Debates of Dec. 4th, 2017

Question No. 1246

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

With regard to the government’s marketing strategy, including advertising: (a) what is the total marketing budget for the 2017-18 fiscal year; (b) what are the names of the sectors or branches in each department or agency that manage marketing and advertising; (c) how many full-time equivalents are employed in each marketing sector or branch, broken down by department or agency; and (d) for the positions in (c), what are the public service classifications (i.e. EX-1) and corresponding pay range, broken down by department or agency?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1247

[Bob Benzen, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

With regard to the travel of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and others to Stouffville, Ontario, on October 16, 2017: (a) what are the details of all expenditures related to the travel, including (i) transportation, (ii) venue rental, (iii) audio-visual equipment, (iv) graphic artwork, (v) meals, (vi) per diems, (vii) other expenses, broken down by type; (b) what is the complete list of individuals who traveled; and (c) what is the flight manifest for all government aircraft flights related to the travel?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1249

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

With regard to expenditures on “talent fees” and other expenditures on models for media produced by the government since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) project or campaign description, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) date and duration of contract, (v) file number, (vi) publication name where the related photographs are located, if applicable, (vii) relevant website, if applicable?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1250

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

With regard to the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion: (a) what projects, research and activities have been undertaken in Burma since October 2015; (b) What are the details of each project referred to in (a), including the (i) project name, (ii) date, (iii) budget, (iv) duration, (v) description; (c) what projects, research and activities have been undertaken in Canada and elsewhere outside Burma related to the Rohingya crisis; (d) what are the details of each project referred to in (c), including the (i) project name, (ii) date, (iii) budget, (iv) duration, (v) description; (e) what projects, research and activities are planned related to violence facing Rohingya and other Burmese minorities; (f) what are the details of each project referred to in (e), including the (i) project name, (ii) date, (iii) budget, (iv) duration, (v) description; (g) what funding applications have been received for projects, research or activities related to violence, persecution or genocidal acts in Burma or against the Rohingya people and, for each application or proposed expenditure, (i) why was said application approved or denied, (ii) what expenditure amount was approved, (iii) what individuals and organizations received funding, (iv) what was the stated project objective, (v) what monitoring of project progress has been done; (h) what organizations or individuals have received funding from the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, and (i) in what amounts, (ii) for what stated objectives, (iii) under what ongoing monitoring of progress, (iv) what is the date of funding; (i) what officials have been assigned the situation of the Burmese Rohingya minority as an ongoing responsibility; (j) what statements have been issued which mention the situation of the Rohingya people in Burma or those who have fled; and (k) what expenditures, other than those described in the response to (a) through (j), have been made in either Burma or in relation to the Rohingya people and, what are the details of such expenditures, including the (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) goods or services provided, (v) description of expense, (vi) file number?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—ISIS fighters returning to Canada

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has five minutes left to conclude his speech.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off before question period.

That being said, something happened during question period. Once again, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness completely rejected the motion being moved today by the opposition. In my opinion, that is totally incomprehensible. During question period, the Minister of Public safety was content to quote Phil Gurski, a former analyst at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I too will quote Mr. Gurski. In a broadcast of the program Enquête, when he was asked how to ensure that the reintegration of those who were not charged and at what point we can be certain that someone no longer presents a danger, he said, “Never”. He went on to say:

I am saying that there are no guarantees that someone who travelled, who believed in a certain violent ideology, will ever fully abandon all that.

That is the reality and why today the opposition is calling on the government to take action to keep Canadians safe. That is why. Are there 60, 100, 120, or 180? The number is neither here nor there. The problem is that it only takes one, just one, to commit irreparable acts, acts that could have quite tragic consequences for Canadians. Would that have an impact on one Canadian, or two or three Canadians? We cannot imagine the potential horror.

However, the horror has occurred over and over again in recent years. Anyone who thinks these horrors cannot happen here in Canada is living in a fantasy land. That is why it is important that the government keep us up to date. That is why the government needs to tell us how many of these Canadian fighters who went and fought overseas are now back in Canada. How many are under surveillance? How many are out on the street while the RCMP has no means of monitoring them?

In the same report from back in January, the RCMP admitted that it did not have the means to track each of the former ISIS fighters that have returned to Canada.

However, the law is very clear: people who left Canada to join a terrorist group overseas could face imprisonment.

Section 46 of the Criminal Code states:

46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

I also want to quote section 83.191 of the Criminal Code:

83.191 Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.19(1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.

