Public Safety Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2020

[David Vigneault, Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta, for your question. This is a very important item when we talk about the safety and security of Canadians. At CSIS, we do investigate the threats posed by different actors. We advise government and we take measures to reduce the threats.

You mentioned specifically the United Front Work Department, the UFWD. This is an organization that we're very familiar with. We are concerned about the activities of the UFWD. A number of these actions will be contrary to Canada's national security, and we are taking measures. You will understand that I cannot go into the details of these measures, but this is a threat that we are seized with.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Let me ask you this question then, sir. Would the early warning system have put us in a better position to have detected what was going on with the united front?

[David Vigneault]

My understanding of the early warning system, the Global Public Health Information Network housed at the Public Health Agency, is that it was to do open-source research to determine what we call “low signal” potential pandemic issues. This was an organization that was very much looking at early warning from an open-source perspective. As for your question specifically regarding PPE and the use of UFWD maybe to obscure the sourcing and procurement of some of the PPE in Canada to export back to China, this would not have been in the remit of the Global Public Health Information Network.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta.

One of either Mr. Anandasangaree, Madam Khera or Madam Damoff, you have five minutes

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and your colleagues, for joining us today. It is good to see you again.

Minister, I wanted to start with you and ask you a very direct question about hostile state actors. I know it's an issue that's confounding many countries, including the United States. There was a significant report last week by the FBI—and I know in Canada, it's becoming an increasingly worrisome issue issue. Can you comment on the steps the government is taking towards ensuring that hostile state actors don't harm Canadians, and that their role here is quite limited?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

A number of my agencies and departments, in particular CSIS, are seized with this. As part of the national security establishment, we monitor very carefully the hostile activities of a number of different state actors. I would also direct you, Gary, to a report that was issued earlier by NSICOP, a committee of parliamentarians that also identifies the growing risk of the activities of certain countries. For example, NSICOP did point specifically to the activities of the Government of China as an example of a state actor whose actions that can be contrary to the interest of Canadians.

I want to be very clear, Gary, that we remain vigilant and are taking the steps necessary to protect Canadians' interest against undue influence and intimidation of Canadians at home and abroad. We recognize that activities are undertaken by a number of state actors contrary to Canada's interests with respect to the misappropriation of intellectual property and influencing various economic decisions. I want to assure you and this committee that we remain vigilant and that we are very thoughtful and mindful of our responsibilities to protect Canadian interests.

I would leave it at that. I don't know whether the director wants to add further to it. I think in fairness, we can't and shouldn't get into specifics of that work, but I believe Canadians need to be reassured that we remain vigilant and are prepared to act to protect their interests.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for the answer.

Commissioner Lucki, I think that within the last six months and since your last appearance, we've seen a continuing issue with racism permeating the RCMP. One of the conversations that I've had over the last several weeks is about why is there one set of rules for people who are racialized, indigenous or black, and a certain other set of rules for others. We saw that clearly in the way the RCMP handled the issue of the fisheries in Nova Scotia.

Madam Commissioner, we need a direct action plan. I know you've outlined several things the RCMP is doing. However, as I indicated the last time I spoke, the situation is urgent. We have seen extraordinary work; for example, the chief of police in Peel just signed up with the Ontario Human Rights Commission—a significant game-changer in the way policing is going to be undertaken in Peel. I think there are very concrete steps available for the RCMP to take in Canada.

When can we expect direct and concrete action on racism? This is the issue of our time in my opinion, even more so than the pandemic. I think it's one where relative silence is problematic. Can you give us some specific timelines, please?

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

I mentioned before that we're looking at our organization as a whole. We're looking at those systems and those processes, those policies and procedures, that will eliminate systemic racism, including, which I haven't mentioned yet, our whole recruiting process. We're looking at the way in which we recruit. We want to make sure we are in fact reflective of the communities we serve. We want to make sure our proactive recruiters are reflective of that and we also bring in, within the recruiting systems, the right people. We will be testing for those types of behaviours that could negatively impact their interactions. We will be sure to bring in the best people through character-based leadership.

