Public Safety Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Look, I think certain members of the community are levelling allegations, saying that when the Prime Minister came out and spoke on the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in B.C., perhaps that was a precipitating event. After that is when we saw a real spike in some of these extortion attempts, especially targeting the Punjabi Sikh community in Ontario, B.C., Alberta and elsewhere.

We've also heard from Peel police that perhaps this is inspiring copycats as well. Individuals have found a scheme whereby they can make money, and they're not perhaps being caught by local law enforcement.

Do you want to comment on that?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I would first say that with regard to Peel's comments, I can't really comment on them. It's the first time I'm hearing about the copycats. The RCMP takes the question of extortion very seriously. That's why we put a national project team together, to make sure we can connect the dots and demonstrate that they're possibly related, from what we're seeing in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

I just want to share that the RCMP works really closely with the service to address any threats that come in and works with local police of jurisdiction to make sure we can keep the community safe.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Does the CBSA want to comment on members of the community saying that this is linked to the comments Prime Minister Trudeau made on Hardeep Singh Nijjar?

[Ted Gallivan]

With regard to the CBSA, we've in fact had one employee kind of targeted by social media campaigns and that kind of information. We work very hard to make sure that people can trust the integrity of CBSA officers and the people who are serving Canadians. We have noticed some threats and comments directed toward one member of our team. I think we've taken all appropriate action to make sure that travellers are safe and that the employee is safe.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Gaheer, thank you.

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

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

My questions today will be focused more to Ms. Geddes, specific to firearms.

Now, I know that back in 2019, the minister of the day.... Internal documents have shown that the government has estimated that the confiscation of firearms will be $400 million to $600 million. We know that this is probably three times less than what it actually will be. Small-c conservative estimates from across the industry put it at over $2 billion.

I have a couple of questions around the confiscation. The government calls it “buyback”. You can't buy something back that you never owned in the first place. In any event, on the confiscation of firearms, what is the department's plan to make that happen? That's the first question.

As well, how do you propose that it be rolled out? Who will be doing it? There's a lot of ambiguity in the industry and with firearm owners and, I think, with Public Safety, because we're not sure exactly what's happening on that front.

Can you give us an update on that, please, if you'd be so kind?

[Tricia Geddes]

First of all, at Public Safety we certainly are framing it as a firearm compensation program. As you pointed out, it's an extremely complex program to deliver. Some of the data has indeed been difficult to obtain. We're working as closely as we can with business and industry that have access to the best possible data. We're working with chief firearms officers across the country as well, to try to do our best to be able to get a good estimate of the number of firearms that we will be looking at compensation for.

In terms of the program development itself, as the minister said, we're looking at doing this in two phases, first to look at how we collect from business and industry and, in the process of doing so, to learn from that about the most cost-effective and efficient way in which to ensure the safety of Canadians in the way we deliver on this program. Our first phase is business and industry, and the second phase is to reach out to individuals who are currently protected under the amnesty order.

We're doing it in a very careful, conscientious way. As I said, those principles are about efficiency for dollars for Canadians, doing this in a very cost-effective way, but also, as I said, making sure we prioritize public safety throughout the execution of the program.

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

I'm going to get to the amnesty issue in a minute. What I find troubling is that the evidence that law enforcement has shown across the country is that this.... You're the wrong person to ask, but I'm going to make the statement anyway, Ms. Geddes. Law enforcement has shown that the confiscation of these firearms will do nothing to improve public safety in this country, absolutely nothing. In fact, gun crimes continue to go up even during this amnesty program, and not by firearms owners.

I guess what I'm concerned about is that the law enforcement community have pushed back on government and voiced their concern and their opposition to being the ones responsible for confiscating these firearms. That includes the RCMP.

You can go to industry and ask them to voluntarily surrender the firearms that fall under this prohibition with compensation, which I hope will be appropriate, except the taxpayers are going to be on the hook for it. How are you going to deal with individuals? Who is going to collect the firearms of individuals who resist this policy? It's not because they are criminals, but we've made administrative criminals out of people who haven't committed a criminal act. I'm just kind of concerned about that.

I want to get to another question that's in line with that. The government has introduced some proposed legislation and changes to the Elections Act. One of them is that the election might take place later in October, like October 27, 2025. Has there been any thought to the impact that changes to the Elections Act will have on the amnesty period, which goes until October 25, 2025, and the impact of the fact that we will have no government sitting at that point in time? Are there some provisions that are going to be in place to make that work? How is that going to look moving forward?

[Tricia Geddes]

I'll try to answer both of those together. I want to acknowledge your point. Gun crime in this country is extremely complex, as is finding ways to address it. There's not one simple method, one simple program, that is going to address gun crime completely. There's a comprehensive approach that we are putting in place—dealing with communities directly through investments and the building safer communities funds, and investment and supports to the RCMP and the CBSA—to be able to address some of those challenges. The firearms compensation program is simply one part of a broader and more comprehensive program to address gun crime in the country. I will ask Commissioner Duheme if he wants to add anything about the law enforcement aspects of gun crime.

On your second question, around the amnesty order, we are designing the program, and we are doing it, as I said, adhering to those principles, including how we prioritize public safety, which I think is partly your question. How do we make sure Canadians are safe throughout this program? That is one of the most compelling features of the program design, certainly. We are providing advice to government on how we intend to implement this, including how best to meet the dates of the amnesty orders that were set out. We will continue to provide that advice to government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Geddes, and thank you, Mr. Motz.

We're moving over to the Liberals now.

Ms. O'Connell, please, you have five minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Kelly, I'll give you a chance to answer my question from before in terms of the previous regulations for prisoner reclassification in comparison to now and what some of the factors are that your team would consider.