It is clear. People who left Canada to join ISIS committed a crime. Why, then, are they not being charged upon their return? We have all the necessary information. We know their names. If we know their names, we know where they came from. If we know where they came from, we know why they were there. We can therefore charge them and so ensure the safety of Canadians.

It is clear that, since 2015, the government has been doing everything it can to appease the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Two years ago, it withdrew our F-18 fighter jets from the fight against ISIS. That was at a time when the international community was mobilizing to stop its spread. I could go on. I will not mention the $10.5 million given to Omar Khadr, a convicted war criminal and terrorist.

For all of these reasons, we insist that the government confirm that the safety and protection of Canadians and not the protection of war criminals returning to Canada is its top priority. Why will it not prove to Canadians that it is committed to ensuring their safety?

Today’s motion is very important, but also very reasonable if one takes the time to read it properly.

It is for this reason that I support it and that I suggest that my colleagues in the government and the NDP support it as well.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, for the reasons I am about to get into, I am not able to share most of what my colleague said.

Many of the member's colleagues have stood and have offered commentary that is coloured with partisanship, which is not constructive to a thoughtful debate on national security. Why does my hon. colleague not encourage some of his friends within his party to think about national security in a way that promotes the careful balance required to protect Canadians, but at the same time ensure that all individuals will have their charter rights protected?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, when a person commits a crime, regardless of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the role of the government and law enforcement agencies is to arrest them and bring them to trial. That is the procedure. The rule of law applies in Canada, and that is what we must do. Whoever commits a crime must be arrested and brought to trial. Then, the accused can defend themselves.

Once again, the hon. members across the aisle are trying to create a diversion. They are trying to say that the hon. members on this side of the House are against programs that promote deradicalization. That is not true. We are entirely in favour of these types of programs.

The global situation has changed so much in recent years that we want to ensure that fewer and fewer Canadians become radicalized.

However, today we are talking about Canadians who are so radicalized that they fought against other Canadians and their allies and perhaps even opened fire on them. We cannot overlook that fact.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the floor have said that we are being partisan and are fearmongering. However, we are speaking for the voices of our constituents. My constituents have been overwhelmingly concerned by the position of the Liberal government, that it will allow radicalized Canadians to come back here and there will be, in the words of our Prime Minister, a wide range or suite of ways to try to rehabilitate them into communities, whether through poetry classes and other programs. Canadians and certainly the constituents who have spoken to me and who have called my office do not believe the Liberals are taking this seriously.

What is my colleague hearing from his constituents on this issue and why does he feel it is important that he speaks up for his constituents on being serious on the threat of ISIS radicalization coming back to Canada?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the people in my riding are worried, because the government cannot say how many Canadian soldiers fought their own country and its allies before returning to Canada. The government cannot say how many of these people are under 24-hour surveillance. In short, the government cannot set the record straight on the real threat these people represent.

A little earlier, I spoke about a news report. The people in my riding are very worried because, according to postdoctoral researcher in Islamic extremism Amarnath Amarasingam of the University of Waterloo, Ontario, of the 62 soldiers he identified, 22 are in Ontario, 17 are from Alberta, 16 are from Quebec, 3 are from British Columbia, and 4 are of unknown origin. They are everywhere.

That is why it is important that the government invest all the necessary resources and energy in surveilling these people around the clock so that they can have a fair and equitable trial. In the meantime, we cannot take any risks.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to stand in this debate. I will be voting against the opposition motion, and I want to explain why. The language around Omar Khadr is again an attempt to spin something on which Canadians have a right to have straight facts. Is the hon. member comfortable describing someone as being convicted as a terrorist when the court involved was a military court in Guantanamo Bay, it was as a result of torture, and where in fact even the word terrorist is a perversion of that word because it was actually in a war zone?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how they can say such things in the House when they know that the families of Omar Khadr's victims could one day hear these comments.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, at the outset, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

Today, I am rising to speak against the motion brought forward by the Conservative opposition, and my reasons for doing so are straightforward.

Contrary to what this motion suggests, our government has already unequivocally condemned Daesh for committing acts of terrorism and genocide, as they should be. In addition, the Canadian Forces, law enforcement, and intelligent communities are fully engaged in combatting and preventing terrorism in all its forms, both abroad and at home. This is work of which we should all be proud.

Finally, Canadians can be confident that we have enacted a robust set of criminal laws, offences and preventative tools for law enforcement, to address terrorism, which are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, wherever and whenever appropriate.

