:
Good afternoon, colleagues and guests. Welcome to meeting number 40 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 18, Bill , will be dealt with.
Appearing before us here today is the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We also have François Guimont, the deputy minister. From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Mr. Michel Coulombe, director; and from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Nicole Girard, director general, citizenship and multiculturalism branch. These will be our witnesses for the first hour.
At the end of the first hour, Minister Blaney will be excused. The other witnesses, I believe, will be staying. We have other additional witnesses who will be arriving for the second hour.
With that understanding, I will now open the floor to opening statements by our witnesses.
Minister Blaney, you have the floor.
I begin by saying that what I have to say is not in any written speech, Mr. Chair.
I find it particularly special to be here in this room, in this very room where I was with my colleagues on October 22. We spent hours here. You were here as well, Mr. Chair. We will remember those hours for a very long time, as will our opposition colleagues, who were just on the other side of that room. We were all somewhat involved, against our will, in the terrorist attack that took place.
A few weeks before the attack, I was here with Mr. Coulombe, Mr. Guimont, and also with our RCMP commissioner to state that we are—we were at that time and still are—taking the terrorist threat very seriously, and that the threat is real.
Unfortunately, we have been exposed to the hatred of those individuals who committed the two terrorist attacks in mid-October. That makes this meeting even more important.
With that, I would like to begin by talking to you about Bill , for which I seek your support.
[Translation]
I will mainly address the provisions that amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which has not been dramatically altered in the last 30 years.
I would like to point out that Ms. Girard will address the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent earlier this year. The section that deals with Canadian citizenship is not a new legislative component; it only encourages quicker implementation.
I am here today as because the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, comes under my department's responsibility. This service must have effective tools to fight the terrorist threat.
CSIS collects and analyzes information from across the country and abroad, and informs the Government of Canada of threats to national security, especially threats involving terrorism and violent extremism.
[English]
Obviously there should be no doubt about the direct and persistent threat terrorism and violent extremism pose to our security. No one can argue that what took place here in this Parliament and in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu are not terrorist attacks. That's why, colleagues, we need to move swiftly forward with this legislation. CSIS' ability to investigate threats to the security of Canada no matter where they may occur is vital to the safety and security of Canadians, and indeed our ability to respond to the threat of terrorism.
Our government is keeping Canadians safe. That is what this bill is all about. Let's dive straight into the very reason of the bill before us today, and therefore so critical in its importance to keep Canadians safe, to use it as a shield. The protection of Canada from terrorists act responds to two key core decisions that have important implications for CSIS' mandate and operations. Those of you who have taken the opportunity to get the technical briefing provided by my department understood that well. I could see it was the case when we had exchanges in the House about the bill.
In May 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in the Harkat case. The Supreme Court's decision stated that CSIS human sources do not benefit from a common law class privilege similar to the informer privilege applicable to police informers. Human sources are a critical source of information for CSIS. They are at the very base of CSIS, yet, Mr. Chairman, they do not benefit from a protection as this court has ruled. In turn this significantly hampers our intelligence-gathering capabilities and therefore it puts Canadians at risk. This bill is not seeking at this point in time for new powers. It's just seeking to clarify the existing authority under which CSIS can protect us in an efficient manner. That's why the protection of Canada from terrorists act addresses this gap.
[Translation]
These amendments bring about automatic protection of the identity of CSIS' human sources.
[English]
This bill is balanced. This bill is reasonable and that's why I'm seeking your support. That's why you've been expressing your support in the House so far. Why? Because it fully respects the spirit of our Constitution.
[Translation]
The parties will be able to obtain an order from a judge to declare that the person in question is not a human source or that the information in question will not reveal the identity of that person.
[English]
In criminal proceedings, defendants will have the ability to seek an order from a judge declaring that disclosure of the identity of a human source is essential to establishing their innocence. The fundamental right to a fair trial is preserved and reinforced.
Turning to the second court decision affecting CSIS' mandate, the Federal Court of Appeal recently unsealed its July 2014 decision related to the government's appeal of Justice Mosley's decision that was issued by the Federal Court last year. The protection of Canada from terrorists act confirms CSIS' authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to the threats, to the security of Canada, and security assessments. This is not a big thing. CSIS can operate within and outside Canada. That's fairly simple.