Again, once they get in, we need to make sure the training continues. We've introduced a number of training initiatives at our academy. That will continue until the full set of leadership training that we brought in during the last six to eight months, or actually in the last year—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we have to leave the answer there.

I'm sorry to be interrupting people continuously, but we are under a clock.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the October announcement on easing family reunification measures, the minister emphasized the need for the Canada Border Services Agency to work with the Public Health Agency of Canada and with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

The Canada Border Services Agency is part of the Department of Public Safety, right?

You can answer me with yes or no, given the time constraints.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, it does.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

In this case, it is particularly important to know where the direction and leadership comes from, because it is clear that decisions made at the border by border services officers are extremely arbitrary.

I'll give you an example of a case I worked on concerning a citizen who wanted to bring her spouse from abroad. People used words like “probably”, and I was told that the final decision would be made by the person who would be at the port of entry at that time, without giving me any specific indications about the cases in advance.

As you mentioned earlier, your government does a lot of work on a case-by-case basis. However, it must be understood that our citizens do not necessarily have the reflex to call their member of Parliament when they are turned back at the border. My colleague gave the example of people who were granted an exemption and were able to enter Canada without having to quarantine.

So why is it that the Canada Border Services Agency's actions are not clear and predefined, and that each case depends on the judgment of individual border services officers?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You raise a couple of very important points. I'll try to answer them very quickly.

First of all, you refer to the business executives coming in at the border. Business executives are not exempt unless they are engaged in, first of all, essential work. We've actually defined for the entire country, all the provinces and territories, what constitutes essential work. It's based on the 10 critical infrastructure sectors that have been identified in the economy. They must be engaged in essential work. As well, the purpose of their travel must be essential. So they must be qualified for entry by being on that list, but then it's up to the border service officers to determine the essential nature of their transit into Canada.

Now, with respect to compassionate cases, it often involves such things as attestations, doctors' reports, and other evidence that frankly is not able to be evaluated by the border service officers, some of it for privacy reasons. So we've established a process. This is very important. If it's for qualification under a family reunification, those processes are managed by the immigration department, the IRCC. If it is a compassionate reason, for not family related but rather for other types of relationships, such as somebody coming to visit a relative who may be dying of a terminal illness, then that's managed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. That process enables officials to determine the eligibility of that person for exemption. That eligibility is predetermined and presented to the border service officer, who then can allow that individual in. It's actually a very robust system that we've put in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we will have to leave that answer there.

Mr. Harris, you have two and a half minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

We talked about systemic racism in policing, but there's also, of course, well-known systemic racism in the prison system in our country under the Correctional Service of Canada. Tom Cardoso's story in The Globe and Mail's last weekend identified clear racial discrimination in risk assessments, leading to longer sentences, fewer rehabilitation programs, less access to programs and harsher treatment within prison.

We also had Anthony Doob's report a couple of days ago that underscored the systemic discrimination and gross failure to meet our obligations under the Charter of Rights in the use of solitary confinement, now called SIUs. These things continue to be discovered, layer after layer, and upended. When are we going to see actual changes that will reduce the prison population of indigenous people and people of colour? When are we going to see these fixes being done?

I want to ask the minister that, not the representatives of the CSC. They have 19,000 employees for 12,500 inmates, down from 14,000 a few years ago. Why is there not action taken? Why are we waiting for oversight after oversight to reiterate the problem without a solution?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, you only have less than a minute.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Jack, we're not waiting. As a matter of fact, we brought in Professor Anthony Doob to oversee and comment and assist us with the implementation of the SIUs. We take these issues very seriously, and I want to demonstrate to you how seriously.

In the throne speech, Jack, the government made a very strong commitment. We said that we would introduce legislation and make investments to address systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing, from rehabilitation to records. We've undertaken, and will move forward with, enhanced civilian oversight of all of our law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP. We're modernizing training for law enforcement, including dealing with standards of use of force, de-escalation, dealing with people in crisis and with training for anti-racism. We've also undertaken to co-develop, with indigenous nations, a new legislative framework for first nations policing as an essential service.