In a moment, I will expand on how these measures are collectively working to keep Canadians safe, but first I need to express how regrettable it is to hear the opposition politicize national security time and again.

Far too often, we see the Conservatives wagging their fingers, lecturing Canadians, and pandering fear on this subject. However, one need only look at their record to see it is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance.

I hear hon. members heckling from the other side, and that will not change the facts. Let me tell everyone what some of those facts are.

During their 10 years in government, the Conservatives imposed dramatic cuts to national security. Indeed, in their last four years in power, they slashed close to $1 billion in resources to the RCMP, CBSA, CSIS, CATSA, and CSE. The opposition would do well to remember these figures, as I know Canadians will in sizing up the validity of this motion and the credibility of the Conservatives on the whole of national security.

Let me now say a few words about a number of the terrorism provisions within the Criminal Code that specifically apply to terrorist travel.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that thousands from around the world have indeed travelled to join terrorist groups and that this is indeed an important issue, which our government is grappling with domestically, internationally, and abroad with all our partners in the combat against terrorism.

Within the law as it exists in Canada, there are four specific offences of leaving Canada, or attempting to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing specific terrorism offences. In this way, the criminal law addresses the terrorist traveller phenomenon by having the substantive offence crystallize before the person leaves Canada and by applying the same maximum punishment to attempting to leave Canada, as well as leaving Canada, to commit these offences.

Over and above these targeted offences, the Criminal Code includes terrorism provisions designed to prevent the carrying out of terrorist activity and have a preventive focus. They are in large part designed to permit law enforcement to intervene and charge someone with a terrorism offence before a terrorist attack can take place. Such offences include knowingly facilitating terrorist activity and knowingly instructing someone to carry out a terrorist activity.

A particular example of this can be found in the participation offence, which is under section 83.18 of the Criminal Code. Terrorist travellers could be, and have in fact been, prosecuted under the offence of knowingly participating in any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to carry out a terrorist activity.

I will pause for a moment to say that in my former career as a federal prosecutor, I have first-hand experience dealing with these provisions. Again, I would draw the attention to Canadians that they can take great satisfaction and confidence in knowing we have a rigorous criminal law enforcement provision. I was honoured to serve with many prosecutors and members of the RCMP and CSIS, who continue to do a good job today in keeping our country safe.

As well, it is notable, in the current threat environment, individuals are often radicalized to violence and encouraged through online interactions and messaging. In Bill C-59, the national security act, 2017, the government proposes to revise the offence of advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general to be one of counselling the commission of a terrorism offence, whether a terrorism offence is committed and whether a specific terrorism offence is counselled. The advocacy or promotion offence has been much criticized since its enactment in 2015 for being vague or overbroad. Bill C-59 proposes to revise this offence to use well-known criminal law concepts and facilitate its prosecution.

The bill continues to support the view that the active encouragement of others to commit terrorism offences, even without being specific as to which terrorism offence is being encouraged, should be an offence in the same way as it is an offence to counsel a specific terrorism offence.

Some of these criminal offence provisions have already been successfully used in court. To date, there have been 26 terrorism convictions in Canada and three trials are currently in progress.

I will now speak about preventive enforcement tools.

Certainly one of the most fundamental tools police and prosecutors have to keep Canadians safe from individuals who may have associated with terrorism groups abroad is the terrorism peace bond. This is a powerful preventive tool that can help to protect Canadians from terrorism offences.

In situations where police may not have enough evidence to justify charging a person with a terrorism offence, the terrorism peace bond is available to bring the individual before a judge rather than wait until it is too late. In such cases, the court has the power to impose “any reasonable conditions” to counter the threat posed by the individual concerned.

The Criminal Code also sets out that the provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, to prevent a terrorist activity from being committed, to include in the recognizance a condition that the defendant deposit, in the specified manner, any passport or other travel document issued in their name that is in their possession or control. If the judge decides that it is desirable, the judge shall add the condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Furthermore, the provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, to prevent a terrorist activity from being committed, to include in the recognizance a condition that the defendant remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the judge or any individual designated by the judge. If the judge decides that it is desirable, the judge shall add the condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies. Furthermore, If the provincial court judge does not add a condition, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

With respect to the recognizance to keep the peace related to terrorism, this tool has been used by law enforcement agencies and by Crown prosecutors. The use of this tool has been on the rise since 2015. Specifically, there have been 19 applications for this recognizance in the past two years, compared to six between 2001 and 2014.