[Translation]
CSIS has always had the power to undertake investigative activities abroad. The Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged this fact when it found that section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in no way suggests geographic limitations for CSIS' activities.
However, the power of CSIS to conduct activities abroad in order to investigate threats to Canada's security is not indicated as clearly as it should be in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It is therefore important that Parliament and the elected representatives of the people clarify this matter.
[English]
At the same time, the bill also confirms the authority of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain activities outside of Canada, and it gives the Federal Court authority to consider only relevant Canadian law when issuing warrants for CSIS to undertake certain activities outside of Canada.
These amendments are important. We believe that the Canadian Constitution, especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is far superior to the decrees of a dictator in a far-off land. Canadian law, and even more importantly, Canadian values, are what should solidly ground our legal deliberations around national security, and that is exactly what this bill is accomplishing.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the proposed amendments in Bill are reasonable and necessary for ensuring that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can carry out its mandate adequately. They are also consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the recommendations of the 1981 McDonald Commission.
[English]
Unfortunately during debate on this legislation at second reading, I heard some allegations related to CSIS operating outside the law. That's what this bill would prevent from happening, because it would clearly define that CSIS is operating within the law. Let me be clear. CSIS will, as always, continue to be required to obtain judicial authorization to undertake certain intrusive activities.
I believe this clearly lays out the technical aspects of this legislation, and nobody can challenge the motive of this bill.
[Translation]
Again today, Mr. Chair, we have learned that the Islamic State armed group is recruiting eight-year-old children, as if all the images and atrocities we have been exposed to were not enough. I am thinking of a video that was released showing over a dozen men being decapitated.
Among those individuals was humanitarian worker Peter Kassig. His parents wrote on Twitter that they were heartbroken to learn that their son had lost his life because of his love for the Syrian people and his desire to lessen their suffering. Our government resolutely condemns the acts of violence by the Islamic State armed group in the strongest possible terms. That is why we are providing humanitarian aid to the people affected by these barbarians and are supporting the coalition's efforts to neutralize and diminish their capacity to conduct major operations.
In addition to these distressing reports out of Iraq and Syria, recent terrorist attacks here remind us that this organization is also a threat within our own country. That is why we are steadfastly working to improve the tools available to the police forces and the intelligence community. The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act is just the first step toward achieving this objective. Our Conservative government has taken strong action to protect our national security.
As you know, Mr. Chair, we passed legislation to fight terrorism over a year ago now. That act gives the authorities tools that enable them to revoke the citizenship of individuals who take part in these activities. As I mentioned, the component of the bill that is before us today basically consists of accelerating the measures that have already been adopted and received royal assent.
We have increased funding to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and CSIS by a third. We have implemented new measures. Unfortunately, we have not been able to count on the support of the opposition, neither the New Democrats nor the Liberals, for the revocation of passports and dual citizenship of individuals found guilty of terrorist acts. However, I have noted during debates that there is some receptiveness to the bill that was introduced today.
[English]
I realize this bill was not formally opposed during the debate at second reading, and I look forward to answering your questions today. Ultimately, and I would say much more importantly, I look forward to this legislation being returned to the House after thorough study so we can move forward and get this bill adopted, so that we as parliamentarians, elected officials, can better do our part to keep our country safe. Thank you.
:
I thank Parliamentary Secretary James for her question, Mr. Chair.
The definition of a terrorist act is widely accepted throughout the world, and it has three components. The first is that an individual or a group attacks a symbol of a nation. We are talking about the military uniform and we are talking about our sacred National War Memorial. It is also committed based on an ideology. We clearly saw that those two individuals were embracing extremist, fundamentalist, radical Islamic views. They were going against the Criminal Code by committing violent acts against innocent people.
Clearly, what took place in Canada on October 20 in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu
[Translation]
… and that targeted Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, and Nathan Cirillo in Ottawa, are both terrorist acts.
That is what the president of Holland noted when he visited Parliament. The U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, noted that as well, as did the RCMP commissioner. Under the Criminal Code, it was terrorism.
