes or of other countries. We start to compile evidence. Once the individual arrives in the country, we can implement other measures to continue our work and to try to determine whether that individual does indeed represent a threat and whether we have the evidence needed to lay charges.

So there is a criminal aspect involved, as well as a preventive aspect. Some individuals who come back to the country don't necessarily have a criminal past. They had other roles to play for the cause. In that case, we use other organizations to get involved and try to help them move forward in the file as soon as the individuals return to Canada.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I want to talk about CSE's role. Currently, unless I am mistaken, the relationship between CSE and the Department of National Defence is one of funding and operations. Under Bill C-59, there will be a transfer, or a severing of CSE from the Department of National Defence. As a result, Public Safety Canada will have more responsibilities.

Is that indeed the case?

[Scott Millar]

Yes. We are a stand-alone agency, under the portfolio of the Minister of National Defence, and that is within the bill itself, as I mentioned.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Basically, I want to know whether you think the provisions of Bill C-59 will change things, or if your role will remain the same without changing significantly.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Could you provide a quick answer, please?

[Scott Millar]

In terms of, just as we are, as a stand-alone agency, is there a change in that?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Operationally speaking.

[Scott Millar]

No. Obviously, in terms of the mandate additions, that would be new, but in terms of how we function within the defence portfolio, that remains the same. In fact, this legislation has these housekeeping provisions in it. Before, we were a stand-alone agency by way of an order in council in 2011. Now, we'll be more of a creature of legislation with the stand-alone act. Again, it will make a number of the provisions under which we operate transparent as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Picard, you have five minutes.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

My question is for CSIS and the RCMP. Throughout the bill, we note the absence of FINTRAC. That is not an oversight. There is no denying that terrorist financing is a reality. That said, the current trend is to keep reducing the cost of terrorist attacks. For example, a truck may be stolen and crashed into a crowd. The financial aspect has changed.

In the current modern circumstances, would it be a good idea to reconsider the link with FINTRAC? Are our legal methods for working with the organization enough to keep us from having to establish a link with FINTRAC in Bill C-59?

[D/Commr Gilles Michaud]

I think that our current relationship with FINTRAC and the existing legislation help us do our work. That actually gives us some flexibility. The threat can increase and be expressed in a certain way over a period of time, and then the method can change. We can always share information with FINTRAC. The legislation makes those exchanges possible under any circumstances.

[Malcolm Brown]

I would like to add that there is now a five-year review of the terrorism legislation....

John what's the full title of the act?

[John Davies, Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act is now in its five-year review. The Department of Finance has put out a discussion paper asking for feedback on how to improve the act.