Jack, there's much more to do, but we've made real commitments. I look forward to having your support in—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

When is it going to happen? That is the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It is a bit of a challenge for the chair to get two Irishmen to stop talking at each other.

With that, we're going to move to Mr. Motz for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, your government keeps telling Canadians that you are committed to evidence-based decision-making. In fact, your mandate letter even contains that same statement. Yet, without any evidence to support the following decision, you told Canadians on May 1, through an order in council, that you were banning military-style assault rifles under the guise of improving public safety. You and your government invented the term “military-style assault” rifle to deliberately mislead Canadians not familiar with Canada's already vigorous gun laws into believing that we have a problem where none exists. In fact, military and assault rifles are already prohibited in Canada—you know this already—and have been for over 40 years. Everyone knows that taking the lazy approach and attacking Canada's law-abiding firearm owners will do nothing to improve public safety. Most Canadians are left to wonder what the real motive is behind the Liberal's misguided gun ban plan.

As I said, on May 1 you banned 1,500 types and models of firearms. These firearms, up to that point in time, had been approved by the RCMP as safe and legal to own. Since then nearly 500 more firearms and numerous variants have been added to that banned list—almost 2,000 now. Is that number fairly accurate?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Glen, though you and I could debate it, I think it's important to hear what the people responsible for keeping our communities said.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police said, “Ontario’s police leaders support a prohibition on all military-designed assault rifles. In our view, these weapons have no place in our communities and should be reserved for use by Canada’s military”.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police declared that there should be a ban on the importation of these weapons. They said that, “Military assault rifles”—their language—“were produced for the sole purpose of killing people in large numbers.”

The current president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said, in response to the prohibition we introduced May 1, that the association believe that the measure taken by the government were balanced and ensured the safety of their members when they respond to calls for service.

I think the evidence is overwhelming—

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

Minister, you and I both know there is no such thing as military-style assault weapons in this country. They've been banned for 40 years. To misguide and mislead Canadians is disingenuous on your part.

You didn't answer my question about how many are actually banned, because either you don't know.... If you don't know the answer to that question, then how are Canadians supposed to know, given that the firearms reference table is not even available to them, but only to law enforcement and retailers.

I want to move on to the next question.

In June, in the House, I asked you how many times you had changed the list of banned firearms. You told me that it was none. Clearly, that was untrue. I asked you how many .22-calibre firearms you had banned. You didn't answer the question. I then asked you how many shotguns you had banned. You said, “we did not prohibit any shotguns”. Again, that was clearly untrue. In fact, the May 1 firearms ban now includes over 80 .22 low-calibre rifles and over 60 shotguns. Additionally, you've banned over 300 single-shot rifles used for hunting and target shooting.

Minister, you have made numerous statements that you know are factually inaccurate. This entire debate requires truth, honesty and to be fact-based, not deliberate misguided or misleading statements and fearmongering.

Can you please explain to the Canadian public how .22-calibre rifles, pump-action rifles, break-open single-shot rifles and shotguns can possibly be categorized as military-style fully-automatic rifles? Why mislead the House, the committee and Canadians, Minister?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Just to be very clear, Glen, we're not misleading anyone. We're taking the necessary action to strengthen gun control and to protect Canadians. Although I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of the gun lobby, our advocacy and our work is on behalf of Canadians and keeping them safe.

Let me be very clear. On May 1, we issued by order in council a prohibition, and nothing has been added to that except.... I would just point out to you that firearms that were prohibited in that list included designs, receivers or other variants of rifles such as the AR-10 and the AR-15, which made them prohibited. Then it is the responsibility of the RCMP and the Canadian firearms program to identify additional weapons that contain those variants and receivers as prohibited, and that's the work they've done.

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

You can't blame the RCMP for this.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Glen, I'm not blaming anyone; I'm just trying to explain to you that's what—