It is important to take a measured approach when dealing with the terrorist threat and not react excessively, but we must not stand idly by in the face of the constantly changing terrorist threat.
Ms. James, I believe you know that the bill in question was to have been introduced on October 22, the very day of the attack. Shortly after the attack, we did not know that were were going to be confined here all day. We were living in uncertainty, but I was still hopeful I would be able to introduce it that day.
Consultations were held before the introduction of this bill which, as I explained, followed on an invitation by the courts to clarify the legislative provisions so that CSIS could exercise its mandate adequately.
I am pushing the importance of adopting this bill because CSIS' current capacity to fully exercise its duties is limited by court decisions. As parliamentarians, we are being asked to get this bill to royal assent in order to restore existing powers to CSIS at a critical time when we are facing a real terrorist threat.
To answer your question, I would say that this bill was in the works long before the two terrorist attacks in Canada in mid-October, but that those attacks make its adoption much more important and urgent.
:
I thank you for your question.
CSIS operates under Canadian law. This is why we have set up a package of law so that, whenever it operates, it is operating within the law. Of course, I may be involved in those authorizations, but more importantly, judges warrant when our issues need to be validated by the judicial system. On top of that, we have an overview mechanism of the whole service, and this is done by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. I have brought here a copy of that report. It's in both official languages. We have robust oversight of an agency that is to abide by Canadian law. This is exactly what this bill would do. We have, over the course of the last month, been given the opportunity by the court to clearly define that CSIS has the mandate to operate within and outside the country. That's the first main part of the bill. The second part of the bill, which is so important, is to protect the sources. To quote the definition of “source” in this bill:
“human source” means an individual who, after having received a promise of confidentiality, has provided, provides or is likely to provide information to the Service;
When the service is entering into a contract—if I can put it that way—with a human source, there is this promise of confidentiality. Those sources are sometimes putting their lives at risk to share this information. That is why it is important that this contract be clearly defined under the law, and under certain circumstances this protection can be used in a trial or tribunals if it is used to prove that someone is accused.
This bill has been crafted based on our Constitution, based on our laws, and based on the principle, as I've mentioned, that the fundamental right to a fair trial is not only preserved but reinforced. That's why I'm seeking your approval for this bill, which is accomplishing those main important things: protection of human sources within our Constitution, confirming the authority of CSIS to operate abroad, and as we have indicated, speeding up the process of removing dual citizenship, while adding no other element to the already-adopted bill.
Welcome, . You no doubt will be aware that I forwarded to your office a series of nine questions that I had hoped you could provide written answers to prior to this committee. I wasn't actually overly enamoured with the response I got back from your office. I'll quote it. It said, “It is preferable that Mr. Easter pose these questions to the minister and officials on Monday to allow the responses to be on the record and have all members of the committee be able to hear the responses to these specific questions.”
Anyway, , I do have those questions in both official languages here and, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the clerk to distribute them. I may or may not get into them, but I would request, because they are quite technical, that your office provide the committee with answers prior to us going to clause by clause, because it is asking for some technical responses in terms of the bill. Before I get to the specific bill, but on something related, when you last appeared before us on October 8 you said, “We know of about 80 who have returned to Canada”, meaning terrorists who operated abroad, or Canadians who operated in terrorist entities abroad. This is your quote: “Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law, as passed by this Parliament in the Combating Terrorism Act.”
This is my question to you. None of these people have been arrested yet as I understand it, although you said they violated the Canadian law. I have said to you in the House that I believe they should be able to be arrested under section 83.181. I'll not get into it. There are four different evaluations there. Can you answer? One, why hasn't section 83.181 of the Criminal Code been used to arrest those individuals? Two, are there components in this bill that will allow you to arrest those individuals where you're not now able to?
:
Yes, but sir, you did indicate that they had violated Canadian law.
My secondary question on that is this. If the threshold is too high to meet and to charge them, is there anything in this bill that does that, or will it be new legislation? You can answer that with my other question.
When you go to the bill, it specifies “within or outside Canada” for CSIS action under its collection duties in proposed new subsection 12(1) and under its investigation functions in proposed new subsection 15(1). This bill introduces an extraterritorial element within the checks and balances present in section 16, regarding foreign intelligence, of the obligation of consultation with the minister of foreign affairs.
From that complicated wording, under foreign affairs, if Canada is going to have some of its people do something, there's a check with the foreign affairs minister, because anything we do in a foreign country can impact us in other areas with that foreign country.
As I see it under this bill, there are no checks and balances where CSIS is going to do something that violates the law of another country but is able to do so because of the warrants issued within Canada. There doesn't seem to be a need for those checks and balances to protect our foreign affairs interests whether in trade or in other areas.
Can you, or someone, clarify that for me? Where are the checks and balances to protect Canada's interest when we take action under this section?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I just want to stress again, Mr. Minister, that when you talked about this bill at the outset we had hoped the bill could be made effective, and we had hoped we could have all-party support for the bill. The attitude of the government is now making me very doubtful.
We share the same interest as you in making sure that our national security agencies maintain their quality and the reputation of their services, and we think that accountability is quite important to that. There is nothing in this bill on that.
You mentioned the challenge of transferring intelligence into evidence. I think those were your words. We share that concern about taking intelligence and making sure you can use it in prosecutions. I have a concern that the way this bill is drafted it may make it more difficult to do those prosecutions. When you talk about the protection of the identity of witnesses, the courts can protect the identity of CSIS sources on a case-by-case basis now. They didn't say that wasn't possible.
When you say they invited you to do this, I believe that if you read the decisions, they said that Parliament could do this. They didn't say it was necessary, and they didn't say that Parliament should provide this blanket protection; they said it was possible.
Why risk this change to limit the rights of the defence to challenge the use of intelligence information in prosecutions? Why risk a change that might either make it more difficult to prosecute, or might result in those provisions being declared unconstitutional?
Thank you to our witnesses for attending today.
This is obviously a very interesting session, as we deal with concerns of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. As I've travelled through my riding, I've heard from Canadians on this issue since October 22, and the horror that...well, actually before that, because we had the tragedy in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, with Warrant Officer Vincent. Then we were confronted with the horror of the terror attack here on Corporal Cirillo, and then in the House. Canadians have been very responsive to these issues, and our security and our safety is clearly something they hold dear and for which they have great concern. They ask how these types of acts can happen and what we can do to protect our shores and protect our borders.
What I'd like to ask you about first off—and I'll let you decide who is the best person to respond on this—is around the fairness of revoking the citizenship of dual nationals. At your last appearance, Mr. Coulombe, we talked about the number of citizens who have gone overseas, who are taking part with ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and those who have returned. We addressed some of the numbers and the concern of how we're going to deal with these people.
But I want to talk about the provision in the bill for the revocation of dual citizenship, where we have people who have been charged with terrorism or treason, served their time overseas, and then come back. Canadians have asked about the fairness around this particular clause. I wonder if you could comment on it. I won't go any further, as far as what I'm hearing is concerned. I'll leave it for you to perhaps comment on the importance of this issue.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Through you once again to the witnesses, thank you for attending.
I'll start by saying that we live in a new world, and I don't want to have an organization like CSIS or any other organization that treats the rest of the world like some.... I don't want to belong to a country that's naive or acts like a Pollyanna and expects the whole world to be like, we respect everything you do and we would never do anything.... We know that other countries are recruiting terrorists, whether they be naturalized Canadians, people who were born here, or people with dual citizenship, who are now embedded in our country and want to do irreparable harm not only to individuals in Canada but to our very foundation. The very building we're in is the place where we exercise our democracy.
At least on five or six occasions all the questions asked in many different ways here all come down to what Mr. Guimont said. This is not an earth-shattering, new, ominous, tremendous load on CSIS. This is just a simple clarification of existing rules and regulations that a court said we needed to clarify.
Mr. Guimont, you can tell me if I'm making this as simple as possible for my constituents, who don't want to belong to a country that's naive and believes that if we're nice to everybody else they'll be nice to us? This legislation tries to impart to CSIS the same kind of judicial acceptance or protection for human resources, in other words, for informants, who want to give CSIS information in a way that won't identify them. It gives them the same type of protection that police already have with informants. Is that correct?