Public Safety Committee on Sept. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Excuse me, madam.

[Ralph Goodale]

Excuse me, Madam.

I'm having a little bit of trouble with the sound. I don't seem to be getting the translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Goodale, we'll suspend for a few minutes to see if we can sort this out.

[Ralph Goodale]

I sincerely apologize, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There are no worries. We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We all have those struggles with technology at times.

I think we are good to go now.

Ms. Michaud, you still have the floor for six minutes.

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

That's wonderful. Thank you.

Mr. Goodale, can you hear me? Can you hear the interpretation?

Could you let me know that everything is okay? That's great.

Thank you for being with us today. I greatly appreciate it.

I understand that the members of the committee wanted you to be here, given that you were the Minister of Public Safety at the time these events began. However, I'm a little surprised that you're here, because I don't really know what we're going to get out of it.

Even in speaking with the current Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the current Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, we have not managed to obtain a great deal of information due to the ongoing investigations. It is hard to obtain accurate information and understand what happened.

Perhaps I will instead ask you about your experience during the period when you were the head of the Department of Public Safety, about everything related to security screening and working with the Department of Immigration on similar cases, and about how things were going during that period.

During other committee meetings, a few members have said that your constituency offices receive a lot of requests for assistance with immigration files. It's very complicated, cumbersome and time-consuming.

I imagine that you follow Canadian immigration issues closely. Obviously, we want to prevent cases like this from happening again.

In your experience as Minister of Public Safety, were there improvements to be made in terms of co‑operation between departments, especially in terms of security screening?

[Ralph Goodale]

Mr. Chairman, the level of co-operation between the immigration department and the public safety portfolio is at a very high level. It was throughout all of my experience with my responsibilities. Judging from my seat in the opposition when I was watching the previous government, back before 2015, there was a high degree of co-operation then, too, between immigration and public safety.

In some other jurisdictions, those two responsibilities are actually in the same portfolio. Here in the U.K., for example, the Home Office is responsible for all the things we would consider to be traditional public safety responsibilities, plus immigration. It's all in the same portfolio here in the U.K. In Canada, it is separated out, so it requires the ministers and their officials to collaborate closely with one another. That, in fact, was my experience.

One of the very first things we had to tackle when we came into office in the fall of 2015 was the Syrian refugee process. That took an enormous level of collaboration among IRCC, public safety and all the agencies within public safety—the RCMP, CSIS and CBSA—plus the Department of Global Affairs and the Privy Council Office. That apparatus worked remarkably well in managing what was a very challenging objective but one that was carried off quite successfully without in any way cutting corners or compromising anything with respect to public safety. Safety and security were absolutely maintained throughout that whole project.

Interdepartmental collaboration is fundamental. In looking at the issue of security screening, it will be very useful for the committee to move past the rhetorical debate and get quite specific about the things you may identify in your hearings, wherever improvements can be made. The ministers are certainly going to be looking for that. I hear them speak about the review process they launched. The committee could make a very constructive contribution.

One area I would recommend—because I know how important the international dimension is here—is maintaining those co-operation and information-sharing agreements in top-notch condition. Where you can expand them and get collaboration and co-operation with new countries, do so, because that sharing of information among countries and agencies is exceedingly important to make sure that, when decisions have to be taken, those who carry that responsibility have the most information at their disposal so they can make a proper decision.

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

Thank you. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time left to ask you a second question, but I will have a second round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We go now to Mr. MacGregor. You have six minutes, please.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, High Commissioner, for joining our committee today and helping guide us through this study.

My first question will draw from your experience as a minister for public safety. During the course of this study, we had some discussion on police certificates. From your experience, can you talk a little bit about some of the challenges that can arise from police certificates, depending on what country they're originating from? We know that, in some countries, there are police forces carrying out the mandate of what could be an oppressive regime. They have varying levels of respect for human rights and, sometimes, they just may not have the capacity that we're used to dealing with here in Canada.

[Ralph Goodale]

The relationship between Canada and the U.K. is really quite extraordinary. When our police forces exchange information, we can be absolutely confident that we each, on both sides, can rely on that information and that it was collected with the proper respect for due process, the rule of law and all of the other principles that are fundamental to the way our societies work.

In other parts of the world some of these systems are not nearly as reliable, so when we receive that kind of information from those other parts of the world that may not share our values, system of governance or legal principles, the agencies obviously look at the information—and it is part of their decision-making process—but they also weigh what is there in terms of its credibility. They are making a decision, not on behalf of that other country but on behalf of Canada and Canadians, and, accordingly, they have to bring Canadian principles and standards to bear on the probative value of the information.

