Public Safety Committee on March 1st, 2018

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The fact that the airlines have been dealing with it for the last decade or so is in fact right at the root of the problem. Most no-fly list systems that are set up around the world are stand-alone, government systems in which the government maintains the list, the airlines supply the manifests, and the government checks to see if any of those names send up a red flag on the government list.

They have built right into them an interactive mechanism such that if a red flag comes up once and it's a false positive, then the person who triggered that false positive can be given a clearance number and every time thereafter that they go to get their boarding pass, they enter that clearance number and they're automatically passed through the system. It has to be interactive and totally automated. If the government sets up the system, we can design it that way.

If the airlines are asked to run the system, then you have to kind of piggyback onto their system and tailor the security arrangements to suit the airline manifests. That's backwards. We need to turn it around, and that's what this money will allow us to do.

Three things are required. We need to get the legal authority to deal with this private information. The authority to do that is in Bill C-59. We will need to adopt new regulations, which we will work on as soon as we get the legislation passed. Then we have to build this new computer system from the ground up. That's where the largest bulk of the money will go. The architect of that will be largely CBSA, obviously in conjunction with Transport Canada, because they have a very important role as well.

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

Thanks very much for that. Again, my thanks, and I think I'll be echoed by all those who have constituents who are affected by the current state of the system.

Minister, there's a vote of appropriation of $1 million for an item that we've had a chance to talk about before: it's the security infrastructure program, or SIP. In my hometown of Mississauga we have a fairly active faith leaders' dialogue at the moment, and there's interest in this program. I think there have been applications. I wonder if you could just take a moment to update the committee on how it's evolving and what that $1 million will be spent on.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

It's evolving very well, but we're oversubscribed. Obviously, when we modified the program a year and a half ago to make the terms of reference more inclusive, and to better publicize the program, and to have two regular periods every year when we can intake applications, all of that has served to identify a significant need in communities that feel vulnerable. The demand has gone up significantly.

We are working very hard to try to respond to all of that, to make sure that we, in every one of the intakes, process as many of the applications as we possibly can, and give local religious organizations and community organizations the kind of reassurance that they need that they will have the physical structures necessary to keep them and their communities safe.

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

Thanks very much. I have less than a minute left.

Closely related in logic to the security infrastructure program, which seeks to protect constituents' communities from violence, is the community resilience fund, which works actively against the phenomenon of violence. I wonder if you could just very briefly comment on the state of affairs with respect to that fund.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That is a relatively new fund. It's in the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence. The whole idea here is to work with community organizations to assist them in developing locally based activities that deter radicalization to violence. We have found that it's not a case of one-size-fits-all across the country. There are a vast array of circumstances that we have to be prepared for.

At the national level we are supporting research, and we're supporting organizations that will work at the local level to reach out to vulnerable communities, and provide them with the tools to identify problems early while they still have an opportunity to head off circumstances before tragedy results.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Spengemann. Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Motz, five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister and staff, for being here.

I'm going to ask some questions that I know are not classified information. I'm just curious to know, Mr. Minister, when was the last time that media was given a phone briefing by an unidentified security agent?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I am not privy to that information, Mr. Motz. I can try to make some inquiries to find out, but certainly that's not something within my purview or jurisdiction.

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

I can't find, no one I know can find any information of any history, ever, when a security adviser gave briefings to the media over the telephone. What I find and what Canadians find quite unfortunate, actually, is that your government is willing to make high-level security officials available in secretive background briefings with reporters, but you're refusing to make them available to answer questions here to this committee, to parliamentarians. I'm curious to know how that can be.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Motz, my issue is one of respecting the confidentiality of classified information, as I am required to by law.

Let me just make this observation. Over the last 40 or 45 years I've had the opportunity to watch and work with a lot of very senior public servants. I've done that both from the opposition side and from the government side. I have found that they work very hard to be impartial, to be non-partisan, to be utterly professional in what they do, and this—

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

Minister, I have limited time. I appreciate this, but I—

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

This point is really important.

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

Yes, I appreciate that, but the issue is not about whether those people—

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

What they're motivated by is defending Canada's national interests.

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

Mr. Minister, those issues are not about whether our public service, those security officials do their jobs and do it well. You will never get an argument on this side of the House about that. That's not the issue.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Good.

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

The issue is that the media was provided with information that alleged an conspiracy by the Indian government. When we, as parliamentarians, wanted to inquire about that that information was already given to the media. I don't understand why it can't be given to us. That was my question not whether or not these public servants are doing their jobs well. That's what I don't understand. So, obviously, we're not going to get a response to that. I guess in my limited time that I have left....

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I keep saying to members that there has to be some relevance to the estimates. So, if you could tie it in by some means or another to estimates.

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

I will and thank you, Mr. Chair, for that gentle reminder.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

[Inaudible].

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

Yes, but not to me. It was my first reminder.

I see in the estimates that a lot of money is spent on working with our foreign partners to identify threats. I'm curious to know, given what has happened with the allegation of a conspiracy theory recently in India, has our relationship with India changed? Given the comments made by officials from our own PM's office that he was set up, is India now considered to be a hostile country? Has their threat level towards Canada now been changed?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Motz, I simply look at what's available on the public record with respect to this matter and I see a headline from last Saturday's Times of India that says “Canada's tough stand on terror soothes India.” I see a major anchor on Indian television referring to the same matter with respect to terrorism saying “I think that's a great positive for the Indian side something that they were concerned about and they were able to put forward through this meeting.” I see the Prime Minister of India saying that “talks with Prime Minister Trudeau were fruitful, our discussions focused on...”

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

Mr. Minister, I guess....

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

[Inaudible].