I would note that during the 2016 national security consultation, some called into question the threshold for a terrorism peace bond that was enacted in 2015 by former Bill C-51. That act lowered the threshold of the terrorism peace bond from “will commit” to “may commit”. After careful consideration, the government has determined that the lowered threshold is a balanced approach between the constitutional rights of Canadians and the need to protect the security of Canadians. This threshold has also been upheld as constitutional in the recent Manitoba case of Regina v. Driver in 2016.

Another preventive tool is the recognizance with conditions, which is available for law enforcement in the appropriate case to disrupt nascent terrorist activity.

The Canadian Passport Order contemplates that passports can be denied or revoked in certain instances of criminality and where necessary to prevent the commission of a terrorism offence or for the national security of Canada or a foreign country or state.

As can be seen, Canada already has a broad range of offences and tools to assist in the fight against terrorism. As the hon. Minister of Public Safety has said, we need them all and we use them all.

Opposition members have spent the last week criticizing national security, national defence, and deriding effective counter-radicalization measures that go a long way toward both combatting and preventing terrorism. Instead of that kind of partisanship we need a thoughtful debate that will strike the right balance between protecting Canadians as well as their charter rights.

I encourage all hon. members in the House to reject the opposition motion and to support the important measures this government is taking on this file.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague stands and defends the indefensible. He said that the opposition had been up all week criticizing national security. We are not criticizing national security, but we are criticizing the Liberal attempt of reintegration of terrorists whose sole intent is to act on an ideology that kills anyone who does not agree with that ideology. Therefore, it is not an issue for us as a matter of national security.

I will ask the hon. member the same question I asked the Minister of Public Safety, which he refused to answer. Will he agree with me that this reintegration process is nothing but a crazy gesture on the part of the Liberals to think that somehow these terrorists are actually going to reintegrate back into Canadian society? It is just nuts.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, the problem with my hon. colleague's question is its premise.

The premise is that the government does not prosecute terrorist activity. Of course we do. I made mention of a number of very concrete examples where the government has taken very concrete measures to ensure that we keep Canadians safe by applying the criminal law, and we will continue to do so.

What I mean, when the Conservative opposition in particular stands up to denigrate the work of the national security apparatus and role players, is those individuals who are capable of reintegration.

My hon. colleague well knows that there are individuals who we can stop before they go too far down the path of radicalization. We should bring them back so that they can be positive, contributing members of society. That is not work that is futile. It is important work, and the member knows it.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, this morning I received an email from a constituent in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia.

She said that, as the wife of an RCMP officer who lives and works in my riding, she was quite alarmed by the December 1 article in Ottawa Life Magazine, entitled “Carleton Professor Says Minister and MPs are Failing the RCMP and Canadians”, which quotes Carleton criminology professor Darryl Davies.

In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, I met with a number of members of the RCMP over the last year. They will tell members that they are underfunded, understaffed, and working with poor equipment. I spoke with a new recruit who just came out of Regina, who said that within the six-month mandatory period after attending boot camp, they left and went to municipal police forces and provincial police forces, which pay better and have better benefits.

I would like to ask the member, first of all, whether he would commit to actually meeting with members of the RCMP in his riding. I would challenge all members in this House to sit and meet with members of the RCMP in their ridings. What we need is a well-funded, well-equipped force to deal with crime and terrorism in Canada.

That is an issue about which I think every member of Parliament should be concerned.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety routinely meets with members of the RCMP to ensure that they have all of the resources that are necessary to both prevent and prosecute national security matters.

Just to point out what I said in my remarks, under the last government, the Conservatives cut close to $1 billion in resources and important monies that would go to the RCMP, CSIS, CSE, and all important branches within the national security apparatus, which of course had the potential risk of compromising Canadians' security.

It is very important that we point that out to members of the Canadian public, so that they use that in sizing up the credibility of this opposition motion. Judge the opposition on its actions, not its words.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and join in this important debate, in part because of its timeliness, given the apparent winding down of combat activity against Daesh and the ongoing evolution of terrorist threats in this country. It is also because the myths and misperceptions that have been allowed to persist in this House over the last few weeks have misinformed Canadians. Not surprisingly, those misperceptions are now echoed at family dinner tables right across the country.

If the quality of recent debate is to be believed, Canadians would think that we are combatting returning terrorists with poetry. However, Canadians expect to know exactly what their government does to protect their safety without the distraction of irresponsible sound bites. Therefore, I will dispel some of these myths.

First of all, how are returning extremists treated? The idea persists that they are somehow akin to prisoners at the end of their sentence, being reintegrated into the community, which is certainly not the case. Canada's law enforcement, security, and intelligence departments and agencies actively assess and monitor the threat each individual poses. They may be charged with a criminal offence where the evidence warrants. Based on available information, they may have passports revoked. They may be denied travel or placed on Canada's no-fly list. They are monitored closely in every case, and their return is tightly controlled and managed. In some cases, they may be found suitable for programs designed to help disengage from violent extremism, but by no means does that replace, prevent, or exclude investigation and close monitoring.

Second, the myth persists that somehow we can and should paint each returning extremist with the same brush through immediate action. However, we cannot, and we should not. Threat assessment is made to measure. Their places of travel, experience, and motivations may be entirely different. Criminal investigations are unique from case to case, and these, I can say from experience, can take time. They take a herculean effort on the part of many agencies in collaboration with international allies.

Third, there is a myth that our security agencies cannot possibly keep tabs on each and every returning extremist, which is also untrue. There are approximately 60 who have returned to Canada, and that is over the past decade. This has not changed significantly over the years. The full range of counterterrorism tools are in use, including surveillance, monitoring, and ongoing investigations. Once they return, agencies are well aware of them and aware of appropriately managing the threat they present to our citizens.

Fourth, there is a perception that these returnees pose Canada's largest security threat. This is also an unfortunate mischaracterization. Let us remember that the Strathroy and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu attacks in Canada were made by homegrown terrorists. They never left the country. They were radicalized right here in Canada. The same goes for attacks in Berlin and Nice. Those terrorists had not been trained in Syria or Iraq, but fought from their home countries, inspired by groups like Daesh. The risks that homegrown terrorists pose can be just as great as those posed by returning extremists.

There is no neat and simple solution to the complex problem that terrorism poses in a rapidly changing world, but we have in place effective and world-class professionals. Canada's full range of counterterrorism tools are in use, and these include ongoing investigations, surveillance and monitoring, intelligence gathering and sharing, the collection of criminal evidence, criminal charges, and prosecution where the evidence exists. Other Criminal Code tools, like peace bonds, public listings, expert threat assessments, no-fly lists, the revocation of passports, and legally authorized threat destruction measures, are all in use. The government and Canada's top-notch security agencies continue to use all the tools at their disposal to address the threat of Canadians joining or returning from terrorist activities.

The National Security Joint Operations Centre helps to coordinate an effective and timely operational response to high-risk travellers. G7 interior ministers recently redoubled their commitment to sharing information and working closely together to deal with returning extremists, and the process has worked.

We must now focus our attention on what lies ahead. Daesh, for one, continues to aggressively target the Internet to push an evil ideology and to recruit new adherents. Those who were on the battlefield may now be attempting to move perhaps to Africa, Asia, or Europe, and even to Canada. Yet, as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said, the terror threat is now morphing into other forms, and we must not be complacent.

As I have noted, homegrown terrorism is one of our most urgent threats. It can come in many forms, from right- and left-wing extremism to religious motivations.

In Bill C-59, the overhaul of national security legislation currently at committee, we intend to provide the framework through which we can act on these threats, moving forward. We need to play the long game. International experts recognize that a key part of that means getting to the roots of the problems on our own turf, and that is why the government recently launched a new centre to coordinate, bolster, and help fund and share the counter-radicalization programming that exists across the country. It is called the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence. It is based on the fact that early intervention in dangerous situations to prevent radicalization to violence can and does work. The centre takes a broad approach to this issue, recognizing that the process of radicalization to violence occurs differently for different people.

It provides national leadership to support local efforts, and a key part of that work is through the community resilience fund. This fund was created to enhance those partnerships and to promote innovation in research on countering radicalization to violence, and domestic programming. We have recently announced a renewed call for proposals under this fund, with $1.4 million available to approved projects starting in 2018 and $7 million annually for the balance of the program. The centre is ensuring that resources are in place to facilitate disengagement from violent ideologies. In particular, children are served who return from combat zones and require tailored support to recover from their traumatic experiences.

From every angle, the Government of Canada continues to carefully monitor trends in extremist travel, and our national security agencies work extremely well together to ensure our response reflects the current threat environment. Canadians can be assured that our agencies are carefully monitoring returning extremists and that our law enforcement agencies are doing the difficult work of collecting the evidence required for convictions in Canadian courts. This remains a priority for our government and for all of our national security agencies. We must work together, alert at all times to the threats posed by terrorism at all levels, buoyed by solid facts and a shared commitment to act.