[Anne Kelly]

Right now, the way it reads is, “the least restrictive measures”, but people sometimes forget that there is a continuation of the sentence, which is, “consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders”. It respects a certain principle, just as the previous wording would have, which was “necessary and proportionate to attain the purposes of this Act”.

Obviously, as you know, when we assess an offender for security reclassification, we have to use an actuarial tool. Depending on whether it's an admission, it's the custody rating scale.... Later on, it's the security reclassification scale. Our parole officers use their judgment and have to assess three criteria: institutional adjustment, the risk of escape and the risk to the safety of the public. Those are actually outlined in the regulations. The law requires the CSC to assign a security classification to each offender.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Commissioner Kelly.

It's too bad the Conservatives weren't listening to that, because it's crucial to what they've been talking about in the House, and having the facts might actually educate them on the criminal justice system—certainly on corrections.

I said earlier in my question that there was a quote in the media, I believe from a representative of the CSC, talking in particular about the Bernardo transfer. They said that the transfer itself, given the criteria that are looked at, would still have happened under the Conservatives. The performance of the Conservatives is talking tough, and under their regulations, transfers would never happen.

Do you agree with the quote in the media from the CSC official who said that under previous language, the Bernardo transfer would have gone through the same criteria review, and would, therefore, have happened under the previous language as well?

[Anne Kelly]

I would say so, because in terms of the legislation, it dates back to 1992 that we have to assign an offender. In terms of the regulations, maximum, medium and minimum have been there.

The other thing I would say is that I've looked at the distribution of inmates in maximum, medium and minimum. For well over 10 years, the inmate population in maximum has been approximately 22%. In medium, it's been 63%, and in minimum, it's been 15%. That has remained relatively constant for well over 10 years.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Commissioner.

I think it's important that Canadians understand the incredible work you all do to keep the community safe, the difficult decisions needed to make these reviews, and the fact that politicians' performances can't possibly take into account the incredible work your team is doing. It's not one individual; it's a team making these assessments to keep the public safe.

What is often lost in these “talking at” lectures from Conservatives is that they don't think about the safety of officers working in these facilities and the incredible risks they take to keep Canadians safe. This is a crucial element of these assessments.

Thank you for clarifying this for committee.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Madame Michaud, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Duheme, thank you for your service.

It is well known in the public sphere that the RCMP suspects community centres of monitoring and intimidating citizens on Quebec soil on behalf of Beijing. There are ongoing investigations.

The government has made a clear commitment to do more to prevent foreign interference in Canada. What specific mandate has been given to the RCMP in this regard?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Mr. Chair, first of all, the RCMP has a mandate to investigate any foreign interference or any other matter that may affect national security.

We work closely with our partners abroad, as well as with Mr. Vigneault's team, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service team, across the country. We're working together to make sure we investigate the threat and protect communities.

In this case, we had received complaints from the public, and the RCMP took an aggressive approach by sending cars to the site, while sharing information in English, French and Mandarin with the diaspora. Our goal was to encourage people to come forward and tell us things we suspected.

Last week, I received a letter from an anonymous person thanking us for the work we were doing. It's just one person, but I'm sure she speaks for several others.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to get back to the scourge of car theft.

I was pleased to hear you say earlier that, since mid-February, the exchange of information with Interpol has been going very well. The government has announced that it intends to ban certain hacking devices that help thieves steal vehicles. Some security engineering experts say that these devices have come out of nowhere, and that banning them won't make much difference in the field. Some devices are banned in Canada, but that doesn't stop thieves from using them.

From your policing expertise, what do you think? Will it make a difference?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Mr. Chair, I'm not an expert on all electronic devices. However, the recent National Summit on Combatting Auto Theft brought auto industry representatives and auto insurance representatives to the same table, because the solution has to come from more than just the Canada Border Services Agency or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It's bigger than that. I always say, if we can send someone to the moon, we can certainly stop a car thieves are trying to get out.

That was what this symposium was all about: bringing people together and finding solutions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Duheme.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Madame Michaud.

We're moving on to Mr. Julian, please, for two and a half minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come to you, Mr. Vigneault.

I asked a question of the minister about the rising and disturbing trend in far-right violence motivated by hate. In 2022-23, every single ideologically motivated mass killing in North America was committed by far-right extremists manifesting hate toward a variety of groups.

What measures is CSIS taking to counter that rising tide?

[David Vigneault]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Julian.

What you're describing, Mr. Julian, is one of the most significant evolutions in terms of violence, not just in Canada but across the world.

At CSIS, with our partners, we have done a lot of work in terms of conceptually defining what ideologically motivated violence is, because it is morphing. It is not just people who are anti-immigration or who are anti-Semitic or Islamophobic. It's also anti-authority. We've seen a number of the threat vectors increasing.

From that point of view, CSIS is devoting about 50% of its counterterrorism resources to investigating the threat of ideologically motivated violent extremism.

I would say that it is also more than just a CSIS, law enforcement or federal issue. We describe it using the analogy of a funnel.

If you look at the narrow end of the funnel, this is where CSIS and the RCMP investigate. We engage in counterterrorism operations. When you go up into the funnel, you may have criminal activity that would be hate speech—something that the Criminal Code may address—but in the rest of the funnel, where you find the vast majority of the people, it's speech protected by the charter. It's vile hate speech. It is people engaging in radicalization, who are identifying each other and then are essentially able to bring some of the most radical people into encrypted chat rooms where they are further radicalizing themselves. This is where we see some of the individuals who are engaging in plots.

Right now in Canada, we have people who are engaged in these activities and are under active investigation by both the RCMP on the criminal side and also a number of national security investigations.

You're right to point out the rise of this phenomenon in our country.