Any investigator always has those kinds of decisions to make. Some evidence is more compelling than others, some information is more reliable than others, and you have to make sure you're making a good, credible judgment about how much weight to put on that particular point.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, High Commissioner. I appreciate that.

You have transitioned to a new role on behalf of the Government of Canada, occupying the office of High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. You did mention, in an earlier answer, that the U.K. government has the Home Office, which has, in one department, what are two responsibilities in Canada. Are there any other particular aspects of how the United Kingdom screens for people? I know that national security is of particular importance to the U.K. and, certainly, it can be very visible when you visit London, among other places. Are there any particular aspects of how the U.K. does things that you think we can learn lessons from? As a committee, ultimately, we want to make recommendations to the Government of Canada, so is there anything you can share with us that could find its way into a report and a recommendation?

[Ralph Goodale]

It's a very interesting question. In many ways, many of our systems and approaches in Canada are already modelled on the British precedent.

One point that is taken for granted in the U.K. by the public, which would probably raise eyebrows and raise questions in Canada, is the use of photo identification. They say that London is the most photographed city in the world and surveillance cameras are everywhere. When you walk around the streets, you can certainly see them.

Photo ID and visual identification were important factors in the way the new Labour government here addressed the right-wing extremist violence that occurred in the U.K. about a month and a half ago. There were riots in a number of communities and a lot of very extreme civil disobedience. The U.K moved very decisively with its police and security forces and dealt with that situation quite emphatically.

It was perhaps to be expected because the new prime minister, Mr. Starmer, is a former director of public prosecutions, so dealing with a crisis situation of that nature would be right in his wheelhouse. Broadly speaking, while all of these things are always controversial, I think people would say he dealt with it all in a very effective and forthright manner.

However, one area for which this committee might want to look at a British precedent is the use of technology for the purposes of identification in emergency situations. When you have life and limb at risk, when there is the potential for violence and when crowd control and the restoration of order are an important public priority, using photo ID proved to be reasonably effective in the circumstances of a few weeks ago in the U.K. It's not nearly as developed in Canada. In fact, it's quite controversial in Canada, but maybe this committee should examine the pros and cons and have a good, solid, technical discussion about whether this is a valid innovation for Canada to consider.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We'll start our second round now and go back to Mr. Lloyd for five minutes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first comment is on these police certificates. I find it interesting that they are no longer required for temporary residents, yet we're still using them for permanent resident applications.

Wouldn't you agree, High Commissioner, that our hard-working civil servants have the training and intelligence to be able to discern between a quality police certificate report coming from a country that is credible and a police certificate report coming from one that isn't credible?

[Ralph Goodale]

Mr. Chair, when the officials from IRCC were before the committee, I believe they went into quite an explanation about how they determine what is appropriate for a reference for further security investigation and what is not, depending on the circumstances of each individual case. They are the ones who have all—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

To reiterate my question, High Commissioner, wouldn't you suggest that it's always generally better to have more information than less information, and trust our officials to make the right call?

[Ralph Goodale]

Within the bounds of what is reasonable, Mr. Chairman, it's obviously helpful to have more information if it is relevant and if you can get it.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, High Commissioner.

I have here the terrorist screening dataset encounters data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It shows that in 2023, there were 484 matches on the U.S. terrorist watch-list at land ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border. So far in fiscal year 2024, there have been 321 of these encounters. Since 2017, these numbers have gone up 123%.

I think you'd agree, High Commissioner, that next to our relationship with Great Britain, our relationship with the United States is a privileged one, and it's one of our most important relationships. Are you at all concerned, with this skyrocketing number of terrorist encounters the U.S. government is reporting, that we're at any risk and that the U.S. government is taking this seriously?

[Ralph Goodale]

I do know from my experience in the portfolio that the relationship between the American and the Canadian agencies is very close. It's very tight. In fact, we enacted legislation to facilitate the movement of information back and forth across the border. It's important to them and it's important to us.

We have to make sure that the quality of the information in all of the watch-lists is as high, as comprehensive and as accurate as it can be. That's a constant challenge.

The working relationship between Canada and the U.S. in protecting that amazing border between our two countries, which is one of our greatest assets both ways, is a very profound [Inaudible—Editor] and we're working at it every day. It's huge.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

It is one of our greatest assets as a country. It is huge.

Seeing that it's increased by 123% since 2017—to 484 last year—are you at all concerned that this skyrocketing number, if not stopped, could potentially jeopardize this relationship?

[Ralph Goodale]

I have every confidence that the Canadian authorities are very well respected and credible in the eyes of their American counterparts and vice versa. Together, they do what they need to do.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, High Commissioner.

I'd like to turn it over to my colleague, Raquel